We Will Not be Ruled by People Who Believe in Flat Earth Theory

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

121 Responses to We Will Not be Ruled by People Who Believe in Flat Earth Theory

  1. Pierre D. Bernier says:

    / Pardon my french /

    Tout pardonné mon homme. Unfortunately, the Federal reserve has fucked it all up. When the American public starts to live what Weimar, Zimbabwe, Venezuela and Argentina people has lived and are living, I don’t think there will be any civility left. It will be total and real civil war.

  2. At some point that might be preferred to living under the rule of the mentally insane. Good comment Pierre.

  3. Just an observation:

    In my time at the website, WUWT (one of JP’s favorites (^_^) … NOT!), I’ve noticed what seems to be an increasing trend of reacting to the stupidity of climate alarm. Specifically, post after post on Greta Thunberg keep coming up — what I would call “reaction-bate posts” or posts intentionally featured to cause a reaction to stupidity. The site seems to have become heavily weighted towards featuring the stupidity and less weighted towards promoting a rational perspective.

    It’s getting to the point of if-I-see-one-more-article-about-Greta-then-I-think-I’ll-puke tiresome.

    Continue arguing the flaws and faults of irrationality, for sure, but setting up posts just to highlight stupidity in order to merely react to it seems precisely what we don’t want to do.

  4. CD Marshall says:

    Is this right or wrong it is a reply someone sent to me after I told him the cureent enrgy budgets are wrong:

    “Sunlight is radiant energy corresponding roughly to a blackbody at 5800K and consists of a range of wavelengths from UV to far (thermal) IR. The atmosphere which contains water vapour can absorb incoming IR energy from the sunlight as well as the outgoing IR reflected from the surface. The energy budget data has been around since the 60s when high-altitude balloon studies were made, before the global warming era. Apart from that, the rest of your comments are correct. If you selectively reject science that you don’t like, then you are doing exactly what the alarmists are doing!”

  5. Joseph E Postma says:

    The energy budgets are indeed wrong, in that they’ve been interpreted wrongly in current times by climate alarm. Specifically, the energy budgets have been interpreted or created incorrectly because they, the climate alarmist energy budgets anyway, indicate that the atmosphere provides twice the heat to the Earth than the Sun does. The climate alarmist energy budgets do this because they are in fact flat Earth theory, where incoming sunshine is wrongly diluted over the entire Earth’s surface at once as an input as if the Earth is flat. It is GOOD science to question whether sunshine does this (it doesn’t) and whether Earth can be treated this way (it can’t).

    You’re not being “selective”, (wth that is supposed to mean…god these idiot people and their idiotic quips), you are being scientific.

  6. CD Marshall says:

    In a war I have one simple rule: I follow my brother’s lead. He’s a brilliant special forces vet and his plan becomes my plan and I become his shadow.

  7. The energy budget data has been around since the 60s when high-altitude balloon studies were made, before the global warming era.

    The concept of a spherical Earth has been around since the 5th century BC, when basic visual observations were made by people sailing the oceans, before the global-warming era that uses flat-Earth math to describe a fake “greenhouse effect”, that, in turn, leads to the erroneous numbers of “energy-budget” diagrams.

    If you selectively reject science that you don’t like, then you are doing exactly what the alarmists are doing!”

    If you selectively reject the most basic concepts, then you are enabling alarmists to do what they do.

  8. Nope. Wrong Zoe.

  9. Those energy budgets are not being interpreted properly, just like the climate budgets.

  10. Zoe Phin says:

    The energy budget becomes more correct when you realize they flipped geothermal into “backradiation”.

  11. Zoe Phin says:

    Joseph,
    OK. If I’m wrong then you can easily explain why Total Upwelling IR @ 7 SURFRAD sites greatly exeeds Total Solar Input over the entire year of 2018.

    https://pastebin.com/J92eULqa

  12. Pierre D. Bernier says:

    Zoe
    Please explain to me how our Sun came about and why it is what it is today ?

  13. Pierre D. Bernier says:

    Just posted this on sixty symbols. it should cool them off for some time…

    From Washington University. You can find the same diagram for Penn State, Columbia, Harvard and probably many other Universities on the web. Let’s take a look at the top left of the diagram. It says 1370 * (1-A) /4. 1370 is the Sun’s flux reaching the Earth at the top of the atmosphere, (1-A) is subtracting the reflected light by the atmosphere (what is called albedo) and /4 means divide by 4. They divide the Sun’s flux reaching the Earth’s surface by 4 ignoring the fact that the Sun shines on Earth on only one hemisphere at a time, not 2. But let’s play their game.

    You have 239,7 W/m2 from the Sun reaching the Earth. That energy is reflected back to the atmosphere and heats it up. Now the atmosphere is a blackbody at -18 °C and as all blackbodies do radiates in all direction equally, that is 239,7 W/m2 up and 239,7 W/m2 down. Now the earth receives 239,7 W/m2 from the Sun and 239,7 W/m2 from the atmosphere for a total of 479,4 W/m2. According to the Stefan-Boltzman law that is a 303K temperature (30 °C). Now, as all blackbodies do, the Earth which is now at 303K will radiate that 479,4 W/m2 back up to the atmosphere in an attempt to cool off. What was good the first time around must be good the second time around. There is no law of physics that says otherwise. So, now the atmosphere is also at 303K and, as all blackbodies do, will radiate 479,4 W/m2 up and 479,4 W/m2 down. Now the Earth receives 239,7 W/m2 from the Sun and 479,4 W/m2 from the atmosphere for a total of 719,1 W/m2. That’s a surface temperature of 336K (63 °C). This continuous heating cycle must result in continuous increases in temperature causing increases in radiative emissions and it has no end. So clearly, there is a flaw somewhere. The flaw is that the atmosphere creates energy. No energy can be created from nothing. It goes against the first law of thermodinamics. The solution to this problem is that the Sun shines on one hemisphere of the Earth at a time and therefore it’s flux should be divided by 2 and not 4. That way we get our required 30 °C from the start and have no more need for GHGE ! QED !

  14. Zoe,

    How is anybody supposed to make any sense of those numbers you linked to, without any clear context or better explanation? What are you comparing those numbers to? Where is the input to compare them to?

    A first-time observer, even a person of relatively high intelligence, needs a more complete picture to see the point that you are trying to make.

    Present the well-organized case in a clear way with those numbers.

  15. Great analysis Pierre.

  16. Pierre D. Bernier says:

    Don’t know if this is going to come out right. Copy and paste in Notebook. Save. Open File in Excel. Format cells to 2 decimal places. Here we go (Sorry joe, Can’t help myself) …

    ;DGS;UWS;Diff.;Net Solar;Diff.;UWIR;DWIR;Diff.;Net IR;Diff.;Net Flux;Total Net;Diff.

    Bondville 2018;169.274166666667;39.5391666666667;129.735;129.918333333333;0.183333333333337;371.840833333333;323.271666666667;48.5691666666667;48.55;-0.0191666666666634;81.3683333333334;80.9975;-0.370833333333351
    Desert Rock 2018;242.865;50.4233333333333;192.441666666667;192.54;0.0983333333333292;440.0725;317.744166666667;122.328333333333;122.33;0.00166666666667936;70.21;70.2108333333333;0.000833333333332575
    Fort Peck 2018;164.8925;45.8991666666667;118.993333333333;119.106666666667;0.11333333333333;346.086666666667;284.0825;62.0041666666667;62.0766666666667;0.0725000000000406;57.03;57.0541666666667;0.0241666666667015
    Goodwin Creek 2018;180.865;34.8541666666667;146.010833333333;146.015833333333;0.00499999999996703;404.0425;354.735833333333;49.3066666666667;49.3666666666667;0.0600000000000307;96.6491666666666;96.6483333333334;-0.000833333333261521
    Penn State 2018;143.200833333333;34.8983333333333;108.3025;108.323333333333;0.0208333333333286;365.445;325.094166666667;40.3508333333334;40.635;0.284166666666586;67.6883333333333;67.6766666666667;-0.0116666666666561
    Sioux Falls 2018;160.105833333333;37.4841666666667;122.621666666667;122.6275;0.00583333333338487;351.925;302.991666666667;48.9333333333333;48.9391666666667;0.00583333333336356;73.6883333333333;73.1408333333333;-0.547499999999971
    Table Mountain 2018;191.205;42.0425;149.1625;153.594166666667;4.43166666666664;372.039166666667;289.181666666667;82.8575;82.8808333333333;0.0233333333333405;70.7133333333334;65.4258333333333;-5.28750000000004
    ;;;;;;;;;;;;;
    ;178.915476190476;40.7344047619048;138.181071428571;138.875119047619;0.694047619047617;378.778809523809;313.871666666667;64.9071428571429;64.9683333333333;0.0611904761904825;73.9067857142857;73.0220238095238;-0.884761904761892
    ;;;;;;;;;;;;;
    Total 2018;;;;;;;;;;;;;
    ;;;;;;;;;;;;;
    Downwelling global solar;178.915476190476;;;;;;;;;;;Plenty of solar;
    Upwelling solar;40.7344047619048;138.181071428571;;;;;;;;;;energy coming in;
    Net solar;;138.875119047619;0.694047619047609;;;;;;;;;;
    ;;;;;;;;;;;;No need for Geothermal;
    Upwelling infrared;378.778809523809;;;;;;;;;;;;
    Downwelling infrared;313.871666666667;64.9071428571428;;;;;;;;;;;
    Net infrared;;64.9071428571429;0
    ;;;;;;;;;;;;;
    Total net radiation;73.0220238095238;73.9067857142857;-0.884761904761888;;;;;;;;;;
    ;;;;;;;;;;;;;
    ;;;;;;;;;;;;;
    Source :;;;;;;;;;;;;;
    https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/grad/surfrad/aveform.html;;;;;;;;;;;;;

    *** May Solar’s estimated by interpolation between April and June for TBL. ;;;;;;;;;;;;;

  17. Hate to say, Pierre DB, but that seems to have come out horrendously.

    Clear display constitutes the majority of clear understanding.

