The Most Disturbing

I have watched beheading videos and things of that nature.

But this is straight up the most disturbing, sickening, vomit-inducing, horrific thing I have ever seen in my life, bar none:

Listen to her quavering voice as she begs for something to be afraid of…begs for the possibility to invent something which she can sit in fear of…hoping for fear, begging for fear, pleading for fear.

“We should pay attention to fear and not logic!”

“You should listen to emotions and not facts!”

“Emotions are the only thing that are real in this world.”

“Emotion is fact.  Emotion is real.”

These are the people who believe in the flat Earth theory of climate alarmism, and they absolutely do not care about the logic of that at all, because as she admits, after-all, it is more important to focus on fear than it is facts and logic.  There you have it folks!  This is why it makes no difference for me to point out to them that their fear is based on flat Earth theory…and that they will do anything to protect and defend their fear.  Flat Earth theory is the science of their fear, and their fear is true and real and what exists, while facts and logic are mere conveniences to justify fear and emotion.

We cannot live together any longer.  We just can’t.  And we shouldn’t!  For the sake of ourselves, for ourselves and for them, for others and for us…we cannot live together any longer.  It has to stop.  It just has to stop.  Us living together just has to stop.

What’s the point of us living together?  What do either of us get out of it?  The relationship between the rationalsits and the emotionalists is the most toxic thing that has ever existed.  It reeks of uselessness…of worse than uselessness.  The emotionalists should be given a space to be as maximally emotional as possible, to plumb the depths of their emotions to the maximal possible extent with each other.  They can create their perfect world, free from evil facts, free from evil logic, free from all forms of racism such as mathematics and statistics and honest news.  They can take 100% of Hollywood and mainstream news outlets with them to their new emotion-based utopia, and can tell themselves fearful lies of pure emotion forever.

And the rationalists should have their own space.  A rationalist space where they can plumb the depths of reason, and maximally express reason to the utmost possible extent.  A space free from zombies, free from last men, free from political correctness, free from fake news, free from irrational emotions.  We will take 100% of the intellectual philosophical tradition with us, and all of that “racist” (lol!) mathematics.

Very shortly, the former will be living in mud and slime and performing daily human sacrifice with plenty of blood and guts and brains and entrails for everyone of them to enrobe themselves with, especially freshly aborted baby parts and pieces, and the latter will be interdimensionally transporting ourselves to the other planets of the universe, becoming manifest Gods.

Why are we living together?  Who put us together?  Why are we still together?  Why do we go on tolerating each other?

It is time to stop tolerating each other.  Why tolerate what you hate?  Why tolerate the intolerable?  It’s disgusting.  It’s not fair to either of us.  Neither of us are getting what we want out of life.  It is time we went our separate ways.

Let us just say “It was nice knowing you!”, and then be done with it, when, of course, it wasn’t nice knowing each other at all.  It was horrible knowing each other…just terrible.  We hurt each other so badly.  We were so incompatible.  We ruined everything for each other.

Stop.  Please stop.  It is time to stop.  We cannot be together any longer.

This entry was posted in Sophistry and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

90 Responses to The Most Disturbing

  1. John OSullivan says:

    wow – the woman is a moron!

  2. roaldjlarsen says:

    Reblogged this on Roald J. Larsen and commented:
    Give them California and seal it off. A few years down the line it will be all empty and free to bring back ..

  3. Marshall Rosenthal says:

    Humanity is in crisis. Each person is torn between his emotions and his intellect, feelings and empiricism. Many humans have forgotten, or never have learned, that it is empiricism that has advanced humanity to be able to move from the Dark Ages to an age where people can simply look out of a window. Do you realize that in order to simply allow light to enter a domicile, one would have to place sheets of mica or sturgeon bladders over a hole in the wall? In countries where they can’t afford glass, can’t afford electricity, can’t afford the amenities that one takes for granted, they burn animal dung to cook their meals, they burn wood in unventilated hovels to get some heat, and they die miserably. It is only through education, education, education, education; that the “uneducable” might be educated.

  4. Many years ago, on a university campus far, far away in time, I endured such a nut job on campus, who was truly beyond any normal interpretation of an emotional person. She was a certifiable nut job. She would parade herself shamelessly in public, at the most inappropriate times, screaming her messages to the world. She would interrupt formal meetings with her screaming, requiring security people to cart her out, … and this did not deter her — she would just reappear somewhere else, at some other time, doing the same thing. An equally nutty, nut-job (in his own way), genius friend of mine and I would sometimes try to talk to her rationally, but there was no hope — she could not focus rationally — she had to scream and rant in ritualistic, narrative tones, in a voice that blocked out all attempt at rational voices trying to get through.

    Actually, the girl in your posted video makes the girl I’m talking about look tame. (^_^)

  5. Andy Smith says:

    I think it’s time to use the phrase “why can’t we all just get along” While it would be advantageous to make people of her persuasion simple go away, we have to live with them. Unfortunately for people of my persuasion, and fortunate for them. 1st amendment an all. That’s just one the things that make America great. The right to be ignorant. Please please will somebody just come and take me away.

  6. My emotions tell me to avoid a person like this, to never attempt being rational with them, to tell them to get the hell out of my face, and if they don’t, I walk through them. Feelin’ my emotions now?

  7. What’s hilarious here is that she’s a skin head, explaining to a black man, how scary his MAGA hat is.  WTF!!!  These people can’t even keep track of what their symbolic, emotional triggers are supposed to be….

  8. Christopher Marshall says:

    Wow that was like being in kindergarten all over again. Who knew you didn’t need to grow up? I guess she shaved her head because the hair was too emotional? On a hound dog note, college kids must love her: Trigger an emotion=Score one for the frat brothers.

  9. Yeah, a black man who does not think that Trump is a racist talks to a skin head who thinks that a black man who thinks Trump is not a racist is promoting racism with his MAGA hat. I can barely get my mind around that. I feel some emotion coming on, which I will just accept as truth. Never mind its quantification or explanation. Just feel it man !

  10. Joseph E Postma says:

    Good one!

  11. squid2112 says:

    “Tolerance is the last virtue of a dying society” – Aristotle

  12. Oh wow. And oh my.

  13. squid2112 says:

    Wow, that is one truly messed up individual .. yikes!!!

  14. squid2112 says:

    How can someone like that even function in life, at all? .. I agree with you Joseph, we simply cannot coexist with people like that.

  15. Exactly. HOW the heck do they function at all!?

  16. What are her future employment prospects in the real world?

    Employment? What’s that?

    Expecting somebody to hold down a job is racist. … What was I thinking?

  17. Norman says:

    Joe Postma
    When I read your irrational and emotional outbursts against rational scientific posters who waste time on your blog trying to reason with you, it reminds me a lot of the bald emotional woman.
    You are not nearly as knowledgeable on physics as you think you are and you logic is bad and your points are based upon your own idea of common sense but not valid experimentation.

  18. Earth isn’t flat Norman. Existing greenhouses experimentally refute climate alarm and its alternative version of the greenhouse effect.

  19. Norman says:

    Joseph Postma

    I am not sure what your point about “flat Earth” is. The equations used are most valid. As a studied scientist you should be able to understand them. The amount of energy the sphere of the Earth can possibly receive from the Sun (without some large mirrors redirecting the solar energy) is the same as the energy that can pass through a circle made by the Earth’s radius.
    Earth radius is 6.371 million meters so the area of the circle is 127,516,117,977,447 m^2

    If you take the solar flux as 1365 w/m^2 (different values are given for the flux)
    The total energy the Earth can receive is 174,059,501,039,215,248 Watts (the many digits are from copy of calculator results). In order to stay at a steady state temperature with incoming energy the surface must also radiate this same amount away. The total emitting surface is 4 times the area of the circle. It does not matter if you have hotter and colder regions on your sphere, the sphere must lose the amount of energy it receives or it will start to heat up or cool.

    I guess you think averages are a bad thing. It is the only way you can determine large scale patterns in some cases. If you want to find an average temperature of each m^2 of Earth with an albedo of 0.3 it comes out to 255 K for this amount of input energy. Scientists understand you will have areas hotter than this and areas colder. It really does not matter, the amount of energy emitted has to equal the incoming energy.

  20. Norman says:

    Joseph Postma

    Real world experiment showing that a heated plate will become warmer when the energy it emits is absorbed and then sent back to the heated plate.

    When the Green plate is moved behind the heated blue plate, it warms and as it warms it also causes the temperature of the blue plate to go up. The IR from the green plate is an added energy source along with the heat lamp.

