Categories
-
Join 499 other subscribers
- Follow Climate of Sophistry on WordPress.com
Recent Comments
- CD Marshall on Explaining the Double-Slit Experiment without Probabilism
- Joseph E Postma on Explaining the Double-Slit Experiment without Probabilism
- J Cuttance on Explaining the Double-Slit Experiment without Probabilism
- Joseph E Postma on Explaining the Double-Slit Experiment without Probabilism
- Rober on Explaining the Double-Slit Experiment without Probabilism
- Joseph E Postma on Explaining the Double-Slit Experiment without Probabilism
- Robert on Explaining the Double-Slit Experiment without Probabilism
- Joseph E Postma on Explaining the Double-Slit Experiment without Probabilism
- CD Marshall on Explaining the Double-Slit Experiment without Probabilism
- Robert on Explaining the Double-Slit Experiment without Probabilism
- Robert on Explaining the Double-Slit Experiment without Probabilism
- Joseph E Postma on Explaining the Double-Slit Experiment without Probabilism
- Nepal on Explaining the Double-Slit Experiment without Probabilism
- Joseph E Postma on Explaining the Double-Slit Experiment without Probabilism
- Joseph E Postma on Explaining the Double-Slit Experiment without Probabilism
Watch “Global Warming Debate! | w/ Joseph Postma, TPS #550” on YouTube
This entry was posted in Fraud of the Greenhouse Effect. Bookmark the permalink.
Climate of Sophistry 
Dammit, it seemed like you almost got through for a second. I’m somewhat familiar with this guy on my periphery. He seems to be a genuine truth seeker from his associations.
Seems like he had the same old “learning tool” argument. What learning tool defies the law of thermodynamics?! He claims you don’t show the differences in conclusions your model makes from the alarmist, that seemed like a really dense thing to say (38:19). How about THE SUN!?
If you get a second crack at this guy you should take it. I don’t think he is out to discredit you.
Yah I think people watching should see that I made a tight case and that his comments were all answered. Hopefully.
Just clicking through the video very quickly in a spotty fashion, I notice his concept of a CO2 gradient seems totally wrong — there is no such thing, I thought.
Convection and other processes prevent any one gas from concentrating in a layer — the gases are mixed all the way up — just the air gets thinner the higher you go.
And if there were no turbulent mixing,then CO2, if it did form a gradient, would do so from the surface to the top, becoming THINNER, the higher we went up into the atmosphere.
But there’s so little of it, it really doesn’t make much difference.
I want to watch the whole video, but this alone deters me, since the guy seems misinformed.
I bought your book, it was a quick interesting read. Now I want to read this Mike Hockney guy. Seems like some good occult literature.
Could you answer a question if it wouldn’t be to much trouble? Comes from a guy on YouTube I showed your stuff to.
A regular green house and a green house filled with nothing but C02 recieving the same amount of sunlight. Which will be hotter? Will there be much difference at all? Is this a stupid question and should I go live in a cave?
Here is a link to the pdf file I did up with many of your slides and information.
Click to access climate-3.pdf
I am hoping it is useful. Feel free to upload and share that pdf to others.
Keep up the good work.
[JP Reply: Holy smokes @Suit Yourself, you’ve done your homework and have put together an excellent presentation here! This is outstanding. I had a huge smile on my face going over this just now…and still do. You have nailed everything. I should turn that document into a post – do you have an editable version so I can copypasta?]
You should really invite him to read the comments here about his show. There are a few areas in any conversation where we miss the points being made or misunderstand the other person.
One thing that really stuck out for me was the assertion of the interviewer that the spectral absorption bands were showing energy not being released to space. But this is not what they show. The area under the line for the entire earth output still adds up to a value equal to that of the power of the sun’s input. The “chunks missing” isn’t energy missing, it’s simply wavelengths of light that have been changed to different wavelengths before leaving the atmosphere due to CO2 being present.
Perhaps you should link the shorter video of the candle and CO2 filled cylinder in these comments for him to watch. The flame doesn’t get hotter. The energy isn’t trapped in the cylinder.
