The Greatest Crossover Event in Scientific History

What happens when you take one thing that is claimed to not be ridiculous, but you combine it with another thing which is clearly ridiculous?  You get ridiculousness!  In this video we lay the groundwork for the greatest revolution in science and philosophy which has ever occurred in all intellectual history, and we do it via the alarm of the changing climate and its crossover event with flat Earth theory.

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

87 Responses to The Greatest Crossover Event in Scientific History

  1. Zoe Phin says:

    The Earth is flat and geothermal energy comes from greenhouse gases.

  2. CD Marshall says:

    No Zoe geothermal comes out of the butts of pink elephants, don’t you know? CO2 is created by Puff the Magic Dragon.

  3. CD Marshall says:

    Excellent video Joe I think you’ve hit this on the head many times. Time to expound if you are so inclined. I’d love you to do one on Venus-Mars-Earth in regards to CO2 myth vs fact.

    I have a question (don’t I always) I was taught that Nitrogen was 79% of the atmosphere and CO2 was a fraction of the 1% trace gases which was less than 1%. In other words, 0.04 was of the 1% of the atmosphere not 0.04 of the atmosphere. Somewhere they switched those numbers and I can’t find when and where or an accurate current representation of the atmosphere.

    Does anyone know when they changed it? How they manipulated it and what is the real current updated atmosphere. Is CO2 0.04 of the atmosphere or is it 0.04 of trace gases which is what it use to show?

  4. Tom, not that Tom says:


    To my understanding, from Mauna Loa readings within the last 5 years, CO2 is 0.04% of the atmosphere which is the same as 0.0004 of the atmosphere. None of it heats up itself, nor anything else, despite any amount of bullshit.

  5. CD Marshall says:

    Joseph and crew,
    Zoe this seems to be you niche?
    Another ass hat pretending to be an expert in climate and physics: Denounces grand solar minimum claims our current warming is proof of greenhouse gases warming the atmosphere.

  6. The overly supportive comments seem fake. Trying to maintain the narrative.

  7. Rosco says:


    CO2 is 0.04% of the atmosphere which is roughly 4 molecules per 10,000.

    To really show how insignificant it is a cubic metre of air has a mass about ~1.285 kg.

    Of that mass of 1.285 kg CO2 comprises 0.04/100 x 44.01/28.966 = ~607.74 Mliilgrams in every cubic metre of ordinary air surrounding you right now.

    I’m sure you’ll agree that controls everything.

  8. CD Marshall says:

    Thank you guys.

  9. Rosco says:

    Got the maths wrong again – there are ~608 milligrams of CO2 in a kilogram of air and obviously 1.285 x ~608 = ~781 milligrams per cubic metre.

  10. Rosco says:

    When Willis and Watts published the “Steel Greenhouse” post years ago one particularly astute reader quipped “This is stupid on stilts” !

    Couldn’t agree more.

  11. Rosco says:

    How about this piece of sophistry from our favourite sceptic:-

    But all of the models involving interpretation of their so called blackbody temperature have no relationship to any time frame and all are based on the divide by four meme.

    This leads me to conclude none of them could lie straight in bed !


    Normal humans don’t say such stupid shit.

  13. Zoe Phin says:

    Roy Spencer:
    “Every scientific theory involves assumptions. Global warming theory starts with the assumption that … energy in equals energy out.”

    Anyone else notice that energy in = energy out is consistent with Albedo = 1?

    Energy in = Energy out can’t tell you the inherent temperature of heated object.

  14. And we ignore that energy in doesn’t occur over the same surface area as energy out…lol!

  15. Wheres that quote from Zoe?

  16. Joseph E Postma says:

    hahaha on a “101” page!! What gold!!

    Using Rosco’s capture image and Zoe’s quote in my next vid!!!!

  17. What the alarmists do is worse than crossing over two universes. They confuse two universes to hell.

    They claim that they believe in a spherical Earth, perform math that can ONLY mean a flat Earth, fail to understand what their math means, thereby failing to understand that it is THEY who are flat-Earth practitioners, and then accuse climate rationalists of being in the same universe that they do not understand that THEY are a part of, in effect, inverting how they apply their own label of “flat Earther”.