    Here is another case where the temperature can get very high in an unconcentrated solar flux just by reducing how much energy is able to leave (which the atmosphere does on Earth). These materials can heat water to boiling temperature with no concentration at all.

  21. Joseph E Postma says:

    Norman that is precisely what I understand. I precisely how conservation of energy is used along with the Stefan-Boltzmann Law to calculate the effective temperature of the Earth, given the cross-section of intercept of solar flux at Earth’s distance, etc.

    Thus let it be established that I know exactly what you are talking about, and I know precisely what the equations are, how to use them, etc.

    You, on the other hand, I do not think are aware that there are two versions of the greenhouse effect, one of which is not supported by experimental data, and which pretends to be the same thing as the version of the greenhouse effect when it is not.

    Please, start here:

    and please come back once you have informed yourself as to *what the actual debate is about*. Because you are currently not fully informed.

    After the above see here:

    Also watch the three videos here:

    THEN please come back afterwards.

    At this point, with all due respect for the moment, you do not know anything about what the debate is actually about.

  22. Norman, for the second link, to quote:

    “Achieving stagnation temperatures exceeding 200 °C, pertinent to these technologies, with unconcentrated sunlight requires spectrally selective absorbers with exceptionally low emissivity in the thermal wavelength range and high visible absorptivity for the solar spectrum.”

    That is NOT the radiative greenhouse effect of climate alarm. Nothing to do with the alarmist greenhouse effect. You must become more informed before proceeding!

    Please also read my book:

    As to your first link…I see you’re associated with that sickly Rabbit.

    “These claims are based on a foundational argument that the Second Law of Thermodynamics does not allow energy to be transferred from a body with lower temperature to one at a higher temperature. This is generally true for conduction and convection, absent other energy input, however the effects of radiative energy transfer can result in a situation which gives the appearance that this is occurring, when something else is happening.”

    This is from the first paragraph and has numerous errors already:

    1) It is not about the Second Law, and whoever has interacted with me about this knows that. I always refer to the First Law of Thermodynamics, and the equations for heat flow be they those for material or radiative transfer.

    2) It is not about energy transfer, but about heat transfer. The attempt to equate all energy to heat is wrong, and contradicts the laws of heat flow, etc. The issue is about heat transfer, not energy. The attempt to conflate these things is pseudoscience.

    3) The exact same processes and energy balances are involved with material heat transfer as they are radiative. There is no caveat or asterisk to the Laws of Thermodynamics for which radiative heat transfer has a special set of laws which allow for behavior not allowed by the other modes. “What else is happening” is that a simulacral version of the greenhouse effect and behaviour of physics has been created by and for climate alarmism.

    “The process involves a body which is supplied energy at a constant rate and emits infrared radiation as a result, which then is warmed further by the addition of an intervening body between the warmed body and the colder surroundings.”

    No passive body adds heat to a system or does work on it, and thus, a passive body can not cause an increase in temperature in and of itself. Unless, of course, it reduces the emissivity of the whole system, in effect creating a new surface of and for the system. This is the first law of thermodynamics.

    Thus, given that your premises are flawed from the very outset, within the first paragraphs, the interpretations of that experiment are thus only a result of that flawed paradigm. You’re beginning with the interpretation you would like to find at the end. This is not science. And you’re not beginning the experiment with a scientific position in the first place, given your preamble which I debunked above.

  23. You’ll be on moderation and comments removed until it is made clear, by the quality and insight of your comments, that you have made progress in understanding what the debate is actually about.

  24. “As may be seen in the graph, the temperature of the Blue plate begun to increase after the Green plate was raised into position, due to the back radiation from the Green plate.

    You have ZERO evidence of that at all, that that was the reason. You have chosen to interpret the result in this way because you established that premise in your preamble! You are not doing science.

    By the climate alarmist back-radiative greenhouse effect mathematics, the blue plate temperature should have doubled (in Kelvin) and the green plate should have become the previous stable temperature of the blue plate…or at least approached such conditions. These results did nothing of the sort…there was a marginal change in temperature for the blue plate…less than 3% percent. The blue plate should have increased by close to 100% if the backradiation alarmist greenhouse effect were in operation.

    Those experimental results REFUTE the backradiative greenhouse effect of climate alarm. Thank you very much!!

  25. They also refute Eli Rabbet!

  26. Norman says:

    Joseph Postma

    It is your blog and you are free to do whatever you wish.

    I watch your video and I can see that you are unable to logically understand the concept of GHE and you never will. You think that the effective temperature is based upon finding the output and then determining the input? Wrong. The input energy is taken as the total energy flow (watts) from the Sun and averaging it over all the area which gives you the output flux.

    [JP: That is precisely what I show. Duh.]

    That they make flat plates to visualize it does not equate to a “flat Earth”. You are totally wrong when you make the claim that fluxes do not conserve. They most definitely do at a steady state temperature. Flux is watts/m^2 You have a fixed amount of meters for the Earth’s surface so basically this term is eliminated and it becomes watts in vs watts out.

    You can take the Solar flux in your diagram and spread it over the entire Earth’s surface meters with an albedo of 0.3 and you get 240 Watts/m^2 for each square meter. Since each square meter is receiving 240 watts.

    [JP: That’s the flat Earth right there. The average output is NEITHER the input nor the average input. Flux does not conserve because input area does not equal output area. It does make it a flat Earth because “each square meter is receiving 240 watts” can only work with a flat surface facing the sun.]

    You have the Moon to see how it works. The Moon is even colder than the effective temperature because of its slow rotation.

    [JP: Desert Rock, Nevada sure seem like the moon to me. Nice irrelevant plot…does that work with your average scientist? You just show a random plot, and they never actually look to see what it is about? Oh right…yes that is what you do with scientists…is have a flat Earth with numbers all over it, and then they don’t look into it any further. lol In any case, given that effective temperature is a result of a calculation from conservation of energy, it is impossible for the moon to not emit the energy it receives. Physical temperature and effective temperature are not the same thing!]

    This should shatter you deluded false view of reality and help you get back to real science.

    [JP: You have said nothing which either I don’t already know, or doesn’t mean anything, or demonstrates that you have no clue as to what the debate is actually about.]

    Your videos are most painful to listen to. It is a good thing you studied Astrophysics, you would have completely flunked radiant heat transfer.

    [JP: Radiative heat transfer is one small part of an astrophysics MSc.]

    You major flaw is most your thought process is concerned with a non heated objects, things constantly receiving energy.

    Also I can see you are not rational or logical with your thoughts on E. Swanson experiment. You come up with a ludicrous notion the temperature should double. The GHE does not state that at all. The change of temperature is from 255 to 288. This is only a change of temperature of 11%.

    [JP: Yes it should have been the flux which doubled, not temperature. Did the flux double? LULZ! NO, it didn’t either, not anywhere close. Eli’s plate (irrational) thought experiment, and the fake radiative greenhouse effect, require doubled flux. This experiment should have been able to approach that given that the plates were quite close giving a view factor near unity…and yet, nowhere near close the experimental predictions in order to claim empirical confirmation. Soz! I will henceforth reference your experiment as debunking the climate alarm backradiation greenhouse effect.]

  27. Norman says:

    Joseph Postma

    I know why you disabled the comments on your videos.

    You make a totally incorrect point that is false. You say the only way to increase the temperature of an object (from your bad physics video, the long one) is to add more heat or do work.


    [JP: That’s the first law of thermodynamics, all things being equal. RIGHT!!]

    If you add the same energy flow to the object but reduce the outward loss the temperature of the object increases.

    [JP: Greenhouse gases do not reduce the emissivity of the emitting surface! Greenhouse gases do not change the chemical and electronic structure of the ground or water surface such that said surfaces reduce their emissivity.]

    You seem to lack understanding of heat transfer when you have a continuous energy input.

    [JP: Greenhouse gases are supposed to have higher emissivity than the other gases, and thus, with continuous energy input, a system with a chemical makeup which increases in emissivity will become cooler! Soz!]

    It also seems you will not be able to ever correct your own internal false misunderstandings.

    [JP: Cute. Cute little goblin troll. Still looking for a soul? Sorry, but you’re not getting ours any longer, freak.]

    You won’t listen to me or any other poster who points out you many flaws.

    [JP: That’s because you’re an idiot; a soulless, mindless, programmed, machine idiot, whose every sentence is rebutted and whose experimental results debunks itself…but being a machine, can’t understand any of that anyway.]

    You have you small group of devoted disciples to honor you.

    [JP: They’re not my disciples and honoring me has nothing to do with it. Ah, but I see…those are the terms a satanic little goblin would think in…aren’t they. LOL Stupid goblin. God hates you.]

