Watch “🌦️ Gʀᴇᴇɴʜᴏᴜsᴇ Eғғᴇᴄᴛ Rᴇᴀʟ? | Jᴏsᴇᴘʜ E. Pᴏsᴛᴍᴀ” on YouTube

The Lars document turned into a narrated vid by its producer!

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

226 Responses to Watch “🌦️ Gʀᴇᴇɴʜᴏᴜsᴇ Eғғᴇᴄᴛ Rᴇᴀʟ? | Jᴏsᴇᴘʜ E. Pᴏsᴛᴍᴀ” on YouTube

  1. suitiepie says:

    I hope you answer some of the technical jargon people may post since I’m not a scientist.

  2. suitiepie says:

    For example: ” CO2 has a molecular weight of 44, compared to nitogen of 28, so CO2 hugs the surface more, trapping heat in the lower layers of the atmosphere. Its very simple and very real science. What we do about it is what should be up for debate…”

  3. I will for sure. I’ll catch up if not right away…no worries!

  4. suitiepie says:

    Cheers mate. I wish I had all the answers, and I’m always learning. If I am proven to be wrong on something, unlike some people out there, I’ll adapt and correct myself and even apologise for wrong doings, which not too many people do today.

  5. We’re not wrong on this mate! I’ve put ten years into this and my career on the line to make sure your Lars material is correct. It’s binary: sun creates the climate, or climate creates itself because the sun can’t. Easy win 🙂

  6. suitiepie says:

    For me, it’s just living through so many so called global freezings and warmings that makes me simply say, enough. It’s all BS and political cash grab.

    Listening to the science behind it which validates my ‘lived experience/feelings’ is great. I’m just a prick on the internet with a mouth, straight talker, and people seem to like that about me. I’ll just call it as I see it.

  7. suitiepie says:

    Sometimes, it’s hard to change someone’s mind on something or break the programming if it’s been mainstream for so long. The side effect of breaking that programming is then they themselves are looked upon as they themselves looked upon us.

  8. That’s the challenge isn’t it. You have to be a real honest truth seeker to see beyond that and not give a shit.

  9. suitiepie says:

    Yep. And other times merely mocking the shit out of someone on a subject which is so stupid can sometimes wake that person up to.

  10. suitiepie says:

    Oh yeah as I said in the other thread. Feel free to download and cut, edit, add, remove whatever you want from the video.

    Might make a good video for you to have it playing and do a reaction video type thing, but instead of reacting to a soy warz trailer, you’d be pausing and adding additional information or extra explanations or comments on each part, even have a laugh at some of the clips I added.

    So yeah, full permission. Cut off my outro end song ‘Straya’ because that gets ticked as copyright music by YouTube. You dont get any strikes for it though. But if you’re channel is monetised, it will make this video non monetisable, so just chop the end song off. 🙂

  11. CD Marshall says:

    Great stuff suitiepie I liked the Fallout vibe intentional or not.

    Joseph that sparked a thought you really need an intro to your videos don’t you and an ending theme?

  12. CD Marshall says:

    Does anyone know what the average psia of water vapor is in the atmosphere? I’m assuming it changes dramatically from layers?

  13. CD Marshall says:

    Never mind I didn’t see the 14.7 psia at 1 atm. I must be going blind.

  14. CD Marshall says:

    So I was reading up on thermodynamics and I saw this: I’m guessing “closed system” is what they are teaching in climate these days that our atmosphere is a closed system? That must be what some of the climate clowns are referring to.

    “Based on the types of exchange that can take place we will define three types of systems:
    isolated systems: no exchange of matter or energy
    closed systems: no exchange of matter but some exchange of energy
    open systems: exchange of both matter and energy.”

  15. No they imply an open system it’s just that its all BS…lol

  16. CD Marshall says:

    Talking about irony…I just read this comment on Suit’s site…Good grief.

    “Earth is only an ‘open’ system for things like hydrogen and helium, most other molecules are gravitational held in the atmosphere to some extent.. otherwise earth would have a thin atmosphere like mars. CO2 has a molecular weight of 44, compared to nitogen of 28, so CO2 hugs the surface more, trapping heat in the lower layers of the atmosphere. Its very simple and very real science. What we do about it is what should be up for debate…”

  17. Yah strange comment!

  18. CD Marshall says:

    I responded a little:
    “CO2 has a molecular weight of 44, compared to nitrogen of 28, so CO2 hugs the surface more, trapping heat in the lower layers of the atmosphere.”

    Because of it’s molar mass it takes more energy to warm and maintain CO2 over the average air. That’s a cooling effect not a warming effect and it certainly does not “trap heat”. Climate politics loves to switch and bait water vapor and CO2. They do not have the same properties or react in the same way. Water vapor is the reason why temps last longer on the surface not CO2. Deserts don’t hold heat at night yet it is full of CO2 isn’t it? See classic switch and bait.

  19. Rosco says:

    I always thought the “experts” continually talk about CO2 as a “well mixed greenhouse gas” – kinda different to “hugs the surface more trapping heat in the lower layers of the atmosphere.”

    If CO2 has a powerful greenhouse effect AND it has increased in concentration by almost 43% – from an alleged 280 ppm to over 400 ppm – AND as people like Roy Spencer claim GHGs “lower the temperature Earth radiates to space whilst increasing the surface temperature” why do ALL the satellites, including his analysis, show MORE radiation to space – not less – AND why has no-one established and measured changes in the lapse rate as must occur under the tenets of the hypothesis – cooler upper, warmer lower?

  20. Rosco says:

    CD – CO2 has a higher mass but a lower specific heat so actually heats more for a given input of heat – for a kJ input CO2 will have a temperature rise of 1/.844 or ~1.2°C versus ~1°C for air.

    It only requires more energy if a closed volume is considered and this doesn’t relate to the atmosphere.

  21. … a fun video recap of everything we’ve tried to learn so far. (^_^)

  22. CD Marshall says:

    I was told it takes more to raise CO2 than the air around it in the atmosphere (by mass), not less, because of this an equal amount of air would warm up faster than an equal amount of CO2.

    So I guess I should have added that part for clarity. “An equal amount of air compared to CO2, the CO2 takes longer to warm up and maintain it’s temperature.”

  23. CO2 has a molecular weight of 44, compared to nitrogen of 28, so CO2 hugs the surface more, trapping heat in the lower layers of the atmosphere.

    This is such wrong thinking that it makes me cringe.

    First, do not forget that, for each CO2 molecule, there are 2500 other molecules of air. Those other 2500 molecules encapsulate CO2 molecules in turbulent mixing actions of the WHOLE atmosphere, whose force overcomes the force of gravity on CO2. The effect is to mix all air molecules fairly well, and so no layer of CO2 at the bottom of the atmosphere is possible — to claim the existence of such a layer is utterly ridiculous, let alone claiming that such a layer increases warmth near the surface.

  24. CD Marshall says:

    Believe it or not Robert, satellites have shown greater concentrations of CO2 around jungles at least according to NASA satellite data and yet the “maps” don’t show that at all. Funny I lost the link to that a while ago and I have never been able to find it again. The highest concentrations ran along the tropics of South America, Central Africa, India and Indonesia…Not urban areas as they were hoping.

  25. suitiepie says:

    Comment on my video for Joe:

    “Beau Maxwell 2 hours ago
    Suit, you are a fucking dolt. Look at Venus for an example of what happens as a result of a runaway greenhouse effect. Why do you think it’s significantly hotter than Mercury, despite being further away from the sun?”

  26. suitiepie says:

    Sᴜɪᴛ Yᴏᴜʀsᴇʟғ replies to Beau Maxwell:
    A dolt, for presenting someone’s information and then asking if you have questions for that person to answer?
    Did you even watch the entire video? If you did, and you’re presenting this question to me, then it is you that is the dolt.

    I’m no scientist, but Venus is another planet with another atmosphere. To me, it only re-inforces the argument that “Earth’ doesn’t have a Greenhouse atmosphere, for if it did, we’d be like Venus and we’d all burn to a crisp (interestingly enough, covered in this video, the burning to a crisp thing).

    Anyways, I have passed on this question to Joe for you.
    Have a great day.

  27. CD Marshall says:

    Joseph,
    You really need to do a video on Venus, it really has become the “Poster Planet” for global warming and don’t spare the science/math. I would start out with simple explanation for undergrads and climate grads/PhDs, and then go for the full technical science version to close it.

  28. suitiepie says:

    I agree with CD, and include information about C02, how it works.
    I’ll put your information from your video into another presentation if you like.

  29. suitiepie says:

    Listen to the smugness of this cunt, yet he calls me the smug one:

    Beau Maxwell 9 minutes ago
    @Sᴜɪᴛ Yᴏᴜʀsᴇʟғ I’m well aware you’re no scientist – that’s painfully obvious. Yet you have a smug tone and dismissive attitude towards, as you put it, “the so-called greenhouse effect.” And yes, Venus is another planet with another atmosphere, consisting mostly of….. CO2. Thunderf00t recently did a nice, simple video on this topic which you might be able to understand.

