In this video I give another empirical demonstration, using a magnifying glass, that basic climate theory and its resulting political weather alarmism is fundamentally flawed at its basis and that the entire field of climate science is basically pseudoscience that even children can refute.
See the previous article on this perspective as well:
Climate of Sophistry 
Thaks Joe, another splendid explanation of the true power of the sun.
I don’t think nonsense can be debunked.
If it wasn’t for GHGs your fire would’ve been 33°K colder. That’s what they’ll say.
The reason that the paper catches fire is because of back magnification. Clearly Postma does not understand basic optics. (^_^)
Amusing considering even they say the thermosphere is the hottest layer of the atmosphere.Then again that would be pointless to argue as well since they have said before that CO2 in the thermosphere reflects incoming solar radiation and prevents outgoing radiation from leaving. A person in a cult never accepts they are in a cult and we all know climate change has gathered a cult following. These nutjobs will mock a Christian for believing in God because they say he doesn’t exist and yet they are also worshipers of something that doesn’t exist.
The herd mentality gathers around a single thought to agree on for comfort and security regardless of what validity that thought contains.
just like lemmings on a cliff and then…
over…
the…
cliff…
they…
go…
All we need is some practical application – oh wait :-
Here’s an idea – use 4 times the number of mirrors made of highly polished metal so that the reflect significant IR and the plant could produce electricity 24/7 !
After all the greenhouse effect model says back radiation has equal power to the solar.
You also don’t need the sun to be high in the sky – I’ve scorched wood in the early morning in winter at ~7:00 am. Just because the Sun’s power normal to the surface is reduced by the area considerations doesn’t mean the power over a surface normal to its direction is reduced to any large extent – other than traversing more atmosphere. I live at ~27° S so our sun is hot most of the year.
I have a temperature sensor in a large room situated ~4.5 metres from a set of doors facing north west with insect screens which are quite dark.
At 4:15 pm yesterday it read ~23°C while another thermometer not exposed to any light from the west read ~20°C. When the sun hit it directly it increased to ~33°C in approximately 10 minutes even though the sun is low on the horizon at this time – 12 July is winter and the sun sets at 5:10 pm. The other thermometer not exposed to any light from the west read still ~20°C.
Climate science is absurd pseudoscience.
It’s quite amazing just how far back into the school system you have to go to find the level of education required to correct the false paradigm. Obviously these PhD climate scientists had very substandard kindergarten teachers and they have never been able to overcome the original misinformation they accepted there.
Hahaha
But yah…this is FN ridiculous. I mean, you’re actually full-on serious too with that!
My brother got a light tan on a cloudy day just to prove the power of the Sun back in the 80s.
I am honestly trying to remember how young I was when I learned about the Sun and condensation. I wrote a short story about the rain drop that made it into the school paper in like the 2nd grade for gad’s sake. The second grade we were taught about convection and condensation. The second grade! Lol what on earth is a climate PhD equivalent to? The first grade fantasy class on puff the magic climate gas? I admit I had forgotten most of it(thank you to you guys for re-igniting those teachings and adding so much more ) but what is a climate scientist’s excuse?
In the fifth grade my school project for the year was was various clouds and weather conditions. It would have gotten me an A but I asked my brother to draw for myself a tornado and I got a D. Why? Never ask a big brother in advanced high school physics to do something simple. He drew the tornado so life like with all the graphs and diagrams of pressure elevation, various wind speeds and temperature points the teacher knew it wasn’t me. In my brother’s mind that was a simple diagram of a tornado. Perhaps he should have pursued climate science so he could teach these guys the power of the Sun 20 years ago?
On your next to last video you took them by the hand. On this one you are taking them by two hands. What’s next ?… dancing !!!
Great work! Thanks, Joe: https://principia-scientific.org/how-magnifying-glass-physics-debunks-climate-alarm/
On your next to last video you took them by the hand. On this one you are taking them by two hands. What’s next ?… dancing !!!
No, no, no, Pierre B !! I used to teach dance, and I can tell you that here is where you learn that some people simply do NOT have a sense of rhythm. You could drill the basics all day long, but they would never get the simplest steps, because they simply cannot feel rhythm. You can put their hands on a speaker where the base is pumping, tell them to feel it and tap their foot to the beat, but, no, they cannot do it, because they are missing whatever component it is that allows them to feel rhythm.
Not everybody is like this of course, and sometimes failure to learn is a less disturbing cause, like simply not having learned or practiced enough.
Rather than dancing, I think that what’s next might need to be a leash, like when you train a dog how to walk without pulling. Some of these people seem incapable of dancing. Leash training is possibly a better approach.
So, am I calling some PhDs dogs? Well, there is a “D” in there that could stand for “Dogs”. But wait, “dog” is also “god” spelled backwards, so maybe, in their convoluted, inverted minds, they think that they are gods.
I was thinking Joseph could don a straw hat and guitar and take this on the road. “The singing physicist.”
He could sing science to kids in school while teachers give him blank stares not having a darn clue what he was talking about. Then if approached by a said teacher/alarmists he can just say. “creative license.”
RK,
There are 2 types of amusias, tone deaf and beat deaf. I guess the majority of them suffer from both both ! 🙂
RK
The zeroth law of thermodynamics… Heat can be transferred from one object to another only if there’s a temperature difference between them.
Pauken, Mike. Thermodynamics For Dummies (p. 34-35). Wiley. Kindle Edition.
Temperature is really a concept used to describe the direction in which heat transfer takes place. Heat is a form of energy that naturally flows from hot to cold temperatures.
Pauken, Mike. Thermodynamics For Dummies (p. 20). Wiley. Kindle Edition.
The Impact of the Second Law identifies the natural or spontaneous direction a process will go. For example, heat flows from hot to cold; pressure flows from high to low.
Pauken, Mike. Thermodynamics For Dummies (p. 112). Wiley. Kindle Edition
Are you telling me that not only they can’t sing or dance, they can’t read either ??? Not even the simplest of things ???
I’ve heard of students finishing high school who can’t read, but PhD’S ???
The zeroth law of thermodynamics for that famous 97% consensus… “Heat can be transferred from one object to another if our math says so.
Temperature is a number that dictates the flow of energy from cold to hot.
With a PhD, the Impact of the Second Law can be cleverly contrived to allow any damn thing we please.”
Yeah, they can read, but somehow not the same words that other do. Some people see dead people. Some mentally challenged children see CO2. Some PhDs see unicorns.
STATEMENT # 1 of the obvious: Sun shine has its immediate effect on one half of the globe, while having NO immediate effect on the other half of the globe. Average sunshine does not exist.
Just because a physical body has adjacent curvature of its surface located out of the range of a physical effect does not mean that the physical body can claim an influence of the physical effect on another part of it.
I’m lying outside getting a sun tan. The front side of my body gets tan. The other side does not, and yet I can claim that an average amount of sunshine encounters my whole body and that I have an average depth of tan over my whole body.
Average tanning rays do not exist — this is a confusion of language.
The average is not the input! The average isn’t what determines the physics that occurs. The average says nothing about the physical responses in real time. Average vs. physics are ENTIRELY disconnected.
Joseph, your videos are getting better and better. Visuals are a great way to explain complicated issues.
Eyeballing the areas of the magnifying glass, and the resulting spot on the paper, I estimated a area ratio of about 100. As far north as you are, you were probably getting no more than 550 Watts/m^2. That means you were approaching 55,000 Watts/m^2. And, you were using fairly light-colored paper. Had you used dark paper, with higher emissivity, you could easily reach temperatures of about 700 ºC. (The combustion temperature of paper is about 230-240 ºC.)
And, I’m not even counting all the additions from CO2… 🙂
Keep up the great effort. The truth is getting out!
JP,
There’s a little twerp trying to debunk you.
He’s too stupid to even understand you.
This is what it looks like when you buck against the propaganda machine. People are heavily invested in global warming and you are pissing on their bank accounts. My apologies for younger viewers and college snowflakes who aren’t use to hearing language.
Zoe got a self righteous girl on that site named Angel Mendez-Rivera, if you like get her, I love a good girl fight.
@Zoe – gross. The voice, the pretend thinking, pretend science…ugh gross.
Imagine if they got links to more recent vids 🙂
Professor Stick has a big head on a body that lacks substance — how perfectly symbolic of the situation with climate alarmists.
I hereby stick it to Professor Stick and his propagation of the 97%-consensus lie:
https://img1.wsimg.com/isteam/ip/0c2f60c1-e6de-489f-ae3e-d08b73db7f70/Fact%2030-0002.jpg/:/rs=w:600,cg:true,m
Why cant people get along ?
The comments on that vid from Zoe’s link are hilarious. Flat Earth trolls and climate freaks all mixed together.
I loved the one comment about “The greatest crossover event in history” haha. I should do a video titled that…would only take 5 minutes to explain!
I added a couple of comments just with links to my channel…hopefully they get clicked.
What blathering idiots that Stick figure attracted! It’s like being dropped into a zone dominated by brain-dead zombies, but I ventured in there with a few comments of my own, not under the name I use here.
Robert,
I’m very certain the whole zombie genre was invented by observing extreme leftists, communists, etc. Unfortunately they don’t understand that.
Seriously what the heck? A PhD over there refused to talk to me. They were so offended at my comment on peer review in climate science is a joke. Ha ha they just got found out and didn’t want to pursue the argument. She sounded like a weak version of Zoe so much so I think they may have bought a ‘Zoe’ clone to toe the climate science line. Poor fools you can’t clone Zoe.
hahahha “No real legs” lost it! 🙂
Oh, I forgot — I meant to do a side view, which would be a straight line of very little thickness, indicating a grave deficiency of depth, when it comes to real insight.
Hahaha 🙂
From the video :-
“The part of the model that we are interested in is that increased greenhouse gases leads to a decrease in emissivity which leads to higher temperatures and why would a disagreement on solar input even have any relationship to a flat earth whatsoever and how does this invalidate this model’s understanding of emissivity ?” Misses the point about the 240 W/m2 input causing a maximum of 255 K.
Therefore a decrease in emissivity essentially means in the context of the Stefan-Boltzmann equation less energy in terms of W/m2 is emitted by Earth to space.
Am I mistaken in the belief this graph clearly shows that over the period of man’s increasing CO2 emissions the amount of radiation escaping to space has been increasing, and especially so since the Chinese industrialization commenced in the mid to late 90’s ?
Surely a positive anomaly contradicts the text ?
