The Thing Without the Thing

In this video I discuss the fallacious reasoning which people sometimes resort to when confronted with the fact that the only theoretical foundation for the climate alarmist greenhouse effect comes from flat earth theory, and demonstrates principles which violate the laws of physics, and has no empirical support in measured data.

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

106 Responses to The Thing Without the Thing

  1. songhees says:

    Dr Tim Ball – Historical Climatologist
    Book ‘The Deliberate Corruption of Climate Science’.
    Book “Human Caused Global Warming”, ‘The Biggest Deception in History’.

    BREAKING – Dr.Tim Ball wins against Dr Michael Mann lawsuit
    There is no political will to develop our oil and resources in Canada.

  2. TEWS_Pilot says:

    I wish this convoluted logic had existed when I was in High School and having to study Shakespeare and deconstruct complicated passages. I could have saved a lot of time and effort. I could have substituted “Mary Had A Little Lamb” and defied the teacher to show why my paper was wrong.

    Do you intend to post the slides?

  3. tom0mason says:

    But Joe you don’t understand, see it’s quite simple —
    The concept diagrams are to show how the modern physics fit with what the models actually do .
    The models actually shows that due to the excess caloric fluid within CO2, when it is activated with the lumiferous aether of a particular species, then CO2’s caloric fluid is set free and leaks away, infusing the atmosphere with an excess of caloric fluid and raise the atmospheric temperature.
    Do you really think that Isaac Newton, Christian Huygens, Thomas Young and Georges-Louis Le Sage were wrong?
    Basic physik really, verily what’s your problem?
    Can’t stay long, I’ve yet to finish turning Lead into Gold for the emperor of the UN. Now where are those lodestones and the aether concentrating crystals.


  4. Ah it’s the phlogiston! CO2 leaks phlogiston! Lol

  5. tom0mason says:

    So maybe you do understand. It’s all in the majik of the astral plane. 🤣 🙂 🤣

  6. Pat Frank has written a paper, Propagation of Error and the Reliability of Global Air Temperature Projections, in which he has modeled climate models to prove that they rely on the 33 K greenhouse contribution to air temperature.

    Here is a copy of a segment from the relevant text of his paper, where I have highlighted in red the 33 K in his model-emulation equation:

    The full paper is here:

    He has received quite a bit a criticism, but he has answered every bit of it very convincingly here:

    Consequently, the argument that the simple greenhouse model is not considered in the more complex computer model is proven wrong, I’d say.

  7. The “thing-is-not-the-thing” argument cannot be embodied any better than by the Extinction Revolution fool on top of a London tube train telling angry commuters that they are not the target.

    The physical reality of the configuration of objects and actions MAKE the commuters the targets. This just shows how completely out of touch with physical reality these people are. [oops, I called them “people” — giving them too much credit]

  8. I meant “Extinction Rebellion“.

  9. Rosco says:

    I agree climate science’s arguments are fellatious !

  10. squid2112 says:

    Another great video Joseph !! .. Keep them coming !! ..

    Personally, I like to keep these things as simple as possible. I have a simple question for those “greenhouse effect” believers out there. Why, after spending literally $BILLIONS of dollars on research and modeling, hasn’t anyone been able to actually demonstrate and measure this so-called “greenhouse effect”, imperically!.

    If there were such a thing that operated as they describe, it looks to me like a very simple and elementary exercise to demonstrate and accurately quantify such an effect. But alas, after $BILLIONS spent, not a single person on this planet has been able to do so, and yet, supposedly, this “effect” is all around us, 24/7, all the time, everywhere (including your own living room). And yet, it cannot be seen, it cannot be measured, it cannot be demonstrated.

    The “believers” could shut everyone up in an instant if they would just demonstrate this so-called “effect”. Just produce one simple laboratory experiment that demonstrates this effect. We can smash atoms in colliders, create superconductors, and a whole host of scientifically advanced operations, but we can’t demonstrate a “greenhouse effect”? .. come one .. this doesn’t even begin to pass the laugh out loud test.

    My answer to them is .. demonstrate it .. until then, STFU !!!

  11. Joseph,
    10:37 No, it it just comes out, you don’t have to write it.

    This sounds very similar a problem that Charles Babbage encountered.
    “On two occasions I have been asked, ‘Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?’ I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question.”

  12. historyscoper says:

    I wish JP would set up an account on and begin posting articles there. That site gets 2 million visitors a day, and is a free public forum permitting all views on climate science. Anything he publishes in his blog or on YouTube would get many times as many views on Quora.
    See my profile that shows I got over 14K views last month alone. Good posters worth checking out are Tjaart Lemmer, James Matkin, Paul Noel, Alistair Riddock, John Voelker, John Walker.