  30. suitiepie says:

    My reply to Beau Maxwell:

    Sᴜɪᴛ Yᴏᴜʀsᴇʟғ 6 minutes ago
    I love the underhanded attacks in your post mate, and you call me smug. Sound like a bit of a cunt to be honest, and not the good type.

    I’ve passed on your question to Joe.
    Looks like Venus is the “poster planet” for global warming.

    “the so-called greenhouse effect.” <– Not my words.

    I'm reading Joe's words and doing so with inflections.
    But you'd know this unless you're just an idiot?

    Oh wait… that's what you quoted.
    Never-mind. I retract my question.

  31. You will come to know that these people who believe in flat earth climate alarm are the the most smug cunts you can possibly imagine. They have no argument besides being smug cunts and avoiding the facts.

  32. suitiepie says:

    Not gonna put up with morons throwing underhanded shade at me when they are to stupid to understand a simple ‘inflection’ within reading. If that’s too complex then not wasting my time on them. I just blocked the cunt.

  33. That’s exactly what they do and how they argue…they can’t just discuss they ALWAYS have to insult too.

  34. suitiepie says:

    This: “I’m well aware you’re no scientist – that’s painfully obvious” is just unneeded. I mean, I’m reading your stuff, so by proxy it’s an insult to you too.

    The question is valid, there was no need for any of his BS which surrounded it.
    If you’re able to, I still think a video on Venus to debunk the poster planet is in order.

  35. Pierre D. Bernier says:

    suitiepie
    Ask that moron to explain this. He wont be able to get passed that one…
    From Robert Ian Holmes
    https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/dd17/e71f5e2c8ca3de2c4cc110ac49380b118612.pdf?_ga=2.202317654.619044460.1568144103-1210803403.1563538073

    When you use the right science you get the right results. From the Ideal Gas Law, PV = nRT you get T = PV/nR = PM/dR where T=temperature, P=pressure, M=molar mass, d=density and R=gas constant(8.3145).

    From NASA itself, Venus near surface data, T=740…
    P=9200, M=43.45, d=65, T=739.7 ~ 740. No runaway GHGE there. All explained.
    From NASA itself, Earth near surface data, T=288…
    P=101.3, M=28.97, d=1.225, T=288.1 ~ 288. No GHGE there. All explained.

    There is not, never has, never will, anywhere, be any GHGE. NEVER EVER !!! Not even on planet Beta in solar system Zeta !!! NEVER EVER !!! It is not only the Ideal Gas Law, it is the Universal Gas Law !!! It’s all about adiabatic auto-compression due to gravity.

    Heck. It even works for Antarctica, T=224…
    P=68.13, M=28.97, d=1.06, T=223.9 ~ 224. No GHGE there either. All explained.

  36. CD Marshall says:

    Joseph says, “OK.”

    Not thrilled about this I see? I suppose you could make it shorter than usual. Just the cold hard facts and end it. Remember you’re not doing this for the alarmists, they don’t care about scientific facts. You’re doing it for the honest average Joe/Jane that gets tricked by the climate trolls with using Venus as proof of global warming when it’s the farthest thing from the truth. Think of me 11 months ago when the first question I asked was about Venus and the confusion of the runaway greenhouse effect… It’s still posted on here somewhere.

  37. Suitiepie,
    You’re asking about Venus. The most profound difference between the twin planets of Earth and Venus, is that Venus is a slow rotator and Earth is a fast rotator. The day on Venus lasts 2808 hours, which is longer than its year (NASA Venus Factsheet). The effect of this slow rate of daily rotation of Venus on its planetary climate is truly profound.
    There are four terrestrial bodies in our solar system with gaseous atmospheres Venus, Earth, Mars and Saturn’s giant moon Titan. Earth and Mars are fast rotators and have 3 atmospheric cells per hemisphere (Hadley, Ferrel and Polar); Venus and Titan are slow rotators and have only a single Hadley cell per hemisphere.
    On Venus (and also Titan) the day and night time surface air temperatures are almost identical. There is no observed nighttime cooling on these two worlds. The explanation for this is simple. Daily rotation rate is the overarching control on climate.

    See my essay here for further details and links:-
    https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/comparative-planetology-establishing-role-meteorology-mulholland/

  38. George says:

    Suitiepie,

    How do I get to your site and the exchanges you are having with the AGW clowns? I click on your name and go to your ‘dumpster’ but don’t see any comments. Thanks!

  39. It’s on the YouTube comments.

  40. Mark Munro says:

    Venus temperature due to greenhouse effect? Mars teraforming relies on our ablity to leverage the greenhouse effect? All lies?

  41. Yes…all wrong. Mars needs more atmosphere…good luck with that.

  42. References to the greenhouse effect are wrong…thickening the atmosphere is correct, but I doubt you could actually do that. Then again if you enough nukes…

    Mars doesn’t have the gravity to hold onto much atmosphere though. But yah you need more mass of atmosphere, and h2o at the triple point for a latent heat cycle. Actually I’ve done calculations on that…the Sun is significantly weaker at Mars and there the latent heat phase of water will prevent higher temperatures than 0C, whereas here at Earth the sun can heat beyond the latent heat barriers and then that latent heat comes out at the poles.

    This fake climate GHE has people extremely confused.

  43. Mark Munro says:

    Joseph, Thank you so much for the work you have done. How do we enlighten Trudeau that his plans for dealing with climate change are misguided? He talks about saving the planet for future generations by reducing CO2. Seems to me this is counter to everything you are saying, and the depletion of CO2 will be our demise, not an excess. I will do my part to spread your message. Thank you again.

  44. George says:

    Joe, Thanks!

  45. CD Marshall says:

    As a nonscientific persona I don’t see anyway of transforming Mars under current technology. Building underground and using biospheres seems the only logical move to colonize. Wouldn’t uing nukes make the planet inhabitable?

    Due to radiation concerns wouldn’t you have to build in protected environments anyway?

  46. Pierre D. Bernier says:

    Mark Munro
    It’s like diversification will make us stronger. Ya ! Sure ! Take a hard long look at the electoral map to see how much we are united and strong.
    Atlantic Provinces = RED
    Quebec (ex-Montreal) = FULL BLUE & LIGHT BLUE
    Montreal & Toronto (+suburbs) = FULL RED
    Ontario (ex-Toronto) & westward = FULL BLUE

    Four diferent countries. How united “/$%?&* . We look like fuckin Yugoslavia thanks to him ! May he go to hell !!!

  47. Mark Munro says:

    Education is needed and Joseph is a great start. If all of Canada learned that the climate crisis is a lie, the country could unite around our ability to produce and innovate. I believe people confuse pollution and CO2. Pollution is real. CO2 is not pollution.

  48. suitiepie says:

    Thank you Pierre D. Bernier. Thank you Philip Mulholland.

    I have copied and pasted both of your posts to his comment.

  49. Believe it or not Robert, satellites have shown greater concentrations of CO2 around jungles at least according to NASA satellite data …

    Oh, I could believe it, if the satellites measured during a time of particular calm atmosphere, but the reason I’m guessing is not so much the greater mass of CO2, but rather the greater CONTINUAL volume of CO2 being produced by all that vegetation, both living and decaying. And even, at other times, I could see this amount of living/breathing-CO2 activity making a dent in the readings.

    There’s a dynamic process going on there, and there is a net result of all the forces in play that could very well lean towards greater CO2 concentrations in those regions. Generally, though, I think the well-mixed argument might be supported, with reference to the whole planet.

  50. About Venus,

    My understanding is: … very little sunlight actually reaches the surface of Venus, and so that right there kills the back-radiation/slowing-cooling argument. All that Venusian CO2 has nothing to work with to perform its magical gassy catastrophism. If the CO2 is warming the planet, then it is NOT because of any “radiative greenhouse effect”, because this supposed radiative mechanism is virtually not there on Venus.

    Let’s talk length of day, now, which is close to an Earth year, and atmospheric density, which is 92 times greater than Earth. Mmmm, maybe these facts have something to do with it.

  51. Mark Munro says:

    Practical examples like this are how we will explain to the population that they are being lied to. Thanks Robert.

  52. Rosco says:

    Chris

    “So I guess I should have added that part for clarity. “An equal amount of air compared to CO2, the CO2 takes longer to warm up and maintain it’s temperature.””

    One kilojoule of energy will result in one kilogram of CO2 attaining a higher temperature than 1 kilogram of air because it has a lower specific heat. The air will always heat up slower.

    Where this does not apply is in a closed system such as the “experiments” using bottles of air, CO2 and thermometers as seen purporting to prove a back radiative greenhouse effect.

    In this scenario the molar mass becomes critical because equal volumes of gases at STP contain the same number of moles of gas – eg Avagadro’s number of 6.02 x 10^23 molecules in 22.4 litres.

    In this scenario – equal volumes of gas in bottles – the higher molar mass of CO2 becomes more important than its specific heat – it takes ~1.3 kJ of energy to raise the temperature of CO2 by 1°C versus ~1 for ordinary air versus 0.844 per kilo of CO2.

    The thermometers do not even record the actual gas temperatures initially but are responding to the incident radiation. The reason CO2 attains a higher temperature than the air is simply that CO2 is a better insulator than air – which is excellent anyway.

    The thermometer in the CO2 is losing less energy by thermal conductivity that the one in the air bottle and will remain at a higher temperature but it cannot be assumed to be recording the gas temperature.

