In this video I expose, with first-hand evidence, that the peer-review method of modern science is no guarantor of truth, and that peer-review now actively perpetuates and sustains the greatest intellectual and scientific fraud in history.
Categories
-
Join 530 other subscribers
- Follow Climate of Sophistry on WordPress.com
Recent Comments
- Pelagius on Back to the Parallel Plates
- CD Marshall on An Experiment to Demonstrate Ontological Mathematics
- CD Marshall on Back to the Parallel Plates
- Leon Hiebert on Back to the Parallel Plates
- boomie789 on Soul Camera – How Does Your Soul Work?
- boomie789 on Soul Camera – How Does Your Soul Work?
- boomie789 on Soul Camera – How Does Your Soul Work?
- CD Marshall on Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Paradox
- DIN on Soul Camera – How Does Your Soul Work?
- DIN on Soul Camera – How Does Your Soul Work?
- petraliverani on Soul Camera – How Does Your Soul Work?
- J Cuttance on Back to the Parallel Plates
- donaldgisbey on Is Your Astral Spirit Body Infected with a Noetic Parasite?
- donaldgisbey on Ontological Cosmology – The Cosmology of Existence (LiveStream Tonight)
- Pierre on Soul Camera – How Does Your Soul Work?
Climate of Sophistry 
WHEN “PEER REVIEW” becomes “pal review”, Science leaves the room.
Great video Joseph, get some rest. We need you bright eyed and bushy tailed. I would think you could start with RW Woods, Bohr, those who proved the ideal gas law, adiabatic lapse rate, solar input, thermodynamics and what ever and start from there as established references.
I understand your frustrations. The GHE was never proved yet it gets passed through peer review. How does that happen? I was a writer before neurological problems sidelined me, and the review process is about the same everywhere. As a writer you could have the best story ever written and have it rejected because it was not what the publisher wanted. Doesn’t matter if the audience would have thought it good, the publisher didn’t want it so it gets rejected,
Harry Potter? Was rejected by publishers. A number of other best sellers were to. Lord of the Rings? Publishers wanted it changed to how they thought it should have been written. Tolkien refused and the legend was born. Quite a few examples of publishers rejecting some of the best sellers ever written.
Once you make money at it publishers will accept whatever you right, yes it is a fixed game. Curious,can’t you send it to other journals? Or start a collaboration with those willing to work with you, such as a meteorologist, climatologist, another astrophysicist and a physicist?
Has ANY well known physicists taken an interest in your work? I can’t think of any PhDs physicists who aren’t on the climate pay roll at the moment but their has to be a few somewhere? You might need at least one PhD on the author list to be taken seriously or make it harder to avoid you.
I understand how the game is played and it’s messed up but you have yo play by their rules. For instance I was in court with some evidence but the judge wanted more verification. The expert in the room said he could verify right now I was telling the truth and the judge said, “Doesn’t matter I need documented facts.” The judge was influenced in my favor but only based on more evidence being brought to him. A Neurologist had to write a detailed letter to him explaining everything they already had in the courtroom with her approval on it before he would accept all the evidence already presented him in the courtroom. Yes it is a game of ego and politics.
Just musings, it’s what I do. You could always piss them off and get a degree in climatology. I know these things aren’t cheap unless someone else is flipping the bill. You know Tyson washed out of physics? He couldn’t even keep a passing grade. Then he went to a very liberal school and somehow came out with a PhD and as a spokesperson for climate change.
Yes for sure I could and still will go to other journals…but I know it will go the same. These people are not intellectuals. I wanted to bring it out directly to the public. I may resubmit that paper soon somewhere else.
What credibility can there be in a science community that labels CO2 a POLLUTANT that must be regulated while at the same time it sees no problem with a Flat Earth Radiative Greenhouse model?
Years ago, I had a peer-review experience possibly worth a mention here.
Once, I wrote a paper for an interdisciplinary art journal, and what I detected among the peer reviewers was their wish for me to cite references to authors familiar to them, in order to provide a complete foundation for my paper — references to works that had ZERO relevance to the specific theme of my paper! They even named some of the authors as examples. They wanted the names of their pals’ work mentioned.
I withdrew my paper, which apparently had never been done before at this journal, given the editor’s seemingly surprised response. In essence, I ditched the suckers, and I never looked back.
To appease future reviewers who want citations of evidence substantiating round-earth physics, I would suggest the following children’s books:
Lauber, Patricia and Megan Lloyd, How We Learned the Earth Is Round, Harper Collins Publishers, 1990.
Stein, Gertrude, The World Is Round, Young Scott Brooks, 1939.
Since adult reviewers with advanced degrees seem incapable of perceiving adult evidence sitting right before there eyes, maybe we should take it down a notch.
Two scientists walk into a bar. First scientist says, “Look, my drink is not cold enough — the ice in it has melted.” Second scientist replies, “What evidence do you have that the ice has melted?” No punch line, just an illustration of how a Greenhouse-believer peer reviewer might reply.
Joseph should have titled it, “Flat Earth proves Global Warming”, would have passed without even being read, most likely.
CD, your suggested title is waaaay too pedestrian. It does not reflect the high standards of advanced, specialized, adult, scientific discourse. A more fitting title would be:
A Non-Spherical Mathematical Treatment of Terrestrial Solar Influx Distributed Evenly About the Earth Gaussian Surface Substantiates the Radiative Greenhouse Effect
Cheer up, Joe.
They hate you cause you’re right.
RK
Perfect sounds exactly like the abstract of most papers I’ve seen. They would read that and just accept it. One more paper to add to the pile.
You know when they throw that “peer review” stone at me I’ve been saying, “You claimed only peer reviewed material is credible and I want the peer reviewed paper that proved the greenhouse effect by CO2 is fact.”
You wouldn’t believe the replies I get. Yet not one paper is given. Thousands of “peer reviewed” papers on the greenhouse effect yet no one can tell me who proved the theory and by what paper.
I’m writing this because they will find a way around this and I want this documented for prosperity. They claimed it was settled science in 1988 so that’s where the paper should have appeared. I guarantee you one will be forged soon and made to appear as if it was written in 1988.
Every time a chink is exposed in their armor they redirect your observation. Even if the paper is proven a fraud…eventually, the damage is done and most will still believe it’s true.
Joe, thank you! Your videos are so helpful in spreading the truth: https://principia-scientific.org/peer-review-perpetuates-massive-scientific-fraud/
Joe
I have a question regarding “A discussion … GH effect”
In the text: ”
However, the mass of a one-
square meter column of air is about 10,000kg, and if it has an average temperature of 255K, has a
total energy content of about 10000kg*255K*1006J/kg/K = 2.56×109
J. With a TOA output
around 240 W/m2
, the column will lose 10.4MJ of heat overnight, which would correspond to an
aggregate temperature reduction of 0.4% or 10C.”
I thought 480 W comes for 12 hours and 240 W leaves for 24 hours, resulting in 0 W overall.
I don’t see a term for radiative cooling (only Newton cooling), in your real-time heat flow quations.
Is that because you don’t believe the earth cools by radiation unless there is matter for it to heat, such as an observing satellite?
What am I missing?
Thank you. – Zoe
Joe,
After reading “A discussion … GH effect”, I don’t think I can confidently add two single digit numbers. It makes my geothermal musings seem so wrong, but I still have trouble accepting it. On the other hand why a geothermal dead end at -10meters?
Well, I’m still confident Venus is mostly geothermal.
Thanks. Looking forward to your reply.
Zoe: That text was just looking at 12 hours overnight of emission to space at 240 W/m^2, for the column.
Zoe: Venus is the same as for Earth and the other planets as per Nikolov and Zeller.
The problem with your approach is the same as for the standard climate GHE – it is a dynamic system whose physical responses are driven by the variable high-intensity solar input, and no averaging of the solar input makes any physical sense ever. The lesson from GHE fraud is that averaging a dynamic system whose responses can only be explained in real-time cannot be done.
There is a daily extreme reaction of the mix of gasses to solar input, and that reaction can only be explained by said real-time solar input and every single real-time ounce of its intensity.
That being said there is still a role for geothermal holding a significant temperature of the subsurface. But it can’t be combined with an average of the solar to really produce anything that meaningful. We don’t have to demonstrate that geothermal plus solar plus atmosphere plus Earth output averages all combine to conserve energy or something…we can assume that. It is a nice simple equation but immediately once we average the sun we have nothing useful anymore about the sun…we need real-time sun to explain anything useful about the climate. Averaging anything makes it useless…other than the almost-useless thing of stating that we expect conservation of energy.
The subsurface temperature and gradient would need to be combined with the sun in a real-time model.
My half penny’s worth,
But wouldn’t calculating real time geothermal be next to impossible?
Watching an amusing show on UFOs, not important in itself (I have little opinion for or against UFOs facts speak for themselves and I have no proof of UFOs myself), but a former CIA operative commented that the federal government practices “DENAIL AND DECEPTION” a trademark term when dealing with governments. The IPCC is a government ran program. Global Warming, let’s call it aomething like Operation Climate Denial and Deception.
Chris,
In two years of studying the 3-way climate debate, I never saw my equation (AVG=1/4S+3/4E, E=Geothermal). Joe thinks it’s banally obvious. OK, but it disproves the GHG hypothesis and could’ve been figured out decades ago. Mathematically, Geothermal is equivalent to alarmists’ and lukewarmers’ “backradiation”. So they are clearly fraudsters when they flip geothermal to atmosphere downwelling. QED
I was trying to make a contribution, and all I got was the equivalent of “can’t predict local weather in real-time”. Sigh
@ Joseph E Postma
Strange …trillions Dollars climate alarm related industry, and billions go into climate research, and no one has ever made a 3d computer model of the earth with real time input.
Are there 3d simulators/models in the field of astrophysics that can be used and tweaked?
