Climate Physics Can’t Create the Climate

In this video I discuss how climate physics sets itself up in such a way that the Sun cannot create the climate. It sets itself up this way because it is based on a false paradigm of averaging the solar energy over the entire surface of the Earth at once. As a consequence of this foundation it then establishes the requirement that the climate must create itself ex-nihilo, that is, out of nothing at all. It is then from this point and paradigm that all climate phenomena are interpreted, which is to say, falsely.

Make a choice: does the climate create itself because flat Earth theory, or, does the sun create the climate?


Gallery | This entry was posted in Fraud of the Greenhouse Effect and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

20 Responses to Climate Physics Can’t Create the Climate

  1. Hans Schreuder says:

    Thanks Joe! Can’t put it any simpler than that: “does the climate create itself because flat Earth theory, or, does the sun create the climate?”Will the alarmists take note? Unlikely.

  2. It’s so simple that it’s elusive.

    A very simple mistake has never been acknowledged, and a whole paradigm has been erected on it, with ever greater detail added to the basic mistake.

    How PhD’s in math a physics cannot see this is simply amazing. Specialists in the complex manipulation of all those symbols cannot seem to see it, which tells me that, even though they can work the symbols, they do not know what they are doing when they do. They do not have a deep enough understanding of what they are doing. They are machines without deep awareness, simply going through the motions of maintaining the internal consistency of the mistakes.

  3. Joseph E Postma says:

    Exactly guys. Well said. They’re not truly who they pretend to be. In fact they are quite the opposite of what they pretend to be. They’re not intellectual rational thinkers at all…they’re the opposite of that.

  4. Computer-model tuning fits in here somewhere.

    Tune ’em to twentieth century climate patterns and assert that they forecast climate for a century ahead.

    Great. Tune your equations to already-known patterns in a coupled, chaotic, fluid-dynamic system, and expect those equations to apply to future, unknown chaos. It keeps people employed, I guess.

  5. George says:

    Joe, I really wish you’d do a video on the fallacy of back radiation. People think back radiation is real because it can be “measured”. Yeah, with smoke and mirrors it can! I keep going round and round with alarmists who claim it’s real and measured. They cite Roy Spencer’s “experiment” as proof. What a joke.

  6. “Average energy flux over the sphere” — does this phrase have physical meaning?

    Yes, you can put the words together. But is the word combination a legitimate concept? Just because you can put the words together does not make the concept expressed by those words legitimate.

    Suppose we included the moon in there, and focus on the Earth-moon system. Now is there an “average flux over the two spheres of the Earth-moon system?

    How about we start at Mercury and put the boundary at the Earth-moon system. What’s the “average flux over all those spheres as a system”?

    You cannot just wrap flux around a sphere. You cannot just dilute it by however many bodies are in its path. Flux happens exactly for the surface area on which it impinges. Flux is measured on the surface area for which it is calculated. That surface area defines mathematically the meaning of what we are saying when we say “flux”.

    Suppose Earth were a hemisphere on the sun side, and a deformed, irregular, cone on the dark side. Could we then wrap the flux on the hemisphere side around this deformed, irregular, cone and come up with some sort of “average flux”? What sense would that make?

    What would you even call it? — not “average flux over the sphere” — what math would you use to figure it? — no neat spherical formulas.

  7. Joseph E Postma says:

    Hah WOW nice! Very cool. And yes to everything above.

    Average flux over the entire sphere *DOES NOT PHYSICALLY EXIST*.

  8. Rosco says:

    How can anyone be so stupid as to confuse Earth’s output radiation with the input ??

    Their explanation of Venus shows how little they understand – they claim it is reasonable to have a standing power output at the surface of 16,728 W/m2 generated by 132 W/m2 input ??

  9. Joseph E Postma says:

    It really is amazing that they can be this stupid. That they can violate thermodynamics so eagerly.

  10. Rosco says:

    Joe, as an astrophysicist shouldn’t you hammer home the facts that the solar radiation is emitted at an effective temperature of 5772 K ?

    The inverse square law reduces this power to ~1361 W/m2 at Earth’s orbit.

    Whilst this power can induce >100°C in an absorbing object the flux emitted by an object at >100°C and the attenuated solar radiation at Earth’s orbit have nothing in common !

