Roy Spencer published an article today stating that I am incorrectly ranting about the fraud of flat Earth theory making its way into modern physics via climate science. I analyze his statement and expose that climate science truly is indeed flat Earth theory: it is baked into the mathematics!
He’s brought me lots of new friends requests. As has Willis. I love it when people’s attempts to discredit us, simply ends up with us getting more followers.
The great thing is, is that our arguments against the greenhouse effect ARE our main argument against the climate change scam. But for them, they are not combatting Hansen or Mann or Cox or Nigh or deGrasse Tyson when they argue with us. So I can call a truce with them and still post your videos (because I’m actually only targeting climate alarmism) but each time they respond, it looks like they’re deliberately being petty and wasting time arguing with us, instead of rebutting climate alarmism in their own way. I’ve sold four more books just from a reaction to their comments on my page!! 😂😂😂
That’s awesome WWF! 🙂 Do try to get this video response posted to their comment sections. I will do a follow-up again today, just to hammer the point once again with a slightly different analysis and more fancy graphics.
That was great — friendly, informative, being the opposite of what they say you are. The REAL Postma on his diplomatic stage. (^_^)
I was just thinking too that if the Earth is flat, then the atmosphere above it is made flat, and so you have a flat Earth with a flat atmosphere — another physical impossibility.
Spreading the solar constant around the entire Earth-sphere surface would be the same as unwrapping the Earth-sphere surface as a projection of a flat disc, four times the surface area of the intercept disc used to calculate the solar constant, assuming you kept Earth at the same distance from the sun.
So, use the Earth-radius intercept disc to figure solar flux on a hemisphere. Now stretch that disc to four times its surface area, which would be what (?), twice the radius of the correct disc (?), in order to wrap-project it around the sphere.
Or have a bunch of suns, at one-fourth the solar constant illuminating the sphere all around (perpetual twilight on a sphere).
No matter how you try to look at it, the divide-by-four-to-figure-solar-input is an unphysical, absurd fantasy posing as reality.
You’ll love the follow-up I have planned RK…given your comment 🙂
OMG that’s so PERFECT! I am using that later today in my next vid for sure!!!!!!!!!
Spencer is making the classic matematical climate error of “output = input” where the satellite measured output does indeed relate to the sphere but that does NOT mean the output equals input over the same time period. Input equals twice the output over half the time span! Spencer simply can’t connect the dots!
RK, you’re a MASTER graphics expert; best I have ever seen!
The giff is NOT mine — it’s a wiki graphic of a Generalized Lambert equal-area projection.
But this one IS mine, inspired by the giff, which I whipped up today:
Love it. Will use that too.
If I had the skill, then I would make that gif fade from the bright yellow to a lighter yellow, in sequence with the flattening, to illustrate the dilution of intensity. Alas, may kung fu is not that good. (^_^)
Yah that is what I am doing with my own simplistic graphics in PPT & Visio…by just setting the transparency of objects to 75% when illustrating divide by 4 etc.
It’s like the Earth surface unfolds down into a flat surface, while the Earth atmosphere unfolds up into a flat surface above it, with some mystery space in between, where atmosphere and surface are NOT in contact.
So TOTALLY unphysical !
The only way to really drive home your point is with a 3-D animated model too bad you don’t know someone who could do that. A real time model would be freaking amazing. Even kids could understand the science behind that.
You cannot spread the suns radiation uniformly over the whole spherical and expect correct results, because the relationship between radiation and temperature is highly non-linear (to the fourth power).
If it was linear then that wouldn’t matter, but in this case it is not.
Great stuff Joseph !!! .. I love watching Spencer put back into his place. How this guy ever figured out the temperature series data from the AQUA satellite, is beyond me. He seems dumb as a box of rocks to me. I am not a physicist and yet I destroyed him on his website about 10 years ago. He finally just banned me because he could not successfully rebut my refutation of his nonsense.
Spencer is such an asshat…
I haven’t watched the video yet and couldn’t resist seeing Spencer’s site.
I almost choked on my coffee when I read this :-
“Next in that article, Joe’s (mistaken) value for the solar constant is then used to compute the resulting Earth-Sun distance implied by us silly climate scientists who believe the solar constant is 342.5 W/m2 (rather than the true value of 1,370 W/m2). He gets twice the true, known value of the Earth-Sun distance, simply because he used a solar flux that was off by a factor of 4.”
It is trivial to use NASA’s Planetary Fact Sheets values to calculate NASA’s value of 1361 W/m2 as the solar constant and equally trivial to show that to arrive at the value “silly climate scientists who believe the solar constant is 342.5 W/m2” requires twice the distance from the Sun.
Is he being deceptive or simply incompetent ?
It is their stupid “silly climate scientists who believe the solar constant is 342.5 W/m2” value that gives twice the distance from the Sun for Earth – not the value of 1361 W/m2 !