Yah and note that the GHE and GHGs have never been about reducing emissivity and this contradicts basic backradiation theory! GHGs cant reduce the emissivity of ANOTHER surface anyway…lol.
So, a change in a few hundred parts per million of atmospheric gases would supposedly change the emissivity of the whole Earth surface? What surface are they talking about? — water/ground? … ten-meter volumetric shell near water-ground? … top of atmosphere?
It all gets sort of hazy as to what the word, “surface” would actually mean. And still it would be for the whole planet, and so I don’t see any reality in any statement about reducing emissivity of some surface. It has to be for the whole Earth, and a gas, in this small a concentration, seemingly, no way, could change the response of the whole planet this way.
They claim that GHG’s reduce the emission to space from the surface. Thus the emissivity they talk about is the whole Earth “ensemble” of atmosphere and surfaces.
But our atmosphere isn’t primarily heated by radiation from the surface – the numbers just don’t stack up. Even water vapour at a couple of percent doesn’t absorb across the whole spectrum and CO2 has only the ~15 micron band from the surface’s radiation. At the other 2 bandwidths where CO2 is active the emissions from ambient Earth surface temperatures are insignificant – onlt the solar radiation has any real power in these so CO2 reduces the impact on the solar radiation – albeit only marginally because of its concentration.
99% of the atmosphere heats up daily – from about 7°C to 20°C in the five hours since the sun rose this morning and this is by conduction and convection. The chance of trace gases causing this by absorbing radiation and heating the vast mass that does not absorb IR are very unlikely.
This is a very interesting point Rosco. Backradiation is as important as direct downwelling sunlight, once averaged over a day. Why isn’t it used ? Any comments ?
JP
If you pursued a doctorate in climate you’d push these guys over the edge. They would absolutely lose it.
I know this is old stuff but yet…
The Sun’ s rays on the incident meridian have a reduced efectivenes as we move away from the zenith towards the poles. The loss is a cosine function. The exposed surface of the Earth is larger at the equator then at the poles and is also a cosine function. Therefore the incident flux on that meridian is cos^2(y). The integral from -Pi/2 to +Pi/2. is Pi/2. The lenght of the meridian,s arc is Pi. Therefore the average flux on that meridian is Pi / 2 / Pi = 1/2. Sum it up for 12 hours you get 1/2 * Pi / Pi = 1/2.
🙂
And…
Integrating for x and y from -23.5 to 23.5 the function 1368 * cos(x) * cos^2 (y) dy dx and dividing by the surface of the spherical wedge part included in the limits ( 848,4 / 0,65419) gives 1294 W/m^2.
Integrating for y from -23.5 to 23.5 the function 1368 * cos^2(y) dy and dividing by the arc’s lenght gives 1293 and since it’s already an average for the meridian, multiplying by 47*Pi/180 for the total and dividing by the same for the average, we get 1293 W/m^2
Close !!! The 2 methods are equivalent.
Youppy !!!
The ensemble of atmosphere and surface is not a surface — it is a volumetric shell (i.e., with thickness) partitioned into various layers. It seems, then, that the application of the SB law becomes inadmissible for this reason alone. The … “surface” … is NOT a black-body surface. Compressing all this into the so called “average-height-of-emission” surface seems like an improperly contrived stretch.
How is it admissible to mash an atmosphere into an imaginary … “surface” … so that a person can claim that the SB law applies? It seems to me that the initial flaw is at a deeper, more fundamental level than mere disagreement with the numbers that don’t add up.
My comment to this:
“The part of the model that we are interested in is that increased greenhouse gases leads to a decrease in emissivity which leads to higher temperatures and why would a disagreement on solar input even have any relationship to a flat earth whatsoever and how does this invalidate this model’s understanding of emissivity ?”
would be this:
To speak of a “decrease in emissivity leading to higher temperatures” depends on a basic model, for which the solar input determines the numbers enabling you to say that this supposed decrease exists. If the model gives the wrong numbers, then the numbers give the wrong understanding.
Does that look about right?
Jelorenzo says:
2019/07/16 at 12:33 AM
This is a very interesting point Rosco. Backradiation is as important as direct downwelling sunlight, once averaged over a day. Why isn’t it used ? Any comments ?
Because climate science is pseudoscience !
The basic model of the greenhouse effect – the ONLY model, don’t forget that – says that the back radiation from the atmosphere has at least equal heating power to the solar radiation and that is insane. The laws of heat transfer and thermodynamics mean nothing to them !
Joe demonstrated the power of the sun with a simple magnifying glass and generated heat that would cause serious damage to our skin for example. Schoolchildren understood this when I was young but apparently climate scientists do not.
Now if back radiation were capable of being concentrated to produce any heating effect then a large array of polished metal mirrors which are easily capable of focusing IR would demonstrate the effect.
It hasn’t been demonstrated because it cannot work – it is pseudoscience.
Now the claim about reducing emissivity is an interesting one.
Earth’s atmosphere is primarily transparent to both the incoming solar and the out going surface IR except for Greenhouse gases.
99% of our atmosphere does not absorb any significant quantities of IR and according to climate science 99% does not radiate any significant IR also.
If all of the atmospheric gases radiated significant IR then what difference would 0.04% make ? ZERO basically.
Of course the assertion that 99% of the atmosphere doesn’t radiate IR is a contradiction to basic radiation physics – aren’t objects supposed to emit radiation in accordance with their temperature ?
Therefore adding Greenhouse Gases to an atmosphere may prevent some small percent of surface radiation escaping directly to space BUT climate scientists tell us that 83% of Earth’s radiation to space comes from “Greenhouse Gases” – see Trenberth et al for example. 199/239 = 83%.
So just how does adding more of the only gases capable of emitting IR to space result in heat trapping ? Logic says the emissivity of the atmosphere must increase with extra CO2- although the effects are tiny due to the concentrations. Perhaps extra CO2 explains NASA’s Nimbus graphs I included above – more IR to space not less.
After all the Sun is capable of a mere minus 18°C on average despite the fact that desert surfaces heat to over 70°C – powerful stuff that CO2.
Rosco,
You fail to realize that, if not for panting fleas, an elephant could not dissipate its body heat. (^_^)
I could show you a simple model, but I trust that, for now, you will just take my word for it.
I was bored so I looked through some of the comments from actual IPCC scientists in the InterAcademy Council Investigations. Note unless I am mistaken, none of these comments made it into the official report. These are from the hard working scientists at the bottom not the heads. This is just a very few the entire document is around 700 pages and naturally have some raving reviews in them (properly from those at the head of the departments.) Enjoy or weep at your leisure.
“Very poor. THE idea of saying that there is a very high probability that humans cause global warming is laughable when there are vast gaps in knowledge between the physics of CO2 and the atmosphere.”
“They need to define the problem more clearly, ask well-defined and specific questions and then look for related research that can provide the answers. If they had done this in the first place, they would have quickly found that man’s CO2 emissions have little, if any, effect on climate and might even serve to cool the planet a little bit. If one knows the science related to heattrapping gases, these conclusions are rather easy. It is the politicians, particularly the individuals at the top of the IPCC who definitely have a political agenda, who want the IPCC work to appear monumental and something no one but they can understand. The actual problem is rather easy to ask and answer, but they have a political agenda and cannot have it that way. The top leadership of the IPCC need to be fired and replaced with more impartial, non-Maurice Strong approved people.”
“It is very obvious that IPCC has accepted data that has been proven to be Mann-ipulated because it shows the conclusion they wanted -not the facts. The only way to correct this is to eliminate the IPCC. I have a personal e-mail from a manager of Energy at the National Academy of Science (junk science) stating that they accepted the IPCC reports without question, they have
corrupt “scientists” that are still pushing the lies. I wonder how many shares of stock they have in the carbon credit market?”
“I have a low opinion of the science as there has been no real criticism of the Hockey Stick graph, admission that the Medieval Warm Period was worldwide and warmer than now, CO2’s half-life is falsely represented, the CO2 graph over time is false, being an unethical merging of two unrelated data sets with an 84 year offset, no recognition of solar cycle and natural cycles as they relate to observed temperature changes, wanton adjustment for no good reason of the temperature data to create the impression of warming (just plain fraud) and generally an amazingly bad use of papers of all kinds carefully selected to support a global warming conclusion which is not real. It is time to only look at the real science, open up the debate and get rid of the very biased, goal-driven, agenda-driven processes and scientists who have been dominant to date.”
“AND the water cycle and the huge global heat engine of water vapor MUST be recognized as a massive negative forcing factor along with the admission that computer models are not science and fail miserably at their current level of development as they do not incorporate the real laws of nature and out and out ignore major factors that must be included.”
“There is just plain too much bad science being included in the thinking in the IPCC. Its mission needs to be seriously revised away from showing global warming as a foregone conclusion and to a mission to try to predict through real scientific discourse where our planet is going next. Any observant person can see that our warm peaks have been becoming less warm each time since the Holocene Optimum and the conclusion would be that we are drifting slowly towards the next ice age. Understanding that is much more important than trying to cripple the world’s
economies with a carbon cap and trade and creating a one-world, socialist government because Maurice Strong a a small group want it. The IPCC should not be a political tool and if it is, it should be disbanded entirely and finally as a bad idea, if politics cannot be kept out of it.”
• How accurately is the (clear sky) greenhouse effect calculated in climate models? What is the magnitude of the error in downwelling IR flux from the climate models? In perusing the reports, I can‘t find any discussion on this, only a ?consensus? radiative forcing from doubled CO2 and other greenhouse gases. Are the models adequately treating the water vapor continuum? Are the models adequately treating the water vapor window at low vapor concentrations in the rotation bands?
And then we have a host of issues surrounding radiative transfer in the presence of clouds and aerosols. Not forcing (which is what the assessment reports address), but the fundamental IR/SW fluxes and their errors. What is the rationale for believing sensitivity simulations from a climate model to a small change in IR flux, when the errors in the modeled IR fluxes are much greater than the perturbation?
• Has the clear sky climate sensitivity to doubling CO2 been accurately calculated anywhere, i.e. the average global surface temperature change in response to doubling CO2, taking into account the range of surface types (land, snow/ice, ocean) and how their surface temperatures respond to an increase in downwelling IR? I can‘t find such a calculation like this anywhere, only back of the envelope simple calculations of the direct sensitivity.