    The solar radiation carries the “signature” of its emission temperature and despite the power values being similar from a Stefan-Boltzmann calculation the solar radiation is orders of magnitude more powerful due to its spectral characteristics,

    The solar radiation “Planck” curve is concentrated in the visible range and the photons in this part of the spectrum have significantly higher energy states than even the shortest wavelengths produced by the emissions at >100°C.

    If we had the technology we could “concentrate” the solar radiation enough to reproduce its emission temperature, ~5772 K, on Earth.

    No matter how much technology we had available the temperature reached by concentrating the radiation emitted by >100°C is ~100°C.

    The Stefan-Boltzmann equation is completely inadequate for the model calculations as quoted by climate science. Unless I am mistaken it is Planck’s spectral curves which estimate the temperatures of stars.

  11. I have two rooms adjacent to one another, with floor surface areas of 16 meters squared each.

    I put carpet in the first room to cover that room’s 16 meters squared. I don’t have to worry about the adjacent room, however, because it is also covered with carpet, since the average carpet coverage for the two rooms is 8 meters squared.

    Even though the first room is fully carpeted over 16 meters squared, we are going to use the average carpet coverage for the two rooms as the carpet-cover value for the first room. The second room also has a carpet-cover value of 8 meters squared, even though no carpet is physically on it, AND it is fully covered by this 8 meters squared average carpet-cover figured from the first fully carpeted room, which we now say is fully covered with half the carpet-cover value.

    So, to review, my first 16 meters squared, fully carpeted room is fully carpeted now by 8 meters squared of carpet, and my second 16 meters squared, completely non-carpeted room is also fully carpeted with 8 meters squared of carpet. Why? Because the average carpet-cover value for the two rooms is 8 meters squared.

    It’s really quite a cost-effective way to do interior decorating. I don’t know why others have not thought of it.

  12. That’s awesome.

  13. So, Rosco, it’s even stupider than you describe, because sunlight is being recognized on a surface area where it physically does not exist, and three fourths of the sunlight is not being recognized on a surface area where it does exist. [I think I got that right]

  14. Rosco says:

    Robert – You sure did get it right.

    George says:

    Joe, I really wish you’d do a video on the fallacy of back radiation. People think back radiation is real because it can be “measured”.

    There is no doubt the atmosphere radiates although the devices measuring DWLR seem to me to be based on a very dubious construct using the Stefan-Boltzmann equation.

    But whether or not there is actual experimental evidence that the radiation from a cooler object is not capable of increasing the temperature of a warmer object – there is no need to discuss anything or the 2nd law or whatever.

    Pictet established this more than 2 centuries ago with his “reflection of cold” experiment. In this experiment two parabolic polished metal mirrors were placed opposite each other at a distance apart such that conductive effects were unlikely. In the experiment the thermometer was warmer than the flask of ice and it cooled by transferring its heat to the flask. Indisputable proof – the radiation from a cooler object is totally incapable of inducing any warming in a warmer object.

    As Feynman said – “It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with experiment, it’s wrong.” The problem with climate science is the theory isn’t beautiful and they’re not very smart !

    The only unexplained mystery is why the thermometer, continually in thermal contact with the unchanging temperature of the air in the room responded so dramatically when the flask of ice was placed at the opposite focus of the parabolic mirror.

  15. Hans Schreuder says:

    Maybe pose this question as a remedy against accepting that “back-radiation” can do work: Is it possible for a power source of 6 Volts DC to charge a car battery that is 12 Volts DC? In other words, do the electrons from the 6VDC source continue to pile atop each other till the car battery is fuly charged?

  16. Hans Schreuder says:

    PS: There is an “average” earth emission: into space. That’s the very basis for the “back radiation” concept. That “average” is the near-continuous radiation into space, day and night and the source of “determining” earth’s theoretical temperature of minus 18C and the very basis for needing a “greenhouse effect” to “explain” the 33C difference with the calculated “average” earth temperature as based on a bunch of randomly placed weather stations scattered across the globe.
    With regards Pictet’s experiment, the thermometer reacted to the focused beam of lower energy photons from the parabolic mirror and thus energy flowed towards it to equalize that inequality of energy levels.
    (Typo in previous comment: “fully” – oops!)

  17. Christopher Marshall says:

    Got your first ‘expert’ advocating the greenhouse effect as real on your last video. They even made the math look pretty!

  18. Christopher Marshall says:

    Never mind I think I misunderstood the guy, I’m brain dead today been nursing one of my cats.

  19. OK George I will get to that.

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 )

Google photo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s