  13. That’s excellent Philip.

  14. Ok great will do historyscoper.

  15. boomie789 says:


    The guy who interviewed Postma just interviewed that guy as well.

  16. boomie789 says:

    Postma is mentioned at 58:25. Nothing much is said though.

  17. MP says:

    What about crowd funding an actual mechanism to test the greenhouse gas theory, whatever form thet explain it.?

    Alarmists agree that the supposed green house gas doesn’t work in an actual greenhouse, or for insulation techniques.

    They claim that is because of the distance needed for the magic to happen.

    We could test it with a miles high test tube with holes in it and an open top, increase the co2 and see wat happens

  18. TEWS_Pilot says:

    Independent British climate researcher, Geraint Hughes, author of ‘Black Dragon: Breaking the Frizzle Frazzle of THE BIG LIE of Climate,’ has developed yet another experiment to prove CO2 is innocent of climate change.

    For those who haven’t yet seen Geraint’s impressive initial experiment, which successfully demonstrated that CO2 does not induce back radiant heating, take a few minutes to view two Youtube videos

    and here.

    Below are two photographs demonstrating the effects of an exposed light filament where exposed to a vacuum( left) and in a pure CO2 environment (right). As can be seen, the filament exposed only to CO2 is dimmer and cooler, showing that CO2 causes COOLING, not heating, of the air around it.

  19. Joe, it’s called “smoke and mirrors”. There’s no chance of either stopping the smoke or removing the mirrors. Keep up your good work, I admire you more than words can say.

  20. CD Marshall says:

    Joseph excellent video and really informative. You were more relaxed and it really carried your message over clearer.

    Has anyone looked into the light bulb heating itself up more thing or did I miss it?

    The basic rules of physics I’ve been taught so far is that a source cannot increase it’s own source more w/o work. A light bulb can’t increase it’s energy more without having a source of energy. That’s not the same thing as CO2 in the atmosphere absorbing and re-radiating IR radiation.

    Now this “backbody” claim I’m assuming is what they are trying to use to justify “work” to get around the thermodynamic laws of physics?

    I’ve had to re-do my account of YT we’ll see I was getting only a few notifications on responses it does make you wonder if they are throttling accounts that are against political global warming. Maybe i’ve been flagged? All these trolls were blasting my comments and I wasn’t able to respond. I had to go manually to each comment and find it and that’s wasn’t worth the time. So I deleted the account and made another one but we shall see?

  21. CD Marshall says:

    You said on an older post:
    “A little rebutal idea I got from a Tony Heller video.

    What’s wrong with ocean acidification by CO2

    CO2 reacts with water (H2O) to form carbonic acid (H2CO3). People think that increases in CO2 in the atmosphere will acidify the oceans and wreck havoc. Nothing can be further from the truth. It is the under water volcanoes that spew calcium silicate (CaSiO3) on the ocean floor that control the acidity of the oceans. The ocean floor is literally littered with this product. Carbonic acid reacts with calcium silicate to give insoluble calcium carbonate. Carbonic acid then reacts with this calcium carbonate to give aqueous calcium bicarbonate.

    CaSiO3 + H2CO3 = CaCO3 + H2O + SiO2 (sand)
    CaCO3 + H2CO3 = Ca(HCO3)2

    Aqueous calcium bicarbonate has a natural pH of about 8.2, slightly alkaline. The more carbonic acid you have, the more calcium silicate will react to neutralise it.

    Dry it up and you get calcium carbonate (CaCO3), the white cliffs of Dover, at pH 9.9.”

    I’m curious is that where the “whitening” is coming from or what they refer to as “bleaching” that they are claiming is from CO2 dissolving in the water and creating carbonic acid (H2CO3)?

  22. TEWS_Pilot says:

    A team of U.N. scientists studying the mechanism by which CO2 heats the atmosphere believe they have isolated the actual source. It is a substance that forms the bonds between the Carbon and the Oxygen atoms which they have identified as “Phlogiston”

    Michael Mann has already begun to create a new Hockey Stick Graph to show the “back radiation” coming from the CO2 molecules as constantly “down-welling rays”. He calls it the “Phlogiston Flame” slope.

    Michael Mann was quoted as saying, “OK, so where’s my Nobel Prize?”

  23. So, the strategy is that when confronted by simple facts that contradict what alarmists understand, divert attention to complexities that they have no clue about and appeal to authorities who contrive those complexities as the real final word on the subject.

    Trouble is, a rather simple model of the models shows that the contradicted simple facts are actually IN the models being held up as the final word.

    Next tactic?