    You spent all that effort to have zero clarity, because of formatting/display limitations. Sucks, I know.

  18. Rosco says:

    https://www.thegwpf.com/we-need-to-eat-the-babies/

    WUWT are so dumb they cannot recognize satire – so is AOC who never even replied we do not advocate eating babies instead trying to placate the baiter.

    Hilarious

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/10/03/aoc-follower-goes-berserk-in-town-hall-claims-we-have-to-eat-babies-to-survive-climate-change/

    F’ me – these fools think they’re intelligent ?

  19. Rosco says:

    Surely the stupidity of the basic model – the only one by the way – is exposed by the nonsense that it explicitly says the atmospheric back radiation has equal heating capacity to their incident solar radiation.

    Anyone who believes this obvious fallacy is stupid beyond belief ! Yet apparently they all do !

  20. MP says:

    There won’t be a civil war. Anons are on it. Satire will destroy the deep state.

    Here is 1 example of an anon research/meme board. …there are many.

    https://endchan.net/qanonresearch/res/10987.html#11114

  21. Here’s a concept: The infamous 33 degrees is simply the AIR temperature addition of an atmospheric shell of fluid on top of the otherwise -19 degree surface WITHOUT air. The -19 degrees black-body surface temp is not even the same sort of measure as the 33 degree AIR-base temperature. Doing any sort of addition or subtraction of them, then, is meaningless nonsense.

    Anyone who cannot eventually arrive at THIS reasoning is blind beyond belief.

    Subtract three BLUE pieces of candy from five BLUE cannon balls to get two BLUE cannon balls. They’re both BLUE, so we should be able to add and subtract them, right?

    Rosco, about AOC: I’m not sure that she would not be okay with eating babies.

  22. Pierre D. Bernier says:

    Zoe
    Please answer this question. Explain to me how our Sun came about and why it is what it is today ?

  23. Pierre D. Bernier says:

    RK
    Sorry about that. Please suggest to me a way (free) to upload an Excel file on this site Dropbox has a charge and I dont have any real use for that in the futur.

  24. Pierre D. Bernier says:

    Here the summary from SufRad 2018

    Downwelling global solar___178,92
    Upwelling solar___________40,73_____138,18
    Net solar__________________________138,88____0,69

    Upwelling infrared_________378,78
    Downwelling infrared_______313,87______64,91
    Net infrared__________________________64,91____0,00

    Total net radiation__________73,02______73,91____-0,88

    Plenty of solar energy coming in. No need for Geothermal

    Source :
    https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/grad/surfrad/aveform.html

  25. Pablo says:

    Dear Richard Madeley: ‘My husband’s views on Brexit and climate change are killing off our sex life’

    My husband and I are in our late 50s and have always seen more or less eye to eye on political matters. But in the past couple of years we have diverged sharply on two issues: Brexit, and the environment.

    My other half, a teacher and head of year, has become almost deranged. He feels so passionately that leaving the EU is a mistake, he becomes incoherent when he talks about it. It’s the same with climate change. He took a day off work (without the headmaster’s permission) to join an Extinction Rebellion roadblock. I glimpsed him on TV, chanting, almost unrecognisable as the man I’ve been married to for nearly 20 years.

    I voted Leave but I would be perfectly comfortable if we’d voted to stay in Europe. I can see climate change must be addressed, but I don’t believe in occupying bridges. When I say this to my husband, he gets in a state.

    I could just about tolerate that, but here’s the real problem, Richard. He keeps bursting into tears when we discuss either subject, especially when other people are present. I think he thinks it adds weight to his arguments. He snuffles his apologies and says things like “I’m sorry, but I just feel SO strongly about this…”

    It’s driving me mad. I want to clip him around the ear and tell him to man up. Worse, it’s completely destroying my desire for him. I know this sounds old-fashioned but I think men who keep blubbing are a total turn-off. I’ve taken to making excuses to come to bed late or to sleep in the spare room. He’s started to notice but I don’t know what to tell him. Any advice would be hugely appreciated.

    Suzanne, Herts


    Dear Suzanne

    With my TV hat on, I’ve interviewed both eco-warriors and Remainers recently and experienced exactly what you describe – a strange lachrymosity as some of them get into their stride that I’ve never encountered in campaigners over other important issues (and I’ve been a working reporter since 1972). If I’m honest, their weepy displays annoy me too. Bursting into tears is no substitute for reasoned, intelligent argument.

    It’s definitely a recent phenomenon. Only this summer a defendant – a professional man, like your husband – up on charges connected with eco-protests starting sobbing with emotion in front of magistrates in court. He had to be given time to compose himself. I think he was fortunate not to be sent down for a bracing couple of hours in the cells.

    So it seems your husband is caught up in a wider emotional tide that’s flowing specifically on environmental and anti-Brexit issues.

    If you find that a turn-off, you find it a turn-off. No one can re-programme your sexual responses for you, Suzanne. So I think you need to sit your husband down and tell him the truth. Explain that the sight of him welling up as he argues for Remain or on behalf of the planet is shrivelling your desire for him. Make it clear that it’s nothing to do with the actual opinions he holds; it’s the trembling lower lip, throaty gasps and tear-filled eyes that are the passion killers. Don’t feel guilty about this. As I say, our sexual responses are hard-wired. We have little control over them.

    But there are ways to stop crying. A good, hard, self-administered pinch to the thigh is a tried and trusted technique, as I’ve said on this page before. Tell him to try that. Or get used to sleeping alone.

    Richard Madeley’s column is published on telegraph.co.uk every Saturday, Sunday and Monday at 11am

  26. Pierre D. Bernier says:

    RK
    Who are you asking ? If me, Surfrad has nothing to do with global. It’s just 7 stations located in the USA measuring USA data. Not global. The data shows that for USA there is enough solar in and no need for geothermal. If you ignore IR down welling then you need geothermal to balance.

  27. I’m just asking anyone with firm confidence in an answer.

    Zoe seemed to be trying to salvage such energy budget diagrams with geothermal. JP said that the figures in such diagrams were not done right. I’m just trying to clarify with a visual HOW the figures are not done right, and my posed answer is that the WRONG solar input figure dooms the diagram from the get go, because this figure [circled in dotted white, underlined, and noted “NO”) is the blasted divide-by-four-derived pseudo solar input.

    … just wanting to confirm my understanding as correct or not.

    It’s a basic clarification about a basic widely-spread diagram. If we can kill it with that one number, then …. so be it.

    We can talk in terms of words and numbers, and still worship this diagram, but if we can nail the fundamental flaw VISUALLY, … translating all the talk and extending it exactly to the diagram, then we have made a great clarification. I’m always going for simple clarifications.

    Also, this might be only one way in which the figures are not done right. I have never understood the validity of dividing up solar input into pieces like this diagram does, when this input is figured with respect to a specific surface area. How can you divide up solar flux density into zones for which it was never specifically calculated?

    For example, how can you figure a percentage of emission for clouds, when you have not specified the surface area of the clouds for which the emission is being calculated? The surface area for the incoming solar is one specific surface area with one specific, corresponding flux density. The surface area for clouds is an entirely different specific area, seemingly for which a precise figure would have to be arrived at by some other means than just assigning a percentage figured for an entirely different surface area.

    What’s the surface area of the “greenhouse gases” back radiating?

    It all seems so wrong on so many levels.

  28. Zoe Phin says:

    Robert,
    I’m not trying to salvage the energy budget. I’m simply looking at real experimental measurements.

    I don’t believe there is “Downwelling” IR, because it’s actually Upwelling-from-Pyrgeometer IR. A pyrgeometer measures Net IR. The voltage is negative at the top of the pyrgeometer, which means radiation LEAVES the top, as opposed to being received at the top.

    I’m simply trying to answer why Upwelling IR exceeds Solar Input.

    [JP edit: Zoe, that last sentence is the exact same thing as them saying that downwelling exceeds solar input. Further, a known & measured 3 milliWatts via soil conduction cannot suddenly become several hundred at the surface top. This all demonstrates that your idea is flawed, and in fact baseless. The Earth contributes nothing. We might as well just get on with the Sun then.]