Zoe,
As I said, “But wouldn’t calculating real time geothermal be next to impossible?”
The problem I see is their seems to be no way of knowing where the surface contribution is coming from unless you can measure it in real time.Then, you would have to measure at night to get good readings and on every continent, mainly land locked so water doesn’t interfere with the calculations
.
Clearly the best way to do that is mines and deep caves.
Unlike the Sun whose source is one point on the ToA you are talking about not having any idea of the calculation of the source, how it moves and how it distributes on the surface to increase the temperature. (At least I wouldn’t know where to begin.)
You would need the help of a geologist and a geophysicist to find the best spots and model input data.
I do think it’s a compelling subject and I would love to know more about it and that’s only going to happen with real time observation.
Most people accept that the main “greenhouse gas’ is water vapour and that it is responsible for most of the 33ºC warming by the “greenhouse effect”.
If that can be proven to be in error then the battle is won.
Chris,
Joe and I have made it easy.
“We don’t have to demonstrate that geothermal plus solar plus atmosphere plus Earth output averages all combine to conserve energy or something…we can assume that.”
We have plenty of solar and “downwelling” IR data available. We can use it to determine geothermal. A reverse engineering process. The hard part will be separating mass,heat capacity, depth, and geothermal, but I think we can guess wisely.
The main insight is that “backradiation” is really geothermal energy.
Note: Those who prospect for geothermal electricity production, are seaking high geothermal heat flux, not geothermal energy. I’m only interested in the latter.
@Pablo said, “Most people accept that the main “greenhouse gas’ is water vapour and that it is responsible for most of the 33ºC warming…”
That’s the little trick isn’t it? Water vapor is a result of work from the ground, not an energy source in itself. They ignore the source and pretend greenhouse gas is self warming or amplifying.
Total nonsense isn’t it?
Zoe,
I still think you’d need some readings from caves or mines to establish a temperature gradient by depth, like a reverse atmosphere. Moisture in the ground works the same way it does in the atmosphere to reduce temperature, so you need a very dry proxy for a good reading.
I’m not opposed to your idea certainly geothermal plays a part in the energy budget, you would have to be daft to not recognize that just as the Sun plays a huge part in the energy budget. How much is the real question, right?
CD,
Readings from mines show around 20ºC/km increase with depth …so a continuation of the atmospheric gradient but doubled.
Moisture in the ground simply increases speed at which solar heating is conducted downwards.
Zoe,
“Those who prospect for geothermal electricity production, are seeking high geothermal heat flux, not geothermal energy. I’m only interested in the latter.”
Geothermal heat flux is not enough. Heat pumps basically suck out heat from the solar energy absorbed during the summer and create permafrost in subsoil in winter.
see..
How deep can miners go safely and what kind of gear do they need to go deeper?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_deepest_mines
Flat earth physics fails by the observation of this spinning planet’s temperature gradient from equator to poles. If flat earth physics were worthy then the poles would never be frozen, the earths temperature would be the same everywhere regardless of it spinning in space. The very fact that there is a temperature gradient/frozen poles flies thin the face of the flat earth physics theory as the radiation can not and does not get spread evenly over the spinning spherical planet .
As a starting premise for a theory about climate it is an abject failure, and lack all comprehension that atmospheric effects (weather and climate) is fundamentally caused by the temperature gradient from equator to poles on this spinning planet — no amount of mathematical Jujutsu can fix this basic conceptual error.
Also of note is the banal idea many climate alarmists have that climate is global, whereas ALL observations show that climate is local/regional phenomenon.
Precisely.
Tom,
However, there is such a thing as an average global temperature. It must exist. When you pretend it doesn’t exist, it may sound to people like you’re giving up on doing any math. “It’s too complicated to figure out, therefore we, a priori, discard X theory”. We can actually calculate theoretical averages with error bars, and see if X theory is right or wrong. Although, GH theory is so dumb you can disqualify it without empiricism. -Z
Joseph,
Yeah. Solar alone doesn’t come close. Adding Geothermal is a much better match.
Can you make a model that matches the blue line as close as possible? That would be cool.
Have a good one, our excellent teacher.
Where is that plot from Zoe?
JP,
I made it. The data is SURFRAD Desert Rock, Jan 1-19, 2018.
Zoe, the upward would be radiation from sun-warmed rock not the core, right?
Humidity would reduce the incoming and slow the outgoing. i.e. moderate the extremes.
Geothermal puts a limit on the depth of annual/seasonal variation of soil/rock temperature, it cannot affect global air temperature unless there is a massive basaltic extrusion as has happened in the past. (Siberian traps)
Average air temperature is what determines the surface average temperature from which the thermal gradient in the ground begins. The bigger the seasonal variation of temperature the deeper that point of equilibrium is found, from very shallow at the equator to very deep at higher latitudes.
Zoe, you said, However, there is such a thing as an average global temperature.
Mathematically, yes, but I’m not sure how such a thing tells us about the actual physical, real-time processes that occur within a field of varying temperature regions, and in the actual, physical, fluid dynamic motions of the atmosphere.
My house thermostat reads 74 degrees F, while my oven temperature reads 350 F, where I’m baking a cake.
The average of my house/oven system is 212 F. What can I do with this? How does it help me? It says nothing really about the comfort-sustaining temperature of my house nor the critical cooking temperature to get a perfectly cooked cake.
The temperatures that would help me would be increases or decreases in either of these specific areas. If my house were reading 96 F, then this might tell me that it’s too damn hot. If the oven were reading 250 F, then this might tell me that I needed to give it more time to preheat to the desired baking temperature.
In other words, I really do not know what the average means or tells me, until I look at the specific areas whose specific temperatures figured into determining it. Similar with the Earth/atmosphere system.
Well said.
So I mentioned the peer review question I ask the trolls: Global warming by CO2 was presented as settled science to the UN in 1988 so what was the name of the scientist and their team that proved it? I asked this on PotHoler’s channel, (the arrogant brit guy). I googled these and wouldn’t you know it an entire page showed up easy as if it’s right on the search engine. I’m curious to what they look like to a scientist. Keeping in mind the dates and what was known and not known in science back then.
This was the reply:
“Thanks for asking. Being willing to ask is the first step to knowledge. The theory that co2 causes global warming was first postulated by Svante Arrhenius in the late 19th century, and has been since confirmed by subsequent peer reviewed scientific papers published over the decades. Here are a small handful of them over the past 2 decades, and a few older ones as well.:
“Anthropogenic and natural warming inferred from changes in Earth’s energy balance”
Hubber & Knutti, 2012
“Climate sensitivity in the geologic past”
Royer, 2016
“Changing atmospheric CO2 concentration was the primary driver of early Cenozoic climate”
Anagnousto et al, 2016
“On the causal structure between CO2 and global temperature”
Stips et al, 2016
“CO2 as a primary driver of Phanerozoic climate”
Royer et al, 2004
“CO2-forced climate thresholds during the Phanerozoic”
Royer et al, 2006
“The Carbon Dioxide Theory of Climatic Change” Plass, 1956
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/j.2153-3490.1956.tb01206.x
“Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide, Orbital Forcing, and Climate” Shackleton & Pisias, 1985″
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/230889318_Atmospheric_carbon_dioxide_orbital_forcing_and_climate
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/j.2153-3490.1956.tb01206.x
They just make it up. They merely interpret everything to fit the conclusion they want. As I’ve said – it’s the paradigm they’ve created through which they then interpret everything. They believe that GHGs do two-times what the sun does…so imagine interpreting everything else through that! They do anti-science.
Rosco likely has the references as to what Arrhenius actually did or didn’t do. We or I should compile the real references because their formula for (mis) referencing is standard fare.
Pablo,
“Average air temperature is what determines the surface average temperature from which the thermal gradient in the ground begins. The bigger the seasonal variation of temperature the deeper that point of equilibrium is found, from very shallow at the equator to very deep at higher latitudes.”
And air temperature is determined by solar and geo contributions.
If there was no geothermal energy, the sun would first have to heat to the center of the earth, before you got response in the air.
It’s because geothermal provides 10°C up to -10meters, that you’re able to get a “quick” response in the air. 2 hours daily, 30 days seasonally.
I’m very confident that without sun and atmosphere the average temperature on earth would still be above freezing.
Actually yah…all that Arrhenius found was that gasses could absorb. Of course that is NOT the alarmist climate greenhouse effect…but then again the entire movement is based on such misrepresentations.
“How the “Greenhouse Effect” Is Built upon Arrhenius’ Legacy of Error: Misattribution, Misunderstanding, and Energy Creation
Arrhenius’ first error was to assume that greenhouses and hotboxes work as a radiation trap. Fourier explained quite clearly that such structures simply prevent the replenishment of the air inside, allowing it to reach much higher temperatures than are possible in circulating air (Fourier, 1824, translated by Burgess, 1837, p. 12; Fourier, 1827, p. 586). Yet, as we have seen in the previous quotation of Arrhenius, this fundamental misunderstanding of greenhouses is attributed by Arrhenius to Fourier.
2.1 Misattribution versus What Fourier Really Found
Contrary to what Arrhenius (1896, 1906b) and many popular authors may claim (Weart, 2003; Flannery, 2005; Archer, 2009), Fourier did not consider the atmosphere to be anything like glass. In fact, Fourier (1827, p. 587) rejected the comparison by stipulating the impossible condition that, in order for the atmosphere to even remotely resemble the workings of a hotbox or greenhouse, layers of the air would have to solidify without affecting the air’s optical properties. What Fourier (1824, translated by Burgess, 1837, p. 12) actually wrote stands in stark contrast to Arrhenius’ claims about Fourier’s ideas:
“In short, if all the strata of air of which the atmosphere is formed, preserved their density with their transparency, and lost only the mobility which is peculiar to them, this mass of air, thus become solid, on being exposed to the rays of the sun, would produce an effect the same in kind with that we have just described. The heat, coming in the state of light to the solid earth, would lose all at once, and almost entirely, its power of passing through transparent solids: it would accumulate in the lower strata of the atmosphere, which would thus acquire very high temperatures. We should observe at the same time a diminution of the degree of acquired heat, as we go from the surface of the earth.”