  24. Pierre D. Bernier says:

    By bleaching or whitening, if you are talking of corals, I would not know. All I know is that the ocean’s pH is set at 8.2 by basalt on the ocean floor creating calcium bicarbonate of natural pH 8.2. I know it can vary between 7.8 to 8.2 during the day-night cycle because of vegetation activity I also know that the bay of Acapulco stincks shit and that it could very well be slightly acidic because of low water circulation in the bay. That’s the extent of my knowledge. Other then that, if there is not enough acidity then you are left with the carbonate form which the White Cliffs of Dover and all the limetone across the world is made of. So, you can see that oceans will never ever acidify on a permanent basis. Too much carbonate to nutralize.

    By the way, since you brought it up, I will correct a point I made. “Dry it up and you get calcium carbonate (CaCO3)” Not true. Was a trap to see if someone was whispering answers over the shoulder of someone we all know.

  25. Pierre D. Bernier says:

    Ok. Got you.
    No. The corals are already Calcium Carbonate with vegetation growing on it. The dying of the vegetation by what ever leave the Calcium Cabonate.bare.

  26. Pierre D. Bernier says:

    CO2 vs pH

    Even the not so reputables have it between 8.1 and 8.2 for the last 800000 years.

  27. Pierre D. Bernier says:


  28. MP says:

    Dutch new and big anti globalist party leader – How to defeat the Marxist globalists.

  29. CD Marshall says:

    I read that a former UN leader had around 27 PhDs. Yeah, that’s not helping the scientific community at all. So achieve political science/social agenda and get accolades thrown upon you without measure.

  30. TEWS_Pilot says:

    Are you sure they didn’t mean STDs?

  31. TEWS_Pilot says:

    Fifty years ago this year I completed my Internship with NASA on the Apollo Program and received my undergraduate degree in Physics. We loaded some of our computer programs using IBM cards and paper tape and big platters of stacked disks the size of 78 rpm records (if you remember what those looked like), and many of our calculations were done using slide rules …I still have my K&E (Keuffel & Esser) Slide Rule in its leather case. The Lead for the project to which I was first assigned was 29 years old and had 3 PhDs…all EARNED, not like the phony “honorary” ones or “Gender Studies” nonsense of today. We put men on the moon.

    During the past 50 years, what happened to NASA and the other government agencies and Academia and the Media who formed an alliance to achieve that goal and build a foundation for future space exploration?

  32. Nice to have you here TEWS_Pilot!

    Somehow…great achievement lead to great complacency, and parasites took over.

  33. TEWS_Pilot says:

    Well, you can be very proud of your efforts to rid the institutions of those termites….TRUTH is a wonderful disinfectant, and LIGHT scatters the cockroaches and termites. Never underestimate the power of perseverance in the pursuit of Science; it has always fueled the engine that drives the advancement of knowledge, even when having to struggle against the “consensus.”

  34. CD Marshall says:

    NASA use to be such a place of respect.

    It has always made me sad to think what space exploration should have accomplished by now.
    We made it to the Moon becasue the human mind was taught to NOT make excessive errors you couldn’t rely on computers back then to fix them. The human mind was trained as a computer. Now the human mind is replaced by computers instead of enhancing the human mind. We should have a base on the Moon and something started on Mars a long time ago.

    You can train your mind and body not to make errors. As I said my brother was trained in the Marines Special Forces, 1st Recon Battalion. They were taught to control body functions let alone assembling and re-assembling weapons in the dark and blindfolded. They were taught to shoot rifles from long range without scopes and glance at something once and create a panoramic picture from it with detail. He naturally knew enter and escape routes from any place he was at any time. The Recon never had backup they were always on their own in a mission.

    Martial Arts trains you to bypass the mind and react instantly. The reason you do those repetitive patterns is to train your brain to react without thought in a crisis. Same for the military.

    Astronauts are sent to space without backup, survival depends on not making errors.

    Political climate science is sloppy, lazy and a discredit to one of the most noble pursuits in history: Real science. People are coming out of college with the most worthless degrees ever known. Gender studies? Political sciences? Metaphysics? These are hobbies at best, a muse or two at dinner or lunch, but a degree? What a waste on money and time for nothing.

    How can mankind advance off this planet if they can’t stop thinking of only themselves? If we are the only intelligent life in the universe then the universe is our home, all of it and we are meant to populate all of it.

    Instead we have morons thinking of decreasing population instead of expanding our possibilities. Interstellar colonization has and always will be the final hope for the human race. Plus as has many others, I always dreamed of what these leftists would do if tossed on a planet by themselves to fend for themselves. I’ve always said if the United Stated ever became divided, the leftists would destroy their country in a decade and blame the other half for it saying it wasn’t fair and they were tricked. That’s why leaving them on a planet would be so great. Finally peace on Earth.

  35. CD Marshall says:

    This is painful and sad at the same time:

  36. CD Marshall says:

    Rebel News may be your ticket in to get a fair platform for a change.