    They don’t know that they are flat-Earth practitioners, because they don’t know what their math actually means.

    Dividing by four, and calling the resulting average an INPUT is claiming that the numerical figure for output from the whole surface of the sphere is also the numerical figure for input into the whole sphere.

    Output over the whole sphere is achieved by input over the half sphere. Equality does NOT mean that these are equal numerical figures — it means that the numerical figure for input on the half sphere undergoes processing that results in the numerical figure for output on the whole sphere.

  18. jopo says:

    My local energy provider in Australia has inferred that our household average daily Kilowatt consumption is 18 Kilowatts per day.. Using that then I should be able to use average cable size to power my house. FYI If I submitted to energy providers that my incoming cable size is now sized to my AVERAGE consumption I would lose my ability to earn an income

    Average power is just dumb!


  20. “Every scientific theory involves assumptions. Global warming theory starts with the assumption that … energy in equals energy out.”

    No problem with this assumption, if we choose to work with it properly.

    The energy that comes IN does so on a HEMISPHERE. The energy that goes OUT does so on a SPHERE. The energy coming IN on the HEMISPHERE undergoes transformations and distributions around the entire sphere in such a way that it goes OUT over the whole SPHERE.

    Ever use a soaker hose to water your vegetable garden? You connect it up to your water source that produces this intense flow into the hose, but the water goes out of the hose through tiny holes over the entire surface area, along the entire length. The value of the intensity of water flow going OUT each of those tiny holes is NOT equal to the value of the intensity of water flow going into the hose, and yet the amount of water going out equals the amount of water going in.

  21. TEWS_Pilot says:

    I enjoyed the presentation and am sharing it with Alarmists as well as true science advocates. I’m sure it will generate some “spirited” responses. It would appear that the Alarmists prefer to ignore or change the laws of Chemistry and Thermodynamics and have stopped teaching such simple principles as the Le Chatelier Principle. Often their math skills resemble those of either a magician pulling a rabbit out of a hat or just ignorance such as inferring that 2 + 2 = 22.

  22. Joseph E Postma says:

    That’s a good one jopo!

    Yah, I use my 15 amp miter saw once every few weeks, and so the average amperage going through could be handled by 40 gauge wire! Hence, let’s do our design and modelling using 40 gauge wire!

    What they’re doing, if their methods became common-place in science…it will directly and immediately lead to the end of technological civilization. Well…maybe that’s a good thing from a Luddite perspective…

  23. Exactly right TEWS_Pilot!

  24. Joseph E Postma says:

    ” Hence, let’s do our design and modelling using 40 gauge wire!”

    And when we find that that wire wouldn’t actually carry the current, but the system is *actually* running with 14 gauge wire…then…wait for it…

    Let us say that back-wiring makes the 40 gauge wire turn into 14 gauge wire.

  25. CD Marshall says:

    Teaching basic science wrong…Seems believable. I mean besides you guys and a few claimed physicists on YT who have corrected me on energy and heat in the past I still get this reply a lot on YT “ALL matter creates thermal energy which is heat. Adding energy to any matter produces heat.” Someone is teaching this because the comment is made with absolution even though it is wrong. Has political science become what passes for physics in mainstream education? No wonder they worship Nye and Tyson. Stupid attracts stupid (er).

    Nye even said he was inspired by Issac Asimov. An entertaining writer to some I found his books less interesting I was a more of a Hubbard fan. Tyson…I’m not even sure he really is a PhD. His success is clouded in politics kind of like Obama’s education…When Tyson talks he gives me a headache like he’s straining to explain the simplest concepts in physics and plays it off as showmanship.

  26. Zoe Phin says:

    At what average height do you think the Earth-Sun [dynamic] equilibrium exists?

  27. Rosco says:

    Joe may remember “Proof of the Atmospheric Greenhouse Effect” by Arthur P. Smith.

    Again, every proof in his dissertation starts from the 3 key concepts of energy in must equal energy out, the “effective temperature” is determined by the factor of 1/4 and the emission power of the effective temperature is the de-facto input power.