A statement to the same effect can be found in Fourier (1827, p. 586). This demonstrates the sheer dissonance between these statements and what proponents of the “Greenhouse Effect” claim that Fourier says in their support. Moreover, I am not the first author to have discovered this fact by reading Fourier for myself (e.g. Fleming, 1999; Gerlich & Tscheuschner, 2007 and 2009). Furthermore, in his conclusion, the optical effect of air on heat is dropped by Fourier (1824, translated by Burgess, 1837, pp. 17-18) and Fourier (1827, pp. 597-598) which both state:
“The earth receives the rays of the sun, which penetrate its mass, and are converted into non-luminous heat: it likewise possesses an internal heat with which it was created, and which is continually dissipated at the surface: and lastly, the earth receives rays of light and heat from innumerable stars, in the midst of which is placed the solar system. These are three general causes which determine the temperature of the earth.”
Fourier’s fame has, in fact, nothing to do with any theory of atmospheric or surface temperature. This fame was earned years before such musings, when Fourier derived the law of physics that governs heat flow, and was subsequently named after him. About this, Fourier (1824, p. 166; Translation by Burgess, 1837, p. 19) remarks:
“Perhaps other properties of radiating heat will be discovered, or causes which modify the temperatures of the globe. But all the principle laws of the motion of heat are known. This theory, which rests upon immutable foundations, constitutes a new branch of mathematical sciences.”
As you can see, Fourier admits that his work is constrained to the net movement of heat. In fact, nowhere does Fourier differentiate between radiative and, for example, “kinetic” heat transfer, because the means to tell the difference were not available when Fourier studied heat flow. What this tells us is that Fourier’s Law, and only Fourier’s Law, can describe the transfer of heat between bodies in thermal contact. Thus the distribution of heat between the atmosphere and the surface of the earth, with which it has thermal contact, cannot be correctly calculated using the radiative transfer equations derived from Boltzmann (1884) because the thermal contact of these bodies makes this a question of Fourier’s Law. However, to better understand this it is necessary to explore the motion of heat and the modes of heat transfer more thoroughly than did Arrhenius.”
from… Timothy Casey
The Shattered Greenhouse: How simple physics demolishes the ” Greenhouse Effect”
Wonderful! Thanks. Excellent. Exactly.
When I applied k(Th-Tc) rather than sigma(Th^4-Tc^4) to my analysis, I got rather strange results. I then went back to radiative cooling, and it was a better match. The cooling curve (after sun leaves) looks like a combination of the
two. With radiative cooling first, and conductive cooling later.
In “A discussion of”, equation 19 has a conductive cooling term, that is not used or shown in any chart. I’m guessing Joe found the same problem I did.
“What this tells us is that Fourier’s Law, and only Fourier’s Law, can describe the transfer of heat between bodies in thermal contact. Thus the distribution of heat between the atmosphere and the surface of the earth, with which it has thermal contact, cannot be correctly calculated using the radiative transfer equations derived from Boltzmann (1884) because the thermal contact of these bodies makes this a question of Fourier’s Law. ”
That’s what I thought, but my latest research brings this into question. This can only be true for a fraction of the day.
Thoughts?
Zoe,
I get where you’re coming from… I have pondered on this myself.
Let’s take the equatorial region where that balance is close to the surface.
When the sun rises it has less work to do in warming the surface and so has a head start in warming the atmosphere by convection.
But conversely at higher latitudes where the balance is deeper it has more work to do and so it balances out.
Overall though geothermal does act as a very effect barrier to heat loss by conduction downwards.
What effect that has on ocean or terrestrial temperatures is beyond me.
I suspect that it prevents the freezing of our oceans from the bottom up rather than always from top down were the sun shines to prevent it . Could salty water being denser and heavier actually freeze from the sea bed upwards if the rock beneath was cold enough?… I don’t know.
If so geothermal is a massive stabiliser of global temperature variation rather than an amplifier.
Pablo,
Glad to see more agreement. One thing though,
“When the sun rises it has less work to do in warming the surface and so has a head start in warming the atmosphere by convection.
But conversely at higher latitudes where the balance is deeper it has more work to do and so it balances out.”
Balances out? I don’t understand your definition of balanced.
Sun can only do a fixed limit of “work”. Assuming sun fell with equal intensity on equator and poles, then this limited work could never heat the poles as much as equator, due to the geothermal difference you highlighted.
Of course solar intensity is unequal by latitude, so there is even less balance.
Do you recognize that even without the sun, the earth would be an infrared star, not a 3K ball of rock?
Zoe: if geothermal contributed to surface energy, it would have to be seen from space by satellite. Don’t they only read 240W/m^2?
Zoe,
Sorry .. by “balance is deeper” I mean the depth at which steady temperature equals average air temperature.
As in ‘balances out” I should have said the effect of the jump-start in equatorial regions is neutralised by the delay at higher latitudes.
As for a 3K ball of rock without the sun…planet rather than star.. for sure… but it would be way below freezing and without the sun would soon cool down to 3K.
Joseph,
I don’t know how that’s calculated.
Two objects at thermal equilibrium have a mutual albedo of 1.
Earth has an albedo of 0.3. That means it will reject 30% of incoming energy because it ready has it.
Satellites actually detect 340 (30% reflected sun).
I claim Earth would emit 340. Since surface emissivity is 0.93, this amounts to 364 which is 10°C … geothermal.
Pablo,
“As for a 3K ball of rock without the sun…planet rather than star.. for sure… but it would be way below freezing and without the sun would soon cool down to 3K.”
But you already seemed to agree that geothermal can bring -10m to 10C why do you think there is a geothermal dead end? Why can’t nearly all of this 10C reach the surface and emit to space?
The rate of conduction may be much less than what would be emitted. That is, the conduction rate transferred to emission would be a very low temperature.
If you measure in the microwave you get a different answer than in the infrared.
Venus’ surface emits the equivalent of a ~17000 W/m^2 blackbody only if you measure in the microwave.
I would love to see Earth’s FULL spectrum. I would bet that spectral radiance in the microwave greatly exceeds a 240 W/m^2 blackbody’s microwave.
@ Joseph E Postma
I think you are right. They key is in the rate of energy flow (besides the supposed and not proved reducing of the rate by co2)
The greenhouse gas theory only takes into account the supposed greenhouse gas reduced rate, but ignores the other factors.
Proof some other factors and that the factors have a substantial influence (don’t need an exact figure), and the greenhouse effect theory is busted. Without needing to proof a secundary theory, or weither slowing down the rate has relevant influence..
In my mind, Zoe raises an interesting issue, which I would put in the form of a question:
If Earth had no geothermal energy flux, then could the sun have the heating effect on the Earth surface that it does? I don’t know.
Say we have an Earth-sized, spherical slab of something with zero geothermal heat [is that even physically possible?] — could the sun heat the surface of this spherical slab the same as it could heat the Earth we know of?
I’m thinking maybe, because the sun has been continuously shinning on the slab for billions of years, already maintaining a certain global warmth.
Back to the idea of global average temperature:
It is a mathematical invention that many people are using to gauge evil. It seems to have been invoked primarily as a psuedo-gauge of doom. That’s the function assigned to it. It is an invention to convince people that it is a measure of doom. Otherwise, it tells us little to nothing about specific local conditions that actually generate the processes of the climate.
It’s a handy little trick number to focus our attention onto the evil of humankind. It has been decreed as this and only this, … nothing more. It is a hoax stat, especially when small changes in its value are invoked to suggest grandiose consequences.
Let’s create another gauge of doom, … say the global average price of stock. When this average changes, then let’s all shout economic doom and impending collapse of the world markets.
How about average global butterfly count (i.e., butterflies per square meter). Do neat looking graphs of butterfly anomalies.
Robert,
“I’m thinking maybe, because the sun has been continuously shinning on the slab for billions of years, already maintaining a certain global warmth.”
Solar input is 475 W/m^2 over a hemisphere, which is 260e12 m^2
In 4.5 billion years there are ~6e15 seconds.
We’ll assume heat capacity of slightly wet soil: 1000 J/kgK
Q = m*Cp*dT, since we assume T starts at zero:
T = (475 * 260e12 * 6e15) / (6e24 * 1e3)
T = (475 * 260e12 ) / (6e12)
T = 475 * 260 / 6 = 25,583 K
So why aren’t we at that temperature?
We are at ~288K. So how long has the sun been shining on us?
288 = (475 * 260e12 * X) / (6e24 * 1e3)
1728e27 = 123500e12 * X
X = 1.39919028e13 seconds
X = 10.64 Million Years
Interesting …
“There are 9,900,000 light years on average between galaxies.”
Maybe the universe is a ~1000 times younger than we thought.
Anyway, using your idea, there can’t be any doubt that there will be global warming FOREVER, due to the sun.
Kind regards, -Zoe
Hi guys thanks for the input,
This paper in particular claimed to be written in 1955? I find off in the wording. The language sounds more like modern climate alarmist not 1955 language. It makes think the whole paper is fake, altered, or something doesn’t feel quite right bout it.