  37. Pierre D. Bernier says:

    Yep, today is federal election day in Canada ! We have the choise between…
    Justin TURD’o. A trust fund kid who’s only jobs were drama teacher and ski instructor.
    Andrew Sheer. Worked 6 months max as an insurance saleman before going into politics.

    Can you beat that USA ?

  38. CD Marshall says:

    Gawd Canada you are screwed. Don’t you guys have a single sane person running for office?

  39. Pierre D. Bernier says:

    Don’t know. There is also Jagmeet Singh of the NDP. He is not welcomed in India because of his association with some Khalistan province independance seekers.. Immajine that. The 2 biggest commonwealth countries with one prime minister not welcomed in the other country. Only in Canada !

  40. Pierre, what about Maxime Bernier?

  41. “Joe,
    Do you intend to post the slides?”

    This TWES_Pilot?

    Click to access the-thing-without-the-thing.pdf

  42. “Rebel News may be your ticket in to get a fair platform for a change.”

    I had contact with them a few years ago, but the reporter I was talking with left or was let go. I haven’t been able to get response from them when attempting to make contact through their site. Maybe if other people send them links too it would help?

  43. Pierre D. Bernier says:

    / what about Maxime Bernier? /
    His party is too new. He did not have time to really organize. Probably next election. For now all I want is get TURD’o out. Hope he wont make an alliance with the NDP. That would be BEANNY SANDERS exponential 4 ! You should know. The NDP destroyed your province, and BC and Ontario.
    By the way, who controls the rails for oil export in alberta ? That is probably the reason why all the pipelines have been fucked up by TUIRD’o.

  44. CD Marshall says:

    Obama really screwed the Canadian oil deal for us in the US thanks to his pay pal Warren Buffet who owned trucking tankers and wanted the oil transported not piped in.

  45. MP says:

    Fresh song – Be Ready – Abbey Cook

  46. CD Marshall says:

    Roy concluded, “I’m not saying that increasing CO₂ doesn’t cause warming. I’m saying we have no idea how much warming it causes because we have no idea what natural energy imbalances exist in the climate system over, say, the last 50 years. … Thus, global warming projections have a large element of faith programmed into them.”

    That is all we need to know about Roy right there. He believes in the GHE via CO2 the rest of his circular arguments are therefore in error. As I said I don’t think he broke his ties with NASA as irrevocably as he has led us to believe.

  47. CD Marshall says:

    If anyone is ever really bored and wants to do some nifty calculations I’ve wondered what the results would be if you switched Venus and Earth’s orbits and equaled the CO2 in the atmosphere. I have no math/science skills to even start that.

    The albedo of the Earth I’d assume would be much higher with a denser atmosphere, which I’m also curious how much that would negate the effect of the Earth being closer to the Sun.

    The reason why I’m musing is becasue I stated to someone bringing up the “Venus out of control CO2 example” that if you switched orbits and gave Earth the same amount of CO2 Venus would still be hotter. Now I’m musing as to how much hotter it would indeed be?

    In fact since little Sunlight to no sunlight penetrates to the surface would the temps change at all?
    I’m assuming the atmospheric pressure caused Venus’ surface to never cool (I think Joseph may have mentioned that?). If Jupiter had the same atmospheric density with it’s incredible gravity field what would that outcome be maybe enough to have made it a star?

  48. CD Marshall says:

    Since Jupiter doesn’t have a core per se it kind of throws that comparison off and Jupiter’s pressure at it’s center is still greater than that of Venus…if I’m following this correctly. So I guess the comparison to Venus is moot.

    So let’s flip it if Venus had the mass/gravity of Jupiter with it’s atmosphere would would happen?

  49. Herb Rose says:

    There is another planet with an atmosphere with a high level of CO2. It is Mars snd it is not very warm.
    The question on having sane people run for public office is why would a sane person do it? No matter what you do you will be criticized and you have to kiss the ass of every idiot old enough to vote.

  50. The atmosphere of Mars is about a hundred times thinner than Earth’s. Even if claimed “greenhouse effect” existed, then this thinness alone would defeat the magical molecule, I’m thinking.

  51. “I’m not saying that increasing CO₂ doesn’t cause warming. I’m saying we have no idea how much warming it causes because we have no idea what natural energy imbalances exist in the climate system over, say, the last 50 years. … Thus, global warming projections have a large element of faith programmed into them.”

    That is one of Roy’s more baffling responses. What he says is that he is not saying that CO2 does not cause warming, but he cannot say that it does.

    I’m not saying that unicorns do not exist. I’m saying we have no idea whether they exist or not, since nobody has ever seen one.