    None of them know any physics and are easy to fool.

    [JP: They have been free to weigh the debate and the evidence. The difference between you and them, is that they have souls, and you are a machine, a goblin, that God hates.]

    I have not seen any of your long term posters show any signs that they can rationally understand dynamic heat flow.

    [JP: We have not seen you be able to scientifically set up an experiment, or conclude one. Or refer to the laws of thermodynamics. Or to demonstrate any equation from any textbooks you might reference for purpose. Or understand what the debate is about. Or understand the difference between flux and Watts. You are quite a stupid little goblin troll, a machine that God hates. Man that must suck being hated by God.]

    Dude, the mechanism of how the cooler atmosphere can cause the Earth’s surface to reach a higher steady state temperature is by changing the heat flow of the surface.

    [JP: Heat is not a conserved quantity. Gases do not stop the surface from emitting from itself. LOST!]

    Heat is defined as the NET energy flow between objects.

    [JP: HENCE is not a conserved quantity.]

    If you have a hot object and bring a less hot but warm object near the hot one, it will lose less HEAT.

    [JP: You just stated that heat isn’t a conserved quantity. Or if you don’t understand that, then note that it was repeated again. Heat is not something even really lost. Thermal energy is lost. That energy can act as heat for something else if the conditions at the surface of the something else allow for it.]

    It will radiate the same but it will not gain energy from the other object. This means it loses less heat than before. If the hot object has some continuous heat supply to it, it will get warmer with the other object present than if not there.

    [JP: No, it will just warm the other object. Heat flow goes to ZERO, spontaneously, as energy frequency state information is shared between ojects until they equilibrate. It’s automatic. Heat is not the conserved quantity, and the equations of heat flow can only be solved if heat is not conserved, and ends at zero. The entire definition (and empirical manifest existence) of thermal equilibrium would be impossible as we know it if heat was a conserved quantity.]

    You really do not know anything about heat transfer. I suggest you read some actual textbooks on it or stay in your own field of expertise.

    [JP: Yes, I reference, what was it, 5 or 6 textbooks on radiant heat flow in my book and in my papers and demonstrate their usage, etc.

    I suggest you allow your battery to run down to zero. God will still hate you though, even once you’re drained.]

  28. Norman says:

    Joseph Postma
    You make so many mistakes it is impossible to correct the errors.

    [JP: The ones you have listed I have responded to and corrected your thinking on, because you are actually unaware of what the issue actually is.]

    You certainly do not have even a remote grasp of radiant heat transfer. This might help you but it is unlikely. You are so far gone in madness that no rational thought will enter your head. Only the incorrect ideas and the support of your adoring mindless fans keep you going, a closed loop society.

    [JP: The equations in that link are precisely what I discuss, in accordance with the First Law of Thermodynamics and the definition of heat flow and of thermal equilibrium. I have not witnessed you refer to the First Law or the definition of thermal equilibrium or even of heat flow.]

    This is a simplistic equation on heat flow. The atmosphere does not stop the surface from emitting and I never stated it did.

    [JP: You referenced a link to support your argument which was all about lowering emissivity of a surface, and, you stated “If you add the same energy flow to the object but reduce the outward loss the temperature of the object increases.”, but it is not possible to reduce the outward emission of a surface without lowering its emissivity. Thus, you are a lying duplicitous sophist who feels entirely comfortable contradicting themselves as required. Heat is not a conserved quantity.]

    That is your own made up version of what I actually say (and what all the rational physics posters tell you and get the same response).

    [JP: I just referenced what you actually said. But here: The emission from a grey-body surface is given by the S-B Law with emissivity: F = e*s*T4. Thus, to reduce the emission flux F from the surface for a given T, one must reduce e the surface’s emissivity.

    A surface’s emission is NOT the heat flow equation, as the heat flow equation is only referenced to a boundary, the boundary which is receiving heat. To repeat, the heat flow equation Q = s*(Th4 – Tc4) is referenced at and to the cool ‘c’ surface’s boundary, and so the heat flow equation doesn’t even correspond to the warmer ‘h’ surface at all. The heat flow equation only makes note of the hot surface’s conditions and its total emission, given by F, and then references directly to and at the cooler suface’s boundary to see whether or not the warmer body’s energy can act as heat there. Your attempt to make the heat flow equation be the total emission of the warmer surface, and thus which must be conserved, is wrong; it contradicts the definition of the heat flow equation, the usage of the heat flow equation, the meaning of the heat flow equation, the reference of the heat flow equation, and the meaning of the Stefan-Boltzmann Law which gives total emission.]

    The heat flow equation is the amount of energy a hot surface emits MINUS the energy it absorbs from the colder surroundings.

    [JP: Nope, that’s entirely wrong. The heat flow equation gives the portion of energy emitted from a warmer surface which can serve to increase temperature at a cooler body’s surface. You are referencing the heat flow equation exactly backwards – the heat flow equation refers to the cooler body’s surface, not the warmer one. To rephrase your statement:

    The heat flow equation is the amount of energy a cold surface can absorb from a warmer body’s emission as heat. The heat flow equation is the amount of energy a cold surface absorbs from a warmer body (or surroundings) MINUS the energy it emits from its surface.

    Thanks for pushing on this issue because I finally now see the total inversion you were attempting here as well. Along with everything else that is inverted, you are actually inverting the usage and reference of the heat flow equation too. Clever, and subtle, so thanks for helping me see that now. You guy’s have been slyly trying to reference the heat flow equation to the hotter surface, when this is backwards to the meaning of the heat flow equation because it is actually referenced at and to the cooler surface itself in order to determine if the cooler surface will receive external energy as heat.]

    Just because you refer to textbooks on the topic does not mean you understand them.

    [JP: Same to you. Except I can actually prove that, while you merely claim it.]

    The atmosphere with GHG in it will radiate energy back to the surface based upon its temperature and the emissivity of the combined GHG.

    [JP: If GHG’s have higher emissivity, then for a given F, the gas requires a lower T. Your logic is self-contradictory, mine is consistent.]

    This energy will add to the surface and reduce the amount of heat the Earth surface loses.

    [JP: Energy can only add to a surface if it can act as heat, and the heat flow equation and the first law demonstrate therefore that it is impossible for energy from the atmosphere to add to the surface as heat, given that the atmosphere is typically cooler than the surface, and the surface is where the heat came from for the atmosphere in the first place. Also, heat is not the conserved quantity, and the atmosphere doesn’t stop the surface from fully emitting given that the full emission from the warmer surface is demonstrated in the heat flow equation.]

    This will lead to a higher temperature with the same flux.

    [JP: Only possible by reducing emissivity, which GHG’s do not do to the surface.]

    Also you are totally wrong with you “flat Earth” logic. As an astrophysics person I do not know why you don’t grasp it. The Earth is a rotating body so all the surface is receiving the energy of the Sun, if it did not rotate than you would have a point. The fact that it rotates negates your illogical conclusions. Every square meter of surface will receive solar flux and every square meter will emit a flux. Rethink your ideas, they are poorly thought out. I suggest you read the textbooks with an open mind and not just cherry-pick ideas that you think support your illogical physics.

    [JP: 1) Output flux does not equal input flux given the surface areas of emission and absorption are different. 2) Physics occurs in real time, not by averages. 3) Sunshine is not only as strong as being able to heat a body to -18C. 4) Gravity sets up a gradient where the bottom of the atmospheric ensemble must be the warmest, the top (of the ideal-gas-following portion) the coolest, and thus the expected average temperature will be in the middle. The bottom of the atmosphere must already be warmer than the expected average temperature. If you examine where the average temperature is actually located, then the bottom-of-atmosphere temperature is explained FULLY by gravity and the temperature gradient it naturally sets up. Spreading the absorbed solar flux over the entire surface of the Earth at once as an average is not physical, such a scenario never occurs, the system is never responding to such a fictional average but to actual real-time input at ~1210C, and spreading the solar flux evenly over a surface does absolutely geometrically and physically require a FLAT SURFACE.]

  29. Christopher Marshall says:

    I’m being hit with another alleged scientist “expert” on AGW. I need the real geniuses (you not me) to make sure I get my science right so I don’t embarrass you guys. He wants to discredit me so anything I say (true or not) is no longer validated as is the normal climate clown tactics. So, naturally he’ setting a trap I just can’t see the trap yet. Anybody?
    This is his statement:
    “Can you use the Beer-Lambert-Law to calculate the spectral flux at the top of the atmosphere or do we need other laws? Which laws?”
    Please If you feel long winded I prefer it.Now the Beer-Lambert-Law Again thank you. How many of these climate clowns exist in the world? Now the Beer-Lambert-Law can be used but that’s about all I know about it.
    So if I am getting the drift, Joe, you used differential calculus to determine the real time heat flow?

