The Greatest Scientific Fraud of All Time

In this video you’re going to learn about the greatest fraud which has ever, and which could ever, occur in science.  The audacity of the fraud is matched only by its simplicity.  The amazing thing is that anyone, down to Kindergarten children, can see the fraud and appreciate it as a fraud, while almost no scientist, particularly physicists at universities and in general most of the academic establishment, cannot and refuse to.

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

131 Responses to The Greatest Scientific Fraud of All Time

  1. Thanks Joe! You have honed in on the much bigger picture like a laser. It’s so obvious and yet hidden to the masses who are duped into trusting academia and scientists. Fraud and deceit permeate every field of study. There is a climate agenda built on the most rudimentary of mistakes. Thanks for pointing it out and being the voice of truth and reason.

  2. CD Marshall says:

    You may be a small flame but a flame shines brighter in the darkest night and we are moving into such dark nights. Seriously, Greta is the face of climate change? A page right out of the NAZI handbook? An innocent girl in pigtails promoting propaganda.

  3. PAULUS says:

    A change to 1/10000th part of the atmosphere is responsible for a 1degreeC increase in the temperature of the whole. Quantitivly absurd. Yes that is fraud. Harry Potter science

  4. TEWS_Pilot says:

    Joe, would the Flat Earth modelers understand the actual science involved better if you broke it down even further and showed that Energy OUT = Energy IN – Energy RETAINED by the Earth?…and NOT in some sort of phony “back radiation” perpetual motion machine scheme as they model it now?

  5. Rosco says:

    Their choices are :-

    1. Remain as an average lecturer in obscurity (really the honest and more noble choice); or,

    2. Join the privileged and exulted ones jet setting at other people’s expense to resorts worldwide to attend the greatest gatherings of group thinkers ever, gain celebrity and rebuke ordinary folk for having the temerity to think they are entitled to aspire to such extravagances of “carbon emission”.

    The second choice involves conforming to the nonsensical cult no matter which side they are on – alarmist or sceptic. IPCC versus NIPCC.

    The maintenance of celebrity demands shutting out any disbelievers hence the use of derogatory terms like “denier”.

    People are really like cattle or sheep (Mencken) and do not like being separate from the herd hence the lack of reason.

    I think we’re stuffed – it is all too easy to maintain power in this cult rather than the good old days when the odd pogrom of oppositions was required – that could be coming though.

  6. Zoe Phin says:

    Any RETENTION would mean disequilibrium: the sun is heating us. That’s not an idea that can even be entertained.

  7. TEWS_Pilot says:

    Zoe Phin, I may not be asking my question clearly. if all the energy coming from the Sun TODAY is radiated away TONIGHT, how can there be any heat retained by the Earth to keep us from becoming a ball of ice? We are not at 0 degrees K, and I realize some heating comes from inside the Earth, but the surface retains some heat every day from the sunlight it receives that day along with the residue from previous days. Shouldn’t that retained heat be included in the total heat calculation?

  8. Zoe Phin says:

    “the surface retains some heat every day from the sunlight it receives that day along with the residue from previous days.”

    Only for half a year.

    “I realize some heating comes from inside the Earth”

    Some is quite an understatement. By my count, it’s something like 340.3 W/m^2, on average, whole earth-wise.

  9. TEWS – there is only energy lost to retained energy as the object comes up to temperature. Eventually, particularly at equilibrium, then the energy lost to internal retained energy is zero…the object has retained everything it can at the given flux.

  10. Philip Mulholland says:

    Shouldn’t that retained heat be included in the total heat calculation?

    You are addressing an important issue. In our series of essays on WUWT and linked here on Research Gate I use the term “Atmospheric Reservoir” to describe this retention of power intensity flux within the climate system. Have a look at the diagrams in this essay:
    Modelling the Climate of Noonworld: A New Look at Venus

    Joseph, our host here, is quite correct when he points out that balancing energy flux is disingenuous when the frequency of the radiation is ignored. The divide by 4 dilution of sunlight is a mathematical trick used to calculate the exhaust temperature of the low frequency thermal radiation emitted by the climate machine. No mechanical system, and the climate IS a mechanical system, can operate with zero friction loss. Implying that the power intensity flux in the high frequency sunlight that illuminates our globe is instantaneously spread over the whole surface (both lit and unlit hemispheres) is so stupid it hurts.

  11. TEWS_Pilot says:

    Great explanations all around. In retrospect, I can see that I was not looking at steady state as it exists today, which is what the debate is really about. My concerns would have been addressed if the calculations began with the first ray of sunlight hitting the brand new Earth, but we are well beyond that point. I’m satisfied with the current version.

  12. Zoe Phin says:

    And how much geothermal-to-space flux does Venus have?

  13. Philip Mulholland says:

    And how much geothermal-to-space flux does Venus have?

    Zoe Phin,
    The point at issue is the development and application of a climate model that can be applied in all planetary circumstances. The current Vacuum Planet equation which is derived from astronomy is the starting point of the radiative feedback model of Earth’s climate and is the fully justified focus of Joseph’s criticisms. This model which uses opacity as the basis for flux recycling assumes that there is rapid planetary rotation. Clearly in the case of Venus this is not true. Venus is the nearest example to a tidally locked planet with an atmosphere that we can directly observe in our solar system (Mercury has no permanent light molecular gas atmosphere).

    The Noonworld climate model I have devised starts with this extreme case of a tidally locked world and then uses the physical process of atmospheric motion to distribute energy from the permanently lit hemisphere to the unlit side. The key point in the model of Noonworld is that the mobile fluid transporting the power intensity flux cycles endlessly between the two hemispheres. It is worth noting at this point that Venus has an atmosphere that contains three times as much nitrogen gas by mass as Earth does. You can check this statement by applying Dalton’s Law of partial pressures to the volume ratio of Nitrogen in the Venusian atmosphere, so the nitrogen component of the Venusian atmosphere would not freeze solid even if the planet was indeed fully tidally locked.

    Have a look at this essay on the atmosphere of Titan which like Venus is a slow rotator but because it is a low temperature world has an almost pure nitrogen atmosphere (the carbon dioxide gas has frozen out).
    Using an Iterative Adiabatic Model to study the Climate of Titan.
    Figure 3 and Table 6 shows how our meteorological based climate model provides a fully justified alternate starting point to the study of planetary climate.

    To address your comment about geothermal flux on Venus have a look at this work on energy release by core / mantle breaking:-
    Correia, A.C., Laskar, J. and De Surgy, O.N., 2003. Long-term evolution of the spin of Venus: I. theory. Icarus, 163(1), pp.1-23.

  14. CD Marshall says:

    So you guys are light years ahead of me and I’m not catching up anytime soon. Another stupid question. When does conduction to convection become just radiation? where does the convection in the atmosphere stop and radiation takes over? Everything leaving the planet leaves as radiation. So where does the transfer happen and why?

  15. Philip Mulholland says:

    Another stupid question. When does conduction to convection become just radiation?

    CD Marshall,

    I do not believe that there is such a thing as a stupid question, there are only ever stupid answers. So here is my attempt not to give you a stupid answer:

    Let us start with the bottom layer of Earth’s atmosphere, this is called the troposphere or more simply the weather layer.
    Turbulent air motion or convective overturning is the dominant feature of the weather layer. Convection is caused by differential heating at ground level. The ground surface is the place where most of the heating takes place as incoming high frequency solar radiation or light is turned into sensible heat or warm temperatures.

    One of the most important features of the weather layer is that the air temperature generally decreases with increasing height. Knowing why this happens is critical to understanding the whole process of climate and I will leave this part for Joseph to explain. Sufficient to say that this temperature gradient is a feature of an atmosphere undergoing vertical motion in a gravity field in which potential energy or energy of position is directly interchangeable with kinetic energy or energy of motion.