Abstract
The most recent calculations of the infra-red flux in the region of the 15 micron CO, band show that the average surface temperature of the earth increases 3.6” C if the C02 concentration in the atmosphere is doubled and decreases 3.8’ C if the CO, amount is halved, provided that no other factors change which influence the radiation balance. Variations in CO, amount of this magnitude must have occurred during geological history; the resulting temperature changes were sufficiently large to influence the climate. The CO, balance is discussed. The CO, equilib- rium between atmosphere and oceans is calculated with and without CaCO, equhbrium, assuming that the average temperature changes with the CO, concentration by the amount predicted by the CO, theory. When the total CO, is reduced below a critical value, it is found that the climate continuously oscillates between a glacial and an inter-glacial stage with a period of tens of thousands of years; there is no possible stable state for the climate. Simple explanations are provided by the CO1 theory for the increased precipitation at the onset of a glacial period, the time lag of millions of years between periods of mountain building and the ensuing glacia- tion, and the severe glaciation at the end of the C+rboniferous. The extra CO, released into the atmosphere by industrial processes and other human activities may have caused the temperature rise during the present century. In contrast with other theories of climate, the CO, theory predicts that this warming trend will continue, at least for several centuries.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/j.2153-3490.1956.tb01206.x
Robert,
I was just kidding. I purposefully left out 12 hours of daily cooling time.
Does anyone have an opinion on this guy? Vaughan R. Pratt,
Stanford University. Sounds like a real arrogant academic fraud to me.
http://clim.stanford.edu/WoodExpt/
Zoe,
“But you already seemed to agree that geothermal can bring -10m to 10C why do you think there is a geothermal dead end? Why can’t nearly all of this 10C reach the surface and emit to space?”
It not the geothermal that raises the temperature of the 10m slab, it is the sun. All the geothermal does is put a cap on the depth to which it can cool in winter.
Pablo,
We’ve already defined -10m as the place that has no variation whatsoever. You think the sun is responsible for a depth it has no effect on 365/24/7? Interesting…
@ Zoe Phin says:
2019/08/29 at 5:03 PM
So you get a figure for average global temperature — so what?
Climate is NOT averaged global temperature, averaged global temperature may have effects on the climate but it is not, and to my mind never will be, the kingpin of the climate story. For instance, the poles may warm and the tropics cool (because of say, clouds and ocean effects) and the averaged global temperature not change a jot but the climate will have changed a lot!
It is local temperature variations that are far more important! Where and by how much a locality changed in temperature is a climate driver. One of many!
Climate is the aggregated changes now, and accumulations of past changes in parameters — NOT just temperature — the geographically local reactions to changes (both rapid and slow), be they changes in solar, seismological, biological, atmospheric, oceanic, or cosmic influences.
That is not to say temperature is not important — it is(!), it’s just not the whole picture about the way climate works.
Fixating on averaged global temperatures does NOT tell us how our climate will evolve — there is so much more that can and does move our climate as history has shown.
But hey, don’t let me rain on your parade about averaged global temperature, Zoe Phin, I’m sure you believe it is meaningful or something.
Thanks tomomason.
I am amused. Theoretically speaking what would happen if the tropics froze and the caps warmed? Actually both caps wouldn’t warm just one would I suppose because the planet would have to tilt in a different location from the Sun or something?
To explore this one needs to run a thermal PDE. I’ll demo that soon. Agreed with tomomason…the partial differential equation that can actually and accurately model all this is a *local* equation. It is an equation which ideally applies only to an infinitesimal location in surface area but which has vertical depth, and that depth is itself parceled into infinitesimal conjoined “strings”. And of course that’s all because and consistent with temperature being a local measure of energy & entropy…temperature becomes less and less meaningful the greater range of conditions it is averaged over.
As you know…the average temperature of the earth as seen from space doesn’t explain how the climate can exist…you need to go to local inputs to actually explain anything useful.
Tom,
The question at hand was: Do GHGs raise average global temperature or not? Your analysis says ~”We shouldn’t even attempt to empirically/theoretically figure that out because all climate is local”. True, but you know how that sounds to alarmists? “I give up”
Joe,
Can you figure out how long it will take the sun to heat the earth to its present thermal state? No matter what I do, I get an answer in the millions of years, and it keeps getting hotter after that!
Well…the earth started off molten. And it’s been around billions of years.
A world of high mountains and deep seas would be much colder than one of shallow seas and extensive lowland.
A world in which a continent 2.5km high is positioned at one of Earth’s poles and the other being enclosed by a partially land-locked ocean would be in an ice age.
Both with the same solar input.
replace “both” with “all”
@Pablo
Water freezes from top down because water is at it`s densest at 4C (excluding salt)
Researching the Net for data I came across this… From D.M. Aleksyutina, R.G. Motenko, the thermal conductivity for different deposits, in W/(m*K) is…
Sands 0.24–2.10 (Avg 1,17)
Loamy sands 0.22–1.65 (Avg 0.94)
Loams 0.18–1.55 (Avg 0,87)
Peats 0.82 –1.30 (Avg 1,19)
That of Ice (0C) 2.18 W/(m·K) (engineeringtoolbox). So the data looks good.
The frost line depth for different regions are…
Montreal 1,5 m
Calgary 2,13 m
Edmonton 2,29 m
Manitoba 2,42 m
Ontario 1,74 m
Quebec 1.59 m
Saskatchewan 2.06 m
Average Temperature for February
Edmonton -19,4C
Calgary -18,2C
Regina -14,5C
Montreal -10,4C
Using a median value of 1.0 for k, a 1 m2 area, a mean -15C degree atmosphere with a stable 0C frost line, and a median depth of 2m, we come up with…
Q = kA(T2-T1)/L = (1,0 * 1 * 15 ) / 2 = 7,5 W/m2
That means a 7,5 W/m2 geothermal to keep the frost line from going further down.
Keep in mind that if you use a higher heat conductivity, the lower the frost line will be. So they kind of cancel out. If you use a higher average atmospheric temperature (-7,5) the higher the frost line will be (1m) still canceling out. So, looks like we are stuck with something around 7,5 ! Not milliWatts but not 340 Watts either.
Why couldn’t the sun heat up the moon to at least 255K?
Pierre,
It seems as though Ice can be formed from the bottom up, if the cooling element is at the bottom and the water is in constant motion. So in theory if there was no geothermal and with an almost infinite heat sink beneath the ocean it could happen if conductivity in the rock was high enough. More maths?
see….Clinebell ice making equipment.
https://clinebellequipment.com/pages/cb300x2d
Back to radiation and humidity…
Thoughts on this anyone?
Does Surface Temperature Respond to or Determine Downwelling Longwave Radiation?
L. R. Vargas Zeppetello A. Donohoe D. S. Battisti
First published: 19 February 2019 https://doi.org/10.1029/2019GL082220 Cited by: 1
Read the full text
ePDFPDFTOOLS SHARE
Abstract
Downward longwave radiation (DLR) is often assumed to be an independent forcing on the surface energy budget in analyses of Arctic warming and land‐atmosphere interaction. We use radiative kernels to show that the DLR response to forcing is largely determined by surface temperature perturbations. We develop a method by which vertically integrated versions of the radiative kernels are combined with surface temperature and specific humidity to estimate the surface DLR response to greenhouse forcing. Through a decomposition of the DLR response, we estimate that changes in surface temperature produce at least 63% of the clear‐sky DLR response in greenhouse forcing, while the changes associated with clouds account for only 11% of the full‐sky DLR response. Our results suggest that surface DLR is tightly coupled to surface temperature; therefore, it cannot be considered an independent component of the surface energy budget.
Plain Language Summary
Longwave radiation, often referred to as “thermal” or “infrared” radiation, emitted downward by Earth’s atmosphere is a primary contributor to the surface energy budget. Numerous studies have invoked longwave radiation as a driver of surface warming. This paper shows that this line of reasoning fails to account for the strong control surface temperature exerts on longwave radiation. Using radiative kernels, matrices that quantify the longwave radiation response to a climate perturbation (like global warming), we argue that any surface temperature anomaly will generate a downward longwave radiation response. This constitutes a feedback between the Earth’s surface and its atmosphere. The kernels show large longwave responses to perturbations in the lowest part of the atmosphere and almost no response to perturbations at high levels; by vertically integrating the kernels, we can ignore the vertical structure of climate perturbations. Using this modification, we predict the longwave radiation response to a warming world using only the surface changes. Our prediction agrees with climate model output, suggesting that the longwave radiation response is determined primarily by surface temperature. Further, the cloud contribution to changes in longwave radiation is small. These results provide clarity on how changes in the surface energy budget should be analyzed.
Basically directly refuting GHE theory.
So there is hope.
@Zoe Phin 2019/08/31 at 7:00 AM
No Zoe, my point is that the averaged global temperature is NOT a good starting place for studying climate. The very idea that GHG raises the average global temperature is just nonsense, based on 19th century illogicality — it’s a poor non-scientific joke. There is NO MECHANISM for it!
It is interesting to note that all during the 20+ years of global temperature hiatus, atmospheric CO2 level still kept rising at about the same rate they had been for 20 years prior to that hiatus.
Also Zoe, your answer to the question ““I’m thinking maybe, because the sun has been continuously shinning on the slab for billions of years, already maintaining a certain global warmth.” misses the point about this planet. Having a surface with dynamically mobile liquid water and a dynamic atmosphere on this spinning planet, a planet that has a light side and a dark side, ensures that not only is heat taken in but it is also dispersed and radiated off the planet. Thus this planet has maintained the temperatures it has done despite your math trying to show otherwise.
Also I note the actual question of this thread pertains to “that the peer-review method of modern science is no guarantor of truth, and that peer-review now actively perpetuates and sustains the greatest intellectual and scientific fraud in history.” and not your assumed one.
With that said here’s my take on what climate science should be about —
Here is a plot of Global monthly average surface air temperature since 1850 according to Hadley CRUT (Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research and the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU), UK.) The blue line represents the monthly values.
So since leaving the LIA this planet’s average temperature has warmed by about 1°C by solar influence. The natural consequence of this slow warming is that CO2 levels have naturally increased (a lagging indicator) as the oceans and frozen land masses warm. All during this time (from 1850 to 2010) the climate of this planet has been dispersing that warmth both around the planet (and locking some of it in biological processes) and back out to space.
IMO natural processes still command the evolution of the planet’s climate.