  29. Pierre D. Bernier says:

    The diagram is all Chinese noodles for nothing. The Sun hit’s on one hemisphere at a time, so…

    IN
    340.4 * 2 = 680.8 IN

    77.0 * 2 = 154.0 reflected and lost to space (OUT)
    22.9 * 2 = 45.8 reflected and lost to space (OUT)
    Total OUT 199.8
    Balance IN 481.0

    77.1 * 2 = 154.2 (IN)
    163,3 * 2 = 326.6 (IN)
    total 480.8 OUT

    481.0 in on 1 hemisphere and 480.8 lost on 2 hemisphere is 240.4

    Pretty close. No more need for those Chinese Noodles.

    Can I go work for NASA now ?

  30. NASA, like other … “professional” … organizations, are more committed to career advancement and security than to truth and integrity.

    Here’s a radical concept — base career advancement and security on truth and integrity.

  31. CD Marshall says:

    If science were legit in climate, what would the real name of greenhouses gases be? At first I thought a thermal responsive gas or thermal gas for short, but all gas is a thermal responsive gas. So what is a greenhouse gas, simply something that absorbs IR?

    How did we get from an IR absorbent gas (IRAG) to greenhouse after over a century it should have been corrected by at least a college student if nothing else…maybe a climatologist’s 2 year old daughter.

    Yet we are led to believe “peer review” is the bible of science, a science that over a 100 years has never once thought to correct the term, “Greenhouse gas”, and is it any surprise they think dividing incoming sunlight by four is reasonable?

    To me peer review has become referring to the Russians on how to properly build and maintain a nuclear reactor because they are the experts.

    As far as geothermal goes it can’t even be considered like sunlight in my punitive mind. The Sun is a 360 degree ball of energy with no stops from it’s own emissions.

    The Earth’s core is a non stop tiny ball of energy with I’d guess over 99% stops to reaching the surface. The core isn’t even powerful enough to reach the surface. If we could tuck the Sun in our core it would melt the entire planet to a ball of plasma. No comparison in impact. Not to mention the core is in direct contact with the Earth and nearly none of it reaches the surface compared to the power of Sunlight.

    We are talking about a 2HP generator compared to a nuclear reactor, surface wise anyway.

    I heard the biggest obstacle they have in geothermal is tapping into the core because everything melts. They have had the idea of pumping nuclear waste directly into the core which seems an excellent means of disposal to me but no one can reach the core.

    Which made me think of the “Conservation of Materials” for space travel. Everything we use now is on Earth and goes back tot he Earth everything we build to go to space never gets replenished. At some point in the far future we will need to mine other bodies outside the Earth for resources.

    Sorry I’m musing again.

  32. CD Marshall says:

    My wife’s visiting her family in Seattle so I’m more loaded than usual. She is usually my brakes so when she’s gone no brakes.

    This was some random pit stain reply: “Lol and your leader of climate deniers is Donald trump. A good way to show that age doesn’t get you intelligence…”

    I replied: “How stupid are you? We aren’t climate deniers we deny political science. YOU don’t get to choose our name becasue you are a nobody. We are science believers without the politics.”

    Since when does the enemy get to label us? **** that!

  33. Zoe Phin says:

    I found a treasure trove of GLOBAL monthly flux data from 1983/07 to 2004/12. The globe is divided into a grid of 6596 squares.

    The average Net Solar @ Surface is 165.83 W/m^2
    The average Upwelling IR is 393.46 W/m^2

    [JP edit: Zoe! So you haven’t been paying attention AT ALL then!? FFS! Yah so I guess average net solar being 165 means that the Sun isn’t strong enough to create the climate, hence we need the surface to produce 393 out of a measured 0.003.

    Zoe, I saw you on other forums many months ago exposing the idiotic reasoning of alarmists and simply eviscerating them on their sophistry. You could identify and summarize and destroy a sophistical argument like few people I’ve met. I don’t know wtf you’ve gone on this track, now using the same sophist arguments and false numbers you used to debunk. Strange.]

  34. Pablo says:

    RK
    ….”It’s a basic clarification about a basic widely-spread diagram. If we can kill it with that one number, then …. so be it”

    Joe did it…. Divide incoming by 2 not 4.

  35. Pierre D. Bernier says:

    CDM
    Not long ago they were talking about sending CO2 emitted by some industries back into old empty underground oil fields and ciment the holes 🙂 What a waste. Life needs that CO2.

    Why would we send our nuclear waste to the center of the Earth when it can be used in Thorium reactors leaving no nuclear waste of significance ?

    Just musing myself. Wifey is in the basement loading her kindle for this winter in Florida 🙂

  36. I am just amazed at what a huge, consciousness-disturbing event it seems to be for even some of the strong CO2-warming skeptics to give up the divide-by-four premise. What’s wrong with these people?!

    Do NOT allow the division by four !! — it’s wrong on the most basic, elementary level. Look at what such a maneuver means! How can you posit any sunshine at all COMING IN on the dark side of the Earth? … COMING IN … It’s NOT there. No sunshine in the shadows. No light. No INCOMING radiation. It’s all COMING IN on ONE SIDE of the Earth! The average on the dark side, where light NEVER comes in in real time in real dark, DOES NOT EXIST. …….. EVER … in that shadow there, in that TIME of shadow there. You cannot use an average of what does not exist to posit an effect of that something that does not exist in both a time AND location of the something’s non-existence . If the average does not have a real-time effect in a real-time place, then there is NO EFFECT any where in a real-time place. … EVER ! … for such an “average”. This average is NOT REAL. It is NOT REAL INPUT.

    You just cannot say this any plainer. There’s got to be something wrong on a deep level, where even the strong skeptics cannot let this go. It’s not like giving up Santa or the Easter Bunny or the Tooth Fairy or even God. Uh, … well, maybe it IS.

    Divide-by-four is God. Okay, I sort of get it now. ………………. NOT

  37. Pierre D. Bernier says:

    6 minutes ago… The Federal Court just ordered Trudeau to accredit Rebel News journalists!
    For the American people that may not mean much but the court just said let the right wing news media in !
    A big leap !

  38. CD Marshall says:

    Robert,
    Now you understand why they use to kill those who denied the Earth was flat. Political science is a consensus. Why is Darwinism still being promoted as a feasible science? They can’t let go of archaic securities.

    Most historical extinctions are from the inability to adapt or just losing Nature’s lottery for life. I can imagine at the bottom of the oceans are creatures millions of years old that have learned to adapt and survive. 80% of the oceans are unexplored which is why I can reasonably assume something is down there we have not discovered until that is explored and we know I can assume. If science proves nothing is at the bottom of the oceans then I’ll know my assumptions were wrong.

    To most people science is a religion and certain tenets of the faith can not be altered, to do so is heresy. However, facts need to support the science in any case. I mean is a larger animal “evolves” into a smaller one becasue of shorter food supply is that evolution of just adaptability?

    I for one am glad mosquitoes are not the size of a rat!

  39. CD Marshall says:

    Wow I just heard of the Rebel News media they are honest folk. Hmm Joseph maybe contact them?
    They might make you a story?

  40. Pierre D. Bernier says:

    CDM
    Nature does not learn to adapt. The word learn is not right. Nature has a pool of genetic material. Some birds will have small beaks, some large ones. When the climate changes and the seeds to feed are to big for birds wirh small beaks to pick up they die and those with large beaks thrive. When the climate changes again and the seeds get small, birds with small beaks thrive while those with large ones die off. It’s what Darwin called natural selection. It’s real. Never went there but it seems it can be observed on a yearly basis on the Galapagos Islands ( because of the isolation). FWIW

  41. Pierre D. Bernier says:

    Zoe
    Last chance. Please answer this question. Explain to me how our Sun came about and why it is what it is today ? It’s not that hard, I learned the answer in high school. Tomorow I’m giving the answer away, that is if nobody beats me to it.

  42. Pablo says:

    Gravity?

  43. CD Marshall says:

    Pierre,

    Just my opinion…

    Natural selection and evolution aren’t the same thing. I didn’t come from an ape and apes aren’t becoming human now. Natural selection is adaptability/nature’s lottery.

    Evolution from Darwinism is an archaic concept or Dinosaurs would be traveling in space right now.
    Adapt and evolution is a fine line I’ll grant you that. Sure some species evolve/adapt but metamorphosis into an entire new species is rare even now.

    “Galapagos Islands” is adaption or die. Every species even human, adapts or it dies. The birds didn’t turn into fish they just adapted their ability to survive.

    The “human species” has survived on this planet in one form or another for millions of years. What we are now is the adaption/gene pool/Nature’s lottery of what survived.

    Evolution/adaption/luck. I think the three can’t really be separate, It’s not evolution I have an issue with it’s Darwin’s version of it that is incorrect or at least the political version I was taught in school.

    Just as their is no evidence global warming is driven by CO2 their is no evidence we came from apes. That is political science not proven science. Darwin’s theories were opposed and they were blacklisted just like those who oppose global warming are now. They claimed it was all creationists who opposed him but that’s not true other scientists disagreed with his theory. Those theories were forced upon the science community anyway.

    As I have said before, when politics takes over the science the science is used to justify the politics.