    At the top of the weather layer is the tropopause where the coldest temperatures occur and all water is frozen solid (even super-cooled water). Above this point is the stratosphere, the layered zone, and here there is little or no turbulent mixing and the clear dry low pressure air emits thermal radiation directly out to space.

    So the simplest answer to your question is at the tropopause. However in reality there is no simple single boundary between convection and radiation and instead there is a zone of changeover that depends on weather processes, time of day and seasonality.

    Have a look at this first essay in our study series:
    Calibrating the CERES Image of the Earth’s Radiant Emission to Space.
    Notice how the maximum depth into the atmosphere at which the CERES instrument records thermal radiation (and therefore radiant emission temperature) depends on the latitude zone of the three main atmospheric cells, Tropical Hadley, Temperate Ferrel and Arctic Polar and the type of weather activity within each cell (convective storms or subsiding air).

  16. Zoe Phin says:

    Venus provides its own ~17000 W/m^2 of geothermal energy. It doesn’t need the Sun for thermal energy, because its own energy exceeds that of the sun.

  17. CD Marshall says:

    Another great propaganda piece to just well, piss you off: I love how they always say, “debunking” like that means they are an authority.

    “Debunking Myths About CO2, Global Warming & Greenhouse Gases”

    Climate change deniers make many false claims about carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. These include the idea that CO2 has a limited or negligible impact on global warming—or even has the net effect of cooling our planet. Some also claim that the greenhouse effect would violate the laws of physics. Others make the assertion that the small quantities of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere couldn’t possibly cause significant worldwide temperature changes. As I show here, every single one of these arguments are incorrect.


  18. Channel title ‘skeptical human’ lolol…disgusting.

  19. CD Marshall says:

    I tried listening to it but after 5 minutes I couldn’t take his uneducated arrogant self entitled ass anymore. Everything he said could be proved wrong in just the first 5 minutes. Joseph you could do videos on just his talking points. Gawd these people are stupid.

  20. Zoe Phin says:

    I was just thinking,
    If the Earth is flat, then it can’t have any geothermal energy. Maybe they really do think the Earth is flat.

    In fact there is nothing under the Earth at all, a perfect void. See, if the Earth was flat then one warmed side would, via conduction, cause emission on the other side. But we can’t have emission on the other side, because all the emission is on the top side, and then they would have to dilute again by 1/2. Their flat earth is not even a sensible flat earth. A more sensible flat earth would have P/2 emitted on both sides, in accordance with their type of math.

    It’s so stupid that one lacks words to describe their stupid.

  21. CO2 doesn’t add energy – it retains energy. What exactly does this mean?

    Where does it get the energy to … RETAIN?

    ANSWER: It has to add energy, in order to RETAIN energy.

    Please explain, video dude, where the energy comes from to retain, if it isn’t first made.

    What is the MECHANISM of “retaining”? You mean “trapped”, right? CO2 traps energy, and thereby RETAINS energy? Well, describe the MECHANISM of … “trapping”. How does a molecule TRAP energy and imprison it from taking part in the laws of thermodynamics? Does it have little bars, like a jail cell, maybe? Micro-strongmen who grab onto some stuff called “energy” to keep it from getting away? And if it is trapped, then how does it get used for anything else?

    Clearly, clowns are required to put forth an argument that can only be supported by a circus act such as this.

  22. CD Marshall says:

    Love the fact that he showed mosquitoes as a pestilence that will spread due to global warming. So they can spread beyond the planet? They already exist from jungles to ice regions. Where else are they going? The Moon?

  23. MP says:

    Alarmist are already in a corner regarding back-radiation. Because literal back-radiation violates the second law of thermodynamics.

    What they say now is that it slows down outgoing radiation.

    But what about the slowing down of outgoing heat because of heat fluxes like the latent heat flux? They don’t account for that.

    So in the hypothetical situation where their theory is partly true, then they can’t account all warming to the slowing down effect of greenhouse gasses. Most (or all) of the slowing down of outgoing heat is because of sensible heat flux, latent heat flux, and surface heat flux into oceans

  24. TEWS_Pilot says:

    MP, is the textbook to which you linked trustworthy, or has it also been corrupted and politicized with AGW Junk Science theory?

  25. CD Marshall says:

    I must ask, what is sensible heat flux?

  26. MP says:

    @ TEWS_Pilot

    Well, the page is a citation from peer reviewed literature, so it is at least the mainstream accepted understanding of heat fluxes.

    Citation: Pidwirny, M. (2006). “Global Heat Balance: Introduction to Heat Fluxes”. Fundamentals of Physical Geography, 2nd Edition

  27. MP says:

    @ CD Marshall

    Process where excess heat energy is transferred into the atmosphere. The process first involves the movement of heat energy from the Earth’s surface to the atmosphere by conduction and convection. The heat energy then can move horizontally advection (atmospheric circulation).

  28. CD Marshall says:

    I understood the process (mostly) did not know that’s what it was called. Thank you.

  29. Zoe Phin says:

    So I claim 283.18°K (10°C) is geothermal energy. This is equivalent to 364.61 W/m^2. Since Earth’s surface emissivity is 0.93334, this results in 340.3 W/m^2. That number looks familiar. Ah, yes it’s exactly “backradiation” from GHGs. lol, What a coincidence!

  30. TEWS_Pilot says:

    @ MP, thank you. I have become a cynic over the past few decades and don’t trust much of anything peer-reviewed and published these days, given the outright JUNK SCIENCE being taught in schools, “AGW” being perhaps the most egregious offender. Climategate left a permanent black mark on the credibility of the peer review process as well as the entire world of academia and government agencies associated with any field of science.

    I still pull out my old (copyright 1960, 1962) “Physics for Students of Science and Engineering”, Halliday and Resnick that carried me through my undergraduate degree in Physics as an intern working for NASA on the Apollo Program as a contrast to some of the nonsense that passes for textbooks today. We put men on the moon using slide rules and computer programs loaded with IBM cards and paper tape…today, could we repeat that feat even with all the advances in technology we have made during the intervening years if we can’t even get CLIMATE SCIENCE correct?

  31. Pierre D. Bernier says:


    Help me out here please !!!
    The Earth receives about 1368 / 2 W/m^2 from the Sun. This is a daily average, monthly average and a yearly average ! After albedo of 0.30 we receive about 480 W/m^2, The Earth re-emits that on 2 faces at a time for 240 W/m^2. Everybody is OK with 240 output calculated and measured ! You and I are OK with 1368 / 2. Who needs geothermal to balance !

    Am I missing something here ?

  32. MP says:

    Fair enough. Sometimes you need “factuals” from their own literature to show the flaws in other fields tho.

    The graph in the refered link is quite interesting.

    I mentioned the slowing down effect of by example energy that goes into evaporation what a long time later is released when it condenses. The total proces is seen as a heat balance but there is a time-laps in between, and they don’t account for that. While they do account for that in the theoretical greenhouse radiation effect.

    But also other false propaganda can be refuted by it. Many people believe that there are climate refugees because of extra greenhouse gas w/m2 forcing. And the islamic community thinks Mecca (21.4 latitude) will overheat because of extra w/m2 forcing

    But the graph shows that in between 22 degree latitude north and 22 degree south the temperature drops when the w/m2 forcing increases. Because of the heat fluxes.

  33. Zoe Phin says:

    That’s 480 on one hemisphere. Well, it’s not 0 kelvin on the other side, is it?

    I’m going to coin the 10-15-20-30 rule.
    10 geo-night
    30 solar-hemisphere
    20 day
    15 overall

  34. Zoe Phin says:

    Also Pierre,
    The output of the surface is 390-400 W/m^2 depending on your source of data. It’s not 240.

  35. Pierre D. Bernier says:

    In your world

    Not mine

  36. Zoe Phin says:

    Joe already admitted *0.637 was a mistake he corrected. Anyway,
    (322K+X)/2 = 255K
    X=188K, that’s not from the sun.

    What do you mean “not mine”? The surface temperature has been measured to be about 15C, which is 390 W/m^2.