Is all this anything anybody should be alarm about? Is it something that necessitates billions of dollars to be spent on it ? IMO to both questions — NO!
However we should monitor and investigate further as our understanding of how climate evolves is very poor, and any downturn in temperatures always brings hardships for humans and nature.
Exactly…we are approaching the end of our latest interglacial after all.
Pablo,
“Using a median value of 1.0 for k, a 1 m2 area, a mean -15C degree atmosphere with a stable 0C frost line, and a median depth of 2m, we come up with…
Q = kA(T2-T1)/L = (1,0 * 1 * 15 ) / 2 = 7,5 W/m2
That means a 7,5 W/m2 geothermal to keep the frost line from going further down.”
This is meaningless. Geothermal is bottom to top. You are analyzing the zone that varies. L is set to one. What is temperature difference between -2 and -3 meters deep? You don’t know.
What is the geothermal heat flux?
It’s the slope of the line, with L set to 1.
Geothermal flux tells you nothing about what temperature geothermal can sustain at the heighest point of zero solar interaction.
You get it?
It’s like looking at the atmosphere and determining:
Q = kA(Th-Tc)/L
q = 0.025*0.0065 = 0.16 milliWatts
Yes, the hot sun produces 0.16 milliWatts of thermal flux through the atmosphere!
And geothermal produces 91 milliWatts through the lithosphere.
I didn’t say that, Pierre did.
Zoe,
“Using a median value of 1.0 for k, a 1 m2 area, a mean -15C degree atmosphere with a stable 0C frost line, and a median depth of 2m, we come up with…
Q = kA(T2-T1)/L = (1,0 * 1 * 15 ) / 2 = 7,5 W/m2
That means a 7,5 W/m2 geothermal to keep the frost line from going further down.”
I didn’t say that, Pierre did.
Oops, sorry about that Pablo.
Tom,
“a planet that has a light side and a dark side, ensures that not only is heat taken in but it is also dispersed and radiated off the planet. ”
I took that into account. I still get an answer in the millions.
Anyone has better math? Show it, pretty please. -Zoe
Maths can lead you into dark corners Zoe.
Joe,
Early in radiometric dating somebody decided that the Earth is as old as the half life of Uranium. Now there’s like 40? elements that are all used to date the age of the Earth, and they all agree! Amazing, but don’t know REALLY how many of those elements we started with, but we can pretend to know because we want the age to be a certain pre-determined amount. So we reversed-engineered a story based on an assumption. It could be true or it may not be. Fair?
I don’t think they predetermined the age of the earth.
JP,
Why not? Doesn’t radiometric dating depend upon knowing the abundances of substances in the past? How could they know that?
How old is the Earth? Nobody is sure.
I read through a few Geology sites…
“previous research has shown that Earth’s total heat output is about 44 terawatts…” 91 billion years before cooling enough to become solid.”
“Tiny filaments burrowed in 3.4-billion-year-old rocks may be evidence of some of Earth’s earliest life, scientists argue in a new study. But not everyone is convinced these burrows are fossils of ancient lifeforms.”
“By dating the rocks in Earth’s ever-changing crust, as well as the rocks in Earth’s neighbors, such as the moon and visiting meteorites, scientists have calculated that Earth is 4.54 billion years old, with an error range of 50 million years.”
“The oldest rocks on Earth found to date are the Acasta Gneiss in northwestern Canada near the Great Slave Lake, which are 4.03 billion years old. But rocks older than 3.5 billion years can be found on all continents. Greenland boasts the Isua supracrustal rocks (3.7 to 3.8 billion years old), while rocks in Swaziland are 3.4 billion to 3.5 billion years. Samples in Western Australia run 3.4 billion to 3.6 billion years old.”
“Research groups in Australia found the oldest mineral grains on Earth. These tiny zirconium silicate crystals have ages that reach 4.3 billion years, making them the oldest materials found on Earth so far. Their source rocks have not yet been found.
The rocks and zircons set a lower limit on the age of Earth of 4.3 billion years, because the planet itself must be older than anything that lies on its surface.”
However, they are in disagreement of the age and validity of the testing of rocks. So according to geology the Earth is between 2.7 and 4.54 billions years or older…pending.
Chris,
And even those numbers are meaningless. No one can tell the difference between daughter elements from decay or not from decay. No one can tell how much parent element there was in the beginning. The whole science of radiometric dating is a social phenomena, like guessing # of jelly beans in a jar no one can see. There will be an average guess, and it will be called a “scientific” fact. It will become popular and everyone will forget how it came to be. New guesses can not deviate too greatly from the average, or else you will be punished.
The Earth could be older than the Sun. Ya never know. A lot of the cosmos is taken on faith. We believe in other galaxies but have no real time proof they still exist besides some gravitational theories and other methods I don’t know about. For all we know half the galaxies could be gone. The size of the universe is a guess. Black holes? We guess. It’s these things I find fascinating, the final frontier.
Then again the truth might be worse than the ignorance but it’s worth it in my mind to know no matter what.
We could find out we’re the rejects in the universe no one else wanted.
This site has some interesting info about soil temperature and practical application –
https://www.builditsolar.com/Projects/Cooling/EarthTemperatures.htm
A regular feature on “Grand Designs” are systems using the ground temperature at depth to either warm or cool houses in the UK – I think the install costs may not be recovered.
@ Zoe Phin 2019/08/31 at 1:29 PM
“I took that into account. I still get an answer in the millions.”
I say NO you did not because this planet has not been configured as it is for all that time.
You are making wild speculative assumptions about the state of the planet and the sun over this 4.5 billion year period. So again you miss the point by a country mile by not looking at history. Yes I know history is difficult, all that rational interpretation required, something mere mathematics does not need. No amount of mathematical Jujutsu can fix a basic conceptual error.
So given the dynamics of this planet what assumptions have you made about the spin rate and constitution of the the land, atmosphere, the oceans. What assumptions are you making about the state of the sun over this 4.5 billion year period? Are any of your assumption anywhere close to historical reality?
Uranium Geology and the Age of the Earth
So why are geologists so interested in uranium and how do they justify using uranium to date the age of the Earth?
Let us start with the atomic properties of uranium and some basic nuclear physics.
Uranium is a radioactive element that is found in mineral form in rocks, and mostly consists of two long-lived isotopes Uranium 238 and Uranium 235. Of these two isotopes Uranium 238 is the most abundant and comprises 99.28% of the element, while the remaining 0.72% consists of Uranium 235.
Although both isotopes are radioactive, they have different half-lives. Uranium 238 has a half-life of 4,500 Million years, while Uranium 235 decays far more rapidly and has a half-life of 703.8 Million years. The geologically rapid rate of decay of Uranium 235 means that 703.8 Mya (Million years ago) Uranium 235 was more abundant and the ratio at that time was U238 98.72% to U235 1.28%.
If we go back another 703.8 million years to 1,407.6 Mya then the ratio was U238 97.72% to U235 2.28% and so on. The further back we go in time the more abundant the Uranium 235 isotope was.
So, the first interesting question is this – At what age in the past was the ratio of U238 to U235 50:50?
We can determine this date mathematically and the age turns out to be 5,930 Mya.
So, what is the significance of the 50:50 isotope ratio and why is the 5,930 Mya date important?
It is at this point that we move from the realm of geology into the domain of the stellar astronomer and nuclear physics, and as this is Joseph’s area of expertise I will not trespass too far.
The issues that need to be addressed are: –
1. The role of stars in the nucleogenesis of the elements – the “we are star dust concept”.
2. The reason why iron is the most significant element in the genesis of the elements by stellar core fusion.
3. The role of supernova nucleosynthesis in the genesis of the elements heavier than iron e.g. Uranium.
What we have established by astrophysics is this: – Because of the process of supernova nucleosynthesis, and because the current isotope ratio of U238 to U235 on the modern Earth is 99.28% to 0.72%, then the supernova that created the U238 to U235 progenitor 50:50 ratio occurred 5,930 Mya and therefore the Earth cannot be this old.
Now let us go back to geology.
Governments are very interested in uranium, particularly Uranium 235, the reason is easy to understand. Uranium 235 is a fissile isotope and if you can refine uranium to increase the abundance of U235 then you can create a powerful weapon to terrify your neighbours. Consequently, if the ratio of U235 in a uranium sample is too low, then the uranium metal has been depleted; the uranium metal is valueless, but worse someone else has acquired a stock of U235 and alarm bells go off.
In May 1972 a uranium sample from the Olko Mine in Gabon was found to be depleted in Uranium 235. From the paper by M Ragheb (2017) :-
Because of the depletion of uranium 235 in the ore from this mine it is possible to calculate the age at which the Oklo natural reactor was active, this date is 1,800 Mya. We now have two dates we can use to bracket the age of the Earth – our planet cannot be younger that the age of the Oklo mine, and it cannot be older than the date of the progenitor supernova explosion.
You may not like the geological use of the science of radiometric dating, but it is founded in both mathematics and physics.
Tom,
Your lack of self-awareness is highly amusing.
Philip,
“At what age in the past was the ratio of U238 to U235 50:50?”
Why does this ratio matter?
“Because of the depletion of uranium 235 in the ore from this mine it is possible to calculate the age at which the Oklo natural reactor was active.”
How do they know how much uranium there should have been?
“When enough oxygen appeared in the Proterozoic era as a result of the (biological) photosynthesis process to render the ground water oxidising, uranium in the rocks began to dissolve.”
Why does oxygen require biology? You can make oxygen from carbon dioxide and ultraviolet radiation.
Zoe,
That is an awful lot of rabbit holes, are you sure that you are here to learn new knowledge?
1. The U238 to U235 50:50 ratio is the progenitor value of the uranium formed in the original supernova.
2. The quantity of uranium is determined by the critical mass of the uranium required to undergo spontaneous fission.
Spontaneous fission mass is determined by the abundance of U235. This abundance is a time dependent quantity.