    It is simple to prove for yourself that incident radiation can heat a thermometer to a higher temperature than the surrounding air – get some sort of spotlight and 2 thermometers. Heat one with the spotlight and place the other close but shielded and observe the difference.

    As with all climate “science” their interpretations are often little more than smoke and mirrors.

  53. CD Marshall says:

    Robert,
    When I had the data I looked and wrote down all the countries the higher CO2 was in and did temperatures for those countries. Naturally what I found is what Joseph had already shown years ago, deserts were the hottest areas not water vapor/CO2 mass concentrations.

    I have brought this up to trolls. Their response?

    “You don’t understand how radiative forcing works.”

    Yeah, they said that. It’s magic baby, it’ pure magic!

  54. CD Marshall says:

    Joseph you have a cockroach on your channel. His name is SlayerofFiction he’s on the “Real Climate Physics vs. Fake Political Physics” post on YT. He sounds like a Roy Troll to be honest and he’s not open for a discussion sally. As my brother has said many times, “you’re either looking for a conversation or an argument and I don’t argue.”

  55. Marshall Rosenthal says:

    Please take a course in physics.

  56. Malcolm A Smith says:

    Well hot damn Joe this is your best post to date. I laughed out loud. While the British accent denotes intelligence. We’re smarter you’re smarter than a Brit. I shared this post with my brother. He’s 27 years Air Force/NSA. He’s a spy. And considered the top 10% highest IQ in the military. He’s now convinced of the climate change hoax. Good job again. And very entertaining.

  57. Malcolm A Smith says:

    Well hot damn Joe this is your best post to date. I laughed out loud. While the British accent denotes intelligence. We’re smarter you’re smarter than a Brit. I shared this post with my brother. He’s 27 years Air Force/NSA. He’s a spy. And considered the top 10% highest IQ in the military. He’s now convinced of the climate change hoax. Good job again. And very entertaining.

  58. Pierre D. Bernier says:

    CDM
    / “You don’t understand how radiative forcing works.” /
    I know I posted this before, but, for the benefit of the new comers…

    Here are the average daily spread between the maximum and minimum temperatures, for January-February, and for July-August, for different cities…
    ________________________ J-F _ J-A
    N’Djamena, Tchad _________ 18 ___ 9
    Las Vegas, NV ____________ 17 __ 21
    Mexico City, MX ___________ 17 __ 12
    Niamey, Niger _____________ 15 __ 10
    Ulan Bator, Mongolia _______ 15 __ 13
    Wichita, KS ______________ 14 __ 14
    Shizuishan, China (Gobi) ___ 13 __ 11
    Los Angeles, CA _________ 10 ___10
    Nassau, Bahamas _________ 9 ___ 8
    Montreal, QC _____________ 8 ___ 8
    Papete, Tahiti _____________ 7 ___ 8
    Lima, Peru _______________ 7 ___ 4
    Miami, FL ________________ 7 ___ 6
    New York, NY _____________ 7 ___ 8
    Seatle,WA _______________ 7 ___ 11
    Rio de Janeiro, Brazil ______ 6 ____ 6

    Notice anything ? All the desert cities with no water of significance around them have big daily temperature spreads. All those cities with big water surroundings have smaller daily temperature spreads. Water slows things down going up during the day and slows things down going down during the night. What a wonderfull thing water is. No need for CO2.

  59. CD Marshall says:

    Excellent example Pierre, and thank you it supports my findings so I know I’m on the right track. The weird thing is if CO2 warms faster than the average air and it’s highly concentrated around humid jungles, the temps are still lower not higher than desert areas. Co2 “hugging the surface” in places is not increasing or maintaining the temps longer or is it that water vapor negates any CO2 contribution?

    “Please take a course in physics” if that was directed at me won’t help. I need about 4 years of physics, advanced math, chemistry and things I don’t even know I need to wrap my head around this science. Apparently, even that won’t validate my understanding. PhDs struggle with Joseph’s simplicity and they are suppose to be brilliant…The brightest minds of our century and all that.

  60. Pierre D. Bernier says:

    CDM
    Water has a molar specific heat capacity of 75.32 J/mol.
    CO2 has a molar specific heat capacity of 37.35 J/mol.
    Water being 95% of greenhouse gases and CO2 less then 5%, who do you think wins. Easy !!!
    Water over-overwhelms CO2 and negates any CO2 effect, up or down !

  61. Pierre D. Bernier says:

    A most wonderful comment by Julian Fell, October 3, 2019 at 2:12 am
    https://principia-scientific.org/controlled-opposition-the-strategy-to-stymie-real-climate-debate/
    Look in the comment section below. A must read !

  62. CD Marshall says:

    The leader of ISIS is dead.
    Trump made it look like the US was pulling out of Syria and as they were “pulling out” a strike force went in after the ISIS leader. Instead of surrendering he blew himself up. I would imagine an act of complete bravery is an insult to most leaders world wide.

  63. Herb Rose says:

    The higher concentration of CO2 in the tropics could be due to the higher temperatures. The solubility of CO2 in water decreases with increasing temperature. It is water that not only moderates the Earth’ temperature but controls the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.

  64. CD Marshall says:

    I have a 104 temps easily available to me well placed over the world in capitols and/or major cities and I like to do a quick stat from time to time to see what the average temps are world wide.
    What I have found interesting this time of year like right now 21 locations were 80F or over and this is a little higher than normal. 37 were 50F or lower which is pretty average. Meaning that the rest were between 51F-79F=42 locations.

    I like stats fro some reason.
    Highest current temps is in Paramaribo, Suriname (South America) at 93F/34C
    Lowest Temps is in Oymyakon, Russia at 8F/-14C

  65. CD Marshall says:

    Interesting end to a comment over at PSI,
    “The oceans contain about 1500 times more heat than does the climate atmosphere. This is about 12 times more heat than is contained in the Venusian atmosphere so I think it can be legitimately argued that Earth is actually warmer than Venus…”

  66. oldbrew says:

    Venus has a surface pressure of 93 bar. That’s why it’s hot – end of story.

  67. I’ll do the video don’t worry guys – it’s extremely simple!

  68. CD Marshall says:

    Joseph,
    Just reading someone’s comment over at PSI and “she” is still obsessed with geothermal. What on Earth is this neurotic obsession?

  69. CD Marshall says:

    Love Geran’s comment (I’m reading comments from Pierre’s link to PSI)

    “Spencer states” “Well, I’m Going To Go Ahead And Say It: THE PRESENCE OF COOLER OBJECTS CAN, AND DO, CAUSE WARMER OBJECTS TO GET EVEN HOTTER.”

    Spencer has admitted he does not understand the relevant physics, but he contiinues to try to twist things to fit his beliefs. I tried to help him years ago, but got censored. I notice this morning that he has now censored others that were trying to help.

    Not only is he not a physicist, he is not a scientist.

    The truth will always out.”

  70. Bentstrut says:

    Re; venus.. probes sent to venus during the penetration recorded pressure and temp at nearly all altitudes during decent. Lo and behold at a standard pressure of 29.9 the dense co2 atmosphere was the same as earth.

  71. tom0mason says:

    I’ll just post a comment I made on another site about ‘carbon sequestration’

    “The atmosphere is NOT an isolated bio-system, it is part of the structural and biological global system of this beautiful planet.
    If you ‘decarbonize’ the atmosphere then the CO2 partial pressure differential with the oceans/seas/lakes/etc. would increase, and CO2 would vent from them to reestablish an atmospheric equilibrium!
    If at the current oceanic SST (sea surface temperature) and global atmospheric temperatures, the atmospheric CO2 level must be 410ppm, then that is where it will be.
    NO AMOUNT of CO2 sequestration will prevent it. ”

    I hope people here see the message, the oceans have far more CO2 in them than the atmosphere. Thus the oceans are the key to maintaining the CO2 equilibrium between the atmosphere & oceans dependent on the what the sun does.

    The idea that humans can make a major impact on atmospheric CO2 levels over long periods is just stupid. It is as stupid as believing (for that is all anyone has) that atmospheric CO2 heats-up the atmosphere, or traps heat in the upper atmosphere, or (even more banally) can radically change the climate.
    To anyone that hold those anti-science beliefs, I would say show me the verified empirical evidence for the effect.

  72. Keir says:

    Am I missing something? The video bangs on about the solar radiation being divided by 4. That’s not controversial is it? Why is that an issue? The radiation from the sun is blocked by the disc of the Earth. That disc has an area of π r^2. (That gives you the area of the solar flux that is interrupted by the Earth) but that energy is spread over the surface of the globe (over 24 hours), which has a surface area of 4 π r^2. which is 4 times the area of the disc. (4 π r^2) / ( π r^2) = 4. So yes, in terms of energy balance, the surface of the Earth receives on average 1/4 the intensity of the incident solar radiation. What am I missing here?

  73. Pierre D. Bernier says:

    While we’re at it…. Another super critical and interesting comment on PSI
    Mark Pawelek, October 20, 2019 at 7:54 am
    https://principia-scientific.org/the-circular-reasoning-greenhouse-gas-theory-argument/
    Key notes…
    Radiatively active gases do not “trap heat”. So-called “greenhouse gas” absorbs and emits infrared radiation. It’s a relay, not a trap. Infrared travels at near the speed of light in earth’s atmosphere. So warmth isn’t held for long.