    Either it’s geothermal or GHGs (lol). Take your pick.

  37. Zoe Phin says:

    The surplus/deficit diagram you showed is probably a fraud. Here is something more realistic:

    Notice the difference?

  38. Zoe Phin says:

    Because geothermal energy is 340 vs solar 240 (avg. for 2 hemispheres), you’d expect the deficit area to be 340/240=42% larger. And it looks like it is, when you use correct charts.

  39. MP says:

    @ Zoe Phin

    For now i go for geothermal + the time laps of latent heat fluxes compared to the speed of outgoing radiation.

    The heat goes at radiation speed from the sun in the earth system, and goes slower out (because of the heat fluxes and not co2). Therefore there is extra warming.

  40. MP says:

    @ Zoe Phin

    The only difference i see in the graphs you posted is the latitude range and the w/m2 range where there is a surplus. The principle stays the same.

  41. Zoe Phin says:

    Wouldn’t evaporation and condensation balance each other out?

  42. MP says:

    @ Zoe Phin

    Well. The literature sees the heat fluxes as a “Global Heat Balance”
    But that is a good question, because the incoming energy makes it possible that work is done in the processes.

  43. Zoe Phin says:

    “The only difference i see in the graphs you posted is the latitude range and the w/m2 range where there is a surplus. The principle stays the same.”

    How about the area of the surplus vs. deficit?

  44. Pierre D. Bernier says:

    / Joe already admitted *0.637 was a mistake he corrected /
    Yes he did correct to 0.5.. Last time I checked 0.5 = 1 / 2. 1368 / 2 !!! / 2 means divided by 2.

  45. MP says:

    @ Zoe Phin

    They balance each other out, in principle.

    But they don’t account for time in between canceling each other out.

    And don’t count in the energy that went into work that has been done. As mentioned in the post above.

    I think that the time laps of latent heat in between canceling each other out is a big factor. And that is ignored, while it is the corner stone of current day greenhouse gas theory.

    I remember Roy Spencer mention how much % slower energy goes out because of greenhouse gasses, and that therefore the temperature is higher.

    Since climate alarm scamist steal and flip over narratives. It seems logical that the supposed greenhouse gas slowing down of outgoing energy theory is stolen from the actual slowing down of outgoing energy by heat fluxes.

  46. MP says:

    What i mentioned above is a checkmate against climate alarmism.

    Just like the violation of the ideal gas law a checkmate is against climate alarmism. But they seem to do pretty well in ignoring that for now.

  47. Rosco says:

    Look at the graph on the NASA Nimbus 40th anniversary page

    If anyone can assert that this shows ant “heat trapping” at all please tell me.

    All I see is a simple relationship between extra energy in causing higher temperatures resulting in more energy radiated to space – entirely inconsistent with the claimed “greenhouse gas heat trapping” hypothesis !

    From the 60/70’s environmental concerns about pollution including atmospheric pollution became politically sensitive and mankind made remarkable strides in reducing atmospheric aerosol pollution.

    This is clearly evident in the graph with the only exceptions related to periods of extreme volcanic activity.

    Clearer skies, lower albedo, higher solar insolation, mild warming, more radiation to space – again if someone can explain to me how this isn’t the case please do so.

    Atmospheric radiation, or any source of radiant energy for that matter, can only cause warming on anything when the target is colder – this is a well established fact of thermodynamics.

  48. CD Marshall says:

    Joseph has already explained latent heat thoroughly on this site, how energy transfers and so on:
    {Climate is all internal response effects (from Solar input accept for some little geothermal). Internal cycling of energy (i.e. all weather phenomena including “backradiation” is not production of new energy or new heat or higher temperatures. Most climate effects are cooling phenomena, except for the release of latent heat which prevents cooling and keeps things warmer than otherwise. Eventually, all the energy escapes that comes in, as radiation out into space.} Not his exact words but ball park close.

    Latent heat can be days in the atmosphere (lapse rate) or a 100 years in the oceans (giant solar energy battery) . Finding an accurate analysis of determining that in the energy budget I find questionable. Which means the flux in and flux out should never match up, should it?

    The whole energy in and energy out doesn’t add up to me as a non scientist. I would think it’s more energy in and eventually energy out. How long a hundred years? A day?

    Calculating the energy in would be easy. Calculating energy out should also be easy. Claiming they match on a day to day basis, seems questionable.

    How much energy can this planet store before releasing it? That’s the real question.

    What causes geothermal to increase? I know the plates and so forth cause volcanic activity but that pressure in the core is always finding an exit. Why are those exits constantly changing?

    Geothermal Hot Spots never change, they are permanent holes in the inner crust the surface moves over them.

    I just don’t think the entire energy of the Earth is so simple to explain.

    Where the energy comes from sure, the Sun or geothermal. The internal process I find more complex.

    If both the Earth and the Sun go into a prolonged decayed magnetic field, what effects does that create astronomically and what effect would that do to the planet? Has that ever happened before?

  49. Pierre D. Bernier says:

    How wonderful when theory and observation fit together. What a wonderful world. No more need for geothermal !
    / Either it’s geothermal or GHGs (lol). Take your pick. /
    NONE ! Have you ever been on a beach on a hot summer day. Heck, Walmart parking lot on a clear day in February on Hallandale Beach Boulevard, Florida.
    It’s scorching hot !!! ITSS !!!
    Since when is the Earth going to emit 364.61 W/m^2 only to take it all back ? By what mechanism ? 364.61 W/m^2 coming from geothermal means 364.61 W/m^2 from geothermal plus 240 W/m^2 from the Sun means that 604 W/m^2 should be going out to space to keep thermal equilibrium. That is not what we observe. We observe 240 !!!
    Bye bye Geo !!

  50. MP says:

    I think it is interesting to try and figure out the whole system. Even more interesting right now is debunking the current day view of CAGW tho

    Here is a quote from Roy Spencer

    Quote: “The temperature (of anything) is not determined by the rate of energy input (say, the intensity of sunlight, or how fast your car engine burns gas); it is the result of a balance between energy gain and energy loss. The greenhouse effect reduces the rate of energy loss at the surface, thus causing higher temperatures then if it did not exist.”

    But …there is no empirical evidence that greenhouse gasses reduces the rate of energy loss

    And there is empirical evidence that the opposite happens high in the atmosphere, from the NASA SABER instrument. Co2 and NO are natural coolants there and protect against solar storms. High in the atmosphere Co2 reduces the incoming solar storm energy that otherwise could have reached lower parts of the atmosphere, and increases the rate of outgoing energy.

    And there is empirical evidence that heat transfers like latent heat reduces the rate of energy loss, timewise.

    So. There are 2 options.

    A. Roy Spencer’s theory is partly right, and green house gasses do reduce the rate of outgoing energy at the surface. But then he also needs to calculate in the reduced rate of outgoing energy because of heat fluxes. And that will make the theoretical effect of greenhouse gasses less potent, what debunks the alarmist part of the AGW theory.

    B. Roy Spencer’s theory is completely wrong. Co2 does not reduce the rate of energy loss at the surface. Only heat fluxes reduce the rate of energy loss, and locally some type of clouds that act like a blanket.

  51. Pierre D. Bernier says:

    How wonderful when theory and observation fit together. What a wonderful world. No more need for geothermal !
    / Either it’s geothermal or GHGs (lol). Take your pick. /
    NONE ! Have you ever been on a beach on a hot summer day. Heck, Walmart parking lot on a clear day in February on Hallandale Beach Boulevard, Florida.
    It’s scorching hot !!! It’s the Sun !!!
    Since when is the Earth going to emit 340 W/m^2 only to take it all back ? By what mechanism ? 340 W/m^2 coming from geothermal means 340 W/m^2 from geothermal plus 240 W/m^2 from the Sun means that 580W/m^2 should be going out to space to keep thermal equilibrium That is not what we observe. We observe 240 !!! Even the alarmists admit to that !!!
    Bye bye Geo !!!