3. The algal mat is a real hint here, algae are photosynthetic organisms. In the Archean the abundance of U235 was greater but the chemical leaching requires a free oxygen atmosphere. There are many examples of fluvial deposits of reduced minerals e.g. pyrite, that can only have been deposited in an oxygen free atmosphere.
See Palaeoenvironmental significance of rounded pyrite in siliciclastic sequences of the Late Archaean Witwatersrand Basin: oxygen‐deficient atmosphere or hydrothermal alteration?
England, G.L., Rasmussen, B., Krapez, B. and Groves, D.I., 2002. Palaeoenvironmental significance of rounded pyrite in siliciclastic sequences of the Late Archaean Witwatersrand Basin: oxygen‐deficient atmosphere or hydrothermal alteration?. Sedimentology, 49(6), pp.1133-1156.
From Wiki
Radiometric dating : Overview
By their chemical nature, rock minerals contain certain elements and not others; but in rocks containing radioactive isotopes, the process of radioactive decay generates exotic elements over time. By measuring the concentration of the stable end product of the decay, coupled with knowledge of the half life and initial concentration of the decaying element, the age of the rock can be calculated Typical radioactive end products are argon from decay of potassium-40, and lead from decay of uranium and thorium.[25] If the rock becomes molten, as happens in Earth’s mantle, such nonradioactive end products typically escape or are redistributed.[25] Thus the age of the oldest terrestrial rock gives a minimum for the age of Earth, assuming that no rock has been intact for longer than the Earth itself.
To sum it up… Dating gives the age of the rock the last time it was molten.
@tom0mason “No amount of mathematical Jujutsu can fix a basic conceptual error”
That is after all, the greenhouse effect in a nutshell.
Philip,
“1. The U238 to U235 50:50 ratio is the progenitor value of the uranium formed in the original supernova”
Of course it was. LMAO
“2. The quantity of uranium is determined by the critical mass of the uranium required to undergo spontaneous fission.”
And how many supernovae sprinkled earth at what times?
“There are many examples of fluvial deposits of reduced minerals e.g. pyrite, that can only have been deposited in an oxygen free atmosphere.”
Maybe oxygen wasn’t outgassed yet, or the sun didn’t shine UV light due to clouds, or the Earth is older than the Sun.
With so many permutations of possibilities it’s amazing you pick the one you want.
Pierre,
As Philip mentioned, all these exotic decayable elements are formed in supernovae. And since you know not when, where, and how many sprinkled the earth, you are left with a pointless guessing game.
Zoe: there’s debunking the obvious bad math and physics of political climate alarm, and then there’s following lines of reasoning based on good science.
Earth is 1000 million years old, change the supernova backstory.
Earth is 300 million years old, change the supernova backstory.
Earth is 100 million years old, change the supernova backstory.
Earth is 30 million years old, change the supernova backstory.
Good science.
Time itself is relative and that makes history subjective. We assume physics in time and space as we understand it. Much in the universe and dimensional/quantum theory we don’t understand (yet).
For instance what is Dark Matter, does it decay? Does it do anything, is it even matter as we understand it?
Could be cosmic space poop for all we know.
We assume everything in the universe is subjective to gravity or creates gravity. What if that’s not the case. What if we haven’t developed technology yet to really “see space”.
The Earth could be a rogue planet plucked into our solar system. The molten core does give us something to go by, at least. Unless somehow the Earth is much older and just got “recooked” at one point billions of years ago and cooled again.
Is the Moon and the Earth the same age or is it that a guess too?
Until we can research Mars better I doubt we’ll have a good basis to use as a template.The best way to understand the Earth better is to have something we can compare it to.
Once we get an actual moon base we might find very interesting things there too we haven’t discovered yet but Mars is our best bet as a template comparison to Earth.
Personally I’m going with the Earth being billions of years old because based on the current level of science that is the best guess.
Chris
“Personally I’m going with the Earth being billions of years old because based on the current level of science that is the best guess”
It’s the same type of thinking that would lead people to reject Postma, and embrace IPCC “science”. But Joe is correct …
Zoe,
There is only one Uranium 238 to 235 ratio for the whole of planet Earth.
For anomalous Oklo the daughter fission products are trapped in the surrounding shales.
Go figure.
Philip,
There is only one ratio of krypton to silicon for the whole planet Earth. So what? That’s just the nature of whole subset ratios in a finite set.
“For anomalous Oklo…”
But you just said there was one ratio, so how can there be an anamoly?
Do supernovae specifically target africa because they are forward-looking racists?
Again, why the 50/50 uranium isotopes ratio? One would think there are different types of supernovae with different strengths. If so, the ratios are arbitrarily selected from thin air.
I can figure out many ways you can be right and I can figure out many ways you can be wrong. You can’t.
Zoe,
Oklo would not be an anomaly if it was not anomalous.
The 50:50 ratio is the point at which crossover occurs (U235 becomes more abundant than U238). The age at which crossover occurs is mathematically determined from the following measured parameters: –
1. The Half-Life of U238 (4,500 My)
2. The Half Life of U235 (703.8 My)
3. The current relative measured abundance of U238 to U235 (99.2798% to 0.7202%).
I repeat again, there is only this one Uranium abundance value for the whole of planet Earth and it is a measured parameter.
The age of the crossover point is determined mathematically. (you can do this in Excel, try it and see for yourself).
The significance of the age of the crossover point is what is actually interesting.
After almost 50 years of studying geoscience I am still learning, the question is are you?
Zoe,
Nobody knows how old the Earth is, exactly. No evidence to support that. Plenty of evidence to support global warming by CO2 is fake. Plenty of evidence to support the Sun is the main driver of climate.
NOT a fair comparison.
The Earth could be a 100 million years old, or 5 billion or whatever.
How is speculation accomplishing anything?
Philip,
“The significance of the age of the crossover point is what is actually interesting.”
No it’s not. The fact that you think it is interesting, is interesting. What evidence do you have that supernovae produce uranium isotopes in a 50/50 ratio? And why just uranium? Why don’t you figure out the 50/50 ratio of all sorts of isotopes, see they don’t match, and then just reject junk science.
Chris,
“How is speculation accomplishing anything?
You’re right. It’s just too much fun teaching humility to those with the pretense of knowledge.
Zoe: with atomic, nuclear physics. Not the same category as political climate alarm science.
Zoe,
Two can play at your game.
I found this comment from you on another thread:
Is this your idea of geoscience or are you just being a troll?
I think that you are a troll.
Goodbye troll.
I missed that one…lol! Zoe that’s not what the equatorial bulge is from…! Haha 🙂
Joe,
Engineering and historical speculation are not in the same category.
Did you know that supernovae must emit uranium isotopes in a 50/50 ratio?
It MUST be true. It MUST.
Philip,
What is wrong with my comment?
You don’t believe in thermal expansion?
@Zoe
/ you are left with a pointless guessing game. /
I see that you can pick fight with anybody and like it even though you know nothing about it !
Tell me… When a rock is melted by some cataclism, how much argon do you think will stay in the molten rock ? My guess … a big fat zero. So 100 million years ago when the rock solidified and uranium or what ever continued to decay and argon was trapped accumulating in the rock,,, anayzing the content of Argon and Uranium in the rock plus knowing the half life of Uranium… doesnt that tell you anything ?
There is a name for those who know everything and thinking that no one else does !!!
Philip Mulholland says:
/Is this your idea of geoscience or are you just being a troll?
I think that you are a troll.
Goodbye troll./
Jesus !!!! I’m not the only one now !!! I figured it out a LOOOOOOOOONNNNNNNNGGGGGG time ago but Joe banned me for a week for asking so. Wellcome to the club Philip !
Let’s clear it up a bit,
Radiometric dating depends on a radioactive parent atom decaying into what is called a daugter atom. To work you need to know that the original cristal you will analyze does not contain any of the daugter atom at the begining. Zirconium may contain Uranium but no lead (cristaline structure reasons). So, all Lead found in zirconium is daughter origin. Here is a list of possible parent-daughter radiometric methods…
Parent Daughter τ1/2
238U 206Pb 4.47 b.y
235U 207Pb 707 m.y
232Th 208Pb 14 b.y
40K 40Ar & 40Ca 1.28 b.y
87Rb 87Sr 48 b.y
147Sm 143Nd 106 b.y.
14C 14N 5,730 y 100 – 70,000 years
All you need to know is the content of parent, content of daughter and half life of parent.
BINGO.
Oh s**t, missed this one too
/ Zoe, Simple. Geothermal energy varies by latitude. Equator – More, so it bulges from thermal expansion /
How about the Earth spins on it’s axis creating that bulge at the equator from centripetal force . You weigh less at the equator.
No, Pierre, centripetal force is an inward force. If you are talking about centrifugal force, then the math creates a 7% discrepancy from gravitational measurements, IF we assume uniform density. To resolve the discrepancy we have to assume a lower density for the equator. Did you know that heat reduces density?
My original comment:
“Equator – More, so it bulges from thermal expansion”
Did I ever claim that the bulge is completely explained by thermal expansion? No. Does thermal expansion cause a bulge? Yes.
Who’s the troll?
“Zirconium may contain Uranium but no lead (cristaline structure reasons). So, all Lead found in zirconium is daughter origin.”
What? Zirconium can form around a large atom like Uranium without problems in its cristaline structure, but it can’t form around a smaller atom like Lead? LMAO
Who’s the troll?
Uranium decay releases alpha particles. Analyzing helium content in Zircon crystals yields a date of less than 10000 years. Which makes no sense.
Why are you cherrypicking facts to suit a narrative? That’s what climate alarmists do!
The binding energy of all these fancy radiometric isotopes is well within the reach of >1% of lightning.
No need for extraterrestrial origins.