    This of course makes Roy Spencer a fraud when he says “No one assumes that the solar flux is spread out evenly across the Earth or that the sun shines day and night !”

    A non rotating planet cannot possibly have any meaningful average yet they use the 1/4 conversion for the input !

    What does Roy’s 24 hour average mean in this situation, or on the Moon or anywhere ??

  28. Zoe Phin says:

    It’s funny because energy in = energy out means albedo = 1. Zero energy stays and it’s still nice and warm for some reason just before dawn – when we should expect temperatures to be reaching 35 kelvin because Pierre thinks Earth only emits 90 milliWatts/m^2.

    What they do is:

    Energy out = Energy in × Surface Area In / Surface Area out

  29. Tyson is a complete fraud. That’s why academics love him.

  30. I don’t know Zoe. But maybe where the physical temperature equals the blackbody temperature? 5km?

  31. CD Marshall says:

    “So the Earth isn’t a perfect blackbody.” So what does that even mean?

  32. Zoe Phin says:

    Nope. It’s below the surface.

  33. Rosco says:

    Just another disproof of Roy Spencer’s sophistry about his 24 hour average meaning climate scientists do not arbitrarily use 1/4 of the albedo adjusted TOA as INPUT.

    From “Thinking quantitatively – How the Greenhouse Effect Works: The One_Layer Atmosphere” by Lee R Kump et al –

    “Let the amount of sunlight striking the planet be equal to S/4 (the global averaged solar flux). The surface absorbs an amount of sunlight equal to S/3 x (1 – A) along with a flux of downward infrared radiation from the atmosphere equal to sigma T (e)^4.”

    After their maths they have the atmospheric back radiation (which is completely dependent on the surface emitted IR) possessing equal heating capacity to the incident solar radiation.

    Exactly what Joe has been rightly saying and yet they deny this is what they are saying – go figure !

    Still what can you expect from someone who lives in “Daisyworld” and is a coolegue of Hockey Stick Mann.

    They claim their stuff is right but when challenged deny it is what they claim ?

  34. That’s a brilliant quote there Rosco and expose! Excellent work. Got to add that to my next vid too.

  35. Welcome to the greatest cross over-collision between two worlds we are experiencing nowadays, since what we call the Industrial Revolution:

    The Arrow of Energy – “Energy, like time, flows from past to future”!

    A thermodynamics thought experiment for the modern age:
    Take two backup generators of the same grade and quality – one rated at 5 kW, and the other 30 kW.

    An unlimited fuel supply is provided for both generators.

    The 5 kW generator will cease functioning well before the sum total of useful work it produces matches the total energy generated by the 30 kW unit during its lifetime.

    Why so, given the unlimited fuel supply available to both generators, which makes them truly open systems?

    It is not the fuel supplied to an energy-generating device that limits the sum useful energy produced, but rather the total energy expended in constructing it.

    As the 30 kW generator consumed more energy in its construction than the smaller 5 kW unit, the smaller generator cannot match the sum useful work of the larger device.

    No energy system can produce sum useful energy in excess of the total energy put into constructing it.

    This universal truth applies to all energy systems [- the sun, fusion, nuclear, solar, wind, hydro, geothermal, autonomous vehicles, EVs, AI, IoT, IR4, G5, spaceships, and you name it].

    Energy, like time, flows from past to future.

    The Fifth Law of Thermodynamics and The Arrow of Energy, proposed 2017.

  36. Zoe Phin says:

    EnE, are you high?

  37. TEWS_Pilot says:

    This is a comment posted today in a conversation where I challenged an Alarmist with the assertion that AGW GHE arguments always proceed from the viewpoint of a FLAT EARTH. This was his reply, which clearly shows that he IS a FLAT EARTHER but does not realize it.

    “Umm, no. The energy Earth gets from the sun can be expressed as the total of the energy absorbed by a circle with the same radius as Earth; this is the area of Earth’s shadow. The greenhouse effect affects the entire surface of the globe. The entire globe emits radiant energy, and the GHE restricts that outbound energy around the entire globe.