• With regards to climate models, their deficiencies are airbrushed. We never see the actual temperatures simulated by the models, only their deviations, hiding fundamental problems of the model temperature simulations. There are no agreed upon metrics for evaluating climate models. There has been no assessment as to whether the atmospheric dynamical cores, which have been useful for numerical weather prediction, are adequate for dealing with climate change issues such as water vapor feedback in an altered climate.
“In order to have a better report I am on the opinion that as much literature as possible should be used. Non-peer reviewed should not be given high priority. If non-reviewed is required then it should be peer reviewed or the originator should be asked to support it objectively.”
“Non peer reviewed literature should be used with caution, but can be very useful in many cases (e.g. data sources) – as long as it is available for scrutiny, it should be allowed in my opnion.”
“There cannot be any assessment of impacts and possible response strategies to climate change on peer-reviewed literature only. The knowledge and experience of government agencies, as well as that of non-governmental organizations, represents a huge part of the human knowledge base and can therefore not be left outside the assessment.”
” I think the IPCC already does as good a job as can be reasonably expected of covering the literature. If the IPCC provided the tutorial for reviewers that I suggest in my answer to 2e, it could include a discussion of non-peer reviewed literature. My WG III chapter depended heavily on non-peer reviewed literature and I have yet to hear a complaint about its quality.”
” IPCC Reports are an assessment by the authors, not a review of the literature and this is a very important distinction. In my view Lead Authors should be free to assess any material which will help them draw the best conclusion. This includes non peer reviewed or ?grey? literature. It is the role of the Lead Authors to consider the source of the information and hence what degree of weight or credibility to attach to it. This information must also be available to reviewers so that they also can base their review comments on the same body of literature as the Lead Authors.”
“I have been involved mainly with the chapters on policy instruments. Governments want the chapter to cover questions of current relevance for which there often ?grey literature? but little peer reviewed literature.”
” A vast amount of literature is reviewed. As noted above to address some of the policy topics it is necessary to use non-peer-reviewed literature. ”
“Restricting the use of non-peer-reviewed literature may disproportionately reduce the non-English literature that can be cited.”
“Getting peer reviewed literature at each step in the process would take a lot of time and coordination. And the literature generated in this manner would only be part of the literature relevant for an assessment of the science. ”
“Working Groups 2 and 3 make more reference to non-peer reviewed literature but that usually occurs in the case where one is trying to provide a citation to demonstrate societal relevance for some issue.”
“Certainly if IPCC can depend only on peer-reviewed literature so much the better, but there some national reports that published that also relevant for the IPCC process but may not be peer-reviewed.”
“Every working scientist knows that the peer-reviewed literature contains a lot of sloppy and weak and erroneous research. Poor papers get published every day. Peer review in practice is in fact a very low bar. Much of the public and the press have seemingly arrived at the incorrect view that peer review is some sort of guarantee of high quality.”
In the Committee’s view, assigning probabilities to imprecise statements is not an appropriate way to characterize uncertainty. If the confidence scale is used in this way, conclusions will likely be stated so vaguely as to make them impossible to refute, and therefore statements of ‘very high
confidence’ will have little substantive value.
This fun youtube exchange exemplifies how unamenable to reason alarmists are.
Zoe Phin:
@Scott Koontz
For some reason climate.nasa.gov doesn’t mention that outgoing longwave radiation has been increasing for the last few decades, in complete contradiction to the AGW theory of how CO2 should warm the earth.
What’s the point of linking to the dumbest dozen employees at NASA?
Scott Koontz:
@Zoe Phin For some reason, NASA deals with OLR all the time, and you cannot find it. Sad.
Of COURSE OLR is increasing, and that is expected when temp rise. This is not in contradiction to AGW, not at all. OLR had damn well bettie be higher otherwise we’d really be toasting.
Read this, and of course in includes the experts from NASA.
Decadal Changes of Earth’s Outgoing Longwave Radiation – MDPIhttps://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/10/10/1539/pdf
Zoe Phin:
@Scott Koontz
“not in contradiction”
Why are you such a filthy liar?
The greenhouse gas theory teaches that GHGs reduce OLR, and this leads to warming. If OLR is increasing (it is), then it’s not GHGs causing it, since GHGs should reduce OLR.
Yes, higher temperatures should increase OLR. Yet the AGW cult’s theory is less OLR -> warming.
The increased temperature is obviously not caused by GHGs. QED
Scott Koontz:
@Zoe Phin “It can be expected that the OLR rises with increasing global temperature. This is a mechanism by which earth can return to a climate equilibrium after an initial perturbation by an external radiative forcing. Our measured value of dOLT/dT can be compared with the model values from [15]. If earth were a blackbody without an atmosphere, the derivation of the Planck curve yields”
Sorry, you filthy liar (I resort to conservative-speak so you can understand.)
Zoe Phin:
@Scott Koontz
Retard, have you read your own paper?
“the increase of Greenhouse Gasses (GHG) primarily CO2
reduces the OLR”
But OLR has increased … from increased temperature.
But your cult claims GHGs warm by REDUCING OLR…
Gosh you are a pathetic waste of human flesh.
Zoe P is employing the Postma-in-postal mode with Scott K. (^_^)
Zoe is a sword not a shield.
Look at the anomaly in the Nimbus graph shown above – almost 10 W/m2 during the 1997/98 El-Niño. As they claim the 2015/16 El-Niño was larger the anomaly must have been even larger. Kinda makes Trenberth et al’s 0.9 W/m2 look pathetic.
How could the satellites possibly record accurate temperatures if the OLR is “trapped” in Earth’s atmosphere ? This claim is just gobbledygook !
Zoe is dead right – it is not possible to reduce OLR thus causing warming at the surface AND at the same time detect more IR by satellites measuring temperatures. Somehow PhD qualified climatologists believe in logical contradiction.
At ~288 K the change in radiative power associated with 1°C change in temperature is almost 5.42 W/m2 hence the anomaly of almost 10 W/m2 in ’97/98 must have been due to almost 2°C increase in temperature. So given the “trapping” effect what must the temperature anomaly have been to allow almost an extra 10 W/m2 through the heat trap ?
Rosco says:
2019/07/16 at 3:06 PM
“Joe demonstrated the power of the sun with a simple magnifying glass and generated heat that would cause serious damage to our skin for example. …”
Agree with your comment. According to the flux measurements (here for instance https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/grad/surfrad/surf_check.php?site=dra&date=2019-07-14&p1=dpsp&p5=dpir&p6=upir ) the amount of downwelling radiation (backradiation) and upwelling radiation is not unimportant at night, 400 W/m2 and 500 W/m2 respectively. That will be fun if one could place a toroidal mirror facing downwards (and repeat that with the mirror facing upwards) and place a thermometer at the focal point. I know the result but a video showing this experiment would be a very compelling argument against backradiation.
Say thanks to NOAA…
and Roy…
Which also proves that the energy was previously stored in the waters by a strong Sun flashing on one side at a time and not a weak one flashing on 2 sides at a time !!!.
jelorenzo,
Keep in mind that the pyrgeometers SUFRAD uses actually only measure the difference between the green and blue lines.
Downwelling infrared radiation is not measured, but COMPUTED:
DIR = UIR – Measured Heat Flux Thru Device
There is no downward flux except during inversions, which can be ignored.
Liars will have you believe DIR is real enegy and not strictly a mathematical artifact of UIR and device heat flux.
Zoe,
Are you saying DIR is just an average of other energy (slow learner) ? So is this the downward version of a back body(Thanks Robert, everytime I say that now I picture a hairy back!) pseudo-science?
Climate science gives me a headaches. Climate Clowns must throw a party get smashed and make more climate science up at the end of the night.
Alice in Climate Land falling down the CO2 spiral hole.
For some reason when I hear “Runaway Greenhouse Gas” I’m picturing it running away with hands over ears.
“You don’t exist, idiot!” I can here the catcalls behind it followed by the feverish scratching of pencils on pads calculating it into oblivion.
“I’m not listening to you!” It responds as it runs away into the hairy back body of the night .
Wait now I’m picturing Spencey with his IR flashlight looking for it. “I’ll find you.”
Don’t worry for the right price it’ll be bought on Go Fund Me.
Climate Clown Comedy Club.
“Climate Clown Comedy Club” deserves a special acronym, but let us write it mathematically:
C4
Thanks Zoe, I did not know that downwelling infrared radiation is not measured, but COMPUTED !!! Amazing !! In any case my proposition of “measuring downwelling radiation” stands. It will certainly give a null result but that will be an experimental result not a mental/mathematical construction. And this is what is needed to disprove it. Take an old basket ball, halve it and cover the inside with aluminum foil (At 3 microns wavelength Al reflectivity is 98% and at 100 microns it approaches 99.5%). That is the equivalent of the magnifying glass used by Joe in his video for visible light. Place the active part of a medical thermometer (or any other more sophisticated device like a Pt100 resistance thermometer) at the center of the halved ball, suspended with nylon threads. The IR radiation coming from the sky (or from the soil) will be focused onto the thermometer. If backradiation exits I would expect IR fluxes comparable to those obtained by Joe with the magnifying glass with visible light. This experiment basically costs a few bucks. Joe, if you want to continue with your experiments here is another one.
Read it as “C to the fourth”.
RK.
Loved it. C4 indeed.
Joe,
I forgot to bookmark the quote you use from Schroeder’s book on Thermodynamics and students problem with confusing heat, energy, and temperature. I have been looking for where you said that and can’t find it. Would you please quote that for me again? Thanks, George
Isn’t it amazing that climate “scientists” believe there are Arrows of Energy whizzing around yet their actual instruments just measure the temperature at the top and bottom very accurately.
Sure, it’s good to have abstract concepts, but Downwelling IR is nothing but an artifact of Upwelling IR and heat flux through pyrgeometer. There is NO Down arrow flowing into the device. Amazing isn’t it?
When climate liars try to scare us with graphs like this:
They are pretending this is how much CO2 heats the earth, but in reality they are showing how much Earth heats CO2 (radiatively).
LOL. Upside down clown world. Honk honk.
Zoe, that’s an interesting upside-down-clown-world perspective.
Earth heats CO2, and CO2 radiates to cool Earth.
So, upside down AND backwards. (^_^)
But that’s how clowns roll.
Hilarious Robert.
George – yes that quote was in my book, and has likely been someplace on a blog post.
Schroeder: “Much of thermodynamics deals with three closely related concepts: temperature, energy, and heat. Much of students’ difficulty with thermodynamics comes from confusing these three concepts with each other.”