Here is but one example:
https://i0.wp.com/www.radonattahoe.com/images/usa-thorium-map.gif?zoom=2
https://i1.wp.com/www.radonattahoe.com/images/usa-gamma-map.gif?zoom=2
So much for your crackpot alien matter theory.
GLOBAL WARMING: A scam that has spanned over two centuries.
Everyone supporting this scam since at least a decade ago knows what this is about. Certainly most in higher positions knew this since 1988…
Thursday, 18 November 2010 13:16
“One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with the environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole. We redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy,” -Ottmar Edenhofer (United Nations climate official)
“the next world climate summit in Cancun is actually an economy summit during which the distribution of the world’s resources will be negotiated.” -Ottmar Edenhofer (United Nations climate official)
http://web.archive.org/web/20101201123618/http://www.thegwpf.org/ipcc-news/1877-ipcc-official-climate-policy-is-redistributing-the-worlds-wealth.html
http://web.archive.org/web/20101122162022/http://www.nzz.ch/nachrichten/schweiz/klimapolitik_verteilt_das_weltvermoegen_neu_1.8373227.htm
Happy Labor Day for those who celebrate it and for those who don’t grill a burger or a hotdog in honor of contributing to CO2. I’m just glad we haven’t arrived yet at the day where you’d need a permit to grill. Although Canada might be the first to invoke such a tax, “The Grill Tax”.
So now you are an expert in crystalography ! Great ! Getting better and better !
From Wiki…
Uranium–lead dating, abbreviated U–Pb dating, is one of the oldest[ and most refined of the radiometric dating schemes. It can be used to date rocks that formed and crystallised from about 1 million years to over 4.5 billion years ago with routine precisions in the 0.1–1 percent range.[2][3]
The method is usually applied to zircon. This mineral incorporates uranium and thorium atoms into its crystal structure, but strongly rejects lead when forming. As a result, newly-formed zircon deposits will contain no lead, meaning that any lead found in the mineral is radiogenic. Since the exact rate at which uranium decays into lead is known, the current ratio of lead to uranium in a sample of the mineral can be used to reliably determine its age.
3 courses in physics and 2 in astronomy and you are an expert in cristalography. Hummmmmmm.
Happy labor day everybody!
And happy anniversary to end of WWII.
@ Zoe Phin 2019/09/01 at 6:06 AM
So Zoe, you have no answer for all the assumptions you make and spin-off faster than chaff in hurricane Dorian to more nonsense. You really are full of it.
Lets get back to a more rational arguments, instead of pretending we know what happened although the last 4.5billion years because we do not — it is just speculation.
Instead lets look at the last 4 million years of global averaged temperature as shown by Vostok ice proxy looks like this —
As this graph, like most climate graphs of untampered temperature records, shows we live in quasi-cyclic temperature regime. This quasi-cyclic behavior is a product of the chaotic nature of of the drivers of our climate. Drivers that do not include the mythical anthropological CO2 greenhouse effect.
Oops,
Correction …
“Instead lets look at the last 4 million years of global averaged temperature as shown by Vostok ice proxy looks like this — ”
should be “Instead lets look at the last 420,000 years of global averaged temperature as shown by Vostok ice proxy looks like this — “
Tom,
I haven’t believed CO2 causes any detectable temperature changes for almost a decade. I worked for wall street for 10 years. I specialized in energy and commodities. I can do quantitative, fundamental, and macroeconomic analysis. I earned ~$84 million for my clients, and won 6 corporate awards. I’m not clueless, but thank you for taking the time.
I like to ask profound questions. One such question is: Why do we only have ice that’s 420,000 years old thick?
Have a good day. -Zoe
If those links don’t work try these paste and go.
http://web.archive.org/web/20101122162022/http://www.nzz.ch/nachrichten/schweiz/klimapolitik_verteilt_das_weltvermoegen_neu_1.8373227.html
http://web.archive.org/web/20101201123618/http://www.thegwpf.org/ipcc-news/1877-ipcc-official-climate-policy-is-redistributing-the-worlds-wealth.html
Pierre,
Not only can lead be synthetically placed in zircon without escaping today, but plenty of “ancient” zircon contain plenty of nano particles of lead.
“but strongly rejects lead when forming. As a result, newly-formed zircon deposits will contain no lead.”
If you did just a modicum of research and applied lateral thinking, you’d see how ludicrous this out-dated hypothesis is.
Aside from that, 4.5 billion years is not supported.
Zoe Phin 2019/09/02 at 3:13 PM
“I worked for wall street for 10 years. I specialized in energy and commodities. I can do quantitative, fundamental, and macroeconomic analysis. I earned ~$84 million for my clients, and won 6 corporate awards. I’m not clueless, but thank you for taking the time. ”
Well good for you.
Now how does that show that you can understand the climate?
Have you shown any insight as to why the planet goes through warm and cool periods. Surely for someone as obviously talented as you such things should be trivial.
Tom,
For the period you were talking about, Milankovic cycles explain it all. For the recent 30 years, cloud cover is key. You can read my previous comments on this blog or youtube.
Really, Tom? You don’t understand why someone who speculated in commodities would need to be aware of climate cycles? Understanding all sorts of cycles is what gave me an edge.
Can you believe stuff like this gets published? Soon climate science will be predicted by those in head wraps divining over crystal ball snow globes.
ABSTRACT:
“CO2 is the strongest anthropogenic forcing agent for climate change since pre-industrial times. Like other greenhouse gases, CO2 absorbs terrestrial surface radiation and causes emission from the atmosphere to space. As the surface is generally warmer than the atmosphere, the total long-wave emission to space is commonly less than the surface emission. However, this does not hold true for the high elevated areas of central Antarctica. For this region, it is shown that the greenhouse effect of CO2 is around zero or even negative. Moreover, for central Antarctica an increase in CO2 concentration leads to an increased long-wave energy loss to space, which cools the earth-atmosphere system. These unique findings for central Antarctica are in contrast to the well known general warming effect of increasing CO2. The work contributes to explain the non-warming of central Antarctica since 1957.”
Just read a paper where they created a 1000 year solar model and you know what thy came up with?
“Considerable evidence now exists that the Earth’s climate is heavily dependent on the solar cycle.”
Click to access prp-1-117-2013.pdf
Imagine that. And here we thought the climate created itself.
@Zoe,
Once I posted a question regarding you that not only was not answered but got me banned from the site for a week. Now I don’t care anymore because this site has become absolutely useless for anyone wanting honest answers because it has all become about you, you and you with lies, misrepresentations and more lies. I’m out. So I’m going to ask the question one more time…
Either you are a troll and a plant from the warmist side, a brat who can’t acknowledge anything but herself or someone who refuses to take her prescribed medication ! Can you at least answer that question honestly ?
Joe, you have my e-mail. Whenever, give me a sign. I wont be back until your site has been purged of all the nonesense.
Hey Pierre,
Don’t go. I for one valued your input enormously.
You guys need to understand the degree of, and pardon my French, fuckery that I need to deal with…that the Slayer’s have dealt with for many years now.
Here’s how the fuckery works: someone you don’t know and never met before ingratiates themselves to you by saying all the right things and acting entirely professional and reasonable. You build trust and group cohesion with them. They have a big personality that captures a lot of people’s attention. Then other people come in, or existing people, but the person who’s ingratiated themselves to your group starts going off on wild tangents, and starts saying things and supporting things that conflict with, or are beside the point, from your and your group’s main interests. Complaints are sent out to the group and to the person. The person takes it as a great personal insult and can’t believe how stupid everyone else is. Fights develop and get picked between almost every person in the group. Some people wish to be lenient and allow free discussion of anything that has nothing to do with your group’s actual mission. Some people wish to kick others out for damaging the reputation and the mission. Some people get kicked out or at least moderated. Some people wish to leave because everything has become a shit-show. The end result is that the group becomes scattered, demotivated, and loses enthusiasm. The group may have had a great simple message at the beginning, but now is stuck in a quagmire of false associations and people who’ve lost interest and subject material which is nothing to do with the original simple message. The person with the big personality who was at first really great and on-point takes some of your original members over to their “much better and free-minded” side. The original group then stops the email chain or online discussion entirely. Fuckery achieved.
Do you understand fuckery? Fuckheads engaging in fuckery. Operatives…or self-centered conceited morons.
This fuckery algorithm has just occurred here, and I’ve been entirely watching it develop for the past few weeks, playing my part. Sure, maybe its accidental…just people being idiots. But it is also so consistent and has occurred so many times that the algorithm can be written down and identified as a repeatable phenomenon. Given the algorithm above, the current players of the algorithm are easily identified.
The greatest scientific-political fraud in history and imaginable is spreading sunshine over the entire surface of the Earth as a massively-diluted input, equivalent to actual flat Earth theory developed in physics. Where sunshine in this model cannot create the climate. Where the climate must then create itself. People with no real education in science can understand what’s wrong with this. It is the greatest fraud but simultaneously the easiest debunk and safest position for anyone to take in debunking it. It has potential to be the greatest story/drama in the past several hundred years, given where it took place and its scale.
Who’s on mission?
I’m sorry, Joe. I do have a bad habit of driving boys crazy. I just recently read your paper, and it spurred all sorts of questions. I forgot that everyone has their own cosmology theology, and there’s no reason to ask big questions. We should just focus on climatology theology.
Kind regards, -Zoe
Suggest we all chill out for a while with “The Sun Whose rays” by Keith Jarrett
Very well said, Joseph your mind never ceases to amaze me. On that note are you going to send your paper out to some places with a better mind to read it? That solar cycle link “could” be a good reference to your papers. I don’t know how accurate it is (not a scientist obviously) and not sure what their stance is on global warming but maybe they could be an ally or a collaborator or just a reference.
I’d really like for you to get some of these papers published and recognized so this…
“…we are effectively redistributing world wealth through climate policy…”
-Ottmar Edenhofer (United Nations climate official)
…has to be stopped or revealed as what it really is.