    The temperature at which CO2 is more likely to emit than absorb can be calculated from Planck’s Law. For the main CO2 band of 667 cm-¹, the equilibrium temperature is -77.8C (see Jinan Cao[2] ). Very cold. Above this temperature, CO2 will more likely emit than absorb. At -77.8C and below, CO2 is “trapping heat”.

    DESTROY SPENCER, DESTROY SPENCER, DESTROY SPENCER…

  74. Pierre D. Bernier says:

    Hi geran
    I was re-reading Julian Fell’s post on PSI and got down to your posts. Having read previous posts by Jerry Krause I noticed that the guy has read Gallieo, Newton, Arhenius and who knows who else but i never saw him site Connolly, Holmes or Postma. Is he stuck in some abbey somewhere in a past century ?

  75. Pierre D. Bernier says:

    Following Julian Fell’s post, I got back to calculating…

    The bare rock temperature of Earth is supposedly -18C average. We observe a 15C average for a 33C discrepancy. With a measured lapse rate of 6.5C/km, we get to -18C at about 5km up in the atmosphere. As Julian says, anything above that 5km is too cold and will not heat back up the Earth so our climate atmosphere is really only about 5000m high. Taking into account the specific heat capacity and density of sea water and air, 1 cubic meter of sea water cooling 1°C can heat up 3277 cubic meters of air 1°C. Stack those 3277 cubic meters of air one on top of the other and you get a 3277 meters high column at constant pressure. Pressure and density lowering with height should get you to about a 5000 meters high column. So Julian is quite right in saying that the top 1m of the oceans contains as much heat as our entire climate atmosphere. Since the oceans are in fact deeper then 1m and that the Sun can penetrate up to 50m in the water and heat it up, then by implication, he is right in claiming that it is the oceans that regulate our climate, not the atmosphere. Forget CO2 !

  76. @Keir,

    The instantaneous input, which is divided by four to “average” it over the entire surface of the Earth…does not actually spread over the entire surface of the Earth at once as an input.

    “So yes, in terms of energy balance, the surface of the Earth receives on average 1/4 the intensity of the incident solar radiation. What am I missing here?”

    You’re missing that this is not a physical reality…that Earth’s surface receiving on average 1/4 the intensity of sunlight does not physically exist, and this is not how sunlight drives the system, nor is this how the physics and thermodynamics of the system operates.

    Please go see my YT channel and watch some videos:

    https://www.youtube.com/c/ClimateOfSophistry

  77. Gary Ashe says:

    As Joe says.

    The surface doesn’t receive an average, it receives double the average for half the time.
    The earth is a perfect loaf.
    The radiative greenhouse effect hypothesis is a lump of hard dough.

    The cook book says to cook loaf for 2 hours at 200c and then cool for 2 hours in oven to crisp.
    A perfect loaf, perfect heat intensity and distribution.

    A greenshouse loaf is cooked for 4 hours at 100c same amount of heat same amount of time.
    The greenhouse effect is a political construct based on Fisher Price phyzzic’s.

  78. I’m getting quite a few of the usual Luke Warmers reacting to this video on my Facebook page. Willis Eschenbach from WUWT infamy has popped in to repost his Steel Greenhouse and ask for people to “quote the exact words you disagree with”. I responded by telling him the exact words I disagreed with began at the first word of his article and ended with the last. About a dozen people have torn his arguments to shreds so far, but he hasn’t returned to respond to any of the rebuttals. I also have this clown called Alfons who appears to be burdened with a physics degree to such an extent that he defends the flat earth diagram on the one hand but tells me I shouldn’t use the blackbody temperature values that are in them to debunk the diagrams with.

  79. At this point these people are an object of study unto themselves. Willis…thinks that he can get around conservation of energy by invoking rounding error! lol

  80. geran says:

    Keir says: “What am I missing here?”

    Keir, the divide-by-4 nonsense originated with the bogus “energy balance”, trying to “prove” Earth’s temperature was increasing due to the equally bogus GHE.

    But, temperature is an intensive property. That means it can NOT be arbitrarily added, subtracted, multiplied, divided, etc. For example, if a container of water is at a temperature of 100º, and the water is equally divided among 4 containers, each remains at 100º. You have divided the original mass by 4, but the temperature remains the same. Mass is “extensive”, but temperature is “intensive”.

    Solar flux is a power flux, which can be related to temperature by the Stefan-Boltzmann Law. A flux of 960 Watts/m^2 then corresponds to 361 K (87C, 190F). But 960/4 = 240 Watts/m^2 corresponds to a temperature of 255 K (-18C, -0.5F). BIG difference.

    By dividing by 4, the sophists can make it appear the Sun is unable to warm the planet. Many of their followers then actually believe that. It makes it easier to sell the false concept that CO2 is making up for the Sun.

  81. geran says:

    wickedwenchfan says: “Willis Eschenbach from WUWT infamy has popped in to repost his Steel Greenhouse…”

    wwf, it would be interesting to invite Willis to comment here. He doesn’t understand the relevant physics, but is quite intelligent and seems willing to learn. If he were to comment here, and we didn’t insult him, Joseph could likely help him to understand.

  82. geran says:

    An interesting footnote about Willis: Several years ago, Spencer attacked Willis for nothing more than being able to think for himself. Spencer apparently resented the fact that Willis was getting more of the spotlight than he was.

    Anyone that Spencer attacks can’t be all bad….

  83. Keir Watson says:

    @geran. Thanks for that. Just for starters, I’m not a AGW advocarte: I’m quite sceptical, but I am interested in sorting out the proper counter arguments from the dross. (Example of the dross is the argument about the ideal gas law predicting temperatures which I have seen many times and appears in some comments above. It is a demonstration of basic misconception about the physics) So I want to make sure the issue with “dividing by 4” is clear. In the video it is presented as if this is a deliberate attempt to match the incoming flux to the outgoing flux, which is a derisory conclusion and does not help your case.

    With regards the foolishness of ignoring the day/night sides of the Earth, this is clearly going to affect the dynamics of the system : I’ve got no argument with that, although I didn’t think the video explained what difference it would make ir why.

    I am a bit bothered, though, that you seem to conflate energy fluxes with temperature. Unlike temperature, energy is extensive, so it can be divided. The analogy that one commenter gave about baking a loaf was also inappropriate for the same reason. A better analogy would be a dinner kebab. The incoming energy from the element is constant (like the sun’s energy), but the Kebab (Earth) rotates in it’s beam. There is nothing wrong per-se in terms of overall energy balance of dividing by 4 (in the case of the sun/earth) and talking about average fluxes, clearly, the distribution (day/night; Poles/equator) will determine the local effects (hotter in the day and at the equator), but that does not change the overall energy budget.

    I accept that you may have a valid point, but so far you have failed to communicate it. I want to get your point, because I want to communicate it more clearly. I teach physics and regularly argue against AGW but students deserve persuasive arguments. I’d like to see the /4 flaw expressed convincingly.

  84. Keir:

    And please all of the other videos too.

  85. Also, flux is not simply energy – it is energy per second per square meter, and can be converted to a temperature using the Stefan-Boltzmann Law. Flux is local. The input flux is NOT equal to the output flux even though the total energy is the same, and, it is the local flux which determines what physical reactions take place. Thus, the energy budgets which equate total energies cannot actually represent the local fluxes, and thus, they cannot actually represent the physics. The averaged energy budgets are thus fictions, and can only be used in the most simplistic of ways. They certainly cannot be used to represent physical dynamics, because those dynamics occur with real-time local fluxes, not time and space averaged values.

  86. To Keir:

    Am I missing something?

    Yes, but don’t worry — if you are a rational person, then eventually you will get it, after reading and studying this and related information multiple times.

    The video bangs on about the solar radiation being divided by 4. That’s not controversial is it?

    Among misguided folks who continue dividing solar radiation by 4, of course this is not controversial. The point of the video, however, is NOT to propagate this falsehood shared by so many. The point is to correct this absurdity. For those of us who support correcting the absurdity, YES, this IS controversial. Even more, it is ridiculously so.

    Why is that an issue? The radiation from the sun is blocked by the disc of the Earth. That disc has an area of π r^2. (That gives you the area of the solar flux that is interrupted by the Earth) but that energy is spread over the surface of the globe (over 24 hours), which has a surface area of 4 π r^2. which is 4 times the area of the disc. (4 π r^2) / ( π r^2) = 4.

    The issue is that the SPREADING of energy that occurs from the hemisphere receiving radiation does NOT occur evenly and simultaneously over the entire surface of the globe at once, which is what the math of the simple greenhouse-effect model means.

    Rather, the solar energy enters the hemisphere at a far greater power density than one-fourth of itself, enacts real-time, real-location, physical processes that reshape that energy by the laws of those particular processes, where there is NO AVERAGE amount of actual sun doing those specific, real-time, real-location processes of energy transformation and re-distribution.

