Fake Greenhouse Effect for Fake Science

Did you know that there are two “greenhouse effects”?

One is what we find in an actual, real greenhouse and thus actually physically exists and is real.

The other is an entirely different scheme invented for Anthropogenic Climate Change pseudoscience and is literally based upon flat Earth theory, and it is NOT found in a real greenhouse, or anywhere else, because it is fake.


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

38 Responses to Fake Greenhouse Effect for Fake Science

  1. Malcolm A Smith says:

    Simplified the earth gets sunlight/daylight and heats the planet doing it’s half of the job while the moonlight/nighttime does it’s half of the job cools the planet. Since the earth is flat this can’t happen at the same time. Factor in the known fact good ole Terra is round the convection happened mile by miles hour by hour day by day year by year. I’m getting long. You do the science I’ll think of a easy way for me the comprehend it all.

  2. Rosco says:

    Surely the atmospheric radiation is diffuse, in the absolute sense that there is no point source and there is no vector quantity, whilst the solar radiation is a vector quantity emitted by a “point” object on aveage 149.6 million kilometres distant. It is pseudoscience to consider it valid to algebraically sum these 2 entirely different quantities.

  3. Alarmists will try to tell you that this s a straw man.

    Oh, we know how a real greenhouse works. It is unfortunate that this name was chosen, and we have constantly clarified this.

    My response would be:

    So, why did you stick with the wrong name to begin with? Why didn’t you change it right away? Why does your heuristic have a space between the representation of Earth’s atmosphere and the representation of Earth’s surface, as if the atmosphere were a pane of glass, and there’s some other stuff between the two where “heat is trapped”?

    What is that space between those two flat lines, anyway? There’s no space between Earth’s atmosphere and the surface — they touch in such a way that the air is an extension of the surface.
    That space falsely separates the two, which enables you to falsely characterize the two and falsely characterize the relationship between the two.

    Why continue to use a wrong name? Why try to redefine an original idea as something entirely different? Why hijack the term, “greenhouse”? Why do you still reference historical figures who dealt with glass panes, as the foundation of your re-definition of a wrong term that you continue to use, despite your knowing better?

    It is your theory that is made of straw, and clarifying this, via the original concept to which the term refers, is the purpose of discussing real greenhouses.

  4. Marshall Rosenthal says:

    “Climate scientists” can’t even account for the weather in the past, never mind the “climate” in ten, or twenty, or thirty,……, years. When I want to find out how warm or cold it is, I stick my finger out the window!

  5. Joseph E Postma says:

    Exactly RK…that backtracking they attempt is entirely fallacious and refutes and exposes itself. As I said in the previous vid, if it isn’t the real thing, then where is the real thing? Besides we do use valid heuristics all the time…but this one has nothing to do with reality whatsoever, and the truth is, it is the entire basis of the climate fraud and even modern climate physics science.

  6. Christopher Marshall says:

    They are now changing tactics with the climate sophistry perhaps you hit a nerve after all? Now a new version is being spread that CO2 doesn’t absorb and trap the radiation coming from the Earth but in fact traps incoming radiation from reaching the Earth and heating up the atmosphere (apparently like the Thermosphere which reflects that heat out into space).

    This doesn’t make sense because CO2 absorbs and ejects the radiation and therefore under the simplest laws of Thermodynamics it would cool anyway. I am giving you the direct comment below:

    “it is not just that. If the earth did not have the greenhouse gases to actually keep the heat from escaping back into space, it would be an uninhabitable place for us all. However, if there is too much of the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, it will trap in more heat, which results in the heating up of our planet to catastrophic levels. Just because it hits the earth with a LOT of heat energy, doesnt mean the earth will keep all of it in unless it has the means to do so.

    “dude, that is not AT ALL what greenhouse gases do. they trap in heat that the sun emits toward the Earth. If you had a basic grasp of climate science, which you probably don’t from what you said. OF COURSE nothing can just spontaneously have its own supply of energy out of no where. you legit thought we were that retarted? edit sorry for my language i saw later in comment section i should read first before replying lol”

  7. Joseph E Postma says:

    And of course all they can do is insert as much ad-hom as they can. Disgusting freaks. Well send them my recent spate of videos. They’re just making shit up at this point…just entirely inventing word salad.

  8. Allen Eltor says:

    You should do a video series about the actual way the temperature of the Atmosphere IS calculated for the International Standard Atmosphere.

    Start with the Ideal Gas Law.

    Explain how the chart of the law was created by Regnault etc,

    who wrote the law,

    what the law accomplished,

    then explain what the law did for civilization: it’s industrial ramifications.