    Roy can neither confirm nor deny the existence of a “greenhouse effect”. So, he cannot have a firm stance on whether it does or it doesn’t exist. How wishy washy is that?

    Why even entertain the possibility of a thing, if nobody can specify what the thing is?

    In sum, utterly ridiculous.

  52. Their minds are gravy.

  53. Gravy is being too polite.

    I like gravy. (^_^)

  54. CD Marshall says:

    In speech patterns a double negative equals a positive:

    “I’m not (negative) saying that increasing CO₂ doesn’t (negative) cause warming.”
    = I do believe CO2 causes warming.

  55. Gary Ashe says:

    Nobody ever got elected by telling the truth Herb.

    Until Donald Trump that is.

  56. geran says:

    Spencer is 100% GHE believer. He calls himself a “lukewarist”, but supports the GHE pseudoscience. He has even tried to alter the 2nd Law of Thermo, stating that putting on a coat proves “cold” can warm “hot”.

    He censored me about a year ago for nothing more than teaching why the GHE violated the laws of physics.

    I used to think that he had just never studied physics, which he admits, but now I believe he has a more sinister agenda, possibly related to funding.

    He doesn’t like science, or people that adhere to it.

  57. Gary Ashe says:

    He is no different than Monkton et al.
    They’ve always been gatekeepers of the RGHE, right from the get-go.

    They were too cowardly to take on the ”consensus” so are stuck as look warmers, and promoting the co2 RGHE .. they just claim the forcing is low or zero.

    Spencers a roach. ……….. their all roaches.

  58. Gary Ashe says:

    oops luke.

  59. Pierre D. Bernier says:

    HR & RK
    Robert Ian Holmes’ ideal gas law proves that CO2 has no other effect then changing the Molar composition of the atmosphere and therefore no other magical mystery tour. His law even works on Mars despite the low pressure.
    P=(0,69+0,9)/2 = 0.795, M= 43,34, ρ = 0,02, T = 207.2K. T observed = 210 K
    There is enough pressure to create convection. It’s on his blog. Someone trying to discredit him inadvertently proved it to him Not sure which video. They are stumbling all over the places.

  60. CD Marshall says:

    You commented on the light bulb dispute you had with a Van Wert fellow? Does this comment help or is it useless in regard to your conversation?

    “Some idiot claiming to be a Dr, somehow I think they are not (because their comments were incoherent and completely idiotic hence why they aren’t shown) showing how ignorant they are. If you think I can put my hand on the bulb because the filament ISNT EMITTING IR (you a fool)[YES THATS RIGHT FOLKS A MORON SAYING HE IS A DOCTOR TOLD ME THAT THIS LIGHT BULB ISNT EMITTING IR SO THATS WHY I CAN TOUCH IT!!!!?????????????????????????????????). IT IS EMITTING IR, the reason I can put my hand on a vacuum bulb is because the rate of heat transfer is much less when there is a vacuum compared to when there is gas in a bulb. (THINK WHY A VACUUM IS USED IN A THERMOS FLASK) Gas in a bulb, causes large conduction and convection heat transfer to occur, cooling the filament and warming the gas and therefore the glass bulb. This is what makes a gas filled bulb hot to the touch. The reason modern day bulbs contain argon, is because the coiled coils, exert a Langmuir sheath effect around the filament, which reduces the rate of contact with the filament, which means they can run brighter with a gas than if the filament is straight as with the vintage bulbs which I have selected. Modern coiled coil filaments, also have a gas to extend their life as the gas reduces the rate of evaporation of tungsten. The filaments I am using are Vintage Squirrel Cage Straight Filaments, these have maximum contact with gases, so it shows the effect of cooling by adding CO2. As you can all see, there is no point in denying it, CO2 cools the filament. There is no heat addition as a result of back radiation from the CO2 gas, that is a false science as this clearly shows. All those who preach the said false religion of Greenhouse effect and CO2 as cause of global warming are con-artists & / or ignorant liars”

  61. Pierre D. Bernier says:

    Hi CD
    WoW, Your comment is long. I just glanced through it because what ever it says will not help. That guy Marco van der Wert was just a robot like Joe says. When I had had enough I just said ” yes,CO2 grabs IR then sends it to Betelgeuse who send it back to Mr Kite and the Hendersons while Henry the horse danses the waltz. Will there be a show tonight on trampoline”. He wrote back “good, now you understand the role of CO2”. 🙂
    Never heard of him again. So, no. As you see, It wont help.

  62. Pierre D. Bernier says:

    Need help here. There is a guy by the name of Bernard Voyer who is supposed to come to my hometown soon to give a speech entitled …
    “Loosing the North – An Environmental Perspective, (Climate Change Conference).”
    Does anyone know this guy and what is he all about (credentials). Is he just a peddler or is he a climate change enabler ? Don’t know if I should go waste my time and chalange or just let go ?
    Can anyone help ?