    “Average solar flux”, then, is a meaningless average, with respect to the real physics of Earth’s climate. “Average solar flux” is a pseudo-average that is mathematically a correct handling of bare numbers on paper, but a grossly incorrect handling of actual numbers that represent physically real things and processes.

    So yes, in terms of energy balance, the surface of the Earth receives on average 1/4 the intensity of the incident solar radiation. What am I missing here?

    No. This is where you are seeing things incorrectly. In terms of energy balance, the Earth receives the full brunt of solar intensity on its HALF SPHERE, and, through real-time, real-location, actual, physical processes, transforms and redistributes this energy in a fashion that this energy radiates OUT over the WHOLE sphere at 1/4 the intensity of its full incident power density.

    So, you are missing the consideration of these real-time, real-location processes that use real values of solar power density IN THOSE MOMENTS to do the energy transformations resulting in the 1/4 output that you, and others, try to assign as the input too, which is completely wrong.

    You are so focused on a balance that you fail to grasp how this balance is NOT represented by a simple algebraic average that ignores the specific power density interactions producing actual climate processes of energy transformation.

  87. Robert – wonderful! 🙂

  88. Again to Keir:

    I am a bit bothered, though, that you seem to conflate energy fluxes with temperature. Unlike temperature, energy is extensive, so it can be divided.

    I think that we should clarify the terms, “energy flux”, “energy”, and “temperature”. You seem to equate the ideas energy flux and energy, but these are not the same things. Energy would be a measure in units of, say, joules, whereas energy flux would be a measure in units of, say, joules per second per meter squared.

    While energy (joules) can be divided, flux (joules per meter per second squared) cannot.

    The Stefan-Boltzmann equation DOES relate energy FLUX to temperature, and so this is not a conflation. This equation, however, is misused, unfortunately, by those who push the false narrative.

    The analogy that one commenter gave about baking a loaf was also inappropriate for the same reason.

    If you were up to speed, then you would see that the baking-loaf analogy was NOT inappropriate.

    A better analogy would be a dinner kebab. The incoming energy from the element is constant (like the sun’s energy), but the Kebab (Earth) rotates in it’s beam.

    It is not a better analogy, but rather a more precise illustration of the problem — you just haven’t realizing it yet. Consider your Kebab very carefully — is there any moment where it is getting cooked by 1/4 of the beam’s power? NO — at some real location on the Kebab, at some real moment of its cooking, the Kebab is being cooked with the full power of the beam. There is NEVER, NEVER, NEVER a real moment where 1/4 power is doing any actual cooking of the Kebab.

    There is nothing wrong per se in terms of overall energy balance of dividing by 4 (in the case of the sun/earth) and talking about average fluxes,

    Yes, there most certainly IS something wrong in those terms. Where is any average flux EVER doing any real-time, real-location process that any proper physics can represent? ANSWER: Nowhere. Ever!

    clearly, the distribution (day/night; Poles/equator) will determine the local effects (hotter in the day and at the equator), but that does not change the overall energy budget.</b.

    If by "overall energy budget", you mean energy-in balancing with energy-out, then I would agree. But if you mean those energy budget diagrams that use the divide-by-four solar input, then, you are describing the very falsehood yet again that is the problem. Those energy budgets use the divide-by-four number, which makes them trash from the get go. You admit to local effects, and, thus, should realize that these local affects are determined by actual flux inputs NOT represented on those diagrams.

    I accept that you may have a valid point, but so far you have failed to communicate it. I want to get your point, because I want to communicate it more clearly. I teach physics and regularly argue against AGW but students deserve persuasive arguments. I’d like to see the /4 flaw expressed convincingly.

    I’m not sure what particular combination of words you might consider any more clear. When we use basic language to explain a basic error, it’s really hard to get any more clear than that. Again, I think it is a matter of repetition — reading it over and over again, and really thinking hard about it, .. trying to get past the illusion of a simple mathematical balance that hides real processes represented by real physics.

    I am afraid that the failing is yours, BUT it’s NOT your fault — you have been set up masterfully to fail by the sophists at all levels of learning that allow it to continue.

    I encourage you to hang in there.

  89. geran says:

    Keir says: “I am a bit bothered, though, that you seem to conflate energy fluxes with temperature.”

    Keir, I am a bit bothered that you got so confused.

    I never used the term “energy fluxes”, in my comment. In fact, I never used the word “energy” except when I mentioned “energy balance”, and there it was preceded by the descriptive adjective “bogus”. IOW, I NEVER did what you implied I did.

    You claim you want to learn, but you appear more interested in trying to invent reasons not to learn.

  90. Messed up my bold text near the end of my last post (next to last bold paragraph is my words), Grrrrrrrrrrrrr!

  91. geran says:

    Joseph, you outdid yourself here:

    https://climateofsophistry.com/2019/10/26/watch-🌦%EF%B8%8F-gʀᴇᴇɴʜ%E1%B4%8F%E1%B4%9Csᴇ-eғғᴇ%E1%B4%84ᴛ-rᴇᴀʟ-j%E1%B4%8Fsᴇᴘ/#comment-52561

    In about 100 words, you devastated the GHE “energy balance” nonsense.

    Mega-kudos!

  92. Pierre D. Bernier says:

    Keir
    To get a reaction going you need to get the system above the transition energy state.
    https://chem.libretexts.org/@api/deki/files/43791/Transitionstate_graph2.bmp?revision=1&size=bestfit&width=428&height=273
    If you dont do that, no reaction. It’s exactly like that for the cooking of the turkey or the pig. It’s the same for the Earth. Flux/4 give no climate (-18C). Flux/2 creates a climate (29C).

  93. tom0mason says:

    It may be instructive for people to look up what scalars and vectors are, and understand what their differences are when mathematically manipulating them.
    Scalar or vector?
    Heat, temperature, energy, energy flux, etc.

  94. Gary Ashe says:

    Any way its Electro Dynamics modulating the gas columns and climates below.

    Look what happens when the CMIP 6 model with the space weather module is run.
    They have to tune out Co2 forcing completely.

    And miracle of miracles from 2022 all IPCC modellers have to use that model.
    So far only 5% are using it from what i have been reading, i cant imagine why the IPCC are doing it.

    It destroys their narrative, their stated mission, but apparantly theres so much internal pressure they have to.

  95. In regards to Willis and Roy. Both are among my Facebook
    “friends” and both occasionally comment on my posts. They tend both to do hit and runs. They will post nonsense in a comment, invite a response, maybe respond once, but generally run away like little girls if they get pushback. Until the next post, where they will come back and post the same crap all over again and repeat the habit. So, no, inviting them here won’t help. They’ve been here in the past as well and know they are outmatched. They’ve had all the rebuttals before, but the egos of both are too fragile and protected to ever allow them to admit stupidity.

  96. Keir Watson says:

    Geran said “ I never used the term “energy fluxes”, in my comment. In fact, I never used the word “energy” except when I mentioned “energy balance”, and there it was preceded by the descriptive adjective “bogus”. IOW, I NEVER did what you implied I did.”

    Except you did:
    “ Solar flux is a power flux, which can be related to temperature by the Stefan-Boltzmann Law. A flux of 960 Watts/m^2 then corresponds to 361 K (87C, 190F). But 960/4 = 240 Watts/m^2 corresponds to a temperature of 255 K (-18C, -0.5F). BIG difference.”

    So what is the bottom line? Which part of the AGW model does this invalidate specifically? I assume your 87C vs -18C values are just to make the point that the calculated value of the non-ghg atmospheric earth would not be starting a from -18C? Is that your point?

  97. Keir Watson says:

    Robert Kernodle said “ You seem to equate the ideas energy flux and energy, but these are not the same things. Energy would be a measure in units of, say, joules, whereas energy flux would be a measure in units of, say, joules per second per meter squared.
    While energy (joules) can be divided, flux (joules per meter per second squared) cannot.”
    Yes, thank you, I understand the difference between energy and energy flux, and the relevant units. However, you can divide an energy flux. A good example is when rays strike a surface obliquely, then the power is spread over a larger area. For example, an incoming solar flux of 960 Watts/m^2 striking the atmosphere at 30degrees will impart a flux of 960 x sin(30) = 480 W/m^2 I.e half.
    I think the more important point here is that the unequal distribution of solar radiation (equator vs poles and day/night) may produce different effects in terms of outgoing radiation (frequency and intensity) than using the flat-earth divide by four models. I’m not convinced from a theoretical point of view that a simple flux model of a spherical rotating Earth gives a different value for the average global temperature (of a non-ghg Earth of -18C). Or perhaps it does (is that what Lord Monckton has been talking about recently?)

  98. geran says:

    Keir, you just proved you don’t know the difference between “power” and “energy”.

    Even after both Robert K. and Joseph explained the difference to you.

    Which further proves my point: “You claim you want to learn, but you appear more interested in trying to invent reasons not to learn.”

  99. geran says:

    wwf, I have seen such irresponsibility from Spencer, but was sorry to learn Willis has resorted to similar tactics.

  100. The average global temperature is what it is. No problem there. Your example of an oblique surface goes to the point of real-time in-situ physics, whereas sunlight spread over the entire surface of Earth at once never exists at all. Physics is real-time, requiring real-time forces to explain the responses.

  101. See here, and please let us know if you’re watching these:

  102. Rosco says:

    Keir it is really simple.