D. V. Schroeder, Thermal Physics, Addison Wesley Longman, 2000.
What is this new hype on Thorium Reactors? This sounds like a Zoe question. Anyone? If it’s being praised by the media then are covering up something about it.
Chris,
Thorium is named after Thor, the norse god of thunder. Thunder comes after lightning, so I don’t see how that helps collect lightning.
In a nut shell…The by-product of Uranium reactors is Plutonium. You cant extract any more energy from the process. But that’s the way they always wanted it because with Plutonium they can make bombs. But now they have an excess of Plutonium with a big half-life and they don’t know what to do with it anymore. It has become a real hazard. Thorium reactors can recycle that Plutonium and extract a whole lot more energy and have a minimal waste at the end with a ridiculously low half life. Canadian CANDU is based on that but never had much success because of the bomb material residue missing. Don’t know about safety but it is said that the pile of Plutonium amassed since the 1950’s would feed electricity for the whole world for 500 years. !?!?!? (grain of salt)
LOL is it Thorum? Actually making me look it up! Yes it’s Thorium Molten Salt reactor they made one in China. You know Russians built a lightning collector and tried to weaponize it in the Cold War as a last resort to knock out Nukes, did not work so well. The cost was enormous and the gain very little and unpredictable. Rumor has it that weapons testing is what drew to much power from Chernobyl and pop it’s cork.
Thorium Reactors
https://www.environmentalleader.com/2016/08/chinas-research-into-thorium-will-have-implications-for-nuclear-energy-in-the-united-states/
https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2017/12/china-spending-us3-3-billion-on-molten-salt-nuclear-reactors-for-faster-aircraft-carriers-and-in-flying-drones.html
BTW,
Your old time buddy Richard Beaumont is commenting on Joseph’s latest video on YT.
“A pyrgeometer consists of the following major components:
A thermopile sensor which is sensitive to radiation in a broad range from 200 nm to 100 µm
A silicon dome or window with a solar blind filter coating. It has a transmittance between 4.5 µm and 50 µm that eliminates solar shortwave radiation.
A temperature sensor to measure the body temperature of the instrument.
A sun shield to minimize heating of the instrument due to solar radiation.” Wikipedia
So the solar dome transmits no incident solar and therefore absorbs all incident solar radiation, heats up and emits so much infra-red that anything supposedly coming from the atmosphere is lost and insignificant.
They then try to compensate for this by torturing the poor Stefan-Boltzmann equation into submission.
This statement should cause anyone to seriously doubt this nonsense “The pyrgeometer’s thermopile detects the net radiation balance between the incoming and outgoing long wave radiation flux and converts it to a voltage according to the equation below. ”
It detects the “NET” radiation balance AND this is set in the factory ??
Come on – pull the other one.
As someone who routinely used thermometers in food law enforcement I can tell you for legal purposes we needed to return the thermometer for certification at least twice a year and these expensive instruments required adjustment regularly.
Also their resolution was 0.1°C so I have never understood how climate science can take Earth’s temperature to hundredths of a degree.
@CD, I’ve replied to Richard Beaumont. His argument was basically that since 240W can’t be used to create weather, then for models they use real-time input but for climate it is still ok to use 240W…lol!!! Because you know…the climate is entirely separate from the weather. My reply:
“That is all exactly the point. 240W average could never define or create a weather event, anywhere, ever…hence, it can’t be used to define the climate which is a bunch of weather. They use the 240W as a global input…which can’t create any whether/climate…and then have the atmosphere provide twice the energy of the Sun to create the climate within itself instead even though the atmosphere is inert and releases no new energy/heat into itself. All of climate alarmism and climate change is based on this 240W input and this fake greenhouse effect of the atmosphere providing 2-times solar energy and creating the climate within itself…everything is interpreted through this, this basis on this false greenhouse effect. Not a straw man at all, but reality. We are referencing their own diagrams, their own publications, their own definitions, their own theory, etc.”
We just call it out for what it is: an emperor with no clothes!
I read it I get bored around midday. I know Richard when I was doing my research under pseudo names.
Anyway, back to Richard. Zoe has dealt with him many times. I’m pretty sure he thinks he’s smarter than everyone. He is the reason I found your site the very first questions I asked was because of him. Richard and Dr. Strong are very able twisters of science, they contort, stretch, back peddle, and replace all in a belief thy have already won. Now he usually will be patient because he thinks he’s teaching you and you are just ignorant of climate science.
He is pretty sharp and I do respect his knowledge. I honestly could never feel him out is he really believing this science stuff or is he an enabler of this science scam? I use to think if you’re smart enough to talk the science NO WAY you can’t see the climate change facts for what they are, just fraud. Now we know either these guys are just that stupid or very good and pretending they are true believers. Spencey I find puzzling is he that ignorant or is he invested in this financially?
Like the comments I gave from the InterAcadmy many of these guys are invested financially in this with stock in companies and what not, keeping the lie alive is financial beneficial.
Zoe has ripped and shredded him many times and he’s clueless he got served. He does believe the CO2 on Venus is making it hot and proof of runaway greenhouse effect. You can talk his science and call out when he’s trying to bs you. I could never do that.
Rosco,
“The pyrgeometer’s thermopile detects the net radiation balance between the incoming and outgoing long wave radiation flux and converts it to a voltage according to the equation below.”
Yup, here they tell that the device measures:
a) Upwelling Earth Radiation (incoming)
b) Upwelling Device Radiation (outgoing)
By knowing Net IR and Upwelling Earth Radiation we can then compute an imaginary heat source from the sky.
But the device always shows Net IR to be NEGATIVE, i.e. the bottom of the device heats the top of the device and NEVER the other way around.
Last reply to Richard:
I am sorry Richard but you seem to be drastically uninformed about basic climate theory, literature, and thermodynamics concepts. Please see the KT Energy Budget published in the AMS, and the relevant “energy diagram” here:
One can clearly see that the atmosphere is postulated to provide twice the energy than the Sun provides. It is right in the graphic, right in the publication: the Sun provides 168 Watts while the atmosphere provides 324 Watts, even though this is impossible for the atmosphere to do since the atmosphere isn’t a source of energy. You are quite unawares of the basic theory it seems. This is right in the publication.
Also refer to my previous video here:
where I show that the flat Earth model with the inert atmosphere providing 2X solar energy is used ubiquitously in the climate field and that it forms the basis of climate science and their (mis)understanding of energy and heat flows.
Finally, please refer to this video:
where it is shown that the greenhouse effect of climate science, based as it is on flat Earth and the atmosphere providing 2X solar heat even though the atmosphere has no energy production, is a false “greenhouse effect” and doesn’t exist, and is created out of flat Earth theory. It is not about merely “retaining energy”, but is quite factually and literally about producing new energy for the system – a fundamental impossibility.
I am going to have to mute you now Richard…this space is for people who are more informed, and it is a waste of our time to have to spell out such basic things about the errors of climate alarmism to you.
I applaud this better approach of you, Joseph. It’s like you’re a doctor trying to convince a sick patient to accept they have cancer even they just don’t want to believe it. You are doing it with compassion and patience. Anthropogenic global warming is a political cancer and until it’s removed the poison will keep destroying the host mind.
…But unlike normal cancer, political AGW cancer is highly contagious and easily spread.
JP,
Richard seems like one of those people that’s smart enough to know he’s full of it. His argument technique is to deny everything you say and just repeat himself.
His backheat theory leaves GHGs at 0K. He believes you can add cold to hot, and cold stays the same – but he will never say it that way, and will strongly deny what his pompous bloviating implies.
All they are, are sophist machines. When they have nothing left, indeed, they simply repeat themselves, and ignore the point, and to outright lie.
The truth has strength in that it is singular and logical.
The lie has strength in that it is infinitely varied.
The singular truth is faced-off against an infinite assault. There may not be an infinite number of variations upon a lie given the limit of a fixed number of terms which define the truth, and thus to stay relevant to lying about the truth a liar must use at least a subset of the same terms which define the truth, however, a liar can simply repeat an exposed lie as if they are ignorant of the exposure. So, it does reduce to a singular vs. the infinite.
The solution, for either, is that neither the truth nor the lie needs pretend that the other should continue to exist with physical presence. Unless, in the case where the liar finds (likely parasitical) benefit in keeping the truth around while it lies about it.
Anyway their scam is about to end forcibly.
Whether you follow Vukcevic, Scafetta or Salvador, they all say the same thing. It’s all about Jupiter and Saturn Stupid !!! We are on the edge of a mini (maxi ?) ice age.
So, like they say in bridge KISS (Keep It Simple Stupid).
Unfortunately, our government will have spent the money benefiting their little friends and not society and many will die unnecessarily. Fortunately, I’m too old. I won’t be there.
Good link…
Click to access prp-1-117-2013.pdf
JP,
Good points. How many permutations of not truth using true bites could there be? I don’t know, but I feel like I’ve encountered every variety in 2 years.
Pierre, I feel cloud cover us the key. The natural 2-6% variation seems to explain all recent cooling and warming.
Here is the longest solar-to-surface record:
To clarify, for those whose eyes might get crossed by all those numbers and arrows in the energy-flux diagram, if you look at just two numbers, then look at the two that I have circled in red. These are what clearly show that established climate science endorses the idea that Earth’s atmosphere provides twice the energy of Earth’s sun:
Remember, look at the two circled numbers at the bottom of the picture. It’s right there in front of your eyes, circled in red — the atmosphere provides TWICE the energy of the sun.
Yes…that ain’t no fucking “heat retention”, it ain’t no fucking “insulation”, it ain’t no fucking “delayed cooling”, and all that other retarded SHITE…
IT IS IN YOUR FACE, THE NUMBER WRITTEN DOWN, THE EXTRA ENERGY “CREATED” & NEEDED – TWICE THE ENERGY THAN THE SUN.
It is the atmosphere PRODUCING twice the energy than the sun provides. Full stop. QED.
And it comes out from this flat-Earth scheme where sunlight input is nonphysically, nonempirically, and irrationally diluted over the entire surface area of the Earth at once, where a fake & nonexistent “greenhouse effect” is then invented *so that the climate can create itself* in place of the Sun having been made basically a non-existent.
And look at all the confusion of surfaces used to fictitiously divide up something that was originally figured for one surface, or maybe two, or,… mmmm, looking kind of fuzzy as to what really the one surface is/might/could be.
It’s such a hellish mess that, to use a popular phrase used by overly confident, overly deluded, verbose alarmists, … “I hardly know where to begin”.