  63. It would likely be a waste of time in terms of actually informing anyone. But you could go with a print out of their GHE diagram and show them the flat earth…might be good for a laugh!

  64. Pierre D. Bernier says:

    / If you go to a complete infinite wall of source light, then there is NO inverse square law and no decrease in intensity of flux from the source wall. /

    Why do I have that naging feeling I’m going to get in trouble again ?
    The Sun is so big compared to the planets, should’nt it be considered a wall with no inverse square law. That would mean that every planet receives the same flux and explains why R. I. Holmes’ ideal gas law works. The surface temperature is purely a function of atmospheric composition, Volume and planet gravity which define P, M, ρ and T ?
    Why am I getting into this ?

  65. Joseph E Postma says:

    It is about the angular width of the source. The Sun is much closer to a point source than in it to an infinite wall, given that the Sun occupies (at Earth) 1/2 degree of the sky, whereas an infinite wall would occupy 180 degrees. This is why this issue is called “view factors”. It’s all about the view, and the angular filling of the source on the sky, etc.

  66. Rosco says:

    Pierre consider this.

    The Sun emits sigmaT^4 over its surface area i.e. 4*pi*Rs^2*sigma*Ts^4 where Rs is the sun’s radius. This seems reasonable to me and the derivation below agrees with the Planetary Fact Sheets from NASA.

    At Earth’s radius conserving energy gives a flux of 4*pi*Re^2*sigma*Te^4 where Te is the “”temperature” of the solar radiation incident at Earth’s orbital radius Re”. This should not be controversial.

    Equating these gives Rs^2*Ts^4 = Re^2Te^4 or Te^4 = Rs^2*Ts^4/Re^2 or Te = Ts(Rs/Re)^0.5

    Or in power emission terms Rs^2*Ps where (Ps = sigmaTs^4) = Re^2Pe where(Pe = sigma)Te^4.

    This is clearly the inverse square law derived from first principles using the SB emission law for temperature for a black body.

    Plugging in the figures from NASA you can easily calculate the values in the Planetary fact sheets which are allegedly confirmed by satellite measurements.

  67. Rosco says:

    CD Marshall says:
    2019/10/22 at 5:50 AM
    Since Jupiter doesn’t have a core per se it kind of throws that comparison off and Jupiter’s pressure at it’s center is still greater than that of Venus…if I’m following this correctly. So I guess the comparison to Venus is moot.

    The “cores” of the outer planets is completely unknown !

    But what is known is that 3 have temperatures ~10 times that of Venus’s surface (Jupiter and Saturn much more than 10 times) and Uranus is ~7 times Venus.

    All with very low solar radiation <<<50 W/m2 and zero greenhouse effect but huge atmospheric mass and pressures.

  68. Rosco says:

    People think near Earth space is cold and that is absurd. Deep remote space may have negligible radiation background but we are near to a star for goodness sake.

    The only way to avoid the powerful solar radiation is to hide behind Earth or the Moon.

    This alone renders the minus 18°C without greenhouse gases claim as the irrational nonsense it is.

    Simple trigonometry shows how tiny the shadow “cone” is or simply google Venus transition of sun images to see just how insignificant the shadow is.

  69. geran says:

    “This should not be controversial.”

    Rosco, based on your equation: Te = Ts(Rs/Re)^0.5

    Te would be about 58000 K.

    Some people might find that controversial.

  70. Distance earth…

  71. geran says:

    Earth to Sun distance is about 15% of a Terameter. (That should mess up the metric pedants.)

    Rosco usually gets things right, but we all can make mistakes. He’s likely already asleep, but can probably find his mistake by himself when he returns.

  72. Herb Rose says:

    Temperature is a function of both mass and energy (V^2) so on Jupiter, Saturn, and Uranus the atmosphere at the surface is denser resulting in more molecules (mass) transferring energy, hence a higher temperature, even though those molecules have less energy. It is the same reason you can cook food a lot faster in boiling water than in an oven with a higher temperature or why it is warmer at the base of a mountain than at the top.
    Here’s a question for you. Venus has less mass (force of gravity) than the Earth. It is exposed to stronger solar winds than the Earth and has no magnetic field protecting it from those solar winds. How can it have an atmosphere 100 times the Earth’s?

  73. Rosco says:

    Sorry geran but there is nothing wrong with my mathematics this time – I do stuff up sometimes however.

    Te = 5772 K (Ts – NASA) x (395,700 (Rs)/149 x 10^6 (Re))^0.5 = ~393 K and ~1,361 W/m2.