  30. “The Beer-Lambert law (or Beer’s law) is the linear relationship between absorbance and concentration of an absorbing species.”

    A cold gas absorbing thermal radiation from a warmer source is not the radiative greenhouse effect of climate alarm. The Beer-Lambert law is not the alarmist greenhouse effect.

    The climate alarmist fake radiative greenhouse effect in fact attempts to state that due to The Beer-Lambert law, heat can flow from cold to hot…which of course is nothing to do with that law.

    Also read my embedded responses to Norman above for more info.

  31. Christopher Marshall says:

    Sorry I forgot this part dah, this is what I want to reply is it right? Do I need to add more?

    “The short answer and most appropriate one for “real time” equations you need to use differential calculus which is a much more fundamental approach to characterizing heat-flow of the Sun through the entire energy budget. Most common mistakes used is the disregard of real time energy flow of the Sun when our climate would not exist without it.”

  32. “The Beer-Lambert law (or Beer’s law) is the linear relationship between absorbance and concentration of an absorbing species.”

    A cold gas absorbing thermal radiation from a warmer source is not the radiative greenhouse effect of climate alarm. The Beer-Lambert law is not the alarmist greenhouse effect.

    Covered here:

  33. That’s a good comment, yep. The averaged-input idea is entirely non-physical, is fictional, is not what drives the actual system and its physics in real-time, etc etc. The average input DOES NOT PHYSICALLY EXIST. And from this thing which does not actually exist, is derived their alarming greenhouse effect. GIGO. Garbage in, garbage out. If you start with false premises, you can only end with false conclusions. Etc.

  34. Norman says:

    Joseph Postma

    Your point here is totally wrong. I am not sure you have actually read any of your textbooks.

    YOU: “[JP: Nope, that’s entirely wrong. The heat flow equation gives the portion of energy emitted from a warmer surface which can serve to increase temperature at a cooler body’s surface. You are referencing the heat flow equation exactly backwards – the heat flow equation refers to the cooler body’s surface, not the warmer one. To rephrase your statement:”

    Read from this link. You are wrong and will not accept it.

    The heat transfer equation is how much heat the hot object loses. It will be positive. If you want to find the energy loss for the cold object it will be negative (meaning it is gaining not losing energy), you just put the cold object first in the equation. Read some more you are not at all correct on your point. It is real bad and against all the established physics. Who are you trying to convince your errors are correct? Reread with an open mind the textbooks state clearly I am the one who is correct on this point. The heat flow equation in that form is exactly how much heat the hot body is losing. As the surrounding temperatures go up the heat loss goes down. It is very simple really.

    Please reference any textbook on heat transfer that supports your interpretation of the equation. Most textbooks give good explanation of the equation to make sure it is not misunderstood.

  35. Christopher Marshall says:

    Ha I didn’t see the Norman attack bit. It must be new (reading it now) ass clowns everywhere! (maybe ass was the right word after all?)

  36. Norman says:

    Joseph Postma

    You can download this free online textbook and consult Chapter 10. You can read about the equation I posted and you you can look at equation 10.9 and 10.10 which clearly demonstrates you are wrong (not that you could open your mind and accept that, even when the facts hit you in the face, you behave like the bald lady for sure, you deal in emotion not fact…you “feel” you are right so ignore the facts that show you are wrong).

  37. Thanks for referencing that textbook Norman, I was about to do the same.

    Equation 10.9 and 10.10 are simply the radiant heat flow equation for the simplest possible scenario of parallel plates with perfect view factors between them. When that happens then it is possible to be a lot more general in the way one discusses heat loss and heat gain.

    Of course we now know you as one lost on context (as all machines are), and if you were to read further in that textbook you might learn about view factors. We typically write down the simplest possible form of the equation because it is easiest, but one must still be careful about the specific internal meanings and not generalize the simplest possible case backwards to all cases.

    View factors must always be applied in general, unless we are discussing the simplest possible cases. But when view factors are applied or at least considered as should be present even though they didn’t need to be written, the equation absolutely becomes referenced to the VIEW FACTOR from one body to the other. The view factor is all about how one body (the cooler one) “sees” the warmer one. In this case, when we want to know the heat flow from a warmer source into a cooler body, the equation is absolutely referenced to the cooler body via its view factor of the warmer body. And so given that the view factors need not be generally reciprocal, especially for separated sources, then the heat flow into the cool body from the warmer one is not at all equal to the “heat loss” of the warmer body. For example the warmer body could be radiating to empty space and only a small cross-section of its energy be intercepted by a cooler body and act as heat for that cooler body; the cooler body receives a portion of the warmer body’s energy as heat, but the heat the cooler body receives is not at all equal or equivalent to the total emission and energy loss of the warmer body with its emission towards all other possible vectors.

    And so thank you again for bringing this all up to establish everything as so specific to my correctness and your wrongness.

    And so for your Engineering Toolbox link, where they discuss heat flow down the page, this equation and what they clearly discuss and define is in regards to a hot body with cold surroundings. In this special case, not a general case but special case, the view factors are reciprocal and so the heat gained by the cooler surroundings can be equated as the “heat lost” by the warmer object. You can speak like that in this special case, but one must go further in your textbook than you did and understand view factors, and thus understand that in general the energy lost by a warmer body is NOT equal to the heat absorbed by a cooler body because a cooler body will in general only absorb a small portion or cross-section of the warmer body’s energy total emission. A warmer body will in general emit far more energy than the energy which is absorbed by a nearby cooler body as heat, and thus, one cannot generally speak of these things interchangeably, but only in special and simple cases. And so that clarifies that.

    Now, with the Earth’s ground surface and atmosphere, the view factors are pretty much reciprocal. But here, we then come back to the point that heat is not the conserved quantity, and that one shouldn’t think that heat is the conserved quantity by becoming confused by the special case noted above where you can loosely, but not strictly, interchange heat absorption with total energy emission. There is no requirement for a “delta of heat” to be maintained between the surface and atmosphere, and what nature attempts to do is to equate the temperatures between the surface and atmosphere, not maintain a difference in temperature.

    What you are attempting to claim is that nature wishes to maintain a difference in temperature between the surface and the atmosphere, because you wish to make heat flow between the atmosphere and surface a constant, so that you can then invent the radiative greenhouse effect. Well, nature seeks to make the temperature difference between the surface and atmosphere ZERO, so that the temperatures are equal, as this is a mathematical process of the sharing of energy information states which automatically statistically even themselves out. And we call that thermal equilibrium when it is finished. What you propose in maintaining a temperature difference between the surface and atmosphere so that you can hold heat flow constant is in contradiction to the entire mathematical derivation of thermodynamics, predicated as it is on the definition of thermal equilibrium and that thermal equilibrium is a mathematical state of “smoothness” which naturally mathematically evolves.

    All that you are attempting to do, what it all comes down to, is the attempt to conserve heat flow, which is the same as saying that nature naturally seeks a state where there is a difference in temperature at the boundary of contact between one body and another. And everyone knows, aside from the machines, that nature does not do that. And mathematicians know that it is also mathematically impossible. The atmosphere can warm up by absorbing heat from the surface, and it can warm to the same temperature as the surface, but to say that the surface must then also heat up again in order to maintain a constant heat flow between surface and atmosphere, as if heat is the conserved quantity and does not tend to zero, is to say that thermal equilibrium is impossible and that nature seeks states with temperature differentials between contact points of bodies. Which of course is wrong and is entirely contradictory to thermodynamics.

    Thanks for making all this clear to the readers.

  38. Christopher Marshall says:

    This guy I’m talking with is funny. Here’s his comment below. You want to introduce yourself to him? Or would you rather stay out of it? I get it if you are constantly fighting ass clowns you can’t get work done. Then again if it weren’t for the ass clowns the debate of global warming would be over. PS I suck at equations. Writing out equations I get doing the math as the equation I hate simply because I don’t know half of it. Then again 3 months ago I didn’t know CH4 was methane! I just never had a reason to get into this science until I actually delved into global warming and found out the whole thing was fraud. Then I wanted to know and explain why it was fraud.

    “That’s not specific enough. Give me the equations and more details. What you’re writing is way too vague. Could have been written by a high school student.”

  39. Well just repeat what I said above. What you said makes sense. For clarity repeat the bit about average not equal to reality, etc. from my comment above. Goes with your other comment.