    Then on to how the ISA was first calcualated and published by the French in 1864,

    then how Rutherford did his best to stop the world from adopting those FORMAL, LEGAL, BASE CLIMATE VALUES FOR THE PLANET and how the whole world finally adopted them, those values, in 1950.

    Then, on to how the US wrote the American or formally the U.S. Standard Atmosphere which basically re-printed the ISA and extended calculated and measurement-verified values up another couple of hundred thousand feet to help other nations get into the computerized-flight Orbital age.

    You’re talking to an audience who has now only been told wrong things

    but who have NOT been told the name of the actual law used in calculating the ISA,

    why the ISA is used and how accurate it is, etc.

  9. Joseph E Postma says:

    That’s not quite my area of concern in demonstrating the fraud of the RGHE. That is all interesting for sure…but becoming too much like an actual science classroom! I just want to show the public what science has done to itself.

  10. Allen Eltor says:

    That’s “who has not only been told”

  11. Christopher Marshall says:

    This was my curt reply I really didn’t want to take up too much time on something this stupid which they will most likely keep spinning anyway.

    “You are partially correct CO2 and NO (Nitric Oxide)in the atmosphere as you describe it absorbs and releases the radiation back out into space. That’s why the Thermospehre is so hot and the Thermosphere protects us from the blunt of most Solar Storms:

    “Infrared radiation from CO2 and NO, the two most efficient coolants in the thermosphere, re-radiated 95% of that total back into space (from solar storms.)” -NASA

    So again no trapping just absorb and release. These storms also naturally create more radiocarbon (14Co2) in the upper atmosphere.

  12. Eilert says:

    Hi Joe

    One of the Flat Earhter’s has responded to your post:

    Is he only pretending to not understand what you are saying or is he misdirecting?

  13. Joseph E Postma says:

    “Is he only pretending to not understand what you are saying or is he misdirecting?”

    That is precisely what he is doing, yep. At this point these people are moving to a con-game proper: the confidence game. Now that their science has been exposed as utter pseudoscientific flat Earth fraud, all they have left is to feign confidence to create the appearance that they have a position, to feign confidence so that weaker minds find solace and direction in it, that weaker minds will find comfort in being led by a feigned confidence, etc. And they merely have to use world-salad in a confident-sounding way, using their influence, to do it.

    He’s has even gone so far as to call me equivalent to a flat Earther, when that is the very thing I am pointing out is WRONG with those greenhouse effect diagrams and the math that goes with it.

    From FB:

    Roy Spencer: “If I have continuous measurements at some location for 24 hours of some quantity, and compute an average over those 24 hours, you are going to claim they are for a “flat Earth”??”

    When that’s what the drawing shows, and that’s what the numbers mean, then YES.

    Why not average the impulse from a rocket engine over the entire time the rocket is flying to the moon? After-all, you’re measuring the thrust the whole time. It’s an average impulse for the rocket, right?

    Oh, but, that average impulse then becomes mathematically diluted into time and space it never occurs, and becomes so low that the impulse thrust could have never lifted the rocket off of the Earth’s surface, and so…the impulse from the rocket engine must have “pushed back” and made itself stronger, many times stronger, than the weak impulse from the chemical reaction itself averaged over the lifetime of the rocket. LOL

  14. Well, I’ve never participated in Roy’s blog before, but I just left about three or four replies over there.

    I noticed that Willis chimed in. I haven’t checked to see whether I have been attacked yet. All of my replies were to Roy. I attempted to be polite.

    It’s funny how they berate someone for cursing. When you hit your finger with a hammer, do you calmly say ouch, try to gather your center, chant, and meditate, while the pain dissipates? NO — you curse.

    Some forms of blockheadedness are that painful.

  15. Joseph E Postma says:

    I can’t stomach going over there…but please do post links to my recent vids if anyone goes back 🙂

  16. [“If I have continuous measurements at some location for 24 hours of some quantity, and compute an average over those 24 hours, you are going to claim they are for a “flat Earth”??”]

    How is this even a relevant analogy? One cannot average any old quantity. The average has to make sense and have some use. We’re not just talking about “some” quantity. We are talking about a rate. A rate is something that is ongoing. If you have a flux, then wouldn’t this flux be a given rate? — a given rate that would not change for 24 hours? — unless the sun were going through cycles of dimming and brightening over those 24 hours?

    Okay, let’s consider “some quantity”, number of apples, say. In 24 hours, I picked 240 apples. It just so happens that I spent 3 hours in the morning picking, 10 hours later picking, 2 hours later, then 9 hours straight, without any sleep. So, I picked an average of 10 apples an hour. But we are talking about a quantity of things over a span of time. This average makes sense.