  44. Pierre D. Bernier says:

    CDM
    Don’t want to get into a religious battle with anyone here. I’ll just start by saying that Darwin could not say all he wanted in his time because of the church but that is somehow beside the point today. I think we can all agree that DNA has come a long way and that we know things today that were not known not long ago. Case in point, DNA mutations occur from time to time. If the resulting mutation renders the new species more capable then it will thrive, if not it will die. One thing is sure, DNA mutations do occur accidentally. So… We have 2 eyes ! That is a DNA mutation. It’s coded somewhere in our DNA. What are the chances that this same accidental random mutation occured 100 million times or more for a 100 million other species or more ? I say it happened once and all 2 eyed species have a common ancestor somewhere in time. Sorry to be so rude, but we have our ass between our 2 hind legs and all species with their ass between their 2 hind legs have a common ancestor also somewhere in time. No same accident happens twice in DNA.

  45. CD Marshall says:

    I try and stay clear of any religious conversations. Those are personal to me and on a need to know basis and I don’t need to know.

    I don’t have all the answers to the mysteries of life. Maybe one day? I’d prefer a fly not be my ancestor, just saying becasue it has eyes doesn’t mean it’s related to me…least I hope not.

  46. “We are science believers without the politics.””

    Exactly.

  47. “I am just amazed at what a huge, consciousness-disturbing event it seems to be for even some of the strong CO2-warming skeptics to give up the divide-by-four premise. What’s wrong with these people?!

    You just cannot say this any plainer. There’s got to be something wrong on a deep level, where even the strong skeptics cannot let this go. It’s not like giving up Santa or the Easter Bunny or the Tooth Fairy or even God. Uh, … well, maybe it IS.”

    It is strange. I wish I had someone here to help me with something…I want to go around my university and do student-on-the-street interviews for “science literacy”. First I will ask them about basic science. And climate change. And then about flat Earth. And then show them a diagram of a flat line and ask them if it is the Earth. Then two flat lines. Then two flat lines with arrows. All of which they will say is flat Earth (ofc). Then show them the references to these diagrams and ask them if it is still flat Earth, or approved & peer-reviews science? Reconcile.

  48. But yah…like I’ve said…there’s something not real about these people. They’re just not real.

  49. Zoe Phin says:

    Joseph,
    If you want to show me wrong, which I would welcome, you need to show:

    1) Conduction q is more relevant to Upwelling IR then emis*sig*Tc^4

    2) Average global insolation is not ~165 W/m^2

    3) Average Upwelling IR is not ~393 W/m^2

    Anything other than the above 3, would be sophistry, in my opinion.

    Do you disagree?

  50. Pablo says:

    CDM,

    …………. “I’d prefer a fly not be my ancestor, just saying becasue it has eyes doesn’t mean it’s related to me…least I hope not.”

    How about a worm then?

    “Clearly, acorn worms look nothing like people; the worms have no limbs and breathe through slits in their guts. But they share approximately 14,000 genes with humans, scientists found, comprising about 70 percent of the human genome. These genes can be traced back to an ancestor of both acorn worms and humans that lived more than 500 million years ago, during a period known as the Cambrian explosion.”

    from:

    https://www.livescience.com/52843-acorn-worm-genome-sequencing.html

  51. Pierre D. Bernier says:

    Pablo
    i heard that cows share 98% DNA with us 🙂

  52. CD Marshall says:

    LOL on a molecular level we are all related. Carbon in us was no doubt the same building blocks that made the universe. If you use a blue print to make 2 things identical are they the same thing or just made from the same blue print? Does the blue print determine identity or just the make? I don’t know.

    The ideal of a “replicator” from Star Trek is a feasible idea. If we had the blueprints and enough knowledge to place all the right pieces together to make something we could in theory make anything from a fly to a planet…In theory anyway. Nature has a blueprint it builds from if we can learn that blueprint and provide enough energy we can do the same thing.

    My gender crisis is not identifying myself as a fly or a worm at the moment, get back with me tomorrow. Today I’m related to a rock.

    I heard someone (s) are arguing DNA now anyone else hear that or know what it’s about?

  53. Zoe:
    Your points:
    1) This statement makes no sense, and is itself sophistry.

    “Conduction q is more relevant to Upwelling IR then emis*sig*Tc^4”

    That simply makes zero sense at all. The rate of q is measured through soil as being in the milliWatts range. This cannot suddenly be in the hundreds at the very top.

    2) Sure that can be the solar average, but that number is not what creates the climate nor subsurface-temperatures. And yes, creating the climate is important and sub-surface temperatures from solar input is too…it’s what we’re interested in.

    3) Sure that is the upwelling. Just as they can measure the downwelling IR to be in the hundreds. But we must be logically consistent and not sophistical. Even though we measure downwelling IR in the hundreds, does not mean that this actually contributes to creating the climate or even the real energy budget because this is not liberated new energy and cannot actually cause heating even though the “average” makes it look like it can. Ontological mathematics: not all math is real or meaningfull to reality. Likewise, even though we measure upwelling IR in the hundreds, does not mean that this actually contributes to creating the climate or even the real energy budget. For 1, the upwelling IR comes FROM the solar energy being input there originally (even though the “average” says the Sun cannot put it there…in real time the Sun can – ontological mathematics), and 2, we know from measurement and soil conduction rates that the energy from the Earth core is in the milliWatts range.

    I’m getting tired of having to see whether I want to let these Zoe comments through moderation. There’s two solutions to that, and one seems much more likely than the other. Zoe you have NO case. No data supports you, no (ontological) math supports you, no physics theory supports you. You’re using the very math which has been identified clearly as being false and irrelevant. This will be all.

  54. Zoe Phin says:

    Joseph,
    My data came from here:

    https://isccp.giss.nasa.gov/pub/data/FC/

    I understand your arguments here:

    https://climateofsophistry.com/2019/07/08/how-to-calculate-the-average-projection-factor-onto-a-hemisphere/

    BUT, it assumes perfect horizontal conduction – that a given location would warm up an adjascent location in preference to sending radiation to space.

    I know a hot object will warm up a cooler objects faster than an already warm object – so I don’t see how perfect horizontal conduction could work next to cold space.

  55. CD Marshall says:

    Pierre,
    “Why would we send our nuclear waste to the center of the Earth when it can be used in Thorium reactors leaving no nuclear waste of significance?”

    Yeah that was before they came up with these newer ideas. However it is a problem for harnessing geothermal energy as well unless you have a thinner crust under you or something? Not really sure about that. Isn’t Iceland doing something with Geothermal?

  56. Zoe:
    I understand that your data came from some place. That’s not a problem and I stated no concern over that. My concern was over how the data is interpreted. And so that’s a very strange (sophistical) way for you to reply.

    You do not understand the link about calculating average projection, because conduction has zero to do with that calculation, or how to do it. That article was about how to calculate the average projection over a weighted-range of projections. The only properties relevant about the surface in this calculation is its geometry. Your concern about “perfect horizontal conduction” is nowhere near any relevance at all.

    Zoe: Your comments are truly becoming deranged, and delusional. They often have no comprehensional meaning, and this has been going on for some time. They literally have no meaning that makes sense in language. Why do you insist that we or I believe you or continue to engage when for some months now we have all stated why we disagree with your position, and when we continue to state identical reasons as to why? Why not find somewhere else that might want to discuss this with you? Why the insistence that WE, HERE, and I, engage with you on this and agree with you when clearly we have our reason why not? And when a major part of my work and what others here have understood through it is all about rejecting this false mathematics of averages which you now wish to utilize? Why do you insist upon our acceptance, when clearly we will not give it?

    Zoe: I, and all others here, reject your position, reject your analysis, and reject your reasoning. You have zero standing on this. Zero. It has failed. And done.

  57. Rosco says:

    I just read Pierre’s earlier comment – “You have 239,7 W/m2 from the Sun reaching the Earth. That energy is reflected back to the atmosphere and heats it up. Now the atmosphere is a blackbody at -18 °C and as all blackbodies do radiates in all direction equally, that is 239,7 W/m2 up and 239,7 W/m2 down.”

    There is one slight problem, which is not Pierre’s, and that is no gas emits blackbody radiation and therefore it is absurd to apply the laws of blackbody radiation to any gas.

    Secondly, real scientists have established by experiment that CO2 and water vapour do not obey the Stefan-Boltzmann law – these graphs are decades old –

  58. CD Marshall says:

    This actually follows another question I had about radiation. How does the energy emitting to space get converted to radiation (and where) and what kind of energy gets past the freezing cold upper atmosphere to be emitted out into space.

    Joseph have you written about this one on your older posts somewhere? I’m going to try and look for it anyway…

  59. Zoe Phin says:

    Joseph,
    “You do not understand the link about calculating average projection, because conduction has zero to do with that calculation, or how to do it. That article was about how to calculate the average projection over a weighted-range of projections. The only properties relevant about the surface in this calculation is its geometry. Your concern about “perfect horizontal conduction” is nowhere near any relevance at all.”

    Why are you averaging temperatures as if horizontal conduction was active?
    Different areas cool faster to space.

    You got 15°C for a hemisphere. I admit I was impressed that this matches US Standard Atmosphere. But, the other side of the planet is ZERO kelvin. No? What’s the average with that side?

    Are you arguing that 15°C stays around while the other side gets to 15°C (i.e. zero emission to space)?

    Well in that case there is no diurnal temperature range at all. It’s always 15°.