    The area of a circle is pi * r^2.
    The surface area of a sphere is 4 * pi * r^2.

    That is where the 4:1 ratio comes into play. The fact that you don’t understand basic geometry does not mean no one else does.”

  38. CD Marshall says:

    Does anyone know if the stratosphere is still cooling or has it been cooling?

  39. CD Marshall says:

    So I was looking at this chart and I’m finding something wrong with it. Are they dividing this number by 4 to calculate the surface irradiance? Because they are effectively saying right now is 123 w/M^2 which is pretty much 0C ? Shouldn’t this number be reading 246 w/M^2 instead?

  40. Joseph E Postma says:

    @TEWS_Pilot – they’re lying and misdirecting. Their GHE models use the output as the input! The use for INPUT the divide-by-four value which is actually the output. And of course they ALWAYS end with an insult. You DO of course understand basic geometry. THEY won’t admit that they use the output for input, thus creating a flat Earth theory.

  41. Zoe Phin says:

    No, they average sunshine over 24 hrs. It’s OK, because only the cyclical nature and amplitude matters.

  42. TEWS_Pilot,
    Here is how I would have responded:

    “Umm, no. The energy Earth gets from the sun can be expressed as the total of the energy absorbed by a circle with the same radius as Earth; this is the area of Earth’s shadow.

    Agreed. And note very carefully that this is the energy INPUT to Earth.

    The greenhouse effect affects the entire surface of the globe. The entire globe emits radiant energy, and the GHE restricts that outbound energy around the entire globe.

    Greenhouse effect aside, of course, the entire globe emits radiant energy. No problem agreeing with this. Note very carefully, though, that this refers to the energy OUTPUT from Earth.

    The area of a circle is pi * r^2.
    The surface area of a sphere is 4 * pi * r^2.

    Yes, of course, this is basic geometry. Again, no problem agreeing with it.

    That is where the 4:1 ratio comes into play. The fact that you don’t understand basic geometry does not mean no one else does.”

    Now here is where you go horribly wrong. It is not a matter of my understanding basic geometry, but rather a matter of your using basic geometry incorrectly, a matter of not understanding why this is incorrect use of basic geometry, and a matter of not understanding what the results of misusing basic geometry actually, physically means.

    Remember my pointing out the idea of INPUT and OUTPUT. When you divide by four, you are figuring radiant OUTPUT of Earth over the WHOLE SPHERE. The numerical figure representing this OUTPUT is NOT the numerical figure representing the INPUT. The INPUT comes in on the HALF SPHERE, and this INPUT is more intense on the HALF SPHERE than OUTPUT on the WHOLE SPHERE.

    INPUT arrives intensely on the HALF SPHERE, undergoes processes that transform and distribute the energy in such a way that OUTPUT on the WHOLE SPHERE equals INPUT on the HALF SPHERE. The system maintains equality, you see, even though the numerical figure for INPUT is greater than the numerical figure for OUTPUT. You are confusing the output figure for the input figure, thinking that the two must be the same — they do NOT, because intense energy on the half sphere, in effect, gets “spread”, in real time, via real physical processes, over the whole sphere to become output over the whole sphere.

    Dividing by four and treating the resulting numerical figure as “input” for the whole sphere, thus, is nothing less than making Earth flat. That’s what the incorrect use of basic geometry, as you describe it, actually means. The fact that you do not understand your MISUSE of basic geometry means that somebody else does.

  43. Here is a further attempt to explain [does this look about right? … wrong? … ?]:

    Flux is a rate of flow. The rate of flow is greater on the half sphere than on the whole sphere. Remember, we are talking about a RATE, a FLUX, a movement of some quantity through time. Because this rate of flow supplies a cumulative quantity of energy over a cumulative amount of time that gets used over the whole sphere, the RATE of flow is logically, mathematically reduced by the greater surface area of the whole sphere to a rate defined for this greater surface area.

    The INPUT rate, thus, is greater than the OUTPUT rate,

    but because the OUTPUT surface area is greater than the INPUT surface area,

    the QUANTITY of energy delivered to the half sphere is equivalent to the QUANTITY of energy emanating from the whole sphere.