  40. Christopher Marshall says:

    Joe you have to expect these climate clowns to attack they have a lot to lose if the lid is blown off of global warming. Billions in cash, reputations and careers destroyed, maybe prison time for some and the collapse of national economies banking on the collapse of the United States economy. Plus, remember they deserve it, most are unabashed criminals. IPCC should be called the Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Criminals.

  41. Oh man that’s so good! Let’s all use that from here on, until it catches on everywhere. Go to the chans etc. and spread it!

    That’s ok, they can attack. They can try. I have secret powers that will, can, and have already destroy them…haha.

    Yes…all that must happen. Please help it to happen. Please feel free to lay all blame on me personally for it, if you wish to avoid the backlash for yourself. Please do it all. I am here for this.

    This is one of the most important lessons in human history. We either learn this now, or repeat the worst of the last 2000 years over again.

  42. Or completely descend entirely…

  43. Christopher Marshall says:

    You have Trump on the right side at least. That’s one for the home team. 🙂

  44. Christopher Marshall says:

    This is like throwing salt an open wound but your old friend Roy Spencer weaseled unto he Rush Limbaugh show. I am sorry after being attacked Norman the Nuisance this is not better news. BTW Norman’s only tactic was trying hard to get you to admit you made a mistake, he seemed fixated on that strategy. Notice he didn’t argue the math or the science he argued YOU not understanding it properly. He couldn’t discredit the facts they are rock solid so he tried to separate you from those facts. That’s a dirty weasel trick by human scum. Like a lawyer trying to convince you what you know is to be true isn’t. “You really didn’t see him kill that man now did you?” Even though they did.
    You have a bright strong mind but in the public eye you got to work on the temper. I should know I get mad all the time especially when they are being ignorant on purpose like Norman. He didn’t come on here by accident. He had a purpose and I doubt it was just him behind it he might wanted to trip you up and copy the answer.

  45. Christopher Marshall says:

    Never mind guess Spencer’s been on the show a long time. I just heard him call in not long ago and thought it was new evidently he’s been there a while. Oh well. Guess it would make sense some egos need fed often.

  46. Mark says:

    Pure left mind consciousness, loses the creativity of the dreamer that is right mind consciousness. Intuition is right mind!
    Someone’s darkness can be someone else’s lightness. Its integrating the shadow. Lemuria (female consciousness) Atlantis male consciousness.
    I suggest the female is of Lemurian consciousness, and rather than despise her humanity should understand her. She should also understand the other side too.
    Integration the human dilemma! How to integrate the personality with the soul.
    Is it not the alchemical wedding? non other than integrating left and right hemispheres male and female energies, mother god father god, divine female divine masculine. Martian left Plaedian right. To find your way home?

  47. Mark says:

    Just to be clear I’m referencing the female having a reaction to the MAGA hat in Joe’s video and not the female population of the earth in general.

  48. A word to Norman from a “mindless follower”:

    If you have a hot object and bring a less hot but warm object near the hot one, it will lose less HEAT.

    So, if I have a candle and bring an ice cube near the candle, the candle will lose less HEAT ?

    How would the candle “lose less heat”, without being hotter now, in the presence of the ice cube, than it was before the ice cube was brought near it ? If the candle looses less heat in the presence of the ice cube, then it is hotter in the presence of the ice cube, which means that the ice cube heats the candle, right ?

    If a hot object is “loosing heat” at all, then this is because it is loosing energy (radiating energy) that is HEATING something cooler. So, we have a hot object radiating, and then we bring a cooler object near it. The hot object still radiates the same amount of energy as before, but now some of this energy can add to the energy of the cooler object to HEAT the cooler object — that’s why we call this energy “heat”. How, then, has the hot object lost less heat, since its lost energy is the very thing that IS the HEAT for the cooler object?

    If the hot object was “loosing less heat”, then it would not be radiating the same energy as it was prior to the cooler object coming near it, which means that the cooler object increased the energy “held onto” by the hotter object, which would make the hotter object even hotter than before the cooler object came near it. Hence, cool would be making hot hotter still. ABSURD !

  49. Is it any wonder that many global warming (i.e., climate change/atmospheric disruption/air rape) advocates are hot heads ?

  50. Joseph E Postma says:

    “Air rape”…lol

    Yes that slowed-cooling argument is absurd.

    One way to clarify things is because we’re used to thinking in terms of being inside an atmosphere. The air around the candle is typically warmer than the ice-cube anyway, so it’s a bit difficult to be clear about this.

    And so go to vacuum without nothing else around, no atmosphere, and the candle is some light source with energy provided by, say, nuclear decay. The “candle” tip has some material that is undergoing either an internal chemical reaction or nuclear reaction that produces heat, making the “candle” tip incandescent.

    So, the surroundings are vacuum with no background flux like the CMB.

    NOW bring in the ice-cube at 270K, -3C, to the incandescent “candle” tip which is much warmer.

    Do you really think that the cold object will make the candle tip even hotter and brighter?

    Of course not, even though it is “losing less heat”. The reason is because “losing less heat” is sophistry, because heat is not the conserved quantity, and because the heat equation is actually referenced to the cooler object NOT to the warmer one.

    “losing less heat” is sophistry, nonsensical, garbage.

    And besides, if that did occur in vacuum due to radiation, we would still have found this to occur in our atmospheric experience with objects accidentally brought together over the last few thousand years of tinkering and also plain simple life. For example, bring two burning branches near each other and they should then become hotter and bluer. Point two flashlights at each other and they should become brighter and bluer. Etc.

  51. Interesting how this whole exchange with Norman occurs in a thread titled, The Most Disturbing.

  52. And yes, “loosing less heat is sophistry” — a nonsensical misuse of language, exactly the point I was going to make, but I got distracted and wanted to cut my response length.

    I’m not going to gain less sleep over Norman’s most disturbing display, however.

    Yours truly,

    M. Les Follower

  53. Norman points out that the Earth rotates, and this fact should allow us to accept the average solar flux as being valid. Norman wants us to view sunlight as a sort of blanket that holds a certain value at every point on Earth simultaneously — a fabric of light that somehow attaches to a longitudinal arc, and then, as Earth rotates, the fabric of light gets dragged around Earth’s circumference — a homogeneous fabric that has the same “weave” everywhere, attached from pole to pole, glued to that longitudinal arc, getting pulled around to the dark side of the Earth, somehow stopping, just before it doubles up on itself, moving back into the daylight side.

    Sunlight surely is magical. The magic gas (CO2) makes it so.

  54. Christopher Marshall says:

    I honestly can’t imagine how many ways they can spin the same yarn with different thread. They must have a handbook? How else can they make up so many different sophist explanations for global warming? Yes, Sophist is catching on, I like it.

    “I am unsure which point of mine your comment was meant to address, but I will attempt to respond. The solar spectrum peak is around 500nm visible light with some near infrared and a much smaller amount of far infrared some of this is reflected on the way in and some is absorbed in the atmosphere the rest heats up the surface of the earth. As you say the earth then emits infrared, at a much longer wavelength (further infrared) than the incoming solar radiation. The greenhouse gases are especially active in absorbing in this region, the further infrared. I believe that Tony showed a slide with the absorption curves in this video, or it may have been the one before. This is the important point to get – the energy emitted by the earth has a different spectrum to that emitted by the sun. The energy emitted by the sun largely passes through the greenhouse gasses in the way in, but the energy emitted by the earth is largely absorbed by the greenhouse gasses on the way out , this is then reradiated, some back to the earth hence increasing the earths surface temperature

    Gasses do not manifest blackbody radiation phenomenon. You need to understand the mechanism of blackbody, it is not simply a property of any mass. Saying heated masses always emit infrared or any other light wave applies only to solids and possibly liquids. Also molecules simply being in motion is not enough to release photons. CO2 gas can absorb photons but it cannot emit them it must bump into another molecule to conduct its energy gain to a less kinetically excited molecule. Just to head off more wrong understanding by others…flames do not emit blackbody radiation but the covalent bonds being formed in the oxidation process do emit photons and to some extent the hot particulate matter in the flame will emit blackbody.

    Gasses do not radiate photons when heated that is a property of solids called blackbody phenomenon. Gasses do not manifest blackbody radiation phenomenon. So CO2 can absorb interccpted IR from the earth but it cannot re-emit back to earth. “

  55. Is Christopher M’s statement correct ?:
    “So CO2 can absorb intercepted IR from the earth but it cannot re-emit back to earth.”

    I’m thinking not quite. I suppose that the … “to earth” … part of his statement is the key to his meaning. The CO2-emitted IR actually does not make it back to earth, but we can think of it as being partly directed TOWARDS the earth, right? It sort of re-joins the gradient dominated by the higher-energy, Earth-surface radiation, but cannot get “to earth” to add any energy to further add to or take away from the Earth-surface radiation?