The other point I would like him to read is. If what he was taught in school wasn’t the actual Greenhouse Effect then why was it taught to him? Why not just teach you the Real Greenhouse Effect straight away? Same for his criticism of the Undergraduate model “just being for demonstration processes”. If the model isn’t correct, why teach it? Aren’t students clever enough to be given the round earth version by the time they get to university? Why not just teach the “advanced” model that he tried to explain after the interview ended? If that is the real way a Greenhouse Effect works then why do students have to wait until they do a PhD to find out about it??
Thanks, Joe. Keep up your important work! https://principia-scientific.org/watch-global-warming-debate-with-joseph-postma/
That was really good. I was particularly taken by the point you made that the greenhouse effect doesn’t happen in greenhouses. Perhaps you could expand a bit on how the sun creates the climate. I think it’s pretty obvious but, maybe from being trapped in the climate delusion, your interviewer didn’t seem able wrap his mind around it. A few concrete references might help make the leap.
“I bought your book, it was a quick interesting read. Now I want to read this Mike Hockney guy. Seems like some good occult literature.”
Indeed! And mathematics is the ultimate occult power 😉
“A regular green house and a green house filled with nothing but CO2 recieving the same amount of sunlight. Which will be hotter? Will there be much difference at all? Is this a stupid question and should I go live in a cave?”
Great question! Answer: same temperature. Same temperature because *the heat input is the same*, meaning that the equilibrium temperature is the same, and the radiative balance is set by the *outside* of the glass pane and so what’s inside the greenhouse doesn’t change anything. However according to climate alarm greenhouse theory the CO2 greenhouse would produce insane temperatures that would incinerate everything inside. As I’ve said, real greenhouses provide the empirical refutation of the climate alarmist version of the greenhouse effect.
Roy Spencer states in this 2016 article that the rotation speed has a significant effect on the average temperature. But at the same time he defends a model without a rotating earth, and with average input…
Quote “Yesterday I showed that the difference in rotation rate between the Earth and the Moon caused the more-slowly rotating Moon to be about 55 deg. colder than the Earth, all other things being equal (…) Basically, any process which increases the day-night temperature range (such as a longer diurnal cycle) will decrease the average temperature of a planet, simply because of the non-linearity of the S-B equation”
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2016/09/the-faster-a-planet-rotates-the-warmer-its-average-temperature/
Math can predict the furture, know the past, and allow the blind to see.
That’s what my instincts were telling me. I knew it wouldn’t be able to melt steel, like some people think.
Keep it up! You’re making a difference, you feel it? You should be proud.
MP Roy has his own special version of the Greenhouse Effect called the “slows cooling thereby making it warmer on average”. His version is totally detached from the textbooks versions. But he will swing back and forth between both versions depending on which version you debunk for him. Obviously he believes in the version you weren’t debunking at the time. Until you then debunk that version as well, which is when he will switch back to defending the first one. That’s if he hasn’t started talking about blankets keeping you warm by this point, or simply stopped talking to you altogether.
“If what he was taught in school wasn’t the actual Greenhouse Effect then why was it taught to him? Why not just teach you the Real Greenhouse Effect straight away? Same for his criticism of the Undergraduate model “just being for demonstration processes”. If the model isn’t correct, why teach it? Aren’t students clever enough to be given the round earth version by the time they get to university? Why not just teach the “advanced” model that he tried to explain after the interview ended? If that is the real way a Greenhouse Effect works then why do students have to wait until they do a PhD to find out about it”
Exactly. The truth is that it IS the real (fake) McCoy!
@barrie9reynolds you might like this vid – hopefully the interviewer watches it:
@MP – Roy doesn’t have a clue what he’s doing…
haha Cheers Boomie789!
Just quoting this because this is how they ALL behave on this debate – THEY ALL DO THIS!
“MP Roy has his own special version of the Greenhouse Effect called the “slows cooling thereby making it warmer on average”. His version is totally detached from the textbooks versions. But he will swing back and forth between both versions depending on which version you debunk for him. Obviously he believes in the version you weren’t debunking at the time. Until you then debunk that version as well, which is when he will switch back to defending the first one. That’s if he hasn’t started talking about blankets keeping you warm by this point, or simply stopped talking to you altogether.”