    The average is physically meaningless except in the points on the globe where the real time insolation approximates the value.

    The cosine of 60° is 0.5. Multiply this by 1361 (NASA’s solar constant) and multiply this by 0.7 – Earth’s stated average albedo – and you arrive at 476.35 W/m2.

    Now look at a globe and see how large the area defined by 60°N, 60°E, 60°S and 60°W is. It is approximately 1/4 of the surface area of a sphere unless I’ve stuffed my maths up again.

    The solid angle of a cone whose cross-section subtends the angle 120 is: 2Pi(1 – cos 60) steradian = 2 x Pi x 0.5 = Pi steradian and there are 4 pi steradian in a sphere.

    This area is continuously potentially heated by the Sun to AT LEAST (476.35/sigma)^0.25 = ~ 303 Kelvin or ~30°C. That is the real time potential heating capacity of the Sun.

    In the tropics this becomes ~873 W/m2 with a potential heating of ~352 K or 79°C and this roughly corresponds to ~ 10% of the earth’s area.

    Or think of this – if you believe the thermodynamic effect of the flux spread out is the same then this example may change your mind.

    Suppose I irradiate a square metre of cake with 2,397 W/m2 for one hour. It will absorb 2,397 Whours and it will reach a temperature of 457.44 K or 180°C.

    Now I irradiate this same square metre of cake with 239.7 W/m2 (1/10 of the original power) for ten hours. It will absorb 2,397 Whours – exactly the same number of Whours as before – but it will reach a temperature of 254.98 K or about minus 18°C.

    If you think those 2 are the same I suggest you go back to kindergarten.

  103. I understand the difference between energy and energy flux, and the relevant units. However, you can divide an energy flux. A good example is when rays strike a surface obliquely, then the power is spread over a larger area. For example, an incoming solar flux of 960 Watts/m^2 striking the atmosphere at 30degrees will impart a flux of 960 x sin(30) = 480 W/m^2 I.e half.

    That’s an entirely different operation than simply dividing by four. What you just described is how you properly distribute energy flux on a HALF SPHERE, with respect to the angle of incidence. The flux on a HALF SPHERE actually falls on the HALF SPHERE in REAL TIME at those respective angles. Angle of incidence must be considered to properly do the REAL-TIME, REAL-LOCATION distribution for a given position on the HALF SPHERE. The flux actually exists in actual time, whereas division by four assigns flux to locations and times where it NEVER EXISTS, … and when it does exist supposedly in that false division, it exists everywhere, at the same value, simultaneously. Absurd.

    When you simply divide solar flux by four and spread a simple average over the entire sphere at once, you are doing nothing of the sort that you describe to properly represent flux on the HALF SPHERE.

    I think the more important point here is that the unequal distribution of solar radiation (equator vs poles and day/night) may produce different effects in terms of outgoing radiation (frequency and intensity) than using the flat-earth divide by four models.

    Yes, and it does this on a HALF SPHERE, precisely in those locations, in precisely those times where the angle-of-incidence factor truly operates to produce those effects that only those actual fluxes can produce.

    I’m not convinced from a theoretical point of view that a simple flux model of a spherical rotating Earth gives a different value for the average global temperature (of a non-ghg Earth of -18C). Or perhaps it does (is that what Lord Monckton has been talking about recently?)

    It’s the simple flux model that DOES give this -18C, but confusing this value, which is the RADIATING TEMPERATURE of Earth as viewed from space (over the WHOLE sphere) with solar input on the HALF SPHERE is where things go horribly wrong.

    A non-ghg Earth atmosphere would have no water vapor, besides not having any CO2 — I don’t know that anybody knows how a simple nitrogen/oxygen atmosphere could even exist or how it would actually function, if it could. Monckton, I fear, is in super-duper sophistic la la land, when he confuses emission temperature and near-surface planetary-skin temperature as representing the same metric. Emission temperature and instrument-figured surface temperature are different animals, and so to try to compare, add, subtract, or otherwise intermingle these in calculations is a fundamental mistake.

    At least, that’s how I’m understanding all this.

  104. Neogene Geo says:

    I don’t know of any climate scientist who denies that solar input is in the form of a sinusoidal pulse over daytime, with zero solar input over night time. Just go to the CERES data download site and visualize the zonal top of atmosphere solar constant for each month of the year. But that’s not the point, Dr Postma then makes the greatest non sequitur by suggesting this means there is no radiative greenhouse effect. How so? Because part of the irradiated rotating sphere can receive up to 900 Wm-2 as it briefly transits over the equatorial mid-day zone? Well, maybe you better look at total energy absorbed – let’s take a one year period. Using your numbers for albedo, the absorbed solar energy 1360 Wm-2 over a one year period over a circle of radius 6,370 km at 1 AU is around 0.96 YJ. Yet surface emission using observational base of 398 Wm-2 comes to 1.6 YJ. (See Wild et al. 2015 for that). Where do you propose to find the extra 0.64 YJ? (I am assuming you believe in the Conservation of Energy). Perhaps it comes from downward emission of part of atmosphere-absorbed surface radiation – that is also called the greenhouse effect. Your geometry-based protestations against this amount to little more than prestidigitation – in my opinion.

  105. May I also add that when calculating or measuring real time, real location energy flux, the albedo isn’t an average either. Nor is the solar constant, providing a constant TOA flux. It varies by a good 80W/m2 between January and July. Then of course over longer time frames the eccentricity of the earth’s orbit changes and its axis, etc, etc.

  106. Pierre D. Bernier says:

    geran
    / Which further proves my point: “You claim you want to learn, but you appear more interested in trying to invent reasons not to learn.” /

    Why the agressivity ? You used the same agressivity with me and I’m MSc in Chemistry.not Physics ! Some people are here in the hope to learn but dont have any formal education and need to be taken by the hand and guided through it. Acting like that, do you think that the next person who wants an explanation will stick his neck out ? They’ll just go away and say to themselves, to hell with it, I’m not going to be treated like that ! You don’t catch flies with vinegar !

  107. geran says:

    Pierre, I do not consider my statement to be aggressive. I was simply stating the facts. If people are offended by the facts, they probably should be.

    I tried to politely help Keir. In return, he twisted my words. He refused to consider not only my efforts, but those of Joseph and Robert also. He indicated no willingness to learn, although he had claimed he was interested in learning. I’ve seen his techniques before.

    A person that is sincerely wanting to learn will respond responsibly. If they don’t understand an explanation, reasonable questions are allowed. But distractions, “gotcha-type” questions, and purposeful misrepresentations are all signs of a hidden agenda.

  108. MP says:

    Sun input minus direct reflection can’t be equal to earth output. because there is a climate to maintain. Think about by example maintaining the amount of latent energy after evaporation, and maintaining potential energy of particles high up in the atmosphere.

    The balance equation should be be in laymen terms.

    Sun (and cosmic) energy input – direct reflection to space = constant needed input for work to be done to maintain the climate + LW outgoing energy

    …Feel free to correct me if i am wrong.

  109. MP says:

    Oh, wait, forgot the intensity in the equation.

    High intensity Sun input + cosmic and solar input that is not covered in the TSI – direct reflection to space = constant needed input for work to be done to maintain the climate + Low intensity LW outgoing energy

  110. Pierre D. Bernier says:

    MP
    Let’s start with a new Earth that is at 0K. The Sun shines in and in time the Earth will have absorbed enough energy to bring it’s temperature to 100K. We now have an Earth that is at…

    100K radiating 5.7 W/m2. In time it will capture more energy to reach …
    200K radiating 90.7 W/m2. In time it will capture more energy to reach…
    250K radiating 221 W/m2. In time it will capture more energy to reach…
    255K radiating 240 W/m2. Right on the button. We are in equilibrium, as measured by the satellites, somewhere at 5km up in the atmosphere. With a lapse rate of 6.5C/km we are at 287.5K at ground level (14.5C).

    If the Earth absorbs more to say 300K then it will radiate 459 W/m2 which is to much as measured by satellites.

    At 255K we are in equilibrium and 480 W/m2 comes in from the Sun on 1 hemisphere to be emitted back to space on 2 hemispheres at half the rate of 240 W/m2. Simple and no need to split the energy pie.

  111. Did you guys catch this sentence from the comment above?

    “Because part of the irradiated rotating sphere can receive up to 900 Wm-2 as it briefly transits over the equatorial mid-day zone? ”

    They PURPOSEFULLY speak with derision towards the idea that the Sun heats and creates the climate.

    Just read that sentence in “stupid voice” with the correct inflection points. They’re trying to minimize and mock the idea that the Sun heats at full power the surface of the Earth.

    “DDDUUUUUHHH WHAT…YOU SAY DAT DUH SUN HEATS THE PART OF THE SPHERE THATS DIRECTLY UNDER DUH SUN FOR LIKE ONLY DUH BRWEEFF MINUTE!?”

    Yes you fucking retard…how can you write something so stupid and your face didn’t smack the keyboard and smash it as you slump dead…dead to retardation…ass hat! RETARDS!