(related) This no moon landing stuff is all a fraud (obviously) to make rational people who are capable of identifying pseudoscience (climate alarm) even though it is supported by mass media, to seem associated with quackery.
These entities are so hive-minded that they have ZERO comprehension of how an individual can rationally and intelligently identify & reject information even though said information is wide-spread and found on TV and CNN. They have NO IDEA how that works. They have no idea how it works…how an individual mind can independently rationally identify BS without being told to do so by a larger group of minds. That whole process, the existence of such a process, is as foreign to them as sardines are to apple pie. They literally cannot compute it.
Their best running-guess, so far, the only way that they’ve been able to classify the phenomenon of an independent intelligent mind (that rejects climate alarmism for example), the best algorithm they’ve come up with to explain it, is to think that these are simply minds which are “contrarian”, that independent intelligent minds aren’t actually thinking and processing information independently & intelligently, but rather, that such minds simply have a “switch” set in them that makes them reject group-consensus. They call such people “contrarians”…because that is the only concept a hive-mind has to understand anything that can be different from the group. The hive-mind entity has no concept that there are or can be truths outside of what it demands to be the truth.
They’re having a very difficult time figuring this one out. So they come up with stuff like this “moon landing hoax” to test their algorithm, to see if what WE know as independent intelligent thought is actually what they think of as simply a switch set to be contrarian to the hive mind. They think that if people reject the group-consensus of climate alarm because they are simply contrary people, then the same people should also reject the group-consensus found on television that man went to the moon. That is how dumb this hive-mind is.
But they can’t figure out the systematization of what we know as independent critical thought, simply because a hive-mind has no concept of that by definition. This makes it fearful…afraid of what it cannot understand.
Ah, but you see boys, the 324 came from the 390. Where did 390 come from? Mostly from 324. It all makes sense. GHGs have the ability to create energy that will be later resupplied to them. So there’s no violation of thermodynamics. Energy out becomes Energy in. It all balances. Don’t forget the Sun is involved, so it all makes sense.
Cold objects force warm objects to send it more radiation. The heat flow remains in equilibrium (doesn’t change). Science says stuff about objects coming to an equilibrium, so it all makes sense.
You boys just don’t understand psyence.
Zoe,
There is a correlation between sunspot number and cosmic rays,
And there is one between cosmic rays and cloud cover…
Too much in a hurry to fing long term graphs
Zoe and dudes,
That chart looks like cosmic rays increase when sunspots go down. So the Sun normally protects us from more cosmic rays when it is more active? I’m guessing the Sun’s magnetic field protects us from more harmful rays? What does increased cosmic rays do to the planet?
Do you remember the episode of Star Trek TNG, where in order to defeat the hive-mind Borg they invented a paradoxical mathematical object that they would upload to the Borg mind, that would cause an overload or whatever in the Borg’s hivemind once they scanned it and tried to catalogue it? I think the idea was to give them (humans) a few minutes to get inside the Borg ship and blow it up while it was stuck on analyzing this paradoxical mathematical object.
That’s kind of exactly what this paradoxical mathematical object is of the flat Earth greenhouse effect. You look and listen to the people who try to defend it, and their minds are clearly wrecked…destroyed. You like at the political ideology which supports it and all of the other things which go along with that ideology…and again, their minds are destroyed and are in fact entirely self-destructive.
They are global warming pod people pointing fingers and screeching at the outcasts.
Pierre,
The cosmic ray vs. clouds chart only goes to 2005. I hear there’s a divergence problem after that.
I dont know. Have not looked at it for a couple of years. But of course there will be divergences at times. Nothing is instantaneous.
http://lindberglce.com/2012/Climate.htm
If it held for 500 million years !!?!!??!??
I know there is a video on youtibe with a bunch of scientists against global warming explaining it all. People like Tim Ball. It’s about 40-50 min long. But I cant find that damn video. Joe ? have any idea where ?
When I see those Clymists debating their stupid model I want to vomit. Here’s a simple model that makes sense.
Zoe, you might know this stuff but for the benefit of those who don’t, bear with me.
When you have a time data series like the temperature record, you can put those data on a graph with the Y axis as your value (intensity) and the X axis as your time scale. There is a nice little trick call a Fourier transform that can take your time series data and figure out if there is a repetition in that series, namely a frequency. Once you have done that you get a data series where your Y axis is still an intensity but the X axis is now a frequency. A smart guy named Scafetta did that with out temperature data series. I can’t find the original paper (looks like we have to pay for it now) but here is a snap shot of it.
Click to access astronomical_harmonics.pdf
Scafetta found those harmonics (frequencies), 9.1, 10.4, 20, 30, 60, 115 and 983 years (They are in the original paper) in the temperature data. Now…
The orbital period of Jupiter (Pj) is 11,862242 years.
The orbital period of Saturn (Ps) is 29,457784 years.
The sinodic period of Jupiter-Saturn (Pjs) is 19,859312 yrs.
Now here are the different harmonics…
P1 9,93 Pjs/2 Half Sinodic Jupiter-Saturn Period
P2 10,87 2Pj*Pjs/(2Pj+Pjs) Average Frequency Period
P3 11,86 Pj Jupiter Orbital Period
P4 19,86 Pjs
P5 29,46 Ps
P6 60,95 P3*P1/(P3-P1)
P7 114,78 P2*P1/(P2-P1)
P8 129,95 P2*P3/(P3-P1)
P9 983,40 1/(1/P1-2/P2+1/P3)
(Don’t know if this table is going to come out well aligned)
The 9.1 yrs one is supposed to be a simple lunar period thing and the 9.93, 10.87 and 11.86 are pretty close and could give a 10.4 weighted average.
Look how close these orbital frequencies fit in the Fourier transform of the temperature data. It’s amazing. Why would CO2 have anything to do with it ?
It’s so appealing. We don’t have all the answers yet, but as Einstein once said… The simplest explanation is probably the right one. The mathematics to prove it might be extremely difficult but the principal is the simplest one.
Excellent dialog … I believe Earth’s climate is bounded by this curve (water in air by temperature chart) and I base that on the observation that Earth’s climate is bounded by this curve:
I haven’t defined the separate processes by which each end of the curve drives the Earth’s temperature towards the apex, but I can speculate. Otherwise, it’s just a coincidence that Earth’s temperatures are centered around this curve’s apex?
(Robert K. – there’s another version of this chart with Earth’s average, ice caps and deserts shown in segments, perhaps it will inspire one of your creative graphics … it’s in the ‘Water content of air’ segment of this site: http://www.seafriends.org.nz/issues/global/climate2.htm)
@TH
Yes indead. Read recently on PSY of a very little talked about law that says that night surface temperatures can’t go below dew point temperature which is totaly logical. As long as there is humidity in the air, and the fact that water can hold a lot more energy then air (per unit weight), as air cools, water condenses and will heat back up the air.
JP,
Please don’t hate me, but I have doubts about humans on the moon.
For example, audio analysis shows astronauts “on the moon” answering questions from Earth in 1.1 seconds.
Zoe,
You are young so you weren’t around in those times. The biggest reason I am confident of the United States went to the Moon was our mortal enemies: USSR. They never would have allowed the US to fake the landings, they monitored every step of this and had spies in the US might even had some in the space program, they were so good they might have had some in the control room.
The comments from the astronauts confirm (as recall) what a real astronaut would experience. Plus, it wasn’t just one trip it was many trips.
It’s easy to be fooled by liberals they make you doubt everything is real pertaining tot he US.
Now I’m guessing Joseph will give you the far more intelligent version.
Chris,
You can buy silence with cheap wheat and credit lines for wheat.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_grain_robbery
I encourage viewing the documentary: “For All Mankind” which is a compilation of Apollo films and audio and no additional commentary – watching the footage with only Brian Eno’s score brought it all to life for me. (At about the 1 hour mark there’s film of astronauts falling down on the moon.)
https://topdocumentaryfilms.com/for-all-mankind/
Chris,
“More than 2,000 high-ranking officials of the Chinese Communist Party have signed a petition this week asking explanations from the American government concerning the American Moon landings after doubts arose that the Apollo Moon landings ever happened.
These allegations have come up after recent analysis of pictures taken from the Chinese Chang’e-4 probe allegedly found no traces of the American Moon landings existing on the Moon.
Several high-ranking members of the Chinese Communist Party even stated publicly that these latest findings proved without a doubt that the Moon landings were an “elaborately orchestrated hoax to fool the world about America’s space program capabilities”.
“Russia’s top astrophysicist, Yury Ignatyevich Mukhin, has also made a public statement this week claiming that the Russian government “had always been aware of the situation since the early 1970’s” “
Yury Ignatyevich Mukhin is actually renowned in fake news circles as a Russian conspiracy theorist denying all moon landings !!!
An Internet post claiming that high-ranking Chinese officials had called the American moon landing a “complete hoax” is a fake news story that has been in circulation for years !!!
If we can send satellites to the moon, mars, jupiter, saturn, etc and that the electronics survive the what ever belt there is between earth and moon, then why not humans ?
Looks to me like the Twin Towers conspiracy !!! Just saying !
The Orion project is coming. NASA wouldn’t agree to send astronauts back to the Moon knowing they’ve never been there. Sure their are doubts, always will be I guess, it is a slim chance it never happened but I’d say Flat Earth has a better chance of being true. We have the means to take pictures why not just send some pics back and settle it once and for all? I have no doubt China would choose not to show proof the US landed on the Moon. The Israeli Rover would have proved that if it had made it there in one piece.
Anything is possible although the odds are improbable. 🙂 If I find out Flat Earth is real I’m going over the edge…
Women can fake orgasims, men can fake whole relationships (Nicole Kidman). What can I add ?
Pierre,
You’re right, that was fake news. My bad.
NASA’s traversal maps and lunar low orbit satellite photos are a match.
The lunar module’s dimensions and satellite photos with rulers are also a match.
Only when I imagined the best way to debunk that we went to the moon, did I type the best search queries and found that we did go after all. I didn’t need anyone to interpret the evidence. The traversal maps from the 1970s and satellite photos from 200x’s are a perfect match.
RK on the Stickman,
“Oh, I forgot — I meant to do a side view, which would be a straight line of very little thickness, indicating a grave deficiency of depth, when it comes to real insight.”
2 dimensional objectivity and flat earth physics…I’m sensing a punch line somewhere.