Molecule A can further excite Molecule B if, and only IF, Molecule A is of greater energy than Molecule B.
DONE! …
The so-called “greenhouse effect” cannot exist within the known universe.
It is simply impossible
Pingback: A Most Excellent Exposition | Climate of Sophistry
I don’t know if there is even a way of responding to this absurdity. So, apparently our Earth melted down a few billion years ago and we aren’t really here. What is being suggested in that statement is a physical impossibility! .. we could not exist on this planet if this were true. We would already be hotter than the sunny side of Mercury if this were true. Probably hotter than the surface of the sun itself.
Joseph, I love you like a brother man. I am one of your biggest advocates .. but you could have (and should have) absolutely obliterated this clown. The claims and suggestions he makes, numerous, are patently absurd and demonstrably so. If he has actually been taught these things in “ecological science” (whatever the hell that is) then he really needs to sue to get his money back!
Nice to see ya squid2112!
Well…I made the point as clear and choice as binary as I could – the choice you have to make is obvious! I think I did destroy his challenges to anyone with a brain: either the Sun can’t create the climate, or it can!
I’m just going to trust my first instincts with the guy in the video, and not waste time watching the car accident that is his flawed, misinformed reasoning, as further hinted at by other commentators here.
As for Roy S, … well, … his tenacious grip on his own flawed ideas have reached a new level of suspicion in my consideration (or lack thereof) of him. How can I really respect anyone who considers the starting point of all climate science as spreading solar input over the whole Earth at once? … and who thinks that there is a CO2 greenhouse effect for which we do not know the real effect of it? … and who states that climate models are flawed in plain language, yet cannot accept a deeply-studied, mathematically-meticulous explanation of error propagation that explains why?
Here’s some more stellar effort to school of Roy:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/10/15/why-roy-spencers-criticism-is-wrong/
… which reminds me of the ridiculous, tenacious, sophistic attacks on Gerlich & Tscheuschner, who, in my opinion, answered their brutal attackers very decisively — they probably had no more time to waste on them, after that, and so they faded into the background of the alarmists’ ever continuous bashing of them, probably laughing under their breath at the alarmist stupidity.
Thanks Joe, love your book.
Something I would like to see next time, I saw this in one of your earlier videos. Show the flat earth with the divide by 4 and the -18c, next to it draw a round earth with the full 1370 (less .30) and the equatorial temperatures for effect. That’s a lot of energy for the atmosphere to get rid of. The visual would be great, Flat Earth – Round Earth, Flat Earth – Round Earth…. A tiny ship falling off the flat earth might be fun 🙂
OK Mark will add it to the list!
Actually I already do that in a lot of my vids – see here for example:
Starting at 6:13.
I liked the video. But maybe start with something simple then move to more complex. Contrast difference between real intensity vs fake intensity.
Mark S,
Really?
What is simpler than the idea of spreading sunshine over the entire surface area of Earth at once? That’s where the video starts. That’s the simple error. I really don’t see how anybody could make it any simpler than that.
Oh, wait now, I might be wrong. Maybe start with the simpler idea that there IS a sun, and the Earth is a SPHERE. How about that? (^_^)
Yes, that’s it: There IS a sun. It is at the center of a system of planets, the third one of which is called “Earth”. Planets are roughly SPHERICAL. Planets are lit on one hemisphere at a time, while the other hemisphere is in darkness. “Hemisphere” might be too big of a word, though. Maybe we should use the phrase, “half a big ball”, and then speak in a tone as if appealing to babies — yeah, baby talk.
Oh, I dunno, that still might be too complex. I mean my last sentence was twenty-four words long — that’s pushing it, I suppose.
Hi Joe,
Jeff’s assertion that CO2 concentrates in the upper atmosphere where the exchange of energy between the Earth and space occurs is completely false. CO2 is concentrated in the lower atmosphere and non-existent in the upper atmosphere. The concentration of all gases decreases dramatically with altitude and the gas components of the atmosphere changes. The different colors of the auroras is due to the different gases (oxygen and nitrogen) being excited by solar particles.