    I know rotation has to figure into this, and I probably have not quite got it correct, figuring rotation and all the processes of energy transformation, but am I on the right track?

  44. Joseph E Postma says:

    Yes that’s perfect.

  45. TEWS_Pilot says:

    Thank you and the others for your excellent responses. I think even the hard-headest FLAT EARTH AGW Alarmist Junk Scientist could understand your explanations. I will be sure to construct my reply so as to show how his misuse of geometry is actually using the output for input, thus creating a flat Earth theory. I initially asked him a few questions to try to prod his thinking this way”

    (My initial reply)


    1. Does the SUN ANGLE matter when it comes to energy transfer from incoming Sun radiation? What about TILT of the Earth on its axis with respect to the Sun? Why do we have seasons, and why are they opposite in the Northern and Southern Hemispheres?

    2. Is it equally hot at Sunrise, NOON, and Sunset? In other words, is the energy transfer due to radiation from the Sun the same at all three of those daily events and all the times of day between them? Would it matter if the radiation were impinging on a FLAT EARTH at a constant 90 degree angle with the same circumference as the Earth vs. a curved HEMISPHERE where the Sun angle is 90 degrees ONLY directly under the apparent Sun and less at all other points over the entire Hemisphere?

    3. Is there any difference in the energy transfer or heating effect from the Sun to a FLAT CIRCLE with the same radius as the Earth and a CURVED HEMISPHERE? One has all radiation impinging at 90 degrees while the other experiences Sun angles starting at 90 degrees only at the point directly under the apparent sun and decreasing angles to all horizons.

    4. How can the RATE of energy transfer from the Sun TO a FLAT EARTH surface equal the RATE of energy going OUT from an entire GLOBE? The TOTAL energy IN and OUT might be equal, but NOT THE RATES. The TOTAL energy in and out should be fairly equal, not accounting for losses and for some retention and the seasonal differences, but the energy transferred IN to the LIT hemisphere is distributed by conduction and convection all throughout the atmosphere where it is radiated out, and not by some magical storage of IR in CO2 molecules.

    5. In short, does a FLAT EARTH act exactly the same as a radiation receiver as a CURVED HEMISPHERE does?

  46. Joseph E Postma says:

    Exactly. The rate of energy input is in actuality FAR higher than the averaged value of output. It is the rate which drives the physics. Reversing the high-rate input for the low-rate output does NOT produce the same physics…it is NOT a reversible process.

    In fact, ANY thermodynamic process, which this scenario of course is, is NON-REVERSIBLE. And so you cannot model the reverse of the process (output for input) and get the same physics.

  47. Zoe Phin says:

    Here is a more accurate model:

    Thoughts? Comments?

  48. Zoe,
    In your model, should NIGHT AVG be E/2 ?

    … and

    should ((S+E)/2 + E)/2 be ((S+E)/2 + E/2)/2 ?

  49. Zoe,

    But then again, you seem to be adding fluxes, which is (I think) a no no.

  50. Zoe Phin says:

    E is Geothermal Energy. It does not need to be averaged. E is already averaged because geothermal energy varies by latitude. Day and Night, Earth outputs E (on average).

    I never add fluxes. I only use flux to determine Solar-induced temperature. Everything else is averaging temperatures.

  51. Something still seems amiss, but I can’t quite put my finger on it.

    Calling Rosco. (^_^)

  52. Rosco says:

    Here is a simple calculation which climate “science” ought to consider before issuing alarmist statements about how we are heating up the planet. It is just a rough check on the validity of the “settled science” and their radiation anomalies.

    We know the equation is right – its engineering applications are universal – the only uncertainty is the validity of a “constant” specific heat value or if pressure is a suitable choice for the atmosphere. But as this term ends up in the denominator of the equation calculating delta T smaller values simply make the calculated temperature result larger hence I chose an uncontroversial value close to unity for air – 1.005 KJ/kg.°C.

  53. Zoe,
    Despite humans burn them producing heat, when fossil fuels reserves are extracted from deep in the underground, in such massive quantities daily, as humans exercise that now – then that releases pressures, stops on-going chemical reactions, causing cooling effect, too.