Found the darn thing…
Click to access 1203.4143.pdf
Following up on my question can anyone tell me what cosmic rays do to the planet? Does it increase warming? The only thing I gathered was it interferes with electronics and seems impervious to being blocked my most things. Does any cloud type interfere with it? This is another chapter in climate science I’m trying to learn.
How do you guys know all of this stuff?
In a nutshell… solar eruptions are known to shield Earth’s atmosphere from cosmic rays. Therefore… Solar eruptions diminish… Sunspot diminish,.. cosmic rays to atmosphere increase, cloud cover increases, albedo increases, temperatures decrease.
Cosmic rays have something to do with creating more ions helping water aglomerate into clouds. (Not my science, so if anyone wants to correct you are welcomed
Secondly, what is the average Wm^2 absorbed by the surface. Is it 492 or less than?
You should really use me as a proxy of what people need to learn from your videos. You know dumb it down for the non science folk and then give more educated answer to those who are fellows in science.
@CD Marshall
“How do you guys know all of this stuff?”
I’m 71 and have forgotten quite a lot along the years but they have not taken away my MSc in Chemistry yet nor my desire to learn. I guess they’ll do that when I enter the Long-Term Care Facility !
Don’t worry, I know nothing of accounting, law, medicine or hammers,
“Rescue from the Climate Saviors” contained this graphic demonstrating how mankind was really successful in reducing atmospheric pollution over time and combined with several dramatic, possibly record, solar cycles from the middle of the 20th Century succeeded in initiating global warming due to the bright sky effect – reduced global cloudiness hence more solar radiation input.
Fits with cosmic radiation hypothesis.
As usual any NASA document which might cast doubt on the hypothesis soon disappears from view.
Some of you may find these interesting or not. It gave me a headache trying to sort through all the spaghetti lines.
“MAJOR FEEDBACK FACTORS AND EFFECTS OF THE CLOUDCOVER AND THE RELATIVE HUMIDITY ON THE CLIMATE”
by J. KAUPPINEN AND P. MALMI
Click to access 1812.11547.pdf
“Influence of Relative Humidity and Clouds on the Global Mean Surface Temperature.”
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1260/0958-305X.25.2.389?journalCode=eaea
If you can access it I could not.
Pierre D. Bernier,
As a chemist I have a question. Climate clowns have claimed Methane breaks down into CO2 in the atmosphere. My understanding is that is not true. Combustion would be needed for that to happen.
@CDM
There is the long story where UV rays break water in oxygen radicals and hydroxyl radicals. Hydroxyl radicals react with methane to destroy it. I could show you the 8-9 chemical steps of the process but that is the long story.
The short story is those wonderfull UV rays. In the atmosphere there is ample oxygen and UV rays…
CH4 + 2 O2 + UV = CO2 + 2 H2O (short story)
End products carbon dioxide and water.
What a wonderfull thing those UV rays. They also have ozone and oxygen react
2 O3 + UV = 3 O2 and 3 O2 + UV = 2 O3 (a 2 way street)
https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-1e795477a9eebefe9b45d9b07f120f45.webp
https://www.quora.com/Is-global-warming-just-a-myth-like-the-ozone-layer-depletion
But the rays clip the poles. There has always been holes at the poles and always will be. Another hoax destroyed
2 for the price of one 🙂
@CDM
“Some of you may find these interesting or not. It gave me a headache trying to sort through all the spaghetti lines.”
Don’t seat it. The first one is a major acrobatic PhD math contest using the same input and output as the ones Joe has so much fun cursing about in the climate picture above. Completely useless (not the cursing, the picture).
The second one looks more promising but it’s only an abstact. You have to pay to get the whole article !
Oh what the heck. Here’s a piece I wrote 2-3 years ago. Might ase well vent, it will do me good !!! Don’t know if the diagrams will come out correctly. If not, refer to ozone link above.
The Environmentalists
The environmentalist is someone who is against effective energy sources. Case in point… He is against the use of petroleum products at all cost, the most effective, densely packed, source of portable energy.
The environmentalist is all for renewable energy sources, the ones that don’t work well of course ! The ones that work really really well, like hydro electricity and Fast Breeder Nuclear reactors, which leave practically no nuclear waste, he’s all against (There is enough plutonium waste left from 60 years of conventional nuclear reactors to give energy to the whole world for the next 500 years. So yes, Fast Breeder Nuclear reactors are a source of renewable energy). What a conundrum !!!
The environmentalist is all for renewable energy sources that don’t work well, like wind power and solar energy and bio-fuel.
Wind power does not work when there is no wind. It does not work when there is too much wind. Wind power consumes energy when it’s cold for the lubricants in the mechanisms need to be heated so as not to freeze up and jam. Wind energy also kills birds. But what the heck ! They’re only birds, right ?
Wind energy needs a turbine containing a magnetic material like iron or nickel. The problem is that iron and nickel are too dense and heavy to put up there in the wind. That’s why we use rare earth metals that are magnetic and lighter. But the environmentalists have succeeded to have the mining of these minerals banned for it is too polluting to mine them. The result is that China produces 95% of all the rare earth metals the world consumes. The environmentalists have succeeded in exporting all that pollution to China, and the jobs that go with it, so as not to see it here. Also, we need copper wire to bring that wind energy to the markets. Problem… The environmentalists are against copper mines also. You see, the environmentalists are all for wind power but against what is needed to produce it and transport it. What a conundrum !!!
The environmentalists are for solar energy, another source of energy that does not work. It does not work when there is no sun and it does not work either when there is 6 inches of snow on the panels.
To produce solar panels, we need silver. The environmentalists are against silver mines just like they are against copper mines. Yet again, they are for solar energy but against what is needed to produce it. Another conundrum !!!
The environmentalist is all for renewable costly bio-fuel but don’t touch the forests !?!?!? Another conundrum !!!
To sum it up, the environmentalists are against effective sources of energy like oil and renewables that work but they are for renewable sources of energy that don’t work and against what is needed to produce that energy. A bit of a contradiction don’t you think ?
Well, I guess we will have to do with no energy !!!
Do you remember that acid rain craze of the 1970’s ? Another of those environmentalists crazy phase ! They said that acid rains was killing our forests and lakes. They fought like crazy to get rid of those sulfur and nitrous oxides emissions in our atmosphere. Sulfur and nitrous oxides combine with water vapor and form sulfuric acid and nitric acid, two very strong acids that form aerosols in the atmosphere and that are not very nice to breath. Companies emitting those products have installed scrubbers in their stacks to prevent them from being released in the atmosphere, but only progressively after the first Clean Air Act of 1963. It wasn’t until 1967 that the first full scale scrubber at a coal-burning power plant was installed in the US. The problem is that they fought a good fight but for the wrong reasons. Acid rains are bad for humans but have nothing to do with forests and lakes being killed. Rain has always been, is, and always will be slightly acid. Think volcanoes and lightnings!
A research team from Yale University has gone to the devastated regions of the north-east United States in 1982 and in 1987. They discovered that all the dead trees were born prior to 1962 and at a high altitude. All the other trees born post 1962 were healthy. This means that the dying of trees was a sudden drastic one time event in 1963. Acid rains cannot kill that abruptly in time. There would have been a build up in some way followed by a progression for the companies installed their scrubbers progressively only after 1967. The trees in existence after 1962 should have kept on dying for a while but they were healthy. It’s called a contradiction ! Guess what ? The 1960s had extreme droughts and the winter of 1962-63 was the coldest since the previous 200 years. Imagine… pre-American revolution cold when the world was still in what is now called The Little Ice Age. That is what killed those trees. Extreme drought combined with extreme cold. After spending $500 billions the US congress came to the same conclusion… Acid rains are not a danger to our forests and lakes. Again, the environmentalists were in the dark !
What about that ozone layer craze ?
What we have is a balanced system where Ozone is constantly being destroyed by UV rays at the top of the Ozone layer, and constantly being created by UV rays at the top of the Oxygen layer.
So what if something happens to destroy a lot of Ozone ? Well the Ozone layer would thin, and as a result less UV gets absorbed by the Ozone. This means the amount of UV that gets through the Ozone layer to the Oxygen layer goes up, and so the rate of Ozone creation increases.
The same is true in reverse. If the Ozone layer gets thicker, less UV reaches the Oxygen layer and so less Ozone is produced until it shrinks to normal once more.
So what about the Ozone holes over the poles? They’re supposed to be there ! Consider what happens to sunlight as it goes through the atmosphere in the earth’s higher latitudes.
Since it passes through the Ozone layer, but never gets to reach the oxygen layer below, the rate at which Ozone is being created falls off. As a consequence, most of the Ozone gets destroyed, leaving a “hole” in the Ozone layer.
So, in the late winter and early spring the hole starts to grow as the polar region comes out of darkness and the Sun’s rays starts destroying the Ozone. As summer progresses, the inclination to the sun becomes more direct, and the Sun’s rays start hitting the Oxygen layer, creating Ozone. In late summer and early autumn the sun starts destroying ozone again as the pole progressively goes back into darkness until winter where the hole stays somewhat stable.
So is the Ozone hole a complete hoax ? Pollutants like CFC’s could make the holes larger in theory, but the fact is that the holes are natural in the first place, and they fluctuate daily as the earth spins, seasonally as the earth’s inclination to the sun changes, annually as the earth’s orbit takes it closer and farther away from the sun, and from fluctuations in the sun’s output of UV in the first place.
So. Yet again, the environmentalists struck out !
Now, here is the real dandy ! Ever heard of DDT ?
In 1962, an environmentalist, by the name of Rachel Carson, published a book named Silent Spring. In this book Carson, through lies, half truths and omissions, succeeded in convincing the U.S. congress and the world that DDT was dangerous and caused cancer. It was later demonstrated that all of her claims were false and that no cancer due to DDT has ever been reported. None the less. For the sake of argument, let’s say 100 was reported. Oh heck… let’s say 1000 !
In India when the DDT campaign began in 1953 there were 75 million malaria cases a year and 800000 deaths. By 1966 there were fewer than a million annual cases of malaria and no deaths.
In parts of Indonesia, 25% of the population was infected by malaria. When DDT was introduced, the rate fell to 1%.
In Venezuela, the number of malaria cases dropped from 8 million to 800 when DDT was used.
In fact, malaria was almost eradicated from the face of the earth. But then… DDT was banned by the EPA in 1970, thanks to the environmentalists !