  52. Pierre D. Bernier says:

    How marvelous when theory and observation fit together. What a wonderful world of equilibrium without external help !

  53. CD Marshall says:

    Does anyone have data on radiation leaving the surface? I’m sick of hearing these claims that radiation is proven to be trapped. Then they say it;s not. I need to look at the source myself.

  54. Rosco, I looked:

    No proof of trapping whatsoever

    … as expected.

  55. Pierre D. Bernier says:

    How wonderful when theory and observation fit together. What a wonderful world. No more need for geothermal !
    / Either it’s geothermal or GHGs (lol). Take your pick. /
    NONE ! Have you ever been on a beach on a hot summer day. Heck, Walmart parking lot on a clear day in February on Hallandale Beach Boulevard, Florida.
    It’s scorching hot !!! It’s the Sun !!!
    Since when is the Earth going to emit 340 W/m^2 only to take it all back ? By what mechanism ? 340 W/m^2 coming from geothermal plus 240 W/m^2 from the Sun means that 580W/m^2 should be going out to space to keep thermal equilibrium That is not what we observe. We observe 240 !!! Even the alarmists admit to that !!!
    Bye bye Geo !!!

  56. Zoe Phin says:

    Geothermal 340.3 + Solar 163.3 (Day & Night Avg) = 503.6 for the atmosphere, which is exactly what the official energy budget claims the atmosphere receives. If atmosphere emits 239.9 W/m^2 to space, then the atmosphere eats up 263.7 W/m^2.

    Why is that so shocking for you? Why would you expect the atmosphere to emit all it receives and be at 0 Kelvin? That’s crazy.

  57. Pierre D. Bernier says:

    340,3 ??? Really ? Exactly 340,3 !!! Just like in…
    How about, now that the alarmists are stuck in a corner are they preparing the field to say that they misinterpreted geothermal for back-radiation to dig themselves out of it ? They still will have to explain how geothermal goes back from hot surface to colder mantle ! Only 240 going out ! I guess they’ll use the old saying… Cold warms hot !!!

  58. Pierre D. Bernier says:

    / the atmosphere eats up 263.7 W/m^2. /
    Oh ya ! What does it do with it ? Stack it up ? At thermal equilibrium OUT =.IN. No way out !

  59. Pierre D. Bernier says:

    If the Earth was starting anew at 0 K then I’d understand that it will keep a lot of energy to warm up to equilibrium. But once at equilibrium… OUT = IN !!! NO WAY OUT !!!

  60. MP says:

    @ Zoe Phin

    Also need to calculate in the effect of the speed of energy going in vs the speed of energy going out.

    If an object is heated at a certain speed (radiation from the sun) and the heat goes out slower (atmospheric processes). Then the object gets warmer until an equilibrium is reached of energy coming in and energy coming out.

  61. Zoe Phin says:

    Matter slows down the intake and release. Lag effect, no rise in temperature.

    Faster input raises albedo.

    Atmosphere has no net warming effect. It’s an energy sink. 11km of atmosphere eats up as much temperature as the top 2.75km of dirt/rock/ocean. Yes, I said temperature not energy sink, because heat capacity is different – math is easier.

  62. MP says:

    @ Zoe Phin

    Right, negative feedbacks like albedo also play a role in reaching the energy in = energy out equilibrium. Not only the temperature increase.

    Atmospheric processes (not co2) have a slowing down effect compared to the speed of energy coming in. Not only atmospheric processes slows down energy out, also by example heat fluxes into the ocean.

    In this hypothetis It is still the sun that heats the planet, just at a faster pace than energy out. And therefore higher temperature , more clouds, etc.

    The atmosphere doesn’t create itself, it is just a side effect of energy going fast in vs slow out, what indirectly makes the impact of incoming solar radiation bigger.

  63. Pierre D. Bernier says:

    My posts are always on / awaiting moderation / then disappear. Joe I’m one of your great admirers but until you get me off that awaiting list I’m out.

  64. CD Marshall says:

    I’ve been thinking. Exposing the fraudulent energy budget great, but I think it’s only one part of a two part exposing plan. Proving the ghe effect is impossible, exposing the real properties of CO2 and explaining that is just not how the atmosphere works. Once you have soundly explained that to some (I hope) then they may ask well how does it work? In which your explanation on the real process of solar irradiance may make more sense. It’s just a thought, but if they think they understand the ghe effect they may dismiss the solar budget explanation. I might be impossibly wrong but in my mind it’s like showing (some) a detour sign w/o them actually seeing the road is closed first. If they see the road is closed (the ghe is simply impossible) they may ask for an alternative explanation where in yours is the detour that makes perfect logical sense.

    No doubt it will NOT work for academics I’m sure they know the ghe is false and they don’t care. But maybe the more honest, or someone looking for an answer, or a younger student just starting out in science may start to kick in the critical thinking.

    I talked to one a while ago when I new nothing of this at all. I couldn’t talk the science but I reasoned with him enough that he thought about it with his own mind. After a while he said well maybe it’s not true I still got other things I can help out with in science. That’s all we need is, “maybe it’s not true” just so they can start thinking for themselves.

    Again maybe I’m wrong you just never know. I was just musing as I often do.

  65. Zoe Phin says:

    Maybe we’re saying the same thing. My argument is that the atmosphere eats up energy to maintain its state. It’s not supposed to be energy in = energy out. No one would expect a conductively heated metal bar to release all its given. You can call it slowing down, but I prefer to think of it as consumption. Without the atmosphere, the surface would be hotter.

  66. CD Marshall says:

    Gentle folk and brilliant scholars of all ages,
    Back to my radiation query. I’m not even sure wear he’s getting this information from? I saw nothing on thT NASA chart that indicated that at all? Am I missing something? When i challenged him on the proof that radiation is not leaving the atmosphere this was his reply:

    “…the missing radiation compared to the black body radiation, that’s what the surface is emitting, correspond with the absorption spectrum of CO2. This radiation is leaving the surface but is missing above the atmosphere so it must be absorbed somewhere along the way.”

  67. Zoe Phin says:

    It’s true that CO2 gets heated. It’s not true that it heats back (or forces surface to send it more radiation). They want CO2 to send back all its energy, leaving it at 0K, while denying that’s what they did. They want to keep their cake and eat it too.

    You can’t convince crazy people that their assumptions are crazy. It’s their axiom. You take it away and they have nothing. They will just repeat their nonsense ad nauseum to convince themselves.

  68. Rosco says:


    Satellites record a reduction in emissions to space corresponding to CO2’s absorption band centred around 15 micron.

    In a wavelength plot this coincides with the peak emissions value and some alarmists make a big deal about this.

    However the coincidence with peak emissions does not occur in a wavelength plot

    What does this really mean – nothing really – the coincidence or not with peak emissions is meaningless.

    You can calculate how much radiation is “missing” in terms of W/m2 by calculating the missing area – it is about 24 W/m2. Calculate the triangle area and multiply by pi. It is the same no matter which variable of the Planck function is chosen. The area under any Planck function (the integral) multiplied by pi is the Stefan-Boltzmann equation.

    As CO2 is a trace gas and is at its densest value close to ground level most of this absorption likely occurs close to the ground. Any energy absorbed thus is also likely transferred to other gas molecules. But look at the graph and see what a low emitting temperature is associated with the CO2 emissions across the bottom of the absorption band – ~210 K to ~230 and that is not going to heat the already warmer surface.

    It is pure sophistry to use the net form of the SB equation to claim something reduces the emissive power of something else P(net) = sigmaT1^4 – sigma T2^4 does not prevent object 1 at temperature T1 from emitting sigmaT1^4 – they simply claim that object 2’s emissions cause it to lose less energy.

    But the only results we have based on the cavity oven experiments show that object 1 at temperature T1 will sigmaT1^4 and object T2 can only cause it to become warmer if T2 > T1.