    Drain any Battery, turning it a highly discharged, and you’ll find it dead-cold.

    Fossil fuels have distorted minds, since the Industrial Revolution – this far, the IQ becomes low.

    CO2-no-more, as finite fossil fuels are severely depleting by the minute.

    It is better thinking of ‘Off Fossil Fuels’ movement (OFF), taking shape nowadays in the US, Canada and elsewhere.

    In the Middle East, and many other places, communities have been taken OFF for decades now, owing to never-ending conflicts, war and geopolitics – they are now well living the harsh reality of pre-Industrial Revolution.

    It is better to allocate some of the [huge fossil fuels] energy burned in the process of endlessly discussing Flat Earth and Climate Change, 24/7, streaming all over the world, seemingly free-of-charge, to learn more from those unfortunate communities on how to re-enter the age of pre-industrial conditions – the potential that is looming for the rest of us.

  54. CD Marshall says:

    So the ToA solar flux is 120C or so why is the Thermosphere so warm? Is that radiation, cosmic rays, and solar irradiance? I was just astonished to find out it can increase up to 2482 Celsius. Is that really true? I do know because of it’s location heat transfers differently like the Space Station is constantly needing to radiate heat out of it even though it’s in freezing space.

    I suppose for an astrophysicist being on the space station would be something desired?

  55. The suns chronosphere likewise goes into ridiculously high temperatures. I think in both cases…it’s still not known how or why.

  56. Back to Zoe with a question:

    In your model, how do you derive E again?

  57. TEWS_Pilot says:

    Does anyone know where this chart came from and what it is suppose to depict? I assume it is supposed to show how magical CO2 heats up the atmosphere or something similar.

  58. Joseph E Postma says:

    Yes, it is a chart of how they figure a cold gas transfers heat to a warmer surface…lol.

  59. Zoe Phin says:

    Actually I derive E from S and AVG, since those are well known.

    My E may be a little high because I base it off:

    But it’s still within 2 degrees correct, I think.

  60. CD Marshall says:

    What’s this new fad for calling the atmosphere an enclosed space?

  61. Rosco says:

    Interesting NASA show net absorbed 0.6 W/m2 which should mean an increase in air temperature of ~1.86°C per year.

    The chart from the IPCC quoted by TEWS_Pilot shows anthropogenic radiative forcing of 2.29 W/m2 from 1750 to 2011. What nonsense.

    And just how do they justify 77.1 W/m2 absorbed by “atmosphere” (99+% of which has supposedly no IR activity) or the 169.9 W/m2 emitted by the “atmosphere” and greenhouse gases emitting 340.3 W/m2 back radiation – after all “greenhouse gases” constitute only a couple of percent of the atmosphere and most of that is water vapour yet clouds only play a minor role in their fantasy ?

    Energy budgets are the most ridiculous drawings ever but at least they now use a circular surface so they can’t be called flat Earth – I actually saw some genius make the circular surface comment as rebutting flat Earth physics – LOL.

    The fact that they are just stupid is revealed when they have zero allowance for real physical properties such as different heat capacity.

  62. TEWS_Pilot says:

    Charles R. Anderson, Ph.D. is a materials physicist according to his website. He has deconstructed Gavin Schmidt’s Energy Budget cartoon at the following website. I post it without comment for your critique.

    10 January 2017
    The Simple Physics Explaining the Earth’s Average Surface Temperature

  63. Charles Andersen is one original Slayer. His work is excellent.

  64. Zoe Phin says:

    I only used the “official” energy budget to extract ’emitted by surface – 398.2′.

    US Standard Atmosphere defines 15°C for sea level, but the Earth is not all at sea level.

    NASA “measures” 14.7°C for 1.5-2 meter above surface.

    I needed actual surface emission, which this budget claims is 16.34°C (289.5°K).

    If anyone has a better number, please provide.

    My only doubt is whether 398.2 includes emissivitty (0.97?) or not.