In Sri Lanka, the country’s malaria burden shrunk from 2,8 million cases in the 1940s to just 17 in 1965, due to the use of DDT. Five years after the country stopped using DDT, the number of cases had risen to 500000. In the 1980’s Madagascar stopped using DDT and immediately had an epidemic of malaria, resulting in the death of more than 100000 people.
Today, malaria still kills about 2000 children a day, mostly in Africa. That’s 730000 children deaths a year. In 30 years, that’s more then 20 million deaths. That’s a far cry from our said 1000 cancer deaths wouldn’t you think. It is estimated that Hitler’s death toll is about 17 million. At least Hitler’s killing spree is over. Not only does the environmentalist’s killing spree surpasses Hitler’s but it is still on going ! Shame on you all !
The truth is DDT is the single most effective agent ever developed for saving human lives. You could eat a spoonful of it and it wouldn’t hurt you. Not even one independently replicated, peer-reviewed, study linking exposure to DDT with any adverse health outcomes exists. Yet again, the environmentalists are way off !!! Shame on you all !!!
As can be seen, the environmentalists case record is not very brilliant. I’d say it’s atrocious ! So please, do not give credence to those irresponsible, politically motivated environmentalists. They are a bunch of incompetent ignorant parrots.
And so will it be in the end with climate change !!!
Pierre D. Bernier
MSc. Chemistry
So OH does break Methane down to CO2? The alarmists use that as an argument that it is creating CO2 in the atmosphere so in their world ’cause for alarm’. I was from the understanding that CH4 is a hydrocarbon. In order for that to happen combustion would have to be involved and at an appropriate heat for the reaction to take place and break down CH4 into CO2 and H2O respectively.
I read that article very informative so thank you. I also read the constant attack on the article from climate trolls. I am amazed that on any site anywhere no matter how obscure they pile on.
Pierre D. Bernie,
I am trying to remember the whole incident with DDT bus as I recall Rachel Carson was hired by who I’m straining to remember but they owned the mosquito net company DDT was putting out of business in Africa. I don’t remember but it seems a politician or their spouse owned the company or was part owner, you can’t find that information on the net anymore. Dirty Democratic deeds gets removed from the net. Millions of Africans died for a mosquito net profit. Disgusting.
@CDM
ROFL
I did not know that one on the mosquito nets. I always wondered why she did it. Now I know. THX. It’s always the same scam. Ozone is Dupont’s patents running out. While they lobbied Congress for the ban, they worked on other refrigerants with new patents.
Finally found that darn video…
Joe,
Thanks for supplying the quote from your book.
Interesting discussion above by CD, Pierre, Roscoe, and Zoe. The moon landings DID occur and I think to believe otherwise is definite tin-foil type stuff. I enjoy reading all your thoughts! well done, my friends!
Zoe and all smarter than I this guy is claiming the Sun’s solar energy has been flat since the 80’s. This was his reply: Amy thoughts would you like to reply yourself do you know this peon?
@Christopher Marshall That is why I cited the data for Global Solar Radiation, not DWR.
“Global solar radiation is the total amount of solar energy received by the Earth’s surface, usually expressed as W m-2. About 99 percent of global solar radiation has wavelengths between 300 and 3000 nm. This includes ultraviolet (300-400 nm), visible (400-700 nm), and infrared (700-3000 nm) radiation. Global solar radiation is the sum of direct, diffuse, and reflected solar radiation. Direct solar radiation passes directly through the atmosphere to the Earth’s surface, diffuse solar radiation is scattered in the atmosphere, and reflected solar radiation reaches a surface and is reflected to adjacent surfaces.”
https://www.licor.com/env/applications/solar_radiation.html
Any explanation to account for the global rise in temperatures since 1980 to present when incoming solar radiation has remained constant?
This would seem to defy the laws of thermodynamics.
Pierre and all.
Pierre that video was really informative. To tear it down to an abstract: Nobody cared about climate science until political money got involved. They paid to show global warming by CO2 never to prove it was real and for political purposes. Anyone who proved it wasn’t true (in other words followed real science) were dismissed or not funded. Those smart enough to change their negative results to show something positive in the global warming evidence got rich, published, recognized among the media and the politicians.
Once money and fame were involved people took up science who were not qualified and received PhDs as log as they toed the political agenda. Now thousands upon thousands of papers of fraudulent scientific verification from many scientists who are not qualified leaves an unsurmountable paper trial used as “the science is settled.” Even though every single papaer is based on a lie.
Zoe,
Any input to me would be helpful but I just left him with a link to Joe’s video “Spreading Solar Energy Over Whole Earth is Pseudoscience” if he bites fine if not I done with him.
CD Marshall says:
2019/07/20 at 2:24 PM
“Any explanation to account for the global rise in temperatures since 1980 to present when incoming solar radiation has remained constant?
This would seem to defy the laws of thermodynamics.”
I’m no expert on anything but I suspect the heating of Earth’s surfaces is strongly influenced by many more factors than the TSI that climatologists only seem to talk about. Clouds are as important as anything else – they represent almost all of the albedo after all.
From http://www.sws.bom.gov.au/Educational/2/3/2
Solar cycles 18, 19, 21, 22 and 23 were among the 5 most active solar cycles ever reliably recorded.
Solar cycle 20 coincided with the global cooling period – a weak period after 2 large cycles.
The coronal mass ejections hurled energy into space while the increased magnetic field kept cosmic rays and their cloud seeding effects at bay.
The Sun is less active presently.
Who knows what happens next but anyone who dismisses the Sun is blind to reality.
As Willie Soon always says – “The Sun Also Warms”.
Chris,
“incoming solar radiation has remained constant”
His premise is wrong. Especially wrong when we’re talking about solar radiation hitting the surface. If the guy doesn’t believe in cloud variations …
He’ll complain this is for one location. Then you will ask him for global proof that shows you wrong. He will run away.
Zoe,
This dude’s information is coming from a site that is total FAF (fraud as f***) either he’s an idiot or a climate troll (or both).
This is what he gave me:
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10509-013-1775-9
Don’t know where hw got his science degree ?
In March 1971 Montreal had what is called the storm of the century. The only way around town was by skidoo.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/storm-of-the-century-1.3477182
In the winter of 1972 I was at university in Sherbrooke. It snowed just about every single day for the whole winter. I remember because I had to walk from home to the science faculty. An 8-9 blocks walk.
When I was 14-15, I lived in Shawinigan on the third storey. When they cleared the snow in the parking space behind the building there was a big pile of snow. We could get above it by way of the balcony leading to the sheds. We would jump from the third story down in the snow. It was a hell of a ride.
At that time they were talking of a probable coming of a new ice age.
How the hell did we get here ?
Chris & Pierre,
You both posted correct solar TOA data, but we’re not interested in TOA, we’re interested in solar irradiance reaching the surface (through the cloud layers).
His graph shows an average of 40 W/m^2. I imagine it’s a world average. Joe has demonstrated that the average flux over the hemisphere is 1/2. So… 1360 / 2 = 680. So… 680 *0.06 = 38. Where the hell on Earth is the albedo 94% .???
🙂
Zoe,
Assume I’m your little baby older brother and needs more explaining. Is his graph right or not? I’m not seeing a flat surface irradiance for the past 40 years? If no then where do we find the surface irradiance that is accurate? While I’m at it I’m not seeing any correlation between Sunspots and warming temperature and I was expecting to see some or I am blind.
Chris,
I’m an only child.
Solar irradiance at TOA is not relevant.
It’s been decreasing, and this explains why all layers of atmosphere are cooling, except for the lowest layer where reduction of cloud cover has enabled 1.5% more sun to penetrate despite being 0.1% less intense.
I still dont get his graph. Unless there is a massive 94% albedo black hole somewhere on Earth !
Here’s the one from Stoclholm, Sweden…
https://vignette.wikia.nocookie.net/ipcc/images/d/df/WGI_AR5_Fig2-13.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20140514223021
You still get a sense that things change. His is a bunch of unchanging yellow bars.
I can’t figure out where his numbers come from ! The Arctic Circle ?
Zoe,
An only child? That explains why you’re so spoiled! 🙂
Again where can I see the data of this? Pierre’s charts show little activity in this Cycle which was predicted, so are the odds good we are going into a cooling period or mini-ice age in 2030?
Now cosmic rays are supposed to add to clouds so will cloud cover increase?
Want to have fun with numbers ???
http://www.sidc.be/silso/datafiles
and predicted…
https://www.swpc.noaa.gov/products/predicted-sunspot-number-and-radio-flux
COLD !!!
Pierre D. Bernier says:
2019/07/21 at 2:30 PM
I still don’t get his graph. Unless there is a massive 94% albedo black hole somewhere on Earth !
I assume it is the yellow graph ? It has units of kilowatt hours per metre squared !
50,000 x 1/2 Earth’s surface area =~1.28 x 10^19 Wh/m^2. Apparently Earth receives ~70% of 1.74 petawatts = ~1.22 x 10^17 W/m2 ?
Zoe.
Now he is demanding to see the source where I got the Potsdam Germany results from. I love these trolls and their air of importance. Do you have the source link? If not oh well.
Anything else you want to link to me that would be great.
Joseph,
I knew thanks to you back body is just radiation from the Sun. I’ve been reading a little about black body from a link from Zoe (I think) and they are saying that’s not viable for a 3-D application. If that’s true why did they make it up in the first pace? Thank you for input as always. You guys are all awesome.
Chris,
“Monitoring of radiation incident at the surface began in the early 20th century at selected locations, primarily focusing on surface solar radiation (SSR, also known as global or shortwave radiation). One of the longest records, available from Potsdam (Germany) since 1937, is illustrated in Figure 1. More widespread measurements of this quantity were initiated during the International Geophysical Year (IGY, 1957/1958). Many of these historic radiation measurements have been collected in the Global Energy Balance Archive (GEBA)6 at ETH Zurich and in the World Radiation Data Centre (WRDC) of the Main Geophysical Observatory St. Petersburg.”
There’s even data for 56 sitea in Europe:
https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Composite-of-56-European-GEBA-time-series-of-annual-surface-downward-shortwave-radiation_fig5_319251713
Your brain is an amazing thing. Thank you.