  69. “…the missing radiation compared to the black body radiation, that’s what the surface is emitting, correspond with the absorption spectrum of CO2. This radiation is leaving the surface but is missing above the atmosphere so it must be absorbed somewhere along the way.”

    That’s ridiculous reasoning. The absorption spectrum of CO2 is not showing anything “missing”. It shows that CO2 absorbs the radiation, gets a bit excited, and relaxes. The absorption spectrum shows this dynamic — it shows NOTHING “missing”.

    That instant of excitation (a vibration of very short duration) from the absorption is distributed over many times more molecules than the CO2 number of molecules [ratio roughly 1 CO2 to 2500 other air molecules]. How much heating is that? — virtually none. All those other molecules are moving in gigantically larger actions that these puny little CO2 vibrations just hitch a ride on, and perhaps help distribute some of that total energy out into space, I think.

  70. CD Marshall says:

    Basically all I’m hearing is the 15 micron range (allegedly if NASA is even telling the truth) is being absorbed and scattered in different frequencies not in the 15 micron range. So it’s not missing, it’s just scattered in different ranges. Is this about right?

  71. CD Marshall says:

    So if a gas molecule emits the same energy level of photons that it absorbs that doesn’t mean it absorbs at the 15 micron range and releases at the 15 micron range it means it takes the same energy and scatters it in all directions at at lower levels equal to the energy, not the range. Right?

  72. MP says:

    @ CD Marshall

    Scattering is not a co2 thingy. It is reflecting on shiny objects like ice particles. It is basically one of the properties of clouds.

  73. CD Marshall says:

    If anyone needs information on the MWP this is simply amazing work. All of these icons rep a paper. Click the icon and the paper reference will show up on the right. Incredible work!

  74. CD Marshall says:

    Sorry I’m tired and not a scientist. I meant as CO2 absorbs energy and is heated it emits IR at different frequencies if indeed it gets “heated” at that altitude.

  75. TEWS_Pilot says:

    O/T…but not really.

    How the Media Help to Destroy Rational Climate Debate
    August 25th, 2019 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.

    An old mantra of the news business is, “if it bleeds, it leads”. If someone was murdered, it is news. That virtually no one gets murdered is not news. That, by itself, should tell you that the mainstream media cannot be relied upon as an unbiased source of climate change information.

    There are lots of self-proclaimed climate experts now. They don’t need a degree in physics or atmospheric science. For credentials, they only need to care and tell others they care. They believe the Earth is being murdered by humans and want the media to spread the word.

    Most people do not have the time or educational background to understand the global warming debate, and so defer to the consensus of experts on the subject. The trouble is that no one ever says exactly what the experts agree upon.

    When you dig into the details, what the experts agree upon in their official pronouncements is rather unremarkable. The Earth has warmed a little since the 1950s, a date chosen because before that humans had not produced enough CO2 to really matter. Not enough warming for most people to actually feel, but enough for thermometers to pick up the signal buried in the noise of natural weather swings of many tens of degrees and spurious warming from urbanization effects. The UN consensus is that most of that warming is probably due to increasing atmospheric CO2 from fossil fuel use (but we really don’t know for sure).

    ——> For now, I tend to agree with this consensus.<—– I was gritting my teeth as I read his erroneous take on the RGHE up to this point, but he lost my interest completely at this point.

    Maybe someone would like to go to his site and comment on his Naiveté….you risk being rejected as a KOOK, though.

  76. Rosco says:

    Alarmists love to frighten school children with tales of the terrifying “greenhouse effect” on Venus – one of my grandchildren told me about this class the other week – they should be ashamed – the alarmist teachers obviously.

    NASA’s planetary fact sheets states the surface temperature on Venus is ~737 Kelvin –

    The University of California LA Campus says that Venus has an albedo of 0.8 – it is certainly very bright in the night sky.

    Using typical “greenhouse” maths they divide the solar constant at Venus by 4 –

    “From geometry, we can calculate the average solar flux
    over the surface of Venus. It is approximately 661 W/m2..
    Venus is very reflective of solar radiation. In fact, it has a
    reflectivity (or albedo) of 0.8, so the planet absorbs
    approximately 661 X 0.2 = 132 W/m2.
    By assuming that the incoming radiation equals the
    outgoing radiation (energy balance), we can convert this
    into an effective radiating temperature by invoking the
    Stefan-Boltzmann law (total energy = σT4). We find that
    T=220 K.

    But Venus’ surface has a temperature of 730 K!!!

    The explanation for this huge discrepancy is the planet’s
    greenhouse effect.”

    The Stefan-Boltzmann equation gives the result of 16,728 W/m2 radiant emissions for a temperature of 737 K.

    Anyone who believes an output of 16,728 W/m2 from an input of 132 W/m2 is possible is simply gullible.

    So what causes Venus’s surface temperature ?

    Using NASA’s values and PV = nRT one can calculate the pressure should cause a temperature of ~750 K – remarkably close.

    But I suspect Venus is “geologically less advanced” than Earth – it is possibly as geo-thermally active as Earth was eons ago.

    A constant degassing of CO2 would explain its high atmospheric content along with supplying the energy capable of sustaining the high temperatures.

    Either way it most certainly has nothing to do with a spurious “greenhouse effect”.

    Further consider the outer planets which have huge atmospheres and an unknown interior except that we know the interiors are hot. They certainly do not have any “greenhouse effect” with exceedingly low levels of solar radiation.

    I had always though geothermal activity was a candidate for Venus’s high temperatures – or a huge atmosphere compressed by gravity ?

    I had never considered it for Earth as I simply listened to the arrogant dismissals of alarmists but Zoe has given me cause to think the idea is certainly possible and rational and contributes much more to an “energy budget” than given credit for. I think IceAgeBob is right with his oft repeated statement about undersea geothermal activity – “And they wonder what is heating the oceans” !

  77. Pierre D. Bernier says:

    TEST / Still on awaiting moderation ? / TEST END
    Then we will have back-geothermal ?

  78. CD Marshall says:

    Venus is 70% of the distance to the sun so its average solar constant/irradiance is twice as intense as that of earth, 2,615 W/m^2 as opposed to 1,368 W/m^2. But the albedo of Venus is 0.77 compared to 0.31 for the Earth – or – Venus 601.5 W/m^2 net ASR (absorbed solar radiation) compared to Earth 943.9 W/m^2 net ASR.
    The Venusian atmosphere is 250 km thick as opposed to Earth’s at 100 km. Picture how hot you would get stacking 1.5 more blankets on your bed. RGHE’s got jack to do with it, it’s all Q = U * A * ΔT.

    The thermal conductivity of carbon dioxide is about half that of air, 0.0146 W/m-K as opposed to 0.0240 W/m-K so it takes twice the ΔT/m to move the same kJ from surface to ToA.
    Put the higher irradiance & albedo (lower Q = lower ΔT), thickness (greater thickness increases ΔT) and conductivity (lower conductivity raises ΔT) all together: 601.5/943.9 * 250/100 * 0.0240/0.0146 = 2.61.

    So, Q = U * A * ΔT suggests that the Venusian ΔT would be 2.61 times greater than that of Earth. If the surface of the Earth is 15C/288K and ToA is effectively 0K then Earth ΔT = 288K. Venus ΔT would be 2.61 * 288 K = 748.8 K surface temperature. All explained, no need for any S-B BB RGHE hocus pocus.

    Simplest explanation for the observation.

    -Nick Schroeder, BSME, PE

  79. Pierre D. Bernier says:

    TEST / Still on awaiting moderation ? / END TEST
    / Atmosphere… heat sink /
    Ya. And KE = k * T, therefore lowering T means lost KE. Where does it go ? Venus ?

  80. Pierre D. Bernier says:

    Hi CD
    I saw somewhere that Venus thing above from Nick Schroeder, BSME, PE but cant remember where. Can you point me to it ? THX Regards.

  81. TEWS_Pilot says:

    Is this absurd enough (and close to accurate?)…tweak away where I have misconstrued the Flat Earth model.