He also confuses temperature with energy. The “empty” space between the Earth and sun has a low temperature but it contains all the energy that warms the Earth. Similarly the lower temperature (kinetic energy) of the higher altitudes is due to the scarcity of molecules (less mass) not to less energy. The more energy you add to an unconfined gas molecules the greater the volume of the gas (universal gas law) and the gas molecules with the greatest energy are at the top of the atmosphere.
Herb
Cheers Herb.
I am gob smacked – Spencer said ? –
“Yesterday I showed that the difference in rotation rate between the Earth and the Moon caused the more-slowly rotating Moon to be about 55 deg. colder than the Earth, all other things being equal (…) Basically, any process which increases the day-night temperature range (such as a longer diurnal cycle) will decrease the average temperature of a planet, simply because of the non-linearity of the S-B equation”
Yet he completely supports the notion of the “Blackbody temperature” of a planet calculated using the divide by four nonsense so one presumes he totally supports this from NASA’s Planetary Fact Sheet for the Moon:
Moon Earth Ratio
Black-body temperature (K) 270.4 254.0 1.065
That is according to his fundamental belief NASA says the Moon is hotter than Earth not colder.
“Roy has his own special version of the Greenhouse Effect called the “slows cooling thereby making it warmer on average”. His version is totally detached from the textbooks versions. But he will swing back and forth between both versions depending on which version you debunk for him. ”
The really funny thing about the “slows cooling thereby making it warmer on average” hypothesis is it explicitly proves that the Sun is the only input to Earth capable of actually causing warming.
If one considers the SB equation is correct and the idea of Earth’s atmosphere and surfaces rejecting ~30% of the input power then it is possible for the ~1370 W/m2 input – to keep parody with Joe – reduced to ~959 W/m2 to induce a temperature of ~360 K or about 87°C in any surface which absorbs the flux completely.
I just don’t get how people who can’t conceive this can qualify for the award of PhD. It simply demonstrates all of the awards – PhD, Nobel etc – are just examples in group think and elitism – to the exalted ones the hoi polloi simply haven’t the IQ rendering them capable of grasping “our settled science”.
You know I just realized Roy use to work for NASA didn’t he? I’m starting to see a pattern in the circular science he is using that runs parallel with NASA. Perhaps the ties between them weren’t so irrevocably severed or over the years they have come to an agreement, a lucrative one at that?
Just like PH54 claims hes not getting any money for his works but we all know how that is really done.
Lots of ways to get funding w/o appearing you are getting funding. I guarantee if it was looked into a money trail would pop up somewhere.
The “slows cooling thereby making it warmer on average” hypothesis is just a round about way of saying “trap heat”. The words are different, but the meaning turns out to be the same, as I see it.
What does “slows cooling” mean? I have never gotten a clear description of what exactly this means — what the mechanism is — what the time frame is against which a person would assess the slower or faster rate.
I just had a very long conversation with an academic colleague here at work, one who I’ve actually anonymously quoted before in my videos and on some posts. He is of the climate alarmist persuasion. The conversation/heated argument went on for quite some time, and his position reduced to the one we are all familiar with:
The climate greenhouse effect of the flat Earth model isn’t the real climate greenhouse effect. The real climate greenhouse effect is inside the large-scale models and is naturally inside such models. I pointed out that this is a very strange disconnect, and that when I ask climate scientists for the REAL climate greenhouse effect and references as to how it actually does work, they all reference back to the flat Earth models. He said well that’s because it is only conceptual, and so I then asked again for the real thing. I also pointed out that, sure, the flat Earth model is conceptual, but it demontrates a principle and a mechanics which comes OUT OF ITSELF by necessity, and that even still it should still conceptually function in a real greenhouse, which it does not.
This is the extent of their position. I pointed out that it is a closed loop: that when they say that the real climate greenhouse effect is in the GCM’s, and when asked for references as to how it work they then refer to the flat Earth models which should function in a real greenhouse but don’t, that a closed reference-loop is created here in which no reference to how the climate greenhouse actually works is provided *other than* the flat Earth derivations (which should function in real greenhouses, but don’t).
Again, a pretty obvious self-referencing loop, and an easy decision and conclusion to make. But they just seem unable to acknowledge the meaning of it, the reality of it, the impetus of it, etc.