  65. CD Marshall says:

    Does anyone have any real data on the troposphere and stratosphere temperatures? I am so sick of hearing these endless claims of troposphere warming/stratosphere cooling I’d like the real information if it’s available and an honest detailed explanation as to why.

    Yes Zoe was kind enough to share the cloud reductions and I am grateful, but I need a little more. Any links would be appreciated. Naturally the usual suspects are writing papers claiming the stratosphere is cooling from massed greenhouse gases and aerosols. If you google that’s all you get is propaganda. It is next to impossible to find real data these days that hasn’t been tampered or truncated.

    For instance:

    The oldest recorded data on real solar irradiance is from 1920. All of this data from NASA/GISS is from models. Yet people brandish this crap like it’s the gospel.

    I get crap like this sent to me as proof of whatever.

    Click to access Ramaswamy_2006_Science.pdf

    A constant paper trail of junk or misinterpreted science funded by a multi-trillion dollar propaganda machine.

    It’s sometimes easier to argue with someone with some science knowledge than it is with someone with no science knowledge. I can usually trap a person with some science knowledge in their own words and they stop the conversation. Someone with no background is a like a child saying, “No that’s not what they said.” and giving me a red raspberry, metaphorically speaking.

    All the info you give could fill up several books. You should write a book on how they stop you from getting your work reviewed and send one to Sean Hannity.

  66. CD Marshall says:

    Again, why is it easy to find sunspot information recorded but not faculae? Wouldn’t it be great to get info from the Solar observatory in Australia? I’m not sure if it’s still there but the military had that information sent to them for each day so they could literally have a 24hr window into the Solar effects of that day.

  67. Rosco says:

    Is this the site you’re looking for –

    Here’s another –

    The solar radiance varies from ~1316 W/m2 in June to ~1408 W/m2 TOA in December.

  68. CD Marshall says:

    Yes that’s it, my brother in law knew a guy that worked there a long time ago when they were both working for the AF. Funny you found it.

  69. CD Marshall says:

    Anyone want to comment on this? This is a comment I was given about the stratosphere cooling and desperately trying to prove that ghg warm the troposphere.

    “Volcanic aerosols have a warming effect by absorption of long-wave and near-infrared radiation but in a high-chlorine atmosphere, volcanic aerosols also enhanced ozone-depletion; thereby cooling the stratosphere. You can check a passage down below from a paper by Aquila et al (2016).

    “Prior studies have shown that increases in concentrations of anthropogenic greenhouse gases (GHGs) and ozone-depleting substances (ODSs) have driven a sustained cooling of the stratosphere since 1980 (e.g. Ramaswamy and Schwarzkopf, 2002; Santer et al., 2003; Shepherd and Jonsson, 2008; Thompson and Solomon, 2009; Stolarski et al., 2010). The natural forcing by the solar cycle and occasional volcanic eruptions also impacted the temporal behavior of global stratospheric temperatures. The solar cycle affected stratospheric temperatures directly, via changes in incoming radiation, and indirectly, by modulating ozone formation and destruction (Gray et al., 2009; Swartz et al., 2012); volcanic sulfate aerosols warmed the stratosphere by absorbing long-wave and near-infrared radiation (Angell, 1997). In a high-chlorine atmosphere, volcanic aerosols also enhanced stratospheric ozone depletion (Tie and Brasseur, 1995), thereby cooling the stratosphere. Ozone depletion following the Mt. Pinatubo eruption caused a negative temperature anomaly in the lower stratosphere that persisted after the warming effect of the aerosol dissipated (Thompson and Solomon, 2009).”

  70. TEWS_Pilot says:

    @CD Marshall. This keynote speech contains the answers you are seeking and even uses IPCC and other AGW source data to prove that we are in no danger from GlowBULL Warming. Feedback due to AGW-CO2 would have to be 100 times its already outrageously high value just to raise the temperature over the next century 4.7K. The real value is about 1.19K even if anyone actually believes the CO2 feedback loop theory.

    Lord Christopher Monckton, ICCC13 (Afternoon Keynote Address)

    The Heartland Institute
    Published on Jul 31, 2019
    Lord Christopher Monckton, former advisor to British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher and renowned mathematician published in peer-reviewed climate journals, presents an afternoon Keynote Address at The Heartland Institute’s Thirteenth International Conference on Climate Change.