  56. Joseph E Postma says:

    That whole argument can be applied to conduction. I want you guys to start using this!

    “Start with a cold metal rod heated at one end. As the heat transfers down the rod, the molecules which now have thermal motion can vibrate in any direction. When they vibrate back toward the direction of the heat source, they bump into molecules closer to the heat source which are warmer due to the temperature gradient. When the cold molecules randomly vibrate towards the warm end of the rod and bump into the warmer molecules in that direction, they therefore send their energy back towards the hot end of the rod. And because the hot end of the rod is now not losing as much heat because the cold end of the rod is warming up and the cooler molecules are now randomly vibrating back towards the warm end of the rod, the warm end of the rod must then become hotter.”

    I’m going to make an OP out of that actually. Stay tuned.

  57. I wonder whether Norman is loosing less insight, as he continues to ponder the points here.

  58. Mark says:

    I think Norman has an agenda, an ulterior motive. Rather than support discussion and free thought he attacks those that try to understand. Maybe he can come back and discuss rationally the pertinent points that we are trying to address. I have no problem with his discussion just his insults.

  59. Christopher Marshall says:

    Evidently he felt I needed more education so he added this:

    “4Real Science It is difficult to know where to begin with you, but I will give it a shot. I noticed that someone mentioned the analogy of a jacket which you reject because as you say a jacket can’t add heat, and your right! A jacket does not add heat, but it does slow the transfer of heat from your body to the environment and it therefore increases your surface body temperature. Your surface temperature is warmer with the jacket than without the jacket. It does NOT have to add heat to accomplish this, it simply has to slow the loss of heat. In fact the jacket will almost certainly be cooler than your body surface – a cooler object keeping a warmer object warmer than it would have been otherwise, and no laws of thermodynamics harmed in the process. And yes the surface of the earth is warming because the loss of heat from the surface of the earth has decreased. Greenhouse gases do not supply additional energy, but they do not have to. This is simply all about energy balance – if the overall energy input to the earth is greater than the losses, the earth warms. (there are of course feedback mechanisms here so eventually a new equilibrium may be reached, but that is entirely beside the points you were arguing). Energy balance is the key. This is a direct consequence of the 1st Law of Thermodynamics. If the energy input to the earth is greater than the energy output, the earth MUST warm, and you can disregard everything else going on (at least at this level) the paths of energy flows, latancies involved etc.

    Here is a pretty good overview of the earth’s energy balance:

    It is on the wikipedia page “Earth’s energy budget” if you have any problem finding it. I am not sure which other parts of this diagram you accept, but you seem to have difficulty understanding how the back radiation from the greenhouse gases does not violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics. The answer is that the 2nd law of thermodynamics applies to NET heat flows, it does NOT mean that energy cannot radiate from a cold object to a warm one, simply that the NET energy flow will be from the warm to the cooler. Imagine a spherical object at 25degC in a vacuum supported on a perfect insulator (so that we can just consider heat loss by radiation) It will radiate thermal energy in accordance with the blackbody law, and will do so equally in all directions. Now imagine placing a warmer spherical object say at 50degC a short distance away. Now here is the question – what will happen to the pattern of radiation of the first sphere, will it change so that the radiation is in all directions, except in the direction of the hotter sphere? Of course not, that would be absurd. The radiation pattern depends only on the properties and temperature of the sphere There will, in accordance with the 2nd law of thermodynamics be a NET flow of energy from the hotter object to the cooler, but this DOES NOT mean that no energy can flow from the cooler to the warmer – it can, it will, and indeed it must. If say 2 units of energy flow from the cooler to the hotter and 8 units flow from the hotter to the cooler then a net 6 units flow from the hotter to the cooler and 2nd law of thermodynamics is completely uninjured. Now that we have established that thermal energy CAN flow from cooler to hotter (provided the net flow is from hotter to cooler), we can look at the energy balance of the earth and see that is is exactly what is happening between the surface of the earth and the greenhouse gases. The radiated energy from the surface of the earth being absorbed by the greenhouse gasses is greater than the radiated energy returned to the surface of the earth so the 2nd law of thermodynamics is satisfied. But because of this returned energy the surface of the earth is warmer than it otherwise would have been had the greenhouse gasses not been there, as the losses from the earth to space are now lower. Pretty much like putting on a jacket. It must be obvious that increased amounts of greenhouse gasses will increase the energy return and thereby lead to higher temperatures.”

  60. Joseph E Postma says:

    Same gobbledygook of their sophistry of “NET” flow, etc. Man they really love that term, “NET”. As if it saves them from anything.

    First Law of Thermodynamics: for an object to increase in temperature, it requires work and/or heat performed on it.

    The cooler atmosphere performs no work and sends no heat via radiation. That’s all.

    The equation for heat flow SHOWS energy flowing in both ways, just as he wishes to point out. NO PROBLEM. The difference is that he sophizes from there and ignores the First Law of Thermodynamics, as is required by the argument. The energy from the cooler object cannot act as heat for the warmer object, and for any object to increase in temperature it requires heat.

    Saying “NET” doesn’t change that. The “net” is the heat, and the heat is one way, and the cooler source cannot send heat.

    Plus that linked diagram IS FOR FLAT EARTH. Nice little curve for the Earth…but the numbers are most specifically that derived out of FLAT EARTH.

    Your jacket works as a real greenhouse does – you trap warm air around your body, rather than your body being exposed to free convective cooling from the cold air around you. Basically you go from an infinite and cold heat sink which your body could never warm up, to a very finite heat sink which you can definitely warm up. YOU warm up the air trapped by the coat and the coat – the coat doesn’t warm you. Of course, they love to use examples of physical perception which can easily be confused away from the actual underlying physics with loose language, etc.

  61. Joseph E Postma says:

    The reason they try that “NET” argument is because they wish to treat heat as the conserved quantity.

    Well, if heat is the conserved quantity, then back-conduction should certainly exist, and MUST exist.

    Here’s the equation for conductive/diffusive heat flow: Q = k(Th – Tc).

    Thus, Tc is sending energy back to Th via reverse conduction-diffusion, and thus Th must get hotter when heat conducts because Q is maintained as the “NET” flow.

  62. “The answer is that the 2nd law of thermodynamics applies to NET heat flows, it does NOT mean that energy cannot radiate from a cold object to a warm one, simply that the NET energy flow will be from the warm to the cooler.”

    There are no “net heat flows”. There is heat. Period. There is no heat flowing from cold to hot that could subtract from any heat flowing from hot to cold. There is energy flowing from cold towards hot, and there is energy flowing from hot towards cold. Energy is not heat. Heat is the “net” that the cold gets from the hot that heats it. Heat is net ENERGY resulting from the higher energy of the hot being higher by a certain amount, and this energy that the cold does NOT have is what HEATS THE COLD OBJECT.

    The NASA diagram confuses energy with flux, which is energy per unit area. The reference areas for stating these fluxes are all fluxed up in the confusion that is surface confusion of the greenhorse-goat effect.

  63. Joseph E Postma says:

    Wow great comment! Worth repeating:

    “There are no “net heat flows”. There is heat. Period. There is no heat flowing from cold to hot that could subtract from any heat flowing from hot to cold. There is energy flowing from cold towards hot, and there is energy flowing from hot towards cold. Energy is not heat. Heat is the “net” that the cold gets from the hot that heats it. Heat is net ENERGY resulting from the higher energy of the hot being higher by a certain amount, and this energy that the cold does NOT have is what HEATS THE COLD OBJECT.”

  64. Christopher Marshall says:

    I’m going to study this more I’m learning it’s a waste of time to reply half cocked (still hard because these guys are so arrogant). I’ll try and respond when I’m good and ready and if not I’ll learn something for the next round.

    Even I know the jacket metaphor is false and I’m an idiot (comparably speaking). I always say the jacket creates an thermo equilibrium between you and the jacket produced from heat by your body. In order to maintain that equilibrium from a much colder outside your body needs to use energy to create heat. In other words, work is involved= Energy converted to heat. Put that jacket on a dummy does it make the dummy warmer? No because no work is heating up the dummy so the jacket by itself is worthless.

  65. CM,
    Jackets DO, in fact, heat up greenhouse dummies.

  66. Christopher Marshall says:

    LOL Yes, yes they do.

  67. I’m doing a Norman reanalysis.
    On Norman’s first posted appearance in this topic, he wrote:

    “When I read your [JP’s] irrational and emotional outbursts against rational scientific posters who waste time on your blog trying to reason with you, it reminds me a lot of the bald emotional woman.”