    Flux, however, is not a thing that accumulates. It is a rate of flow, right? The flux would be a fairly stable number over the entire 24 hours, and so to divide it (a rate of flow) by 24 would not make any sense.

    Flux is joules per second per square meter. Does joules per second per square meter per hour, then, make any sense? I don’t think that it does. But again, solar flux would not vary over twenty-four hours.

    Roy would confuse amount of daylight with amount of sunlight, in order to save face.

    On a separate note, the impulse from a rocket would weaken itself (via “back impulse”) to make itself stronger, infinitely, until the rocket reached the speed of light, becoming so massive that it outweighed the entire universe.

  17. Thomas Homer says:

    If we were to drag a ‘V’ notched trowel over the entire Sahara Desert such that the surface area is doubled, then according to the divide-by-4-to-average-the-flux-theory, we can divide the energy the Sahara Desert receives from the sun by two and it won’t get so hot.

  18. Joseph E Postma says:

    Please do try to comment there and actually link a few recent vids. This is a good sample:

  19. I posted the inversion-of-reality vid over there. Let’s see whether Anthony allows it.

  20. Great! Yes, let’s see…

  21. I also posted the climate-creates-itself vid.

    I re-watched both of those vids, where I think it’s important for people to see you actually coming across as pleasantly instructive, as opposed to outrageously critical. They get to see the other side of the coin, so to speak, instead of just judging you on one side.

    I wouldn’t want somebody to see me when I mash my finger with a hammer. There’s really more to me than that appearance would make. (^_^) Or when I’m working on some construction or home repair project — where cursing is positively necessary to get things to work right.

    People who deal with real-world building stuff curse. “Son of a b***, mo#!&%f___ing nail !” — A key response, when a finishing nail that you are driving by hand into a piece of molding bends, thus marring the desired perfect look you were going for, because you have to get it out, possibly scaring the wood or making a bigger hole that you have to fill and sand, before painting.

  22. Even though you are not in the WUWT fray, you’ve got it buzzing over there, and I’m in the fray. (^_^)

    Wills candidly and politely pointed out to me that lighting a candle during the daytime makes the sun warmer. I intend to politely thank him for this “curious fact”, as he labels it. Who knew?

  23. Christopher Marshall says:

    Sometimes with these trolls I want to trash them heatedly but then I get responses like this and it tells me to keep calm but the conflict continues:

    “I quite like this debate your well spoken and I’m quite happy you just didn’t write me off as some globalist idiot”

  24. Keep linking my vids 🙂 if possible…

  25. swt says:

    Hello good sirs,

    Reading WUWT’s comments on Mr Spencer’s article about Joe’s ideas, I’ve stumbled upon this:

    “The sun illuminates a disc of area pi r^2 24/7. The total surface of a sphere is 4 pi r^2. So the average insolation of the surface of the sphere is one quarter. That is high school maths not rocket science or astrophysics.”

    Let’s, for a moment, presume that this averaging is OK. Can someone please explain me why they divide by 4, not by 2? The other half of the sphere is not illuminated, as far as I can tell.

  26. Joseph E Postma says:

    If you guys could please try to get my new post video, the response to Roy, posted at this site and at WUWT, that would be great help! 🙂

  27. Joseph E Postma says:

    @swt – I’ll do another video today discussing that quotation in your comment above.

  28. Sunsettommy says:

    I have not seen a single post from you at Watts blog or Roy’s blog, are you blocked from commenting there?

  29. Joseph E Postma says:

    I haven’t been attempting too…but yes I am blacked at WUWT the last few times I’ve tried to comment there, and haven’t tried at Roy’s in a long time.

    In any case, this is all the response I require:

    I will supplement it with another video later today.

  30. Sunsettommy says:

    Have you tried to post in the Postma post at WUWT?

    I would think you be allowed to post in THAT thread, since it is about you and what you write.

  31. Joseph E Postma says:

    I haven’t.

  32. Sunsettommy says:

    Try posting one and see what happens.

  33. Joseph E Postma says:

    I posted this at WUWT:

    “Here is my video response:

    https://www.you tube.com/watch?v=S-ezv5AckDk

    I will do another follow-up today I think to address one of the central comments made in the OP here, which will help clarify things.”

    It went into moderation. That’s why I usually ask you guys to post my vids there 🙂

  34. Sunsettommy says:

    Ok, did it get posted now?

    I will look there.

  35. Sunsettommy says:

    It was posted, by a Mod.

  36. Sunsettommy says:

    “[Thank you for the courtesy of your reply here. .mod]”

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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