Great stuff. But…. The video’s are way too repetitive..get boringly so. Having made the point at least 2 or 3 times, move on to the preferred answer or just stop. Honestly, waaaay tooo repetitive and overly labours the point. You risk losing people…many readers and followers have math/physics smarta and as such deserve more than such repitiveness gives them credit for. Just sayin coz I am a fan. Note I stated my point twice, then stopped?
Keep up the otherwise enjoyable blogs.
Interesting theory the only thing I would like to note, it’s great your looking at the planet as a sphere, the flaw I see is the sun is not constant. W/m2 changes between solar maximum & solar minimum.
Reblogged this on Tallbloke's Talkshop and commented:
Readers can comment in this disagreement/misunderstanding/debate here at The Talkshop and/or at Joe Postma’s own website (link below).
Roy Spencer’s post that kicked it off is here.
One key concept in radiation physics is that the effect is instantaneous and that it exclusively applies to bodies or parts of them that are affected by illumination. As such, and at a given time, only half of the Earth surface is illuminated by the sun and that is the part that one should consider in the calculations of averages or in the ensuing logical discussions. No thermal inertia, no heat exchanges other than radiative process should be considered in the calculations. One can always do/justify some mathematics but calculating radiative averages with the full Earth surface, where half of that is not illuminated, is meaningless from the point of view of radiation physics. That brings us to solar radiation of 680 W/m2 (instead of 340 W/m2) which correcting by a net albedo of 0.29 gives 482.8 W/m2 (instead of 240 W/m2). Translating into average temperatures gives 304 K or 30°C (255 K or -18°C) which goes against the common understanding of the GHG effect that should warm the Earth. By using properly the instantaneous property of radiation we conclude that the world without atmosphere should be 16°C hotter that the measured average (288 K or 15°C) and therefore the effect of the GHGs should be to cool it. Nice catch Dr. Postma
I do not agree that the videos are too repetitive. Here’s what you wrote, with my alternate view on your points:
[“The video’s are way too repetitive..get boringly so.”]
Again, I did not get this impression. For people who already know, yeah, but for people who do not quite get it, have never quite gotten it, or who NEED lots of repetition, I think the flow, the tone, and the repetition are fine.
[“Having made the point at least 2 or 3 times, move on to the preferred answer or just stop. Honestly, waaaay tooo repetitive and overly labours the point.”]
Honestly, no, I seriously do not agree — saying it slightly different ways, with slightly different manners, in slightly different rhythms, in a calm, sincere, conversational tone is EXACTLY what some people need, especially those who might not be so quick, and who tend to be more emotionally driven, less efficient intellectually, and who finally might get their attention shaped by the next rep, having recovered from the shock of resisting the first rep.
[“You risk losing people…many readers and followers have math/physics smarta and as such deserve more than such repitiveness gives them credit for.”]
Well, other readers and followers do NOT, and these are the ones who likely rule the media and the offices of governmental power. Have you SEEN the sorts of people in political positions? (^_^) Those are precisely the sorts of dense heads that need it drilled into them this way. Consider it a workshop in how to teach dummies, and maybe participate in teaching the masses, rather than elevate in favor of the Mensa.
[“Just sayin coz I am a fan. Note I stated my point twice, then stopped?”]
And you could have stated it again, and I would not have gotten bored. (^_^) … I just would have disagreed with you again, … more than twice.
Excellent comment @jelorenzo
Hi Joe. I’m into cooking marshmallows and I have two ways of doing it and the earths greenhouse theory tells me I should get the same result. I cook them with a infared heat lamp slowly rotating one them over 24 hours on full power in front of the lamp the other way is I flatten my spherical marsh mellow and turn the lamp down to quarter power and leave it for 24 hours. You know they just don’t taste the same. Hell, they don’t even look the same. Ones a little ball of crunchy fluffiness and the others just a gooey mess. Having the cat come and sleep in front of lamp for 3 hours didn’t help nor did the wet dog who came in and shook himself all over the marshmallows.
Just saying from a layman’s point of view, I get ya. Hope this put a smile on your face. keep up the good work.
Haha I did laugh thanks!
So if I have a picture that has a correctly expose beach scene, some very, very bright sandy and sea areas, and some very dark rock cliffs in shadow. Between these extreme are all the usual blue/green sea, trees and people with their colorful garb and seaside paraphernalia of beach balls, parasols, etc., etc.
Now if I process this picture by blurring it by an extreme amount I find that that it is exactly the same as a standard middle gray reference in both color and brightness, and that this is 1 quarter of the brightness of the brightest part of the original whole image.
Now if I apply climate type ‘science’ to 1/4 of the blurred image I should be able to resolve all the fine details of color and brightness that was in the original, just mathematically!
Ain’t ‘climate science™’ wonderful.
I don’t get it. area of a circle = πr², area of a sphere = 4πr², hence one reduces the incoming solar flux by 4 to compensate for the sunlight being intercepted by a sphere in a thermal balance calculation. Seems like simple physics to me. What am I missing?
New here but find your presentation very interesting.
Strange answer from Roy Spencer.
This scientist seems to agree with you that there is no green house effect:
Did you try running your theory by people like Nir Shaviv or Henrik Svensmark?