In regards to variance in solar radiation. Just remember that ToA solar input varies by 90W/m2 between January and July with Earth’s non circular orbit. Average solar input is no more relevant for ToA over the year than it is for Spreading sunlight over a flat earth with no night and day. An above comment referenced changes in cloud cover. Again, we don’t even need less cloud on average, because again averages are meaningless. Simply change WHERE the clouds are on any given moment and you change the distribution of the sun’s actual energy at that moment and so even with unchanging energy you can change the calculated mean temperature recorded on all of the world’s thermometers. Yet the energy input IS changing. Constantly. The earth is always changing its distance from the sun. You may as well try and predict where the ball will land on a roulette wheel as try and predict what various climates on earth will do next!
wickedwenchfan
So what ? Over the year it’s averages. We are not trying to predict the temperature at any specufic point in time or space. Just the average over the whole. The clouds may be here or there then there or here but on average they are everywhere. Everything on average will be an average of the Sun’s average power..
If you want to see a complete idiot explain the greenhouse effect watch this moron.
“Without the greenhouse effect the Earth would be the same temperature as the Moon -18 Celsius.”
//www.youtube.com/watch?v=hUFOuoD3aHw&t=117s
-I removed the https so it wouldn’t directly link.
Pierre D. Bernier,
That’s where you are wrong. It doesn’t all even out over the year. No more than the numbers that drop on a roulette wheel even out over a night or even a week of action. Random fluctuations take VERY large numbers to even out and they never even out completely. This is just with controlled variables such as Casino games ( I spent 10 years as a Croupier). The Earth’s climate is much more erratic.
The point I’m making, is that the climate can EASILY change without changing the energy input. But the energy input is also constantly changing. So how can anyone attribute causation to any specific variable? I look at climate scientists the same way I used to look at people who had PhDs in mathematics who would record the numbers that came up on the roulette tables before losing their house, wife and clothes off their backs: educated fucking retards who don’t understand that probability in a random chaotic system is not dependent on what has previously occurred.
OK ! Explain this to me ! Why is it that casinos are open for business 24-7 and never go out of business if the odds dont eventualy come back to what mathematics say they should be ? You’re comparing people’s personal emotional biased actions/reactions with nature’s no emotional reaction. If you want to do comparisons, compare apples with apples and oranges with oranges.
Your comparison of people’s stupid actions with nature’s emotionless actions have absolutely no standing !
Go back to being a PhD croupier !
(For your info… I worked on the Montreal casino opening in the 1990’s. I know how it works. So there is no bluffing me !)
CD Marshall says:
2019/07/23 at 5:53 AM
If you want to see a complete idiot explain the greenhouse effect watch this moron.
“Without the greenhouse effect the Earth would be the same temperature as the Moon -18 Celsius.”
Obviously he doesn’t understand the consequences of magnifying glasses !
Sigh. I’m not comparing the reactions of PhDs in the casino to the climate. I’m comparing them to climate scientists. But maybe I should also compare them to your emotional and logically fallacious reply to me as well? I also compared the odds in casino games to the PROBABILITIES of variance in climate, without the need for changes in energy input. A casino guarantees its income over a LONG period of time with MANY guests playing LOTS of bets and by taking a fee from the gamblers each time they win (on roulette there are 37 numbers and the casino pays out 36 if your number comes in, in effect taking a dollar fee from you each time you win $37).
As mentioned the climate is much more erratic with many more variables than a roulette wheel. You can witness a single number falling six or seven times in a row. You can witness a red or black number coming up 20 times in a row. You can witness multiple years or decades of mean temperatures recorded on thermometers being hotter/colder than the preceding years or decades. There is absolutely no way of differentiating between this being caused by random variations or a change in one of the multiple variables that constantly change the odds. It’s just PhDs seeing patterns which only exist after the fact.
Joseph Postma has certainly found a major flaw in AGW climate modeling.
He shows that the total watts of energy hitting the earth’s surface are twice what the AGW proponents say they are. The amount of energy from the Sun at the distance of the Earth is about 1370 watts per square meter. However, because the surface of the Earth is a sphere that energy is reduced by half since the area of a hemisphere is twice the area of a circle of the same diameter giving 685 watts per square meter on the top of the Earth’s atmosphere. The AGW climate models divide 1370 by four instead and without any justification. Even if one takes into account the whole surface of the Earth the amount must be 685 and not half that. Remember that the formula for the area of a sphere is 4 pi r^2, so that of a hemisphere must be 2 pi r2. This does not justify anyone in dividing by four.
Now, the significance of this is that the AGW modelers arrive at a temperature of the Earth from the Sun of negative 18 degrees centigrade. Since the Earth’s temperature is about 15 degrees the difference is about 33 degrees. They then assume this difference must be accounted for by AGW, greatly overestimating climate sensitivity to CO2.
This clearly invalidates their models.
Casinos generally don’t go out of business because people play ALL of the numbers simultaneously. They can and have gone out of business if a single guest is responsible for a big enough portion of turnover and has a winning streak. The man who broke the bank at Monte Carlo is a story etched into the minds of most casino managers. Please re read my previous comment and note the explanation of MANY games being required to even out probability and that it’s never exact. A 50/50 chance of red or black falling still results in cases of 20 in a row for one or the other. The same can be true for years in a row hotter/colder then previous years.
How did this happen? Have I slipped into an alternate universe?
“NO EXPERIMENTAL EVIDENCE FOR THE SIGNIFICANT ANTHROPOGENIC CLIMATE CHANGE”
Click to access 1907.00165.pdf
wickedwenchfan :
You’re just as fraudulent as the man. The casino was not put out of business, only the table and only for some time at that. Read the full story carefully…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Wells_(gambler)
As for random walks, look at Zoe’s graph above…
Everything mooves wildly above and below the average, but always return to the average.
Now move on somewhere else with your fake arguments you troll (stalker)
CD Marshall says::
“NO EXPERIMENTAL EVIDENCE FOR THE SIGNIFICANT ANTHROPOGENIC CLIMATE CHANGE”
Yes the guys prove that global warming is not caused by human CO2 but he fails to take into account the effect of the Sun getting stronger and attributes the missing increase to CO2 which is a wrong conclusion. Still… a step forward. We’ll there there some day !
Here’s my absolute all time favorite…
I ask people where are the correlations. The leftists never answer and when pressed resort to character assasination.
After having talked about sunspots, sun activity, cosmic rays and cloud cover, I think the answer becomes obvious.
wickedwenchfan said:
“A 50/50 chance of red or black falling still results in cases of 20 in a row for one or the other.”
But it’s not 50/50 red/black …
“There is a green pocket numbered 0 (zero). In American roulette, there is a second green pocket marked 00.”
Seems like a strange thing not to know when making an argument about Roulette.
I think a serious miscommunication has occured: wickedwenchfan is anything but fraudulent and is one of the best alarmist debunkers out there, and is an author on the subject.
“The point I’m making, is that the climate can EASILY change without changing the energy input. But the energy input is also constantly changing. So how can anyone attribute causation to any specific variable? I look at climate scientists the same way I used to look at people who had PhDs in mathematics who would record the numbers that came up on the roulette tables before losing their house, wife and clothes off their backs: educated fucking retards who don’t understand that probability in a random chaotic system is not dependent on what has previously occurred.”
Indeed!
As I’ve said,.. things always eventualy revert to the mean, caotic or not. Even the stock market which is as caotic as can be reverts to a mean. The Sun overshoots and the Earth does not react. The Sun overshoots and the Earth reacts. The Sun undershoots and the Earth does not react. The Sun undershoots and the earth reacts. Overall, everything will reverts to the mean. In the end it’s all about the activity of the Sun. We might not know exactly why the Sun has spells but it has and Earth’s temperature record shows that. In an 11 year cycle, the Sun goes from min to max to min. We don’t really feel it on Earth in any significant way. But in the long run if the max’s get lower and lower we will eventually feel it. During the LIA the Tames river froze for some 100 years or more in winter which it had not done before, so the Sun must have something to do with it since it had extremely low sunspot numbers. What caused the low sunspot numbers ? I dont know. But I know that the temperature fell drastically. As the numbers went back up, temperatures whent back up. So, what caused what ? Easy ! The temperatures on Earth surely did not affect the Sun !
Al Gore showed the temperature record for 400 million years back, or what ever, with the CO2 levels below it. Way below so that we would not notice. The bastard showed that there is a correllation. But temperatures preceeds by some 800 years CO2 levels. So what caused what ? It’s not so hard !
To compare people’s emotional actions with nature emotionless actions is not a reference.
Joseph E Postma says:
“I think a serious miscommunication has occured: wickedwenchfan is anything but fraudulent and is one of the best alarmist debunkers out there, and is an author on the subject.”
OK. Just took a shower and cooled down.
Joe, I’m MSc in Chemistry. I know that a dice does not have a memory of what happened before. and I don’t need a reminder. It’s childish.
When I’m presented with an argument that people’s emotional actions are comparable to nature’s emotionless actions and that I’m told a half truth, at best, that a man broke a casino, what am I supposed to think ?
I’ll take your word for it that wickedwenchfan is on our side and that he probably mis expressed himself or in a way that I mis understood him.
So, wickedwenchfan, sorry for the mis understanding.
Regards,
On a different tangent, here’s the primo child of the blob in the spotlight again:
https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2019/jul/21/great-thunberg-you-ask-the-questions-see-us-as-a-threat?utm_source=pocket-newtab
HJFC… People are so stupid, It’s mass hysteria. It’s a lost cause !!!
There is a law called the Beer-Lambert law we use in chemistry. The way to explain it is like this… Say you put on a pair of sun glasses in your face and that that pair of glasses cuts off 50% of the incident light, If you put on a second identical pair of glasses in front of it, how much light will your eyes receive ? 0% ? No ! 25% ! The glasses cut off 50% of the incident rays. So 50% of 50% is 25%. So, even if CO2 had any effect and doubling it’s concentration would raise global temperatures by 1C, Doubling it again will raise the temperature 1,5C. Doubling again.. 1.75C. Doubling again you get the idea… 1/2, 1/4, 1/8, 1/16, 1/32. There’s a limit because the more CO2 the less rays are available to be intercepted.
I think that the main reason it is hard to get a fair hearing for Mr. Postma’s ideas is that AGW is a propaganda that must continue until it’s purpose is served. It’s purpose or end result is to overcome environmentalist opposition to nuclear power plants. It is successfully doing this by mandating through laws and regulations that “green” energy be used. Since nuclear energy is the only “clean” energy that is reasonably economical, it will eventually be accepted.
It’s disturbing when climate skeptics act like alarmists. Comments section of
https://principia-scientific.org/mathematical-analysis-debunks-33-degrees-greenhouse-gas-effect/#comment-24953
Got a new vid coming relating directly to that.