    Apologies for yelling, (and I hope I closed all the formatting tags) but that seems to be the only way to get attention to emphasize important points.

    Ah, are you ready to check out? OK, let’s scan your items…….$100.00 even….but now we have to divide that number by FOUR (4) to get some sort of “average” purchase since you have items from all FOUR corners of the store….$25.00, please….oh, and pay the “doorkeeper” the other $75.00 on your way out so the “books” will “balance”…..well, if it works for using the FLAT EARTH Radiative Greenhouse model to calculate incoming flux from the SUN distributed over the ENTIRE FOUR CORNERS OF THE EARTH AT ONCE and then adding in THREE TIMES AS MUCH from the “magic” CO2 “back-radiation perpetual motion engine — call it something meaningless like an “average flux” if you want — to make the HIGH FREQUENCY, HIGH INTENSITY “incoming flux” from the SUN and actually striking ONLY one hemisphere at a time equal “outgoing” flux from the ENTIRE GLOBE, it only seems fair to apply that same math to calculating the total price and distribution of my purchase, right?

  82. Zoe Phin says:

    This is especially for you, Pierre:

    I call it the 2nd greateat hoax of all time.

  83. Matt in Frisco says:


    This is semi relevant – Michael Mann lost in court to Dr Tim Ball. Apparently he refuses to give his data. Shocker. Hopefully this will lead to a avalanche of court whipping for these frauds. I know there’s a lot of corrupt judges but at some point they won’t be able to overcome the brutal facts of the problem as you have illustrated.

    One item of note on your presentation – when you are labeling their mathematical discrepancy creating the climate, you may want to clarify that is the very genesis of the RGHE. Hence disproving it’s existence by the fallacious logic amd maths. Or perhaps better stated breaking their proof by exposing the fallacies since we don’t go about science by proving negatives since we can’t. Otherwise love the presentation.

  84. Kelvin Vaughan says:

    The Earth is loosing radiation (240W average) 24 hours a day.
    The Earth is heated 12 hours a day.
    240×24=12xSolar input.
    Therefore the average Solar input is 240×24/12 = 480W or about 30C.
    That’s an average of your foot in the freezer and the other in the oven.

  85. Zoe P,

    Now you’ve got me thinking about geothermal too.

    How can it not have a notable effect on the surface?

    But I have other conflicting questions too: What about Antarctica? — it’s ice.

    What’s the best way to think about geothermal flux? — ocean floor vs land? … thick land vs thin land? … inner earth shifting that causes shifts in heat flow? … all of the above? … how?

    I haven’t seen this discussed much, but your persistence makes me wonder whetjer, indeed, we should be focusing on a second hoax, as you say.

  86. Rosco says:

    Chris – there is actual empirical evidence that there is a temperature relationship between Venus’s atmosphere and Earth’s based on the ratio of the solar radiation at each.

    From the Magellan probe there is a profile of Venus’s atmosphere –

    At pressures similar to Earth the profile shows a remarkable correlation between temperature and radiant emission/absorption.

    “Surprisingly to most, there is no greenhouse effect at all, and you can prove it for yourself.

    From the temperature and pressure profiles for the Venusian atmosphere, you can confirm that, at the altitude where the pressure = 1000 millibars, which is the sea level pressure of Earth, the temperature of the Venusian atmosphere is 66ºC = 339K.

    This is much warmer than the temperature at the surface of the Earth (at pressure = 1000 millibars), which is about 15ºC = 288K. HOWEVER

    Venus is closer to the Sun, and gets proportionally more power from it. Earth is 93 million miles from the Sun, on average, while Venus is only 67.25 million. Since the intensity of the Sun’s radiation decreases with distance from it as 1 over r-squared, Venus receives (93/67.25) squared, or 1.91 times the power per unit area that Earth receives, on average.

    Since the radiating temperature of an isolated body in space varies as the fourth-root of the power incident upon it, by the Stefan-Boltzmann law, the radiating temperature of Venus should be the fourth-root of 1.91 (or the square-root of 93/67.25) = 1.176 times that of the Earth. Furthermore, since the atmospheric pressure varies as the temperature, the temperature at any given pressure level in the Venusian atmosphere should be 1.176 times the temperature at that same pressure level in the Earth atmosphere, INDEPENDENT OF THE DIFFERENT LEVELS OF INFRARED ABSORPTION in the two atmospheres. In particular, the averaged temperature at 1000 millibars on Earth is about 15ºC = 288K, so the corresponding temperature on Venus, WITHOUT ANY GREENHOUSE EFFECT, should be 1.176 times that, or 339K. But this is just 66ºC, the temperature we actually find there from the temperature and pressure profiles for Venus.”


    Note this above the thick reflective sulphuric cloud layers on Venus – claimed to be responsible for almost all of the albedo.

  87. Rosco says:

    Robert said – “But I have other conflicting questions too: What about Antarctica? — it’s ice.”

    Funny that the alarmists seem to think “powerful” CO2 radiation somehow manages to have little effect on the interior ice exposed to the atmosphere but somehow manages to sneak below the ice and melt it at the bottom.

    Or is it just that the west Antarctic peninsular is a well known geothermal active area and volcanic activity is the cause of melting ?

    No that can’t be right –

  88. Zoe Phin says:


    “But I have other conflicting questions too: What about Antarctica? — it’s ice.”

    Simple. Geothermal energy varies by latitude.

    Equator – More, so it bulges from thermal expansion

    Poles – Less, so there’s permafrost

    It obviously also varies by thickness and geolohic types.

    Need more proof?





  89. leitmotif says:

    “Spreading Sunshine Over Entire Surface Ar Once”..

    We divide solar flux by 2 to account for night and day.

    We again divide solar flux by 2 to account for the projection of a hemisphere as a circle.

    We arrive at a figure for average solar flux. Solar flux/4. Uncooked spit-roast pig.

    What if we did the same with the moon? The moon’s rotation takes 27.322 days. How would we apply the same “logic” to the moon’s average solar flux?

    Obviously, the same geometric division of solar flux would apply (however bogus it may seem) but how would we apply the rotational part of that reduction now that night and day no longer takes place over 24 hours but 27.322 days?

    Theoretically, 24 hours of the moon’s rotation could result in 24 hours of sunshine or 24 hours of darkness.

    Has the consensus science introduced a time factor into the calculation of average solar flux that only seems feasible if it’s on good old planet earth?

    In short, should the rotational frequency of a body be used to calculate some average solar flux? And what is its relevance?

    Funny old game, averaging.

  90. CD Marshall says:

    I don’t recall I saw it a while ago posted on a blog and copied it before it was taken down. However it seems I also remember it posted on PSI. Found it!

  91. CD Marshall says:

    Ocean geothermal,
    As I said before and funny alarmists never mention it, over 1 million volcanoes exist under the oceans. That should make an alarmist alarmed more than CO2. only 1-5 thousand are active or semi-active at any given time normally. Most of them can’t be identified that they are active until it’s noticeable near sea level. Just one can increase the surrounding temp up to 5C. What would happen if just 10% went active?

    The Larsen Ice Shelf was taken out by geothermal. Even with the geothermal activity in West Antarctica, snowfall last year almost equaled ice loss. It was so bad they had to write a paper claiming CO2 was making Antarctica colder but was not having that affect on the rest of the planet.
    These climate zombies just accepted that as if it made total sense.

  92. tom0mason says:

    Essentially the up-tick in CO2 is good for life on this planet, if this planet also warms a bit more (this currently is NOT a certainty!) then things — mostly the need for food — will get better and not worse.
    Don’t believe it? Just look at this planet’s recent of history. Since the closing of the Isthmus of Panama, 3-4 million years ago (, the weather, climate, and oceanic cyclic patterns have settled into what are our modern (quasi-cyclic) patterns. Ice core evidence shows that in the last 400,000 years or so, this planet has a propensity to be somewhat cooler with only transitory periods of warmth. (See ) Currently we are in a warm period — enjoy it everyone for it will not last!
    Since about 1850 when this planet exited the LIA, overall there has been about a 1°C rise in temperature. This meager rise has facilitated, through the defrosting of the land and seas, the majority of the rise in beneficial atmospheric CO2, a rise that greatly assists plant life, and so helps all life on this planet to flourish.