  74. geran says:

    Rosco, your algebra was correct. Your mistake was in equating the total energy emitted by the Sun to the total energy emitted by Earth. “Equating these gives…”

    That’s why your equation, Te = Ts(Rs/Re)^0.5, would give bogus results for Te of over 50,000K.

  75. Re is distance to sun, not radius of earth. Rs is radius of sun though.

  76. geran says:

    Re is distance to Sun, but Rs is radius of Sun, and Te is temperature of a flux!

    I’m glad it’s not controversial, or confused!


  77. Te is the “”temperature” of the solar radiation incident at Earth’s orbital radius Re”

    So, geran, Te is NOT total energy emitted by the sun — it is solar radiation INCIDENT at EARTH’s ORBITAL RADIUS, in temperature terms.

  78. geran says:

    The inverse square law is simply about geometry. You don’t have to consider temperatures, energy, or conservation of energy.

    For Sun radius of Rs, and solar surface flux of Fs, the flux (Fx) at any radius (Rx) in space is

    Fx = Fs(Rs/Rx)^2

    So at a distance of 2Rs, Fx = 0.25Fs.

    At a distance of 10Rs, Fx = 0.01Fs

    Easy peasy.

  79. Pablo says:

    In case you haven’t seen it, on dodgy funding to stop Canadian oil sands production.

    …free for a week only.

  80. CD Marshall says:

    Herb has a good question one I’m been pondering myself:

    “Here’s a question for you. Venus has less mass (force of gravity) than the Earth. It is exposed to stronger solar winds than the Earth and has no magnetic field protecting it from those solar winds. How can it have an atmosphere 100 times the Earth’s?”

    The heat would make it expand, not contract.

    Do we know if Venus is actually losing atmosphere and do we really know how strong the gravity is on the planet? I’ve been looking into it and all the sites have cooky cutter “no explanation but remark on the runaway greenhouse effect” even NASA had no answer for it.

    I can only think of three viable options:

    1. The planet is replenishing the atmosphere faster that it gets lost (which at some point would deplete the planet you know in billions of years).

    2. Gravity is stronger than it seems to be or the mass of the atmosphere is contributing to the gravity in a way not easily noticed or understood.

    3. Unknown: Something is keeping the atmosphere on the planet that could be caused by a combo of;
    a. The unique chemistry of the planet (sulfuric acid) among them.
    b. High temperature.
    b. Unusual orbit.
    c. Unusual rotation.
    d. A quality as of yet unknown or overlooked.

    Any takers?

  81. Pierre D. Bernier says:

    Thank you very much for the very reveiling video.

    Joe… WEXIT ???

  82. suitiepie says:

    Rendering new video: “The Green House Effect: Fake or Fact?”

  83. suitiepie says:

    Rendering it now: Nearly an hour long. It goes through all of the PDF file and will have a link to it for people to follow along with.

    This PDF file:

    You can grab the video when it is finished, mirror it, edit it and add your own stuff, cut it, remix it, what ever you want to do to it, you can.

  84. Awesome! Standing by!

  85. suitiepie says:

    No problem mate. It may take all night to render and then compress and upload, so expect it tomorrow sometime.

  86. Can’t wait to see it.

  87. Pierre D. Bernier says:

    JOINUS. You wont be better off. The Democrates will bring in Puerto Rico to compensate the right wing vote.

  88. Herb Rose says:

    Hi CD,
    My answer is that gravity is not a function of mass but energy. The data (V^2 times d) Newton used to create his force of gravity gives the energy of the sun, not its mass. The mass units come from the constant, G, to provide a source for his force.
    All objects (other than subatomic particles) contain energy and radiate an energy field. This field expands until it meets an energy field of equal strength. The field from the sun compresses Venus’s field. When the field from the sun reaches the asteroid belt it becomes weak enough for the fields from asteroids to expand, allowing asteroids to orbit other asteroids, which is not possible according to their masses.

  89. TEWS_Pilot says:

    Two of my most admired Canadians were the RCAF exchange pilot who had flown with the Snow Birds and was my instructor during USAF undergraduate pilot training teaching me to fly the T-37 jet trainer, and the late Jim “Curly” Musgrave. Curly moved to the USA and became a hall of fame Western poet, songwriter, and singer. Every time I visted the Calgary Stampede, I thought of Curly.

    After watching the video, I have sympathy for the people being deprived of their rightful livelihood, but I have little sympathy for the majority of Canadians who have brought this disaster on themselves by continuing to elect fools and unscrupulous politicians who bow to the GAIA-worshipers and Globalists and are responsible for the destruction of this once proud and prosperous nation.

    Just like California, Canada differs from the Titanic only in that when the Titanic went under, it still had its lights on.