    Oh it drops a little from 15°? Then the average can’t be 15°C.

    Hey, Joe, some object has a heat flux of 3 milloWatts. Can you tell me what temperature is on the cold side?

    No you can’t. Can you tell me the radiation from the cold side?

    No you can’t. All you can say is it’s emis*sigma*q^4, and is therefore insignificant. And that is completely WRONG.

    “Why do you insist that we or I believe you or continue to engage when for some months now we have all stated why we disagree with your position, and when we continue to state identical reasons as to why?”

    So you don’t look like a fool and mislead your followers, and end up embarassing yourself. That’s why.

    So you can continue to be a good teacher. That’s why.

    You dissapointed me, Joe 😦

  60. “So you don’t look like a fool and mislead your followers, and end up embarassing yourself. That’s why.

    So you can continue to be a good teacher. That’s why.”

    Oh and this is something that is important to you, is it Zoe? Yes, it really is your responsibility to take on this mantle, to ensure that you guide myself and the rest of us. Tell me, just which psychopath which I’ve destroyed multiple times in the past are you this time? Not like you haven’t been obvious.

    You are a delusional, psychotic freak. Your mind is fucked. You understand that you’re a braindead psychopath, and that we’ve all been laughing at you in private email threads for the past month?

    Tell me…what is it like to be a deranged, uninformed, uneducated, delusional, obsessed, psychopath?

    Actually don’t tell me. See ya.

  61. Pierre D. Bernier says:

    Rosco
    / You have 239,7 W/m2 from the Sun reaching the Earth. /
    Just using the alarmist’s diagram and your spotlight idea to ridicule the alarmists.

  62. Pierre D. Bernier says:

    Zoe,

    Time’s up
    Space is filled with gas, hydrogen and helium. Gravity caused those gases to collapse on themselves creating small planets. As more gas gets attracted by the force of gravity, the bigger that planet gets and the more the gravity increases. The more the gravity increases, the more the compression increases and the more the temperature at the center increases due to that compression. At some point, if the system gets big enough, the gravity, the compression and the temperature will get so high that the compressed atoms will start to fuse. Hydrogen then fuses with Helium to form Lithium then Beryllium, then Boron, etc in what is called a fusion nuclear reactor. So, to make it clear, gravity causes compression and compression causes increased temperature. It’s called adiabatic compression. It can be as big as to create a Sun and as small as to make the bottom of the Grand Canyon 11-12 C degrees warmer then the top upper ridge. Your geothermal model has no standing. All the temperatures are accounted for by simple adiabatic compression.

  63. Pierre D. Bernier says:

    CDM
    / Thorium reactors /
    If I remember correctly Russia already has Thorium reactors operating for the purpose of getting rid of Plutonium from the decommitioned war heads. Not sure but I think I read that on PSI.

  64. Pierre D. Bernier says:

    CDM
    / If science were legit in climate, what would the real name of greenhouses gases be? …
    Sorry. There’s been so much brou-ha-ha that I forgot your question. I read somewhere that it should be called IR active molecules. I completely agree. I also read from Mr Shroeder on this site that N2 and O2 should be called the greenhouse gases for the very fact that they are not IR active. Heck, even Tyndal agrees https://blog.friendsofscience.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/July-18-2019-Tucson-DDP-Connolly-Connolly-16×9-format.pdf 🙂
    Really. Look it up !
    To me, the sooner, the better.

  65. Pierre D. Bernier says:

    TEST between smaller and greater signs.
    TEST END TEST

  66. Pierre D. Bernier says:

    Ya, that’s what I thaught. If you want to emphasize or braket something said by others, dont put it beween the smaler and greater then signs. The site thinks it’s a command and does not post it. It tries to execut it. Thats why I use the / and / signs
    TEST / Something he said / END TEST

  67. George says:

    What was Zoe’s problem? I saw the interaction and she seem to go off the rails? Joe eluded to another person who came here and was nice at first but turned into a Trojan Horse.

    Keep up the fight against the AGW kooks. A poster named ‘Alan’ made a very good comment on PSI. He said we should ask AGW proponents how it is possible for ONE molecule out of 2500 to capture enough energy to be a blanket for the eath (I am paraphrasing). To add, how does the 140 or so extra molecules (sinc 1750 supposedly) cause such a change? I will bet none of them can give a cogent answer.

  68. immortal600 says:

    BTW, good comments, Pierre, both here and there!!!

  69. George says:

    Last comment meant to post as ‘George’, ‘immortal600’.

  70. Pierre D. Bernier says:

    George
    Hi, Can you direct me to that Alan post. I find it most interesting. thx.

  71. George says:

    Pierre, I can’t seem to find it? I know I didn’t imagine it. I will keep looking for it.

  72. George says:

    Pierre, my apology, I can’t locate the comment now and have been all over the site!! I know it was on an article that had a back and forth between John O’Sullivan and some other fellow. Alan put his comment in the stream as a stand alone comment. Should I ever come across it again I will be sure to let you know.

  73. Zoe (?!),

    . . . averaging temperatures as if horizontal conduction was active?

    Wha…?!! Averaging? — what averaging? … Horizontal conduction? — of what? — and whatever it might be, it would seem to be RADIAL. Active? I have no clue what your words are referencing.

    But, the other side of the planet is ZERO kelvin. No?

    Other side of Earth? ZERO kelvin? Am I understanding this part of your question corredtly? — if so, then you know that the answer is a big NO. If I misunderstand, then enlighten me.

    Are you arguing that 15°C stays around while the other side gets to 15°C (i.e. zero emission to space)?

    I never got the impression that such an argument was being put forth, … even remotely.

    I would say that the energy corresponding to 15 C has some real-time effects on the lit side, and these effects (warming) DO carry over to the dark side. There’s rentention of energy due to thermal inertia in the land and ocean (ocean, big time). The day side overall is warmer (yet cooler than if an atmosphere were not present). The night side overall is cooler (yet warmer than if an atmosphere were not present). The atmosphere is a regulator of temperature, in this way, creating a habitable planet.

    Hey, Joe, some object has a heat flux of 3 milloWatts. Can you tell me what temperature is on the cold side?

    What object? Specify the object. Are you arguing that there is such a thing as an average object? If so, then the average object with a flux would not have a cold side — the flux would be defined for the object as a whole, wouldn’t it?

    The rest of the rant from which the above was taken appears to show a mental breakdown.

    Zoe (or whoever) has crashed. Fools calling the enlightened fools was the dead giveaway.

    … probably a fake picture linked to the name.

  74. Rosco says:

    Pierre

    A self collapsing mass of gas has never been observed in nature.

    So any large mass of gas must have initially been “captured” by a large mass of solid material – at least that was the accretion hypothesis of the synthesis of the rocky planets I studied in a Uni course in 1984.

    Whether compression of huge amounts of gaseous matter explains the fusion in the Sun is unknown. Gravity is likely electromagnetic in nature anyway.

    All we have is theory and some observations and lots of puzzles. How does the Sun generate a magnetic field ? Is the Sun “electric” as some hypothesize ?

    Hell I don’t pretend to know but I have read a lot of the hypotheses.

    But there are a couple of things that are incontrovertible and one is watts are joules per second.

    Ignoring the time function is stupid beyond belief.

    239.7 W/m2 for 10 hours does not have the same thermodynamic effect as 2397 W/m2 for one hour even though the total is the same.

    And Zoe said that my comment on the lunar cooling rate didn’t matter but this is arrant nonsense.

    If the Moon rotated with the same period of Earth it would never see such dramatic swings in temperature. It would likely be significantly hotter that it is and all without magic greenhouse gases.

    Why Zoe seemed to think an atmosphere free Earth could conceivably cool 260°C in six hours from midday or even in 18 hours when the moon takes more than 177 hours to do the same simply is beyond me and shows the lunacy of the”average” approach. 260/18 = 14.44 °C per hour yet the Moon has a rate less than a 260/177 = ~1.5°C per earth hour and that is for the regolith. If you use the data for the rocky surfaces the rate of cooling is ~130/177 = ~0.73°C per Earth hour.

    You cannot add radiative fluxes and calculate the resulting temperatures using the SB equation because when you perform the exact same calculation using Planck’s law the answer is wrong yet the laws of calculus demand the answer must be the same for both mathematical operations.

    If climate alarmists theories are right all of thermodynamics as we understand is nonsense.

    They aren’t and climate alarmists theories are nonsense.

    Just how does using a screen which blocks all wavelengths lower than 4 microns detect downwelling IR anyway ? Surely the IR recorded during the day is due to the temperature of the screen heated by the solar radiation and not by the atmosphere – they acknowledge this by adjusting for temperature in their ridiculous mathematics.

    I consider pyrgeometers as the single biggest fraud in the whole fraud.

  75. Pablo says:

    Rosco,

    “239.7 W/m2 for 10 hours does not have the same thermodynamic effect as 2397 W/m2 for one hour even though the total is the same.”

    Sums it up very neatly. Thanks… I will use that one.

  76. Pierre D. Bernier says:

    Rosco

    I’m not sure where to begin. I’ll try the best I can. Joe is welcomed to correct me if I’m wrong. I don’t know everything.