    The cAGW advocates, MSM, the IPCC, and all the rest of the depressive muddle-heads do not understand about life or its history, they’re ignorant of this planets geology. They reduce our source of warmth and heating, the sun, to a mere footnote. As Joseph E Postma shows here, abusing it with childish mathematical manipulations to reduce all it’s effects to a meaningless averaged quantity. Their beliefs are VERY wrong, climate is NOT about stasis, it is not about keeping all changes to a minimum or reducing CO2 back to the deathly 1850’s value. It CAN NEVER be about humans ‘managing climate change’. What it should be about is allowing nature to take it’s course, doing what is best for itself. (We fight against at our peril!) All we can do is manage OUR own abilities the cope and adapt to the changes.

    Overall has life flourish better when it was warm with elevated CO2 level — YES!
    May CO2 soon reach 600ppm, helping to make our blue planet a little more green.

  93. Pierre D. Bernier says:

    / should the rotational frequency of a body be used to calculate some average solar flux? /
    Done ! 1368 / 2 is a daily average, a monthly average and a yearly average. As soon a one vertical slice of Earth comes out of darkness, the whole arc receives an average of 1368 / 2 all day until it dissapears into darkness. See…How to debunk climate alarmists and climate deniers, Addendum (Take 2)

  94. Pierre D. Bernier says:

    You have 340 W/m^2 excess. We measure 240 going out. Ever the alarmists agree to that. Everybody. Even you ! Where does the excess go ? Back-geothermal or energy La-La-Land ?
    Also, temperature is not a rate of flow ! Themperature may be 20-25 down below somewhere, does not mean it’s getting out at a fast rate. How about Slowwwwwwwwwwwww ! in the milliWatts.

  95. Pierre D. Bernier says:

    @Kelvin Vaughan:
    / That’s an average of your foot in the freezer and the other in the oven./
    To keep thermal equilibrium you need energy in = energy out otherwise Earth would heat up or cool down indefinitely. No way out.

  96. Pierre D. Bernier says:

    Following Philip Mulholland ‘s appearance here, there is still an unanswered question pending by CD… Everything leaving the planet leaves as radiation. So where does the transfer happen and why?
    I’ve looked all over in favor of N2 and O2 IR absorption and the best I was able to come up with is this..
    No N2 absorption and very little O2 absorption, as expected, corresponding to a big water absoption band. So the question still remains ! N2 and O2 dont emit to outerspace.
    Here I am not telling, I am asking to anyone with better understanding then me.
    Nitrogen has 2 stable isotopes 14N and 15N with 15N 0,4% abundance and Oxygen has also 2 stable isotopes 16O and 18O with 18O 0,2% abundance. The question… Are 14N=15N and 16O=18O capable of forming a dipole so as to absord and emit IR to space ?
    O3 can easyly emit IR. Can O2 an N2 transfer energy by conduction and convection to O3 and then O3 radiate it out to space ?

  97. Zoe Phin says:

    What are you on about?
    You ignore all my arguments and just repeat the same nonsense.

  98. Zoe Phin says:

    Silly Pierre

  99. CD Marshall says:

    Curious thought what would it take to make our geothermal blow it’s lid? Increased gravity? Ice age? Decaying magnetic field? An onslaught of super solar flares? What turns it from less than 1% volcanic activity to an inferno?

  100. Pierre D. Bernier says:

    What is it you dont understand about thermal equilibrium ? What is it you dont understand about temperature not being a rate ? You say if it all goes out we will have Earth at 0 K so some must be eaten up by the atmosphere. What a brilliant scientific explanation !
    It’s simple…At thermal equilibrium more in = more out . You’re putting more in but there is no more out !!! Put 1 Watt more in, I’ll bite. Not 340 !
    You’re making a big fuss about underwater volcanoes. It’s like that big chunk of ice falling compared to the whole size of the glassier. Insignificant. Earth’s center is only radioactive decay, pressure and friction. Not a full fusion reactor like the Sun.
    Your model needs back-geothermal or energy la-la land. Cut it out ! It’s fiction !

  101. Pierre D. Bernier says:

    OK. Let’s start anew. We have a new Earth at 0 K with a Sun shining, after albedo, at 480 W/m2 on 1 side. From outer space the Earth looks like a -18C ball (255 K)
    Earth at 0 K, emits 0 W/m2, warms up at bit at 100 K
    Earth at 100 K, emits 5,7 W/m2, warms up at bit more at 200 K
    Earth at 200 K, emits 90,7 W/m2, warms up at bit more at 250 K
    Earth at 250 K, emits 221,5 W/m2, warms up at bit more at 255 K
    Earth at 255 K, emits 240,0 W/m2, Here we are, at equilibrium.
    Earth at 318 K, emits 580 W/m2, Here’s your 580. Too much energy out. We are measuring 240

  102. Zoe Phin says:

    What no one can answer straight is what height are these geothermal milliwatts flowing through?

    If it’s a meter, then the air has a comparable flux of 0.156 mW/m^2
    If it’s a kilometer, then 156 mW/m^2

    Suddenly, 87 mW/m^2 doesn’t seem so small, does it?

    Conduction is 3D
    Radiation is 2D

    Conduction will always look small by comparison.

  103. MP says:

    I think that CD Marshall has a point in looking at the rate of energy flows

    Here is a quote from Roy Spencer about how they now view how the greenhouse gasses temperature effect works, since the original back radiation explanation is rebuted by the second law of thermodynamics.

    Quote: “The temperature (of anything) is not determined by the rate of energy input (say, the intensity of sunlight, or how fast your car engine burns gas); it is the result of a balance between energy gain and energy loss. The greenhouse effect reduces the rate of energy loss at the surface, thus causing higher temperatures then if it did not exist.”

    > That means that we just have to prove that there are other reasons why the rate of energy going out is reduced, and that those reasons have a substantial impact.

    Then it is game over for the whole greenhouse gas theory.

  104. MP says:

    Oh, wait …Pierre D. Bernier talked about looking into the rate of energy flows.
    Anyhow. The point stays the same.
    Besides the point that colder objects have a slower rate of energy going out one can also look at the slowing down of heat going out by several heat fluxes. Like heat into the oceans, latent heat after evaporation, heat moving horizontally or in circles because of air flows, etc.

  105. Pierre D. Bernier says:

    I can see that you never had to defend a post-graduate paper before. It’s YOUR model, it’s up to YOU to answer the questions and defend your model. Not me ! Sorry but that is how it works in the real world. So far you have not answered the one important question, only used the usual leftist tactics…
    1) Dont answer the question by deflecting to an other subject…
    2) Answer by asking an unrelated question…
    3) Resort to character assassination (Nice drawing by the way).
    You’re 3 for 3.
    So answer the damn question (defend your model)… Where is your extra 340 W/m2 go in the end ? Not to space, we are limited by 240. So where ? If you can’t answer that question properly your model is invalid. You might answer 99 questions correctly or wiggle through them but if the 100th your model can’t answer… game over. That is true science. Not the make believe science the climate criminals took over.

  106. The greenhouse effect reduces the rate of energy loss at the surface, thus causing higher temperatures than if it did not exist.

    First, the sentence is ridiculous, because an effect cannot do anything. An effect is a consequence of something causing it. A consequence is not an agency of cause — a cause causes an effect. An effect is the outcome, NOT the cause or the agency causing it.

    I think that his statement should more correctly be this: The greenhouse effect is a consequence of CO2’s reducing the rate of energy loss at the surface, thus causing higher temperatures than if CO2 did not exist.

