If we take a look at the basis of climate physics and climate change, we see that the entire field and entire agenda is based on an inversion of reality which they perform right at the very foundation of their pseudoscientific research.
Categories
-
Join 496 other subscribers
- Follow Climate of Sophistry on WordPress.com
Recent Comments
- Philip Mulholland on Livestream Q & A / Hang Out (today) Fri. Feb 17 6pm MST
- CD Marshall on Livestream Q & A / Hang Out (today) Fri. Feb 17 6pm MST
- Joseph E Postma on Livestream Q & A / Hang Out (today) Fri. Feb 17 6pm MST
- CD Marshall on Livestream Q & A / Hang Out (today) Fri. Feb 17 6pm MST
- Joseph E Postma on Livestream Q & A / Hang Out (today) Fri. Feb 17 6pm MST
- CD Marshall on Livestream Q & A / Hang Out (today) Fri. Feb 17 6pm MST
- Joseph E Postma on Livestream Q & A / Hang Out (today) Fri. Feb 17 6pm MST
- boomie789 on Livestream Q & A / Hang Out (today) Fri. Feb 17 6pm MST
- boomie789 on Livestream Q & A / Hang Out (today) Fri. Feb 17 6pm MST
- Joseph E Postma on Livestream Q & A / Hang Out (today) Fri. Feb 17 6pm MST
- boomie789 on Livestream Q & A / Hang Out (today) Fri. Feb 17 6pm MST
- Joseph E Postma on Livestream Q & A / Hang Out (today) Fri. Feb 17 6pm MST
- boomie789 on Livestream Q & A / Hang Out (today) Fri. Feb 17 6pm MST
- boomie789 on Livestream Q & A / Hang Out (today) Fri. Feb 17 6pm MST
- boomie789 on Livestream Q & A / Hang Out (today) Fri. Feb 17 6pm MST
Climate of Sophistry 
Awesome video you drew a well known nutjob troll by the name of the HealthPhysicists he is nasty as I’m sure you already know. The sound was excellent. I have a keen ear for those things…I can hear a dog barking down the street from my bedroom at night with closed windows and on the second floor.On really annoying days I have to turn off clicking clocks or I can’t sleep.
I have a question. What does ToA mean in regard to Nicholas Schroeder’s math on the temperature of Venus?
Here’s a heuristic that I just did:
How about Harvard’s absolutely stupid claim of 0.77 emissivity for the atmosphere ?
The atmosphere at a density of 1.205 kg/m3 has an emissivity of 0.77, slightly higher than Basalt (?), whilst water at a density of ~1000 kg/m3 has an emissivity of 0.99 – apparently mass has absolutely nothing to do with radiation power emissions !
Or actual empirical evidence that gases do not obey Blackbody radiation laws :-
Sorry about the image – delete the post above – I’ve resized the image
How about Harvard’s absolutely stupid claim of 0.77 emissivity for the atmosphere ?
The atmosphere at a density of 1.205 kg/m3 has an emissivity of 0.77, slightly higher than Basalt (?), whilst water at a density of ~1000 kg/m3 has an emissivity of 0.99 – apparently mass has absolutely nothing to do with radiation power emissions !
Or actual empirical evidence that gases do not obey Blackbody radiation laws :-
Come to think of it it would be nice if you did a video on Mars and Venus if you want to.
ToA just means Top of Atmosphere if wondering what the acronym means.
Nice graphic Robert…lol.
Splendid video Joe, thanks. Keep reminding the world that the climate “scientists” see thw world in a mirror.
Joe, that was the best explanation (and quite easy) I have read to date. Thst has always been my theory. Another great post Postma.
Cheers Andy
JP,
I remember reading a post a ways back where you submitted a paper on global warming and it was never processed. Is that still the case? Plus it would be great to do a video on Venus and Mars, using rudimentary science and then advanced science. A live debate with Tyson would be great too but that would never happen in your lifetime lol.
I will discuss that soon in a vid.
Hi very interesting videos you are making. I’m not a scientist and I’ve been trying hard to get my head around the things you are talking about. One thing I was wondering about:
The way I’ve heard the greenhouse effect described to me, is that: “if it wasn’t for the greenhouse effect the global average temperature would only be -18°C, but now thanks to the greenhouse effect the temperature it’s more like 15°C”. I wonder where these number come from? The -18°c, I guess, is the same as the “output” that you are talking about? How is this meassured? And 15°c, where does that number come from?
Hi Lars – I will make my next video about answering your question. But yes the -18C is the “output”, and that comes from the whole 3d surface + atmosphere system; +15C is from the slice of atmosphere closest to the ground where it is warmest. It makes no sense to really compare these numbers.