Anyway, the entire hallway could hear our conversation/argument because my office door was open. Crickets out there when he finally left!
He seems so incapable of referring back to textbook knowledge, to the laws of thermodynamics, to acknowledge cause & effect, etc.
At some point he brought up “gender fluidity”, and I said that I and most of the people on the right don’t subscribe to “gender fluid theory.” He stopped dead in his tracks for a moment as if he had never heard of something so outrageous…and he was already outraged that I was saying that it was important not to derive things out of flat Earth theory. If anything, I’ll lose my job for letting that slip out.
Basically they want to refer to something, a “conceptual model”, which on the other hand they cannot prove actually exists. So they refer to it, but then asked if it is the real thing, say that it isn’t, and have no reference to the real thing at all…other than the conceptual thing…which they themselves admit isn’t real.
Unreal.
Hi Joe,
You can cook a turkey at 165 C in twelve hours. You can cook that turkey a lot faster in a 165 C deep fryer. Why, if they are the same temperature (same mean kinetic energy)? It is because there are more molecules in the deep fryer transferring kinetic energy to the turkey than there are in the oven.
At the top of a 5000 m mountain there are half the molecules transferring heat to a thermometer as there are at sea level. Just like the turkey the thermometer will absorb less heat. There is no adiabatic heating from gravity. The increase in temperature at the bottom of a mountain is from the greater number of air molecules transferring heat to the thermometer.
Emotions has replaced logic in academia and that is by design, easy to manipulate emotions over logic.
Herb,
Conduction is stronger than convection. Deep fryer is conduction. Oven is convection.
Temperatures under pressure has been proven and tested many times for decades, unlike the greenhouse effect. Modifiers can certainly influence this rule but not replace it.
Gravity created our atmosphere, the magnetosphere helps maintain it but without gravity the other is worthless, therefore the magnetosphere is a modifier of gravity not a replacement.
…Meaning other factors can influence the adiabatic lapse rate but not replace it.
Check out this great comment from one of my YouTube videos:
“Nathaniel Hill
32 minutes ago
Joseph, I’ve watched a number of your videos, on this channel and interviews hosted on others, and while I believe I’ve grasped your argument, I’d be grateful if you could confirm that that is indeed the case.
From your perspective, the climate change hypothesis is entirely null because it is premised on a temperature(-18 C) of the earth, which is calculated by the energy received by the earth from the sun being averaged out over the entire surface of the earth, as if the earth was a flat plane angled orthogonal to the sun. This false premise is then erroneously compared to the average surface temperature of the earth(16 C), and thus the need for an alternative heating source is born. In order to close this gap(which does not in fact exist), greenhouse gases have been enlisted to provide energy which they could not possibly be responsible for: twice that which is provided by the sun, something clearly physically impossible.
If this is indeed what has occurred, then it is an error(or perhaps a malicious lie) of such grand and terrible proportions that I fear it will not only do irreparable damage to the field of climate science, but to the institution of science as a whole. It’s no wonder that some people, myself included, are incredulous at the prospect that so many well educated, well trained professionals could be afflicted with such incompetency or otherwise be suborned into ignoring such a fundamental error, for such an extended period of time.
Am I correct in my interpretation? In either case, thanks for your work, it’s been fascinating food for thought. “
A really tough question for the guys who are a very much smarter than myself.
If we were to place a bowl of water on the sunny side side of the Earths MOON will that bowl of WATER (H2O) evapourate? 😉
Surprising the NON resposne I am getting from diehard alarmists on another blog. They know where I am going with this. Dont know why I never thought of this earlier?
Nathaniel appears to be able to think for himself. He appears open to facts and logic. Consequently, he responded postitively to your video. Which verifies the necessity for, and value of, your efforts.
Kudos to both of you.
Jopo, I love questions about the Moon, so let me jump in here.
You likely understand this, but just to cover all the bases: The Moon doesn’t really have a “sunny side”. Because of its orbital motion, it turns relative to the Sun. So the right spot on Moon’s surface could be exposed to the Sun for almost 14 days. During that time, the spot would have continual sunlight. Temperatures would reach well over the boiling point of water.
So yes, the bowl of water would evaporate.