    / A self collapsing mass of gas has never been observed in nature. /
    I wasn’t there but the theory says that the whole thing started with a big bang. That implies that everything was flying all over and that there was no agglomeration of mass in the beginning. The theory also says that all the mass there was was Hydrogen (2/3) and Helium (1/3). If there was no stars and then there was then some agglomeration or collapsing mass must have occurred. That gas can not have been captures by a large rocky mass of material since it was all Hydrogen and Helium at the time. As the mass got greater and compression got greater, fusion started and all elements were created by those first generation stars, all the way up to Iron. Fusion does not start by magic. You have to fuse 2 proton nucleus together by extreme compression and heat. Then the stars imploded at some point and the extra energy created the elements higher then Iron in the periodic table. The accretion started again. Our Sun and our planets are a second generation system. Proof… we have Uranium on Earth and the presence of Uranium proves prior fusion in a star. The fact that we know about adiabatic compression explains a whole lot and makes the theory logical. Einstein said the simplest explanation is probably the right one and that one is the simplest.

    / How does the Sun generate a magnetic field ? Is the Sun “electric” as some hypothesize ? /
    In the case of the Earth it’s the Iron core. But even then, I don’t know how. How does the molten iron atoms stay in a defined orientation ? You tell me. Joe ?

    / If the Moon rotated with the same period of Earth it would never see such dramatic swings in temperature. /
    Right. If you start heating something sooner before it has finished cooling then surely the temperature spread will be less.

    / Planck’s law /
    Planck’s law has no physicals basis. It was put in place by statistics. https://principia-scientific.org/how-to-fool-yourself-with-a-pyrgeometer/
    See at 12:00 min.

    / I consider pyrgeometers as the single biggest fraud in the whole fraud. /
    I would not know about that. I’m not qualified. But if someone qualified tells me that the only real thing of value coming out of this thing is the NET IR, then I would not go around and claim that because outgoing IR exceeds incoming solar, deliberately ignoring the incoming IR, that I need some geothermal to balance things up.

    My 2 cents. If anyone can come and clear somethings up, they are more then welcomed. I’m not a walking encyclopaedia ! 🙂

  77. Pablo says:

    Pierre,
    Some say there was no big bang ….just a continual expansion and contraction.

  78. Pablo says:

    The beating heart of the universe.

  79. Pierre D. Bernier says:

    Pablo
    / just a continual expansion and contraction. /
    I’ve been marveling at that myself also.

  80. Pierre D. Bernier says:

    Want to make a fast buck. Sue GE for false advertisement
    https://www.watt24.com/media/Datenblatt_Niedervolt-Halogenlampe_GE_Lighting_Q30MR16HIR-CCG10_79584.pdf

    / The Precise™ IR halogen capsule has multiple layers of very durable, thin, interference film which redirects heat, which would otherwise be wasted, back onto the lamp filament. This increases the filament temperature and allows it to give off more visible light for the same input power /

    Unless we are all wrong !?!?!? Something I dont get ?

  81. Here’s another possibility: The universe had no beginning — it has always existed.

    The human mind has great difficulty with this idea of forever-with-no-beginning-or-end.

    Forever is beyond human comprehension — we are transient beings trying to relate our transience to eternity. Of course, this causes dissonance — this dissonance is what gives us the sense of awe about all being..

  82. Pierre D B,

    That GE light might well have a hotter filament because of the reflected IR, but I don’t think that it is because the IR adds to the filament’s heat. I think the coated sphere there insulates against heat loss more than if it were not there, creating a tight barrier to any convection around the filament.

    The IR coming back at the filament is of a lower energy than the energy put out by the filament itself, and so I just cannot see the lower energy adding any more energy to the already greater energy of that filament. The writers of that spec sheet seem to have a wrong description, if I have understood everything I have read at Climate of Sophistry.

    Hopefully, JP comes in and confirms, clarifies, or dismantles my understanding of this particular case.

  83. Pierre D. Bernier says:

    A conversation on Have a Think, IPCC : Accelerating Ice Melt and Rapidly Warming Oceans, Sep 29, 2019
    I’ve had enough. if anyone wants to take over, be my guest…

    Marco van de Weert, 2 days ago
    Well, Pierre, since you are such a genius, explain to me the following:
    When I take an incandescent light bulb of, say, 60 W, and then add an IR reflecting coating on the inside of said bulb, why does the temperature of the filament increase? My IR coating just created energy!?

    Then it keeps on going troll style. I’ve proven he’s no physisist and no mathematician. Take it from there. Give it a good wack please.

  84. I think the filament of the bulb heats up for the same reason that a concave mirror can focus sunlight to a point that can melt metal. Concentrating light via curved, reflective surfaces is NOT creating energy — it is magnifying existing energy.

    A gas distributed throughout Earth’s atmosphere, at all altitudes, in a very small percentage, in no way whatsoever even remotely begins to present such a reflective surface to produce a “greenhouse effect”.

    The bulb’s coating, I think, insulates from heat loss, as well as CONCENTRATES existing radiation in such a way to have the effect it has. The coating does NOT create any energy. As a result, the filament also requires less power to heat up to its optimum temperature, and this is why it is more efficient.

    Greenhouse zombies are desperate to stay alive, and so they chew on anything that looks like the flesh of a good argument, usually making a bloody mess of it.

  85. Pierre D. Bernier says:

    Nicely said RK

    Here’s a very nice presentation on the formation of the stars and elements of the periodic table.

    Looks like our Sun is a fourth generation star.

  86. Rosco says:

    To paraphrase Pierre – I don’t know where to begin:-

    “Planck’s law has no physicals basis. It was put in place by statistics.” ??

    I simply said that there is an explicit mathematical relationship between Planck’s law and the Stefan-Boltzmann equation and this is that the area under any Planck curve for any temperature multiplied by Pi to give the hemispherical emissions is equal to the total power output calculated by the Stefan-Boltzmann equation at that temperature.

    Planck’s law was formulated according to the careful measurement of emissions from the cavity oven experiments whilst Stefan’s law was originally an expression that temperature to the fourth power was related to the total power output. The value of sigma has been refined by Planck’s law and is determined by the integral of Planck’s law. FACT – check it out !

    If Planck’s law is invalid then so is the Stefan-Boltzmann law ! I’m not saying anything about the validity of either but this simple fact is indisputable.

    I have shown that if you add 2 or more discrete fluxes using the SB equation and calculate the final temperature you get the wrong answer.

    You’ll note the above disproves the ridiculous equations associated with a pyrgeometer. I’ve watched the PSI reference you cited years ago and he basically said very little that he hadn’t written on his website many years before that – the video should have been less than 10 minutes long.

    He is a brilliant mathematician but this video didn’t show that. He also has an alternate theory about light which basically says the particle model is unnecessary – he claims his model of wave hypothesis is right. He may well be right.

    Just how do astronomers make estimates of star temperatures if Planck’s law is invalid – OH I suppose you think they use the SB equation ?

    How does the Sun generate the huge electric field is a valid question – it is something that is never observed in nuclear experiments.

    A self collapsing mass of gas has never been observed in nature !

    This is a simple statement of fact – if not show me the disproof !

    The cold on the Moon isn’t explained by a lack of greenhouse gases as alarmist idiots claim – it is because of the period of rotation.

  87. Pablo says:

    Rosco,
    “I have shown that if you add 2 or more discrete fluxes using the SB equation and calculate the final temperature you get the wrong answer.”

    Is this the same as…
    “The total energy contained in white light is not the sum of the energy off all the colours (frequencies) that it contains.” ?
    —- Peter Langdon Ward.

  88. Pablo says:

    …energy of_ all the colours..

  89. Pierre D. Bernier says:

    Rosco
    Wow, wow, wow. I’m not out to get you and I’m not getting into another dispute with anyone else here either
    .
    I never said Plank’s law is invalid. I simply said that according to the guy Plank’s law has no physical explanation. It’s just a statistical fit. I never said it did not work. Just because we dont have an explanation for any best fit least square does not mean the fit does not exist. Plank’s law has it’s merits, no doubt.

    As for the pyrgeometers, I don’t know anything about them, I said, if someone knowing what a pyrgeometer is and says that the only valid value is NET then I’m not going to go around trying to prove anything using outgoing only while willfully ignoring the downgoing. Doing that is dishonest and in a post graduate research would be a cause for immediate dismmisal.

    / How does the Sun generate the huge electric field is a valid question /
    I don’t know the answer and I wont pretend. Ask someone else.

    / A self collapsing mass of gas has never been observed in nature /
    Because it has not been observed does not mean it does not exist. Look at the video again. You will see the guy talking about planetary formation. They have pictures. If the planets are just forming then the star has to be newly formed.

    Hope we wont get into a useless war.

  90. Pierre D. Bernier says:

    My very own best lyrics of all time was…

    Although your mind’s opaque, Try thinking more if just for your own sake
    George Harrison, 1965

    But after going through a lot of arguments on a lot of sites and having re-read the lyrics, now my best is…

    I know your mind’s made up, You’re gonna cause more misery
    George Harrison, 1965

    Nothing to do with you Rosco. Just disapointed to see so many people ancored in their ignorance and unwilling to get out of it or just paid to muddy the waters on purpose.