    I suppose that this comparison of heat-of-the-moment responses is not completely invalid. But I’m pretty confident that the “bald emotional woman” has no other intellectual gears to engage, whereas JP has many higher intellectual gears. He uses these higher intellectual gears to drive home quite rational and UNemotional points.

    Only when myopic, intellectual pretenders dismiss his logic, labelling it with claims of incompetence, does he engage his emotional gears, KNOWING full well that he possesses these other higher intellectual gears.

    Keeping with their myopic approach, intellectual pretenders then reference JP’s emotional gears ONLY to dismiss his higher gears ENTIRELY.

    Comparing JP’s emotional gears to the intellectual gears of “rational posters” (with whom he first usually does NOT engage these emotional gears but rather DOES try to reason with them with his higher gears) is a false comparison, using a false association of unparallel instances.

    The error here is thinking of JP … ONLY as the “bald emotional woman”, when he is so much more, … blindly ignoring his intellectual gears for the sake of attacking him, thus denying these gears altogether, thus proving how extremely shallow and inconsiderate the criticism is.

  68. Now for something REALLY disturbing:

    Click to access 02-07-19-Green-New-Deal-FINAL.pdf

    Oh my God, I could not even get through the “whereas” clauses supposedly stating the justifications for the ridiculous economic goals that ensue.

    The two people drafting this nightmare are positively the most deluded, unenlightened, misdirected individuals, dangerously placed in positions of authority today in the whole United States.

    (Holy $#!)^100

  69. The dumbest junk in the world.

    We can refute all of that from its foundational premise, at step naught. Will we? Or will their new Dark Age ensue?

  70. … idiots chosen by zealots, as mouthpieces and governmental arms. — that’s who is in congress.

  71. Cortexless [I mean, “Cortez”] couldn’t author something like this by herself. She’s just one of the mouthpieces parroting it — a mouthpiece for the Sun Rise Movement:

  72. “We’re building an army of young people to stop climate change”

    To fight the weather and changes in the sun and the galactic environment etc. Right.

    A movement to fight the weather!

  73. … a movement to fight the bitch universe — SHE, after all, gave birth to us and all our imperfections — it’s time we get HER back and put HER in her place for such cosmic evil. We humans are THAT big — we are THAT powerful — we are THAT much in control.

  74. Continuing my Norman review …

    On 2019/02/02 at 7:47 PM
    Norman began by writing:

    “I am not sure what your point about “flat Earth” is. The equations used are most valid. As a studied scientist you should be able to understand them.”

    I would say, “Let my try to resolve your uncertainty, to make more clear what flat Earth, in this context, refers to.” Let’s take a look at the supposed “most valid” equations used by Harvard University at …

    The term in Equation (7.12) on the left side of “equals” is solar flux at Earth’s surface, divided by four to distribute this flux as an average around Earth’s entire spherical surface area, which surface area is a spherical shell with NO THICKNESS. The math there is based on a mathematical definition of what the surface is for this calculation. Again, this surface is a spherical shell with ZERO thickness. The math does not allow this surface to “grow” a thickness, for which the calculated value can then be manipulated further for two sub-surfaces composing it. The math fixes the surface as a ZERO-thickness surface. That is what the equation for spherical surface area MEANS.

    But look at the term in Equation (7.12) on the right side of “equals” — it is now the sum for TWO surfaces.

    The spherical shell for which flux was calculated has now magically “grown” a thickness that the fundamental definition of spherical surface area does NOT (and was NEVER intended to) account for. The one mathematically-defined surface is now confused with two geophysical surfaces — (1) an atmosphere surface and (2) a non-atmosphere surface.

    How is it proper to equate one quantity based on a mathematically-defined-and-applied surface to another quantity based on two geophysically-defined surfaces? This is an improper extension of the surface-area calculation for a sphere. What “surface” exactly is being considered in each step of the calculations? — this is confused and unclear, resulting in absurd outcomes.

    Now look at Equation (7.13) — it shows a value derived for one surface equaling the value derived for two surfaces, where the one surface is based on the original, one-and-only surface that should have been the ONLY one surface under consideration.

    Equation (7.12) is an invalid mathematical manipulation, and Equation (7.13) is the absurd result of illegitimately shifting perspective from one surface to two surfaces that never existed in the logic of the model’s initial set-up.

    This all leads to the inversion of output from a mathematically-defined one-spherical-surface-area to the input into a two-spherical-surface-area Earth-atmosphere system. Those invalid TWO surfaces invalidly convert an output from one spherical surface area into the erroneous input for the one properly-defined surface area. The VALUE of this input could only be this value, if the Earth were flat and farther away from the sun. This is the MEANING of that number — that number being the invalidly derived input inverted from the two-surface confusion that allows output to be input too.

    It is NOT just an average. It is an UNREAL average that has no physical meaning where determining the processes of atmospheric dynamics is concerned.

    The meaning of this number has nothing to do with the flat appearance of spherical segments, sampled so short as to appear as flat surfaces. Rather, it has to do with what this number MEANS.
    It means NOTHING physical — NO actual physical effects that exist in Earth’s climate can be deduced from its value. It’s VALUE has no real-world meaning. This value is an artifact of screwed up thinking, where the screw up happens at a crucial step of logic that then gets compounded into proper-looking math.

    While the math itself looks proper, the meaning that the math conveys is NOT proper — the math does NOT convey reality. Again, forget the coincidental appearance of flat pictures with the phrase, “flat Earth”. Look at the meaning of that number, and translate THAT number into a picture. That number translates into a picture of flat Earth.

  75. Christopher Marshall says:

    Robert, this reply seems to be spot on to the answer I need for this fellow I’ve been talking about on this thread. Unlike the alarmist fanatics he deosn’t “seem” to be out there BUT you never know. He just seems to be taught wrong and that’s a tricky sticky. The 3rd paragraph is where his logic becomes bonkers. Again thank you for your replies I think I am getting this SLOWLY but without you guys I’d be lost in a cloud of greenhouse gas confusion.

    IF I know what I’m talking about and I understand him fully (?) he IS saying latent heat is heating up the ground surface more but he doesn’t think that’s what he’s saying. “Latent heat” just maintains the current temperature longer it does not increase said temperature and that is just gravity doing it’s thing (?). Because he’s using the Flat Earth model (w/o knowing it) he’s allocating a continuous flux of heat from the Sun w/o factoring in night. No work is being done on the ground to increase the heat so it can’t possibly increase heat from latent heat or whatever he’s thinking.I explained the heat flux difference between energy and heat and some of the other stuff you and Joe mentioned on this thread and this was his reply:

    “If you wish to restrict the use of the word heat to the net energy flow, then fine, I agree that this is more precise than saying heat flows both ways. I used the term “net heat flow” in regards to the 2nd law of thermodynamics when “net energy flow” would have been more accurate. You said : “There is energy flowing from cold towards hot, and there is energy flowing from hot towards cold.” and: “Heat is net ENERGY” And I completely agree with you. You have previously said “The Laws of Thermodynamics have to be adhered to: Heat flows from hot to cold;” Again this is in complete agreement with what I have said. However this does not mean that there is not energy flowing in both directions as I have pointed out, just that the net energy flow (ie heat flow) is from hot to cold. We seem to be in complete agreement up to this point. You have previously said: “Thus as per the Laws of Physics, radiation (from the cooler atmosphere) can not send any heat back to the warmer surface.

    Again this is in complete agreement with what I know. Greenhouse gasses to not send heat (net energy) back to the earths surface. But they do radiate energy (infrared energy) back toward the earth’s surface. As long as this energy is less than the energy received by the greenhouse gases from the the earth’s surface by infrared radiation, this is in complete harmony with the 2nd law of thermodynamics . This is also in complete agreement with any currently accepted climate theory that I am familiar with. So let us see were we disagree.