And I get your point. You’re correct, that’s why the Warmists want to avoid answering. Moon is just one more problem for them.
Gidday Geran.
Yes I deliberately did not mention time with in my question. My objective is simply to have them acknowledge the obvious that a atmosphere-less body (moon) has the capacity to create its own atmosphere simply by using the SUN to evapourate WATER
I am sure you know that is not that simple to do. And I can assure many of them will just not GET where I am even coming from hence why they will just avoid such a simple question for fear of incrimination!
We all know if you offer a hint of an ambushthe opposition will shut down. that is completely normal.
But shoot it is a very simple question I have asked and boy the silence is deafening!
Anything you guys can offer would be would be much appreciated.
Hey sorry for the capslock. Bloody habit when talking to nutters
It would boil simply from being in vacuum. But yes, of course the point is that if it were held at standard pressure, sunlight alone would boil it away too!
Help me out here Joe. I am seeking guidance .
You have just said that pressure is a factor? Sure I get that.
But is that NOT the starting POINT of your whole argument?
With NO atmosphere there will be no pressure / atmosphere?
Yes of course. Indeed, if the existing atmosphere were frozen out onto the surface as ice, or in your bowl of water it were an ice block, then the Sun would re-create the gaseous atmosphere and would sublimate/boil that ice in the bowl into a gas. I was thinking of liquid water and what it would do in vacuum. But yes your point is still good!
OK So I need to re word my argument against others with the good oil from you folk. I feel you have in a round about way just connected with my out of left field approach. I know you are busy so perhaps some others of your smart folk could help me out here.
OK I will rephrase this.
The argument from many here is that current IPCC climate forcings do not represent reality.
And that the starting block used by the IPCC is based upon a atmosphere-less EARTH.
Just like the Moon.
Am I wrong to entrap others by asking them if they believe that the SUN is capable of creating a CLIMATE on the moon by vapourising H2O
Your last question is good, but you can simply ask it for the Earth itself: Does the sun provide the heat to create the climate? Does the sun create the climate with solar heat transfer?
I assume you’ve watched my videos – if not this one is relevant:
And indeed the same question would apply to the moon, and if the Sun could create an atmosphere & climate on the moon. It is the same thing for sure.
Your first paragraph is a little off though. They do represent the atmosphere in their greenhouse model, as a flat line, along with the surface. The point is that this is flat Earth, with sunshine spread over the entire surface area at once which on paper makes sunshine too feeble to create the climate, and so this false greenhouse effect is used to close the gap where the climate creates itself. The difference is just as you point out: the sun actually does it in real time.
Cheers and thank you Joe. Will come back later after taking time to absorb what you have said.
The interviewer/debater showed a graph that shows less outgoing radiation in the range where co2 absorbs IR radiation. He assumes that shows that the radiation is trapped or slowed down much. But that is not the case.
Co2 absorbs a narrow wavelenght range (around 15μ) and re-emits a wider wavelenght range, including emitting some in the wavelenght range that can’t be absorbed by GHG’s (around 10μ)
So it gets re-emitted to space, just not much in the 15μ range, since a substantial part is converted to other wavelenghts
The re-emitting goes in an x amount of microseconds, and the IR travels at lightspeed. So there is not much slowing down
MP,
Nice graph 🙂
The 15 micron re-emitted back to Earth I’m assuming is the duplicate photon emission? Does CO2 duplicate lesser photons as well (7/10) or is it usually only 15 Microns?
Do you know if this video exists anywhere anymore?
Bitchute, of course
Oh I should download it for myself and re-upload. Can use the bitchute link for now. Thanks Boomie!
I know how to download Bitchute links if you need help. Right click the play button-> view page source->ctrl f->bitchute-> then look for a type of bitchute link, it might be a little tricky to find. It will be something like a source link. Then when you open that link and right click to download it.
https://www.bitchute.com/embed/DhDB9Y0c6aHq/
Here found it for you. Right click play button and save as.
Give you an idea of what you are looking for
o nope that one isn’t even right lol
(https://seed151.bitchute.com/alKmUx8KxXCb/DhDB9Y0c6aHq.mp4)
Now I found it. I forgot a step. From the one I linked before you view the page source again and search through there.