  90. Pierre D. Bernier says:

    I don’t want to over defend Canadians. They are just as dumb and victims as Californians.. We all thinks that we live in democraties but we really dont. It’s all about propaganda and perceptions and it’s the same here in Canada as in the U.S. The left is way better at it then the right and in the end people vote against who they fear most. The left will have you vote against your own best interest anytime just through well orchetrated propaganda. Since people are dumb they fall for it. Just look at the video above. Just have a well hidden agenda and you’re OK. Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba should form their own country together. They’d have the oil, the grains and the beef. All that you need. Only polititians will screew it up once again.

    We had a nice aeronautic program here in Canada called the Arrow program. The prime minister Diefenbaker scapped it because of costs and a coming election. He ordered all planes and plans destoyed. One Canadian pilot took one of the planes and flew to the U.S. never to be heard of again. Nor him. Nor the plane. Say thanks America.

    That is how bad things can go when polititians get a hold pf things.

  91. geran,

    I’m not seeing the point of your last comment, in terms of how it corrects any mistake you claim Rosco made. It seems like a statement of the obvious that Rosco captures.

    You cannot say that something is “just geometry”, when it is geometry that is being put to good use to figure the quantities for which the geometry defines. Rather, it is geometry APPLIED.

    So, I’m still not seeing the mistake you claim Rosco makes.

  92. geran says:

    Pierre, you made some really interesting points.

    Robert, my last comment was to add clarity. As I indicated, Rosco had the algebra correct. The Inverse Square Law is not caused by solar emission. Solar emission adheres to the Law. The Law is based on the geometry of a sphere.

    We see the Law not only in solar emission but also in electric fields, gravitation, and even sound propagation. The Law is simply about the geometry of an expanding sphere, nothing else.

  93. Rosco says:

    I don’t get what the problem is. I simply showed that you could derive the inverse square law using the SB equation and conserving energy. If only climate alarmists did this type of analysis they’d see their proposals often just don’t stack up.

    Actually all that I wrote is a first principle derivation of the inverse square law using the SB law for black body emission and the law of conservation of energy and I think that is pretty neat – confirming one law using simple principles based on another.

    Simply regurgitating text book stuff isn’t real knowledge – applying various laws in different situations to confirm other laws is.

    One should be able to prove theorems from first principles – all through my high school maths we were required to do this routinely to verify all sorts of maths theorems.

    I made 2 mistakes in my post above – I tried to write it out instead of posting the equations from the Dropbox image and I should have said “At Earth’s orbital radius ” instead of “At Earth’s radius” -although I did say that later in the same sentence.

  94. suitiepie says:

    🌦️ Gʀᴇᴇɴʜᴏᴜsᴇ Eғғᴇᴄᴛ Rᴇᴀʟ? | Jᴏsᴇᴘʜ E. Pᴏsᴛᴍᴀ 🐂💩

  95. TEWS_Pilot says:

    You put a lot of work into this video, well done. I assume the visual effects of viewing an old celluloid film of 1940s or 50s quality are intentional. I love the emoticons above the TV set.

  96. Joseph E. Postma says:

    Suit, I’d like to re-upload that vid to my own YouTube, but just can’t get it to download with any of the usual video download browser tools/addons. Could you upload it to google drive or something and then send me the download link? Just post the link here, I’ll download it, then remove the link…although it’s just Google bandwidth at that point.

  97. TEWS_Pilot says:

    Heads up for Canadians…..Justin Trudeau is Personally Trying to Silence Right-Wing Canadian Outlet Rebel Media.…he may also try to silence Canadian “Skeptics” even on YouTube.

    Ezra Levant

    At 5 p.m. tonight Justin Trudeau served us with a Notice of Appeal: he is suing to take away our media accreditation that the Federal Court gave us for the leaders debates.

    He filed the notice on Oct. 17, but kept it secret until the election was over.

  98. TEWS_Pilot says:

    Startup Free Speech Alternative to Google’s YouTube Censorship Machine Rolls Out Attractive New Features free speech video platform rolls out new features: Video categories, channel subscribes, viewer donations and more

  99. Not-in-my-name says:

    Good luck with getting your paper published.
    “The point being here that the standard global energy budget model depicts 324 Wm-2 of “Back Radiation” flowing to the Earth surface from the atmosphere, a quantity nearly two-times larger than the solar input of 168 Wm-2. ”
    There is a good illustration of why this cannot be true when we have frosty mornings or snow with the sun shining. The sun melts the frost and snow except in the shade, but the supposed backradiation which comes in every direction does not melt frost and snow in the shade.

    I have never seen a total solar eclipse but this apparently illustrates the same point. The air temperature drops rapidly and this is because it is the sun that is maintaining the air temperature.

Leave a Reply

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

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s