  71. Zoe Phin says:

    A note on the “official” energy budget:

    Backradiation (340.3) = 398.2-239.9+77.1+18.4+86.4

    The atmosphere receives:

    The atmosphere emits:

    That’s quite a lot. The atmosphere retains no energy and so must be ZERO kelvin.

    The sun can only provide 340.4-77.0-22.9=240.5

    How does 240.5 become 550.2?
    Earth must provide 310, no?

  72. CD Marshall says:

    Zoe how warm is that? I mean IF geothermal IS increasing that’s a warning sign and not a good one.

  73. CD Marshall says:

    According to NASA ToA is around 100km so is that the thermopshere or just above it?
    How can you determine the Sun’s power if the thermosphere gets so hot? How do you discern the difference?

  74. CD Marshall says:

    So I re-re-checked and according to NASA and some Space sites ToA is considered around a 100 km, which is the middle of the Mesosphere? They also claim the Thermosphere is heated by the Sun, Gamma and X-Rays. So the ToA W/m^2 is the middle of the Mesosphere punched through from the Thermophere, the warmest layer, to be recorded in the middle of the Mesosphere, the coldest layer. How do you people NOT get headaches?

  75. Pierre D. Bernier says:

    398.2-40.1-18.4=339.7 Turning around and around and around

  76. Rosco says:

    Zoe, shouldn’t this expression :-

    “The atmosphere receives: 398.2 -29.9 + 77.1 +18.4 +86.4 = 550.2” include the atmospheric window ?

    “The atmosphere receives: 398.2 – 40.1 – 29.9 + 77.1 +18.4 +86.4 = 510.2” ?

    And the atmosphere emits 239.9 – 29.9 – 40.1 + 340.3 = 510.2 ?

    Anyhow using their numbers the atmosphere has more than twice the heating capacity of the Solar radiation.

    It is also interesting that thermals amount to a paltry 18.4 yet create all weather.

  77. Zoe Phin says:

    You are correct, rosco. Thank you

  78. Zoe Phin says:

    If conduction is

    Q = kAdT/L, or
    q = k/LdT (Watts/m^2)

    and k = 0.026 for air (avg pressure of troposphere)
    and L = 11,000 meters (height of tropopause)
    and dT = 70K

    Then q = 0.000165 W/m^2

    That’s all that’s needed!

  79. Zoe Phin says:

    I mean that’s all that’s needed to spread heat in the compressed gas column, in addition to the insolation/geothermal at the base.

  80. CD Marshall says:

    “NASA Wants Your Help Developing Autonomous Rovers”

  81. Rosco says:

    Zoe – your second equation is written wrong – took me a while to figure out – should’ve spotted it sooner – you’ve written it with dT in the denominator.

    The Engineering toolbox has a table for k versus T and for 11,000 m (US Standard Atmosphere) T = ~-50°C and k = ~.02041. At Sea level T = ~15°C k = 0.0255

    The average is close enough to 0.023. Thus q with these values = 0.023 x 70°C (or K)/11,000 m = ~0.000146 W/m2 so your analysis is pretty damn good.

    Your analysis reminds me of the stuff one sees on but they are strictly radiative balances using SB equation exclusively.

  82. Rosco says: but they are strictly radiative balances using SB equation exclusively.

    Not exclusively but predominantly SB – they use Fourier’s in some examples.

    They are in the alarmist camp as you can tell by the name.

  83. CD Marshall says:

    I can honestly say I don’t think I understand one thing in this explanation:

    “the rhythmic contraction and expansion of the solar system driven by a major resonance involving the movements of the four Jovian planets appear to work as a gravitational/electromagnetic pump that increases and decreases the cosmic ray and dust densities inside the inner region of the solar system, which then modulate both the radionucleotide production and climate change by means of a cloud/albedo modulation.”

    I need an interpreter.

  84. CD Marshall says:

    If I had to sum it up they are saying the cosmos can influence our climate? Is that even close?

Leave a Reply

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

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s