    “DDUUUHHH…I DINK DAT SPWEDING DA SON OVR DA WHOLE EARTH IS HOW DA SUNWIGHT WUKS. DATS BEDDA WAY TO DINK ABOUT SOONNNN”

    I fucking hate you retards. I fucking hate you. Dear God…please do something about them.

  112. @MP: “constant needed input for work to be done to maintain the climate”

    On the short term while the Sun is generating clouds and the climate and what not, yes, BUT, the previous day’s work is coming back out as waste heat. The after-effect of work being done, of energy being used for work, is that that energy then comes back out as “waste” heat.

    For example, energy is spent into creating a cumulonimbus cloud, but then, all that energy comes back out when that cloud releases its energy as precipitation and latent heat release etc etc etc. Eventually the energy that went into that cloud comes back out.

    This IS the Sun creating the climate. That’s the whole process of climate creation right there. And so your point is a great one. It is a great point to make that on the daily cycle, the Sun’s energy is used for work, which “lifts” the climate, and then when Sun is gone or at least when as much “lifting” is finished as can be done by the power of sunlight, the climate then relaxes back down which is another climatological reaction. That’s the whole cycle right there.

    So on the long term what goes in and gets “lost” in as work, comes back out.

    Action -> Reaction.

    Action, and THEN reaction.

    Between action and reaction energy can do all sorts of things and be “hidden” in places such as latent heat.

    BUT, from before the action, to after the reaction, the total energy is balanced.

  113. geran says:

    Yes I noticed the smug attitude and corrupt physics from “Geo”. He was trying to use the same old pseudoscience–“390 – 240 = 150, so where’s the missing 150?”

    He tried to convert to annual energy in/out, but he got his math messed up.

    Maybe he can make up for his deficits in physics and math with his haughty attitude?

    Probably not. 🙂

  114. Pierre D. Bernier says:

    Hey, Neogene Geo, How many times will I have to post this before you understand that there is no GHE or you drop dead ?

    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 that states that energy cannot be created nor destroyed, only transformed from one form to another. 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, not 4. That way we get our required 30 °C from the start, which creates the weather and climate, and we have no more need for GHGE ! Also, the earth having received 479,4 W/m2 on one hemisphere can now radiate it back to space at half that rate (239,7 W/m2) from both hemispheres at the same time as measured by the satellites.

  115. Pierre D. Bernier says:

    Further more, our very own Rosco here proved that you cannot add fluxes…
    The Stefan-Boltzmann law and Wien’s law are both derived from Planck’s law. So, any mathematical operation using the SB law should be reflected in an appropriate way using Plank’s law. From the Washington University “greenhouse model” diagram above… 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 the Earth to ~303 K such that the earth emits 479.4 W/m2. Performing the same algebra using Planck’s law must give the same answer IF the SB law algebra is VALID.

    IT IS NOT ! ! ! 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 law. The 479.4 W/m2 curve resulting from the addition of two 239.7 W/m2 curves is not a Planck curve. 239.7 W/m2 + 239.7 W/m2 is not equal to sigmaT4 from Planck’s law. Therefore the SB law is used incorrectly. This nullifies all of climate “science’s” modelling.

    GOT THAT Neogene Geo ? Go spread the word, in the desert probably !
    THERE IS NO GREENHOUSE EFFECT ! ! !

    Thanks Rosco. Fine work

  116. MP says:

    @ Joseph E Postma.

    Possibly a stupid question, but i ask it anyway.

    The energy that went in work done during the day is in the long term indeed equally released, mainly during the night. So i shouldn’t put that cycle in an energy balance equation. I understand that.

    But what about the base value?

    Lets say hypothetically that work in the system converted to by example latent heat or potential energy of high up particles is max 100% during the day, and drops to 80% during the night.

    Then there is a balance between work done and the reverse process in the system, in average, over time. …But there is always the 80% base value.

    Is the base amount a buffer leftover from a long time ago when the earth was not in thermal equilibrium? And is therefore no constant extra input needed to maintain that base?

  117. If it was 100% to 80% then the remaining 20% would always be adding every day. So the next day would get to 120%, then 100% remain. Then the next day to 140% with 120% remain, etc.

    That original 20% imbalance just can’t be gone. It would set the plateau for the next day. You need to get to an equilibrium where in = out, otherwise the system is either going up or down.

  118. NeoGeo,

    To present a clear case, you need to show the steps of your calculation and a link to your reference.

    As is, you make a general claim and provide an obscure mention of a reference, coated with a smug tone that, I assume, you think is supposed to win some sort of trust, but really you come off looking less intelligent than you might wish.

    I’d like to see your calculation. I had to dig up the reference you mentioned in passing.

    I’d like to check your math, and I’d like to get some insight on the difference in methods used to arrive at the incoming and outgoing figures that you did.

  119. BUDD DONCHA GNO DAT A POINT ONWY ROTATES UNDU DUH SUN BRWEEFFWWEEE.

  120. … like a pig over a hot fire, … and yet it gits duhn.

  121. geran says:

    Robert, if you haven’t seen it before, here is what “NeoGeo” was trying to do.

    In the early days of the AGW hoax, the clowns were saying Earth emits 390 Watts/m^2, but only 240 Watts/m^2 leaves at TOA. So 150 Watts/m^2 must be “trapped” by CO2 and is heating the planet.

    That pseudoscience has been debunked so many times that now they must be trying to disguise the ploy. So instead of using the old, tired version, he was trying to convert the bogus figures into annual energy. But, he couldn’t handle the math.

    So he came up short on both physics and math, kinda like always with the clowns.

  122. Rosco says:

    Like most climate “scientists” Neogen geo speaks nonsense –

    “How so? Because part of the irradiated rotating sphere can receive up to 900 Wm-2 as it briefly transits over the equatorial mid-day zone?”

    Half of Earth’s surface is CONTINUOUSLY irradiated by the Sun !

    It is the dynamics of heating and cooling plus the different thermal effects on oceans and land surfaces rotating under the Sun’s power that creates the climate – anyone who can’t see that is simply stupid beyond belief !

    Do you not understand the example quoted above that demonstrates average flux input is completely different to real flux input ?

    The amount of energy radiated by a black body is determined by its temperature not some incorrect interpretation of “energy balance”.

    Using Neogen Geo’s figures 1360 x 0.7/4 = 238 W/m2 and this is supposedly what satellites observe emitted by Earth leading to the earth would be minus 18°C without GHGs nonsense.

    “I am assuming you believe in the Conservation of Energy” yet you do not balance in versus out –

    Satellite says ~240 out Neogen Geo says 398 out ?

    The value of 398 W/m2 emissions by the surface you quote is not an average over the whole of Earth’s surfaces – you use it as an average and it simply is not. The standard atmosphere temperature of 288 K does not apply uniformly over the earth’s sphere therefore your deficit argument is simply BS !

    Besides the Moon with no GHGs has a so-called black body 16°C temperature higher than Earth’s.

    Neogen Geo’s claims also allow for no retained internal energy yet we know from the Diviner data from the Moon this is simply nonsense :-

    The lunar rocky surfaces don’t get any colder than the temperature where jet aircraft fly.

    We always need to remember when comparing the Moon to Earth that the Moon has ~354 Earth hours of daytime. From the graph the lunar rocks decrease in temperature by ~110 K in ~177 Earth hours or a rate of about 0.62°C per Earth hour – from Noon to Sunset.

    An airless/water less Earth would react in the same manner but would only cool by a mere 3.72 K in 6 Earth hours — from Noon to Sunset.

    This dispels the other BS oft quoted by nonsensical fools – that the Earth would rapidly freeze overnight without GHGs.

    I cannot understand why everyone doesn’t simply fall on the floor laughing everytime one of these clowns spruiks the “settled science”.

  123. Gary Ashe says:

    Am i wrong here or is there a better way of putting this.

    Dividing by 4 is the correct geometry for a whole surface emitting to a fully open TOA of the out going radiation that is equal to the nett 960w absorbed incoming radiation.

    This gives 240w/m2. 24/7

    It is at this point they insert the bogus math and create the greenhouse effect.

    Because that 960w absorbed is only coming into half the surface through half the TOA
    and therefore is only dived by 2, giving 480w/m2 av on the lit side.
    And an average lit side surface temp of 30c.

    Divide that 30c by 2 for a whole surface av temp and you get a real world result.
    No greenhouse effect required just a glance into the sky.

  124. CD Marshall says:

    What happens when you show a person enough logic to make them doubt the climate religion? Nothing, it is a religion to these guy no matter the cost: I bracketed key points.
    This was after I proved that:
    1. The Earth has indeed warmed before.
    2. How CO2 works in the atmosphere,
    3.Conservation of Energy proves no “trapping” of heat.