  91. geran says:

    One interesting aspect of the Creation/Evolution debate is that both sides are belief systems. Neither is science. Many Creationists can admit their religion, but too often Evolutionists refuse to admit they are just “believers”.

    The correct scientific position is “We don’t know”.

  92. I’m not sure what it means to say the Planck’s law has no physical explanation.

    My take is that Planck’s law IS an explanation. It is THE explanation of physical observations. Those physical observations leading to its formulation ARE the physical basis of it.

    What’s the physical basis of any law? What’s the physical basis of F=ma? Finding a mathematical fit is how we establish a physical law.

    What sort of wording would constitute a physical explanation, in this instance? The law IS the explanation. The physical observations establish it. The physical observations are the physical explanation.

  93. Pierre D. Bernier says:

    Here’s what I found of the story…

    The whole procedure was an act of despair because a theoretical interpretation (of black-body radiation) had to be found. [No theoretical interpretation of BBR]

    For this reason, on the very first day when I formulated this law, I began to devote myself to the task of investing it with true physical meaning. [Still No theoretical interpretation of BBR]

    Planck tried various modifications and through a combination of guesswork and intuition came up with a simple formula for the radiated energy as function of frequency and temperature. [Still No theoretical interpretation of BBR]

    Planck compared the formula to experimental data and found a good match in the whole range of different frequencies and temperatures. [Still No theoretical interpretation of BBR]

    At the meeting of the German Physical Society Planck rose to deliver a short comment … The audience was not impressed since it seemed to be just another ad hoc law for blackbody radiation without theoretical foundation. [Still No theoretical interpretation of BBR]

    To come up with a theoretical explanation of his formula Planck had to resort to the probability arguments introduced by Boltzmann in gas kinetics (which he detested from the bottom of his heart). He chopped energy into discrete chunks of “quanta”.

    I don’t know if that is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. But up until and including the curve fitting, I don’t care. I’m sure Boyle, Gay-Lussac and many others started the same way. They experimented, observed, noted, charted then came up with a theory from their charts. As far as Planck goes, he had to include an intermediate step, that of quantum mechanics… STATISTICS ! Does it work ? Seems so. Do I like it ? no !

    I hate quantum mechanics more then I hate my ex-mother-in-law. From some of his comments, I’m sure Joe does also (QM). So where’s the real basic theory like apples falling and hot gases rising ?

    For what it’s worth.

  94. PDB,

    What’s the theoretical explanation of gravity? … of light?, … of energy?, … of anything?

    When you go down far enough, there are always unanswered questions. It’s like a child asking, “Why?”, after each successively deeper explanation.

    At some point, you look for a way to organize the observations, and you go with what seems to work best at the level of inquiry that you are involved with.

    I suspect that there is a better way to interpret quantum mechanics than the way you seem to detest. The problem is not with the application but with the interpretation. And maybe somehow a better interpretation would lead to a better acceptance of Planck’s compromises.

    I don’t think that something that works to twelve decimal places is detestable from a practical standpoint. Theoretical? … well, that seems to be the issue.

    My superficial understanding of QM leads me to believe that there is a total surrender of the idea of anything being physical beyond an experimental set up, which seems shallow to me. I believe that the human senses require a sense of “stuff” to give human life meaning.

    Here, I guess, is where we get into the idea of what is — ontology, right? What is …. IT… that exists. QM seems to lean towards viewing this as an irrelevant question. Humans, in my view, cannot cope with such a sense of irrelevance. QM, as currently theorized, then, seems to value itself as a mathematics of human consciousness.

    But what, then, is consciousness? What thing in existence is conscious? What stuff makes up these things that are conscious. Perception requires a discussion of things and stuff to which the mathematics applies, and I feel that you might be nudging us in this direction of thought.

  95. Rosco says:

    The simple point I make is that climate “science” makes extensive use of the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

    The Stefan-Boltzmann law, Plancks’ law and Wien’s law are intimately related.

    The SB law is Pi times the integral of Planck’s to find the total emissive power whilst Wien’s law is the derivative set to zero to find the maximum of the curve hence peak emissions.

    All of the “equations” you see in climate “science” involving the simple model of the “greenhouse effect” to other postulations including the concept of radiative forcing all involve algebraic manipulations of the SB equation which have no empirical derivation.

    Adding and subtracting power fluxes and calculating temperatures using the SB equation does not give the same answer as performing the exact same algebra using Planck’s.

    The laws of calculus, which I do have faith in, prescribe the rules for algebra of integrals as we are interested in in this discussion – the sum and multiple of f(x) for example.

    The sum of 2 integrals is the same as the integral of the sum. A constant times the integral is the integral of the original equation times the constant.

    If in the Washington Uni “greenhouse model” the Sun heats the Earth to ~255 K such that it emits ~239.7 W/m2 and the 239.7 W/m2 from the atmosphere at ~255 K further heats it to ~303 K such that it emits 479.4 then the same algebra performed using Planck’s law must give the same answer IF the algebra is VALID.

    I used the exact same temperatures they quote, I verified the power fluxes they quote AND I performed the exact same algebra they quote using both the SB law and Planck’s law AND the answers are inconsistent !

    This nullifies most of climate “science’s” modelling.

    It is like saying 2 2 = 4 BUT 2 x 2 doesn’t.

    Something is wrong – it is easily observable in the graph I showed above – the sum DOES NOT EQUAL the curve for ~303 K.

    All the criticism of Planck’s law is IRRELEVANT to the point.

    Planck’s law defines the SB law AND Wien’s law. If one is wrong all are.

    What is wrong with “climate science” is they are torturing the laws of radiative physics in manners that have zero empirical evidence.

    The FACT that performing the algebra using 2 equations that are intimately related using the laws of calculus appropriately proves the algebraic manipulation is invalid.

    PS Planck’s law is the basis of remote sensing. Calculating BlackBody Radiance V2 – SpectralCalc states:-

    “In-band Radiance: Integrating the Planck Equation Over a Finite Range

    Above we analytically integrated the spectral radiance over the entire spectral range.
    The result, Eq. (20), is the well-known Stefan-Boltzmann law. Similarly, Eq. (22) gives
    the integrated photon radiance.

    As useful as the Stefan-Boltzmann law is, for many applications a finite spectral range is needed. To facilitate this, we compute the one-sided integral of the spectral radiance.”

    I make no claim as to what happens when you sum 2 fluxes. I simply state the sum DOES NOT equal the temperature calculated by using the SB equation on the sum – IT DOESN’T HAPPEN.

    If a whole field of science is using Planck’s law as one of the cornerstones and I can show that “climate science’s” algebraic manipulations using the SB law are wrong because the results do not fit Planck’s then to me that says their models are BS !

    Who cares about the rest ?

  96. Yeah, I suppose, Rosco, that this would by my point: If someone criticizes Plank’s law, then they must criticize the SB law too, because, as you say, the two laws are intimately related.

    Grimhouse people misapply the SB law — they use it in a way that contradicts Plank’s law with which it is intimately related.

    The inconsistency in answers that you mention crashes the Grimhouse idea.

    That green curve in your graph is a unicorn horn — a fantasy figure that represents nothing real. (^_^)

  97. Pierre D. Bernier says:

    RK
    [ What’s the theoretical explanation of gravity? … of light?, … of energy?, … of anything? ]

    You are perfectly right. Classical physics can explain things that happen in a continuum world like the flight of a baseball. Going down to the microscopic world, there are discontinuities that classical physics cannot deal with. Those discontinuities involve possible states that cant happen simultaneously. Therefore the nead for QM,.. statistics.. Ever taken a course called Statistical Thermodynamics ? Statistics from cover to cover.

  98. PDB,

    I’m afraid that I am a thermodynamics lightweight, where any formal training is concerned. (^_^)

    I am deficient for sure.

    I think Rosco makes a good point, though — that criticisms of the formula-derivations being invoked are beside the main point, which is, no matter how the formulas were derived, they are being used incorrectly by those who want to rule with flat-Earth, greenhouse arguments.

    In other words, there is an even more basic fault in these arguments, namely you cannot manipulate the concept of flux density in the way that greenhouse advocates do. You cannot add fluxes, which to me implies that you cannot divide up, subtract, or recombine partial fluxes to create a whole flux (the way those Earth-energy-budget diagrams do).

    Because the SB law and Planck’s law are so closely related, a person should be able to arrive at the same Planck curve using them the way Greenhouse people do. But, as Rosco so brilliantly demonstrates visually, you do NOT arrive at a correct Planck curve for a given temperature by adding fluxes and solving for temperature in the SB equation. What is wrong is that you cannot add fluxes. That is the basic flaw — you cannot add fluxes like that, as I am seeing it.

  99. Pierre D. Bernier says:

    Rosco
    Very nice work. How about leaving the 239.7 W/m2 as is and dividing the 479.4 by 2 instead. I know it’s the same but that is in fact what they do. Just to see which jumps out best.

  100. Pierre D. Bernier says:

    RK
    [ I’m afraid that I am a thermodynamics lightweight ]
    Don’t worry about it. I might have studied it 45 years ago but never used it. I was an analytical chemist, It’s so far away it’s just like it never happened.