    Now it’s really absurd. By what mechanism could CO2 possibly “reduce the rate of energy loss at the surface”? There is no such mechanism in CO2 to cause the effect that Spencer calls the greenhouse effect. A few molecules of the atmosphere absorbing AND emitting some energy is not a reduction of anything. There is no reduction in the absorption/emission of energy — there is some transfer maybe, some insignificant jostling of other molecules in the greater fluid dynamic flow of the entire atmospheric mass. But there is no reduction of transfer of the energy in this process.

    This is just a disguised rewording of “CO2 traps heat”, except his chosen phrase is “reduce rate of energy loss”.

    “Reduce rate of energy loss” = “trap heat”

    “Trap heat” is ridiculous. Hence, “reduce rate of energy loss” is ridiculous.

  107. Then there’s this from NASA that Rosco pointed to earlier:

    Does this look like “reduce rate of energy loss” ? I think not. Roy is royally wrong.

  108. MP says:

    @ Robert Kernodle

    Right. If it would work than it should also work in a thermocan. But that doen’t work, a vacuum layer does the work, less particles = less heat transfer.

  109. Zoe Phin says:

    I think I defended arguments rather well. The fact that you don’t read or understand what I write, is your problem.

    “Where is your extra 340 W/m2 go in the end ?”

    I already answered this. Matter consumes energy. What do you think a thermal gradient is?

    Sorry for daring to ask back questions. I just want to make sure this class is not way over your head.

  110. Zoe Phin says:


    “3) Resort to character assassination (Nice drawing by the way).”

    If that’s all my drawing taught you, then the topic is too advanced for you.

    Sorry you have such thin skin.

  111. Zoe Phin says:

    The Surface emits 390 W/m^2 to space.
    The Tropopause emits 137 W/m^2 to space.

    What happened in the 11km between?

    I gave you an answer. You don’t like it. You offer nothing in return, and yet you claim I’m running away from you? LMAO

  112. Pierre D. Bernier says:

    / Matter consumes energy. What do you think a thermal gradient is? /
    DEFLECTION and GARBAGE ! N=N and O=O change to what after energy consumption ? They absorbe it then release it !
    / If that’s all my drawing taught you, then the topic is too advanced for you. Sorry you have such thin skin. /
    / The Surface emits 390 W/m^2 to space. The Tropopause emits 137 W/m^2 to space. /
    Like Rosco’s graph above shows, the deviation from Net sun In and Net IR Out is at most 10 W/m2 and only for a short period at that (El Nino). 5 is the more common. The two regions of the
    atmosphere in which satellites commonly orbit are the thermosphere and the exosphere way above the Tropopause. So they should measure all outgoing energy and they measure 240, not 137 !!! Now you have gone from too much to too little ! Gosh ! The dog ate it ? (Yes CA).
    Your model is undefencible. Give it up. There is no shame. Even Einstein admitted to having made a mistake by entering something in his formulas not knowing that the universe was in expansiom. There no shame. The shame is to keep it up.

  113. Zoe Phin says:

    You don’t even try to work through the problem so I could help you. Oh well!

    “A second and related ambiguity is that the 33K “GHE” value is a comparison of a calculated
    effective blackbody radiative temperature as should only be observed from outside the system (from
    space), via an integrated emission spectrum, to a specific kinetic temperature measured at only a
    single depth-position inside the thermodynamic and radiative ensemble. That is, the average
    radiating emission altitude of outgoing energy from the terrestrial ensemble is actually between 5 and
    6 km [6], and this is where the kinetic temperature of 255K is found. In terms of radiation, the
    ground surface of the Earth is not the radiating surface, and therefore we shouldn’t expect the
    ground surface to have that temperature. In terms of the radiating surface, the temperature of the
    Earth as an integrated thermal ensemble inherently including the atmosphere, as seen from space, is
    exactly the same value as the theoretically-calculated effective blackbody temperature. The Earth, in
    terms of its only means of exchanging energy – radiation – is exactly the temperature it is supposed
    to be. ”

    effective blackbody radiating temperature, being an integrated sum of the emission from all
    wavelengths and points along the optical (i.e. physical) depth of the atmosphere, necessarily requires
    that higher kinetic temperatures than said radiative average will be found below the depth of average
    radiative emission, essentially by the mathematical definition of what an integrated average is, and
    independent of any “GHE”.”

    — Joseph Postma

    “Your model is undefencible. Give it up. There is no shame.”
    Not my model, though I can derive it myself. Yes, tell Joe to feel ashamed, that will help you!

  114. Radiative-greenhouse-effect folks mire themselves in a confusion about where the surface of their black body is. They seem to speak of one surface, but then it’s two, so that one can radiate less so the other can radiate more underneath it.

    They try to play with an imaginary surface that they solidify in their minds as a real surface, under which a slowing-down of energy somehow is not an addition of energy, yet it is an increase in energy that has not been added, but somehow accumulated by “slowing”.

  115. Zoe Phin says:

    Yeah, and you’d think someone like Roy Spencer would be first person to spot the problem, afterall he is half responsible for the UAH Dataset, whose premise is more radiation to space = hotter. Yet he argues less radiation to space = hotter. He must be pandering to the man that signs his check.

  116. PetterT says:

    Joe, you are right and have great arguments, but you repeat yourself too much in your videos. They could have been 1/4 as long, and still just as convincing, without wasting the viewers time.
    I have written about the same fraud for the Norwegian Climate Realists (in Norwegian of course) with a reference to you, see

  117. Pierre D. Bernier says:

    When I said it’s your model, it’s up to you to defend it, not me, I meant it’s up to you to find the arguments to support your theory. I never meant avoid answering the questions, answer the question by another question, or use character assassination. Killing your opponent does not prove your model. Only Leftist alarmists do that and I’m not saying that you are. Just that you are going about it the wrong way.
    The first law of thermodynamics states that energy cannot be created or destroyed; it can only change form. That principle of conservation of energy says that whenever energy enters a system, it must either leave the system in some way or change the energy of the system. We know from satellite measurements (Rosco) that what comes in goes out. No more ! No less ! The atmosphere does not create bricks out of thin air (no massive chemical reactions gobbling up energy). So, there is no change in atmospheric mass and no change in the energy of the system over the long run.
    So, please give me your numbers for…
    Sun energy coming in and where it goes,
    Earth energy out (where it comes from and where it goes)
    Atmosphere energy out (where it comes from and where it goes)
    Please ! Maybe we’ll find common grounds.

  118. Zoe Phin says:

    So you don’t believe kinetic energy can be converted to potential energy or work, thus decreasing its emission?

    Can you explain thermal conductivity? Why does flux in != flux out?

  119. Pierre D. Bernier says:

    All potential energy and work in the atmosphere end up in the dust bin of heat in the end

    I GIVE UP !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  120. Pierre D. Bernier says:


    Oh, I forgot… Here you are again attacking instead of defending your model. Typical leftist warmist shit !!!

  121. Rosco I’ve lost your email. Do you have the quotes for what Arrhenius actually researched?

  122. Kevin Doyle says:

    The other day, while sipping chardonnay, I watched a re-run of Julia Childs making a souffle. Her careful instructions were, “Preheat the oven to 450 deg. And bake for 15 minutes.” Or as CO2 theorists might say, “Preheat oven to 112.5 deg, and bake for an hour. Trust us, the souffle will come out perfect!”

  123. CD Marshall says:

    For those interested this is the paper they are passing around trying to disprove any importance of cosmic rays. Any thoughts on this matter would be appreciated since I have no knowledge of cosmic rays but find the subject interesting.

  124. CD Marshall says:

    Isn’t claiming “work” being done in the atmosphere the entire premise behind the GHE? That’s how they claim CO2 is warming the planet more becasue of work in the atmosphere supplying it’s source.

  125. Joseph E Postma says:

    At this point CD, can we really believe anything they’re doing anymore? They’ve been doing flat Earth theory at the professional academic PhD level…the entire system is compromised.

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 )

Google photo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s