Have you made any contact with Tony Heller at all or vice versa. I know he is an able historian and not your scientific niche per se (at all) but he may have contacts that could further your work or gain more exposure.
Spencey needs to be revealed for the fraud that he is but at the moment he has too much political influence to block any real progress on stopping the climate change agenda. Somehow this bottleneck of information needs to be broken.
You should be getting thousands of hits on YT even Tony who has been doing this for a long time only gets 40k viewers and that arrogant blowhard Englishman, PotHoler gets over 184k why? Because you guys are being seriously throttled.
Wear did this ridiculous greenhouse gas theory even come from to become basic science in physics? Water has always been the explanation for our Earth and it’s atmosphere. When did that get changed for ‘greenhouse gas”.
It’s like we are living in an alternate reality.
Chris
Arrhenius seems to have first coined the phrase citing the action of carbonic acid in the atmosphere :-
“The “Greenhouse Effect” was originally defined around the hypothesis that visible light penetrating the atmosphere is converted to heat on absorption and emitted as infrared, which is subsequently trapped by the opacity of the atmosphere to infrared. In Arrhenius (1896, p. 237) we read:
“Fourier maintained that the atmosphere acts like the glass of a hothouse, because it lets through the light rays of the sun but retains the dark rays from the ground.””
Despite clinging to a belief in the “aether” – the massless invisible “fluid” through which “heat” is conducted and despite Maxwell , Boltzmann and Planck establishing electromagnetic radiation and thoroughly debunking the “aether” hypothesis Arrhenius won a Nobel Prize.
Wood debunked the “radiation trap” ideas with a simple experiment in 1909 – something alarmists still try to dispute today.
Here’s a good read – http://greenhouse.geologist-1011.net
Rosco,
Thank you. In school I never ever remember being taught “greenhouse gases” create an atmosphere or climate. We were taught gravity created atmosphere and gases settled accordingly. The Sun and water vapor playing the key role for weather and all life on Earth. If I was taught greenhouse gases in later school years I don’t remember it.
Rosco,
Just to be fair, the aether hypothesis is supposedly discredited, but the speed of light still depends on the permeability and permissivity of space. Root word is permission. Permission for what? To pass. To pass through what? Space? If there’s nothing there, what do you need permission for? If there’s a medium, the word permission makes sense. Aether is dead, long live the same concept by other names?
Joe, your last comment was well said. I have been reading the exchanges above and don’t understand the bickering going on. You aare right that we need to focus simply on the GHE being a fraud. I see some folks getting lost in the forest for counting all the trees! Stick to the basics and we’ll get there. My 2 cents anyway.
Indeed.
I was not familiar with the algorithm that JP described in detail, and so I felt the need to study it and strip it down to the basics (^_^):
Hahaha. Well, of course those are all effects, but you can back-engineer the inputs, i.e., “how to exploit and disrupt online group movements”.
I mean…they have a manual. Do this, then do that, then insert this, then wait for that, etc. etc.
I propose that the average velocity of leaves falling off trees has changed alarmingly, causing subtle, but significant shifts in convection currents that disrupt the climate. It’s happening now, and we are the cause. (^_^) … practicing my skill in applying the fuckery algorithm.
Robert,
We should even abandon temperature – the average kinetic energy. We should describe what every particle is doing at any moment. Anything less is math jujitsu, i.e. hocus pocus.
Joseph.
The most common error I get in talking to these “educated” climate clowns is the absolute ignorance on heat and energy. I was counted among those of the ignorant before I arrived here and only those claiming to be actual physicists know the difference and have actually corrected me a time or two in the beginning.
So I looked into it some not with the Robert level of enthusiasm, but In “thermodynamic manuals”
I’ve seen heat-energy or many variations but the CO2 “traps heat mantra” is prevalent everywhere.
In academia do they teach physics correctly do they make any distinction between heat and energy,
reflected IR or energy absorbed?
I believe this was your words I remember, I’ve reconstructed it so if you see errors those are mine not yours so please tell me what I need fixed (if any). As I said I was a writer and I love a master of word placement and you are very talented in that regard.
“CO2 does not trap heat, it is constantly being warmed by new radiation leaving the surface or created by molecular collision/kinetic energy. Radiation leaves the surface to outer space in less than a millisecond..CO2 may intercept and scatter that, even if scattered a few times, it is happening at the speed of light and always ends on the way out to space.”
My question/concern is if these guys aren’t being taught physics correctly how are they maintaining any job in the real world with applied physics?
My brother in law worked in Alaska as a communications technician he once came into a local power company to do work. He noticed they would not turn the power off to work on things (they said they couldn’t afford to lose power) so they would work on equipment with live electricity around it saying their insulated boots, a rubber mat and their gloves was fine to protect them. By brother in law tried to tell them you are not safe form that kind of voltage if you touch it it’s going to kill you right through your so called protection. (by bro-in-law was Air Force educated in communications, electrician, and communication frequencies) and They laughed at him.
A guy died the next week or so and if I recall correctly they closed the plant down for unsafe work place environment conditions.
CD: My next vid is going to be a basic science lesson and it will touch on what the academics are missing and what they’re doing wrong.
As far as them, they are professionally all focused on some incredibly narrow minutia of their specialization…no wait…I wrote the true answer in my book and elsewhere on this blog:
The answer for how they can behave this way is because they’re unconscious. The degree of anti-rationalism, general absolute philosophical illiteracy but especially that of the philosophy of science, open-ended non-answerable beliefs, beliefs about existence arising out of nothing for no reason and by no mechanism, the denial that they have a mind or agency, etc etc., the degree of cognitive dissonance they have been inflicted with and to which they suffer has reduced their minds and mental capacity to that of unconsciousness.
You know how sometimes you suddenly realize that you’ve been driving for the last 20 minutes but remember not a single moment of it? You know how people can sleepwalk and perform basic waking-activities while entirely asleep? You know how you can concentrate on something so deeply and intently that suddenly hours have passed without realizing it?
That’s the mode that an academic in…constantly. They have been made this way from the result of the negative Hegelian Dialectic…they have incorporated so many cognitively-dissonant ideas into their personal identity as a scientist that it has rendered them unconscious.
Look at this short email I got from Roy Spencer a few days ago:
RS: “I think anyone who claims that the area of a sphere (4 Pi R squared) isn’t four times the area of a circle (Pi R squared) needs to go back to geometry class.”
Is that AT ALL what I’ve been talking about, or am having difficulty with?
Look at this email I got from a PhD in physics at my local university:
anon: “You are doing what all my AGW denier friends do, which is present an argument based on misrepresentations and oversimplifications. Just one example…dividing the solar constant by 4 is not “flat Earth”…. it’s a way of counting the average energy flux over the sphere, which has exactly 4X the surface area of the cross section of the Earth…it gives the correct average energy flux.”
Is that AT ALL what I’m talking about, or am explaining in my vids?
Are those responses AT ALL relevant to what I’ve been putting out in my vids?
These people are unconscious. We are attempting to interface with people who are sleeping, people who are dreaming and in a dream-state while appearing wakeful.
*They are not processing information at a very basic level!*
They are not processing information at a level you would expect >75 IQ.
…they’re…just…not…there…
I recently told an alarmist in an online discussion that the supposed back radiation or slowing outgoing radiation greenhouse effect doesn’t work in a real greenhouse.
He/she responded with saying that it only works on a long distance.
So i asked if he was suggesting that building miles high greenhouses would reduced the heating cost in the winter significantly, a perpetual energy saving system.
The discussion ended there.
@ Joseph E Postma
What you describe is explained in this masterclass about subversion, 30 years old but very relevant nowadays. Can compare it with a martial arts tactic, the vid starts at the right time
Somehow the vid starts at the beginning. The right quotations are at 10:38
Joseph,
Someone said (may have been you) that science is no longer taught as it was we have a lot of people who can quote science but don’t comprehend what they are actually saying: Mindless drones. Honestly it is really creepy. These “things” are really accepting social globalism as their future without a single fuss.
You ever see Wall-e? They are the drones in the floating chairs, brains taken over by media and pop culture. Pod people. Synthetic humans. Hollywood has been mocking them for decades and they don’t have a clue.
Whatever they are they creep the hell out of me.
Last Men. Read Nietzsche’s piece on the Last Man. As long as they have their comforts, their comforts are all they need. As they blink. As they’re cattle.
I was talking to someone with my limited knowledge of these things that the Earth isn’t a perfect black body.
He mentioned this,”And the Earth’s surface is a 2D model; the atmosphere isn’t.”
What would that have to do with calculating a black body? If I understand right a perfect black body is a liquid surface like the Sun not a terrestrial surface unless the entire planet was one giant ocean.
Great link reference MP.
JP,
I’ve repeated your simple and fully understandable explanation that you can’t divide real time solar input by 4 because it is shinning on only half the planet it needs to be divided by 2 becasue it’s not shinning at night time and that energy is what creates weather in the atmosphere.
My responses are, “What are you talking about.”
I therefore try and use a space suit as an example. If I purchased a space suit that was designed to resist the average temperature of the Moon and went on the Moon with it I would eventually die. Some averages aren’t useful for real time applications.
What’s the response I get for that? crickets. I don’t even think the majority can even comprehend what that means.
That video from MP was excellent, it is an example of this climate change takeover.
What concerns me is the possibility of war breaking out over this at some point. A conversion to global socialism will not happen w/o bloodshed. History has proven that. Will WW3 be fought over climate change? How utterly ridiculous is that?
Great comment CD!!
Someone who actually shows the real power of the Sun in real time. Ironic since it’s teaching how to use solar panels correctly! I see a punchline in there somewhere.
https://www.itacanet.org/the-sun-as-a-source-of-energy/part-1-solar-astronomy/
Reblogged this on Climate- Science.press.