  101. Rosco says:

    Pierre I spent quite some time using comparisons to verify climate “science’s” algebraic manipulations. You are correct that none of them actually work – be it add, subtract, multiply or divide.

    I use the very basic black body considerations with no emissivity considerations to cloud issues. If it doesn’t work using the only empirically derived relationships then it can’t possibly work with additional unverified complications thrown in.

    I’m not saying there isn’t significant research on concepts like emissivity but there is no evidence that you can perfome mathematical transformation and have a value as result that can be converted to temperature as all computer models necessarily do.

    Here is a graph of “net” emissions:-

    The “net” emissions are the shaded area. It must be obvious that there are limitless ways this can occur. Here is another:-

    I adjusted the temperature up keeping P(net) the same at 239.7.

    There are 2 points I make:-

    1. Climate “science” treats P(net) incorrectly. This is easy to observe in the classic nonsense of the “steel greenhouse” or the simple model.

    2. The shaded P(net) is what pyrgeometers supposedly “measure” but as you can see there are infinite ways to construct the value of P(net) yet somehow they overcome this difficulty in the factory LOL.

  102. I think it is worth ingraining this graph in our minds:

    The important thing that I see here is that temperature determines how much energy radiates at a given wavelength. Higher temperatures radiate more energy than lower temperatures, and this occurs at higher wavelengths, which shifts the red curve’s magnitude upwards (MORE ENERGY) and the red curve’s distribution of energy over respective wavelengths (HIGHER WAVELENGTHS) to the left.

    By simply adding fluxes representative of temperatures at their respective energy distribution over wavelengths for that temperature, you do NOT take into account this greater amount of energy radiated at higher wavelengths for higher temperatures.

    This is why the green curve is a fake non reality — it represents a fake operation that ignores the shift to more energy at higher wavelengths when temperature is higher.
    This fakery is what you are doing when you try to add two fluxes. Simple addition does NOT account for the correct amount or correct distribution of energy over the wavelengths. And this is because adding fluxes simply makes this accounting impossible, … because the act of adding, in this instance, is an invalid operation for the quantities being considered.

    I’ve had to really study this to get it, and others may need to look at it over and over again too, to really get it. This, in my view, is positive, definitive, mathematical proof that the simple greenhouse model is totally wrong.

  103. geran says:

    Rosco, great work!

    RK, maybe you meant “shorter wavelengths” rather than “higher wavelengths”. Otherwise your additional graph was also great.

    Bottom line, the clowns can’t bake a turkey with ice cubes, and they can’t heat the planet with leftover, depleted, ineffective energy.

  104. Yes, shorter wavelengths, geran — you know how the mind sometimes places the next similar word in place of the proper word, when your fingers type what your forward-thinking mind is anticipating. (^_^)

    Or maybe I was thinking of higher frequencies.

    Shorter wavelengths, higher frequencies, greater energy — I think that’s where my mind might have been, but my words got messed up. Think about it — higher frequencies — more cycles per time interval, more energy crammed into a shorter interval, greater energy density.

    And that graph I showed is also Rosco’s. So, the compliment goes to him. I’m merely obsessing on his work, because his work deserves obsession (i.e., study) to make it sink in.

  105. Oh, I forgot, the clowns, thus, present half-baked arguments.

  106. geran says:

    Robert, your “obsessing” added clarity to Rosco’s work. So don’t be modest!

    Trying to add emitted fluxes is one of the many mistakes pseudoscience clowns make. It just indicates they do not understand the relevant physics. IR from the atmosphere does NOT add to solar, as they try to claim. That would be like adding a glass of water at 40 degrees to water at 60 degrees, and claiming the temperature would increase!

    A certain PhD has not been able to understand this for years. He keeps claiming adding energy to a system will raise the system temperature. You can add ice cubes to your drink, and even though you are adding energy to the drink, its temperature will NOT increase. It requires the right kind of energy to raise temperatures.

    I have used the simple example of trying to bake a turkey with ice. Ice emits about 300 W/m^2, so in their incorrect “thinking”, doubling the ice should amount to 600 W/m*2. Tripling should be 900 W/m^2. In their heads, if you add enough ice you should be able to bake a turkey!

    For some reason, they seem unable to learn.

  107. Pierre D. Bernier says:

    Rosco
    PLEASE write something to present on PSI. This is far too important to keep to ourselves.
    Congratulations.

  108. Pierre D. Bernier says:

    geran

    Try this with your PhD. Even I can understand ! Imagine that ! 🙂
    I take a brick on the ground and bring it up on the 3rd floor of a building.
    Did I add heat to the brick ? No, Just potential energy.
    I drop the brick down to the ground below,
    Did I add heat to the brick ? No ! Potential energy is converted to kinetic energy.
    The brick hits the ground and stops dead. What happens to the kinetic energy ?
    Sound and heat !!!
    I repeat with 2 bricks. What’s the difference ? None, except that I have to work twice as hard.
    If he can’t understand, take away his PhD.

  109. geran says:

    Pierre, many of us have given up on this particular PhD.

    I’m pretty sure Joseph has had enough of him.

  110. Rosco,

    The graphs in your comment at:

    https://climateofsophistry.com/2019/10/05/we-will-not-be-ruled-by-people-who-believe-in-flat-earth-theory/#comment-50495

    are not as obvious to me as you might hope. I know that they visualize a very important point, but my sadly limited purview of these matters does not allow me to see it clearly.

    If you don’t mind, then would you consider explaining those two graphs for dummies. Thanks.

  111. It’s so much worse than being ruled by people who merely believe in flat-Earth physics.

    The physics is not even correct for a flat Earth. It’s pseudo-physics.

    PhD’s endorsing this !

    It’s wrong on so many levels. Scary on so many levels. Really unbelievable on so many levels.

    How can PhD’s in physics not understand that it is wrong to manipulate fluxes the way greenhouse proponents manipulate them? Who were these people’s teachers? Who checked their work? Who monitored the quality of their education?

  112. CD Marshall says:

    You guys are brilliant.

    You know the thing that is tricky is the divide by 4 math is not wrong. Using that math however (as Joseph has pointed out so many times in so many ways you can’t possibly misunderstand his point) is incorrect to calculate real time solar input.

    It really is such a simple thing that it’s impossible for a PhD NOT to know that…So as Sherlock Holmes says, “Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth.”

    …These fellows are blatant, willing and 100% accomplices to the climate fraud absolutely no other answer can be maintained by the data presented.

    “As a rule, the more bizarre a thing is the less mysterious it proves to be. It is your commonplace, featureless crimes which are really puzzling, just as a commonplace face is the most difficult to identify.”

    The face of these Phd’s are that of a liar, pure, simple and to the point.

    It is hard for a normal honest person to accept that a person would choose to blatantly lie yet it is the simplest answer for all the data shown in science, debate and politics for “climate change.”
    What would make a PhD give up their scientific integrity for politics? Fame, greed, ego, pride, pressure or blackmail it really doesn’t matter they have become the enemy.

  113. Gutless, spineless, no balls … also come to mind.

    Otherwise, the only other reason I can think of is stupidity propagated through the ranks, just to keep the money flowing.

  114. George says:

    For Pierre,

    I tried to find that comment from Alan and have had no luck. Believe me, I didn’t imagine it. Should I ever find it, I will let you know.

    Joe, GREAT videos! Keep up the good work!

  115. Joseph E Postma says:

    RK: “It’s so much worse than being ruled by people who merely believe in flat-Earth physics.
    The physics is not even correct for a flat Earth. It’s pseudo-physics.
    PhD’s endorsing this !
    It’s wrong on so many levels. Scary on so many levels. Really unbelievable on so many levels.
    How can PhD’s in physics not understand that it is wrong to manipulate fluxes the way greenhouse proponents manipulate them? Who were these people’s teachers? Who checked their work? Who monitored the quality of their education?”

    As I’ve said – it’s FN bizarro-land-bonkers-world. And also as I have said: it is as if they are not real people. They’re not real. They are AI’s or something.
    At this point we must conclude that anything that science says is impossible is likely possible, and anything it says is possible is likely impossible. In other words, with modern science going in for flat Earth theory and all of its attendant error propagation, and with modern science not being able to get a clue about it with the myriad of clues all around about it…then GUYS, WE ARE IN WIDE OPEN TERRITORY. We’re lucky that we have engineers who actually need to make things that work. We’re lucky our farm tractors work, and that there are people who can maintain them. But we can place no real trust at all in academic science any longer.

  116. CD Marshall says:

    Decades ago it use to be a joke that real science is learned in the real world. Everything taught in school didn’t apply to real world applications of science. We all knew that in school education didn’t prepare you for real world jobs. That’s why they proposed the “vocation” in school becasue companies were realizing these grad kids left college without a clue of how to work in the real world and it was getting so bad they needed to nip it in high school.

    “Welcome to the real world, kid.” Was an expression for those star eyed academic grads once they pulled a real job in the real world using applied physics and science. “Forget everything you were taught in school, you are in the real world now.”

    Somewhere along the way the real world went missing…

  117. Joseph E Postma says:

    Yah that’s a great point: they’re just trying to force their egghead academic world over the real world.

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Google photo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s