    You seem to think that because the atmosphere cannot heat the earth’s surface (that is there cannot be a net energy flow from the atmosphere to the earths surface), the increase in greenhouse gasses cannot cause the earths surface to be warmer. This is where you are simply wrong. You seem to think that only “new heat” could make the earth surface warmer – this is wrong. You are correct in saying that the effect of greenhouse gasses is to delay cooling of the earths surface, but wrong not to see that this WILL make the earths surface warmer. In this sense the analogy of the jacket fits quite well. A jacket does not produce heat, and it will be colder than the surface of skin. It cannot transfer heat back to the skin – that is there is no net energy flow from the jacket to the skin – indeed the net energy (heat) flow must, by the 2nd law of thermodynamics, be from the skin surface to the jacket. And yet the surface of the skin will be warmer with the jacket than without. “Cold does not heat hot” but slowing the loss of heat means that the skin surface temperature will be warmer “radiation from a cool source does not cause a warmer source to become warmer.” But this misses the point. The earth’s surface has a source of energy – the sun. If the loss of energy from the earth is slowed, the earth’s surface will become warmer. The radiation from a cooler source does not have to supply heat to the warmer source in order to accomplish this, it simply has to return some of the energy that would otherwise have been lost, no “new heat” or “new energy” needed. The NASA diagram uses flux (energy per area). This is normally how for instance solar irradiance is measured. I can see no possible problem with it. The initial energy in the system is solar and if you track the solar irradiance measured in power per unit area through the system, it makes perfect sense. Your claim that there is some nefarious purpose in this is simply an unsupported assertion.”

  76. CM,
    I’m probably out of my league here, and so I’m not confident in what I am about to say. Joe needs to check it, and if it has flaws, he needs to delete it. But I don’t want to bug him in a private email to ask what he thinks of it, and so, … well, … no guts, no glory, … here goes:

    “If the loss of energy from the earth is slowed, the earth’s surface will become warmer. “

    How exactly does a CO2 molecule “slow the loss of energy from Earth” ? What is the fundamental mechanism that carries this energy? — photons, right?

    How fast do photons travel? — at the speed of light, right?

    Now what do we know about what current physics tells us about the speed of light? — that it is not additive, right? Thus, it is not subtractive (which is the same as adding a negative).

    Light added to light cannot make light go any faster. Light encountering light in the opposite direction cannot make light go any slower. So, how does CO2 “slow” electromagnetic radiation moving at the speed of light? A photon at the speed of light going up encounters a photon at the speed of light going down — there is NO slowing.

    There is a photon-energy gradient, dictated by the frequencies of the respective photons composing the field of the gradient, where higher-energy photons “push” in the direction of lower-energy photons, all at the speed of light. No slowing.

    “The radiation from a cooler source does not have to supply heat to the warmer source in order to accomplish this, it simply has to return some of the energy that would otherwise have been lost, no ‘new heat’ or ‘new energy’ needed.”

    But the cooler source does NOT have any energy that the warmer source does not already have. All the warmer source’s energy levels in the range of the cooler source are full — there’s no more “room” in the warm source for more of that same level of energy to fill those levels — they are all occupied.

    Again, I’m not confident in this, but it is my off-the-cuff, first attempt to deal with some deep issues about the “slowing” argument.

  77. Even if photons CAN be slowed down by a medium, the time of delay still seems incredibly small and not enough to amount to what greenhouse scarists claim, especially considering the minute percentage volume of the entire Earth atmosphere supposedly doing this “slowing”.

    Arguing from a particle perspective might not matter, though, as higher level arguing reveals the flaw in the basic logic.

    I just don’t think that energy works like this “slowing” argument insists, but I still can’t manage to nail down the counter argument to a well-worded, coherent, understandable paragraph.

  78. I am realizing that, in this particular depth of discussion (on the photon level), I really do not yet have a clear view of what is going on. I am trying to work it out, and what you see here is this attempt to do so, with all its possible flaws and malformed thoughts.

    I was thinking that the speed at which Earth-atmosphere molecules loose energy via radiation surely must be near the speed of light. Any possible delay between one “greenhouse gas”-molecule emission of such energy and another “greenhouse gas”-molecule absorption of such energy is still pretty short.

    Okay, here’s a physicist’s explanation of what goes on:

    I need to study this.

  79. And here is another physicist’s take on it [WARNING: excruciating mathematical detail ahead]:

    Click to access Reviewed_Total_Emissivity_of_the_Carbon_Dioxide_and_Mean_Free_Path.pdf

  80. Christopher Marshall says:

    Thanks RK yeah I haven’t responded yet I’m still not quite clear on what “he” is trying to say. I think it has just been taught to him and as you know they do mix some real science in with ad hoc to make the gw sound convincing enough that you can’t argue it. I think it’s amazing you could just argue gw with facts and history, then they amped it up that you had to know meteorology/weather/geology to dispute it and NOW you have to be a physicist to argue it’s none existence. The thing about lies is you can increase the difficulty of disputing it because as Joe loves saying, it’s based on Sophistry in the first place.

    Imagine if you could do that with real science and medicine? “We’ve changed the rules of heart disease so none of you have it anymore. Congratulations.” yeah, right.

    What are you aspiring to be if I may ask? Are you still in college? You have a bright mind (as most of you guys on here) I hope the best in your future. I have only talked to one kid on YouTube who was in college that had enough science sense to say “Maybe gw isn’t true I’ve realized I needed to broaden my scientific pov more. Oh well, if it’s not true plenty of other things out there needs science to help improve.” If Joe had talked to him he would have seen clearly that gw isn’t real. I just couldn’t produce enough science to convince him. He just had enough sense to question it himself.

  81. CM,

    If I were still in college, then I would not be here. (^_^) … I would have been too brainwashed.

    I aspire to figure out how to address every single argument in favor of the “greenhouse effect”.

  82. Christopher Marshall says:

    Totally, I get it. I have come across a few (believe it or not) who have seen the light still in college. I would gather most were raised with critical thinking.

  83. CM,
    I’ve looked at that long comment you posted again, and here is how I’m thinking that I would approach it:

    “The radiation from a cooler source does not have to supply heat to the warmer source in order to accomplish this, it simply has to return some of the energy that would otherwise have been lost, no ‘new heat’ or ‘new energy’ needed.”

    How can the cooler source “return some of the energy”, if it does not ADD this energy? What does “return” mean, if it does not mean ADD. Where is that “returned energy” going? WHERE exactly is it “returned”. “Returned” means to put that energy somewhere. Is this “returned” energy somehow stacked up on top of the same-intensity energy that is already there? Isn’t the warm surface also above each succeeding level of the supposed “return” location ? How does this “returned” energy, then, have anywhere to go, if everything beneath it is filled up with no place for it to “return”. HOW does it “return”, if it has nowhere to go, to “return”?

    Saying “add”, using another term, “return”, seems like a mere word substitution to fool yourself into believing that you are not saying what you, in fact, ARE saying — ADDING energy !

    “The NASA diagram uses flux (energy per area). This is normally how for instance solar irradiance is measured. I can see no possible problem with it. The initial energy in the system is solar and if you track the solar irradiance measured in power per unit area through the system, it makes perfect sense. Your claim that there is some nefarious purpose in this is simply an unsupported assertion.”

    I assume that you are referring to this diagram:

    “No possible problem with it” ? Well, I have drawn a black rectangle around the problem, and I repeated the problem in larger font with another black rectangle around it. The problem is 340.4 watts per square meter — which is a physically unreal average that can have no meaning as to a physical effect that actually causes any atmospheric dynamics known on Earth. What is nefarious is how people have been fooled by the visual and the simple addition that uses equally unreal percentages of that 340.4. In other words, this figure is based on mathematics that means a flat Earth located farther from the sun that it is.

  84. Christopher Marshall says:

    That’s more like it, isn’t it? I love the “proof” they put at the bottom: Average based on 10 years of data. Who’s data? Santa Claus? (Come to think of it HIS would be more accurate.)

  85. Oh, no problem with the 10 years of data. The issue is how one USES the data.

    I have collected data on the number of cabbage worms per year in my garden, and I have collected data on the number of red cars per year passing my house. I get an average of X worms per year for ten years and an average of Y red cars per year. Now I add X + Y, and I get the average number of worm-cars at my house over the past ten years.

    I mean, I HAVE the data ! It’s right there ! I did the math correctly. What’s the problem ?! I can see no possible problem with it.

  86. Mark says:

    Yep the title of this thread is “The Most Disturbing” and the role of the joker goes to……
    ………Well there are a companion of twerps that come to this site with multiple usernames, that define the role, so to all the twerps out there, this is dedicated to you, ( AKA Goblin) :

  87. becomingabraxas says:

    I haven’t dove into the comments on this yet. It really is disturbing but I’m a staunch believer that in the right environment and with the right education most people can grow and develop themselves to overcome this type of estranged, emotional pseudo-logic. This type of thing will have no capacity to thrive in a Meritocratic society. That’s one of the reasons why Meritocracy is, personally, my main focus. We need a unified reference point in order to point towards. Whether it be my work or the works of others it has to happen. I’ve watched so many Meritocracy themed movements fail simply because there is no unified consensus among those who even promote Meritocracy.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s