    “Clearly you read a lot on this matter and are well informed (rightly or wrongly). Both of us for that matter. I have heard all of this before from other skeptics and I sort of get where you are coming from. I find it hard to trust companies and governments as it seems you do too. However, we’ll have to agree to disagree on the science. [I’m going with the 97% majority.] I don’t trust fossil fuel companies at all and for good reason. I also travel the world a lot and I have worked in Thailand for the past 16 years. I’m seeing first hand the destructive nature of humans. [The oceans are full of plastic…] I see that every day with the massive overuse of plastics here every day. [I go to Borneo and I see the rain forest gone and replaced with Palm Oil.] I teach at a school and [we are approaching air pollution season right now.] I already had one day where we were not allowed to take kids outside for PE because air pollution was too high. [We have droughts and floods in the same country at the same time, just in different regions]. I see shark fin soup in restaurants while we know many millions or sharks are disappearing and many are now endangered. [So to me humans are reason for numerous problems.] But we can also be the solution if we make changes. To me the solutions for climate change (Global Climate Destabilization I prefer to call it) are the same solutions to living more sustainably and in a better world that takes care of its air, water, and land. So why waste time with this argument of is climate change real or not? There is no denying the other problems I mentioned (and numerous more), so why not start spending your energy on being a part of the solution. I’m using my energy to help the solutions, which I have done for almost 20 years now. I not wasting it on deniers anymore, what’s the point. I’m signing off.”

    …So he just admitted (without openly saying it) it’s not about climate change and he doesn’t care, it’s a means to force people to do what he thinks and those like him, think is best for the world.

    Soon I predict they will just say this more openly and just admit it’s not about climate change “we are saving the world from you…” and they’ll have enough believers to get away with it. In fact, I bet they are salivating on the day when they can just openly say you’re right it has nothing to do with CO2 you are the problem and we are the solution.

  125. Neogene Geo says:

    Once more. The energy input through the disc of 6,370 km radius over a full year using TSI of 1360 Wm-2 and an albedo of 0.3 is around 3.8 YJ. Observational evidence of upward flux at the planet surface of 510 milliom km2 at 398 Wm-2 over one year comes to around 6.4 YJ. So the solar input alone is insufficient to maintain the surface flux. There is “something else” contributing 2.6 YJ to the surface. No need to talk about divide by 4 or speeading sunlight evenly everywhere. No need to talk about simplistic schematic models. No need to even talk about temperature.
    Where is the 2.6 YJ coming from, Dr P?

  126. Pierre D. Bernier says:

    Hey guys ! Dont you get it ? Neogene Geo stands for New Generation Geothermal ! Our old friend is back in disguise !

  127. geran says:

    “Geo” has now corrected his math. He must have found his mistakes.

    He first indicated “input” was 0.96 YJ (now corrected to 3.8 YJ), and “output” was 1.6 YJ (now corrected to 6.4 YJ).

    It will take years for him to correct his physics, if that ever happens.

    The comedy continues.

  128. geran says:

    I missed that Pierre. You may be right.

  129. Pierre D. Bernier says:

    Gary Ashe
    The Earth’s disk intercepts the Sun’s flux. That disk has a surface area of πR^2 but the flux will be spread over the hemisphere of surface 2πR^2. Hence, 1370 * πR^2 / 2πR^2 = 1370 / 2. Subtracting 30% albedo leaces 480 falling on 1 hamisphere with 240 emitted on 2 hemispheres for equilibrium.

  130. CD Marshall says:

    On the last comment I read the geothermal advocate is convinced it’s 340 W/m^2 coming from the Earth and is convinced more heat is released on land than in the oceans from the Earth’s core.

    So according to that logic, even though that temperature (from the core) is in a continual flux we still have ice ages and somehow that 340 isn’t melting ice and snow…

    Have you ever seen a heated driveway that’s what the Earth would look like in winter if the core was doing so much warming. So instead of the GHE (greenhouse effect) it’s the GHE (geothermal heating effect) why bother changing the acronym.

    Just not buying it.

    Why is it so hard to accept a star does what a star does?

  131. geran says:

    There still appears to be some confusion over flux. In general, flux cannot be treated as energy. Fluxes cannot be added, subtracted, divided, averaged, except in very special cases.

    Joseph has addressed this in his videos. Rosco made a great comment upthread, as did Joseph. Let’s examine one sentence from Joseph’s comment: “The input flux is NOT equal to the output flux even though the total energy is the same, and, it is the local flux which determines what physical reactions take place.”

    Here’s what that sentence is referring to: A blackbody sphere absorbs 960 Watts/m^2 and at equilibrium (255 K) is emitting 240 Watts/m^2 from its surface. Notice it receives 960 Watts/m^2, but only emits 240 Watts/m^2. It does not emit 480 from one side, and 480 from the other side. It only emits 240 Watts/m^2. That’s what “…input flux is NOT equal to the output flux…” means.

  132. Joseph E Postma says:

    “To me the solutions for climate change (Global Climate Destabilization I prefer to call it) are the same solutions to living more sustainably and in a better world that takes care of its air, water, and land. So why waste time with this argument of is climate change real or not?”

    This is a religion for them. It is their form of original sin. I wrote about this long ago…under Religion of Climate Change category. This is their form of Original Sin and BE DAMNED anyone who tells them that they are not sinners. THEY ARE SINNERS and they cannot be convinced otherwise.

    Just read how pathetic that sentence is. Just a sick pleading to keep believing in chicken little.

    “Please let me believe I’m a sinner! Please let me believe. Look. I won’t call it climate change anymore, okay? I’ll stop calling it climate change. I’ll call it global climate destabilization now if you will PLEASE just ACCEPT that I, and you, are sinners! Please don’t argue the details. Please stop analyzing my reasoning. You just have to accept my emotions, and you have to accept them for yourself. That’s all that I ask. The details of why don’t matter…they could be anything. It’s just my emotions I want you to have too.”

    These people are sick. Demented, and sick, and supremely perverted.

    Like all religions, they believe in a fantasy that has no basis in reality whatsoever.

  133. Joseph E Postma says:

    You wonder why I hate these people so much!? It’s because I see through it – it’s not about ANY reason at all. The reason could be ANYTHING, hence why they change their reasoning on a dime as necessary and come up with whatever versions of the GHE that they want, and whatever fake physics that they want, and whatever new reasons that they want, etc. It’s not about reasoning at all.

    This is about their emotions. This is about their narcissism, about psychopathic narcissism, where they want their victim to affirm their violence upon the victim. They want their victim to give them permission to inflict violence upon them, and to have their victim affirm their own emotions. They are psychopaths, full stop. They have no empathy, they have no sympathy, they have no reasoning, they have no reason: they only have their sick negative destructive emotions, and they want us to live as they do, to affirm their existence for them. Because they know that they should not exist, that they are an affront to existence, and so they clamor for whatever shred of acceptance they can find. They need you, and us, to be as sick and as perverted as they are, to justify their own sickness.

  134. Joseph E Postma says:

    “The energy input through the disc of 6,370 km radius over a full year using TSI of 1360 Wm-2 and an albedo of 0.3 is around 3.8 YJ. Observational evidence of upward flux at the planet surface of 510 milliom km2 at 398 Wm-2 over one year comes to around 6.4 YJ”

    Note how this sick freak tries to get around the law of conservation of energy, by applying it where it doesn’t apply.

    3.8 YJ comes in.

    3.8 YJ come OUT.

    6.4 YJ DOES NOT come out of the system, there is no extra energy coming out as seen from space, which you would have to see.

    Another sick Zoe freak.

    What is with these freaks hatred of the Sun?! Now that their GHE has been caught out, they’re switching to an equally ridiculous “geothermal” heating argument (yet another version!) which likewise, and still, has ZERO empirical or theoretical evidence.

    We seem to be dealing with some sort of sick alien freaks, who, strangely, hate our Sun! Even when they write of the Sun heating the Earth, they write about it in a mocking way.

    They Sun heats the Earth you freaks…and creates the climate. No RGHE, no geothermal.

  135. Joseph E Postma says:

    “Have you ever seen a heated driveway that’s what the Earth would look like in winter if the core was doing so much warming. So instead of the GHE (greenhouse effect) it’s the GHE (geothermal heating effect) why bother changing the acronym.”

    Exactly. My driveway is already frozen. Should be impossible ALL WINTER LONG.

    Get a FN life Zoe/whatever you are, FREAK!

  136. Apparently the majority of serial killers are Gemini or Virgo star signs. I mention this because the urge to kill frequently rises in me when I read dumb alarmist and Luke Warmist comments and I would just like everyone to know that Im an Aries and have it under control. Star signs being pseudoscientific enough to bridge the gap between myself and emotionally driven retards that they will be able to understand me and feel my pain, without being triggered and needing a safe space.

  137. Joseph E Postma says:

    We seem to be dealing with some sort of sick hermaphroditic alien freaks, who hate our Sun!

  138. Pierre D. Bernier says:

    For Joe …
    Dont want you to have a heart attack or any unpleasant sickness. We need you, so please…

  139. Joseph E Postma says:

    That cat is just being a cat…I don’t think it’s the music…lol. He could be doing anything…and that’s what cats do!

    But very nice, thanks hahaha 🙂

  140. Gary Ashe says:

    Pierre the greenhouse model is a one second snap shot in time.
    It isn’t a 24 hour day night av model..
    A snap shot of the energy balance.

    If your equations say that one side of the planet is dark every second of the day and one side lit every second of every day and the lit side is receiving 480 w/m2 double the greenhouse effect model av 240 watts per metre squared over the whole area every second of every day then i agree with them,
    If they dont then you are wrong.

    The sun isnt half strength over the whole planet 24/7 it is full strength over half the planet every second…..

    Quite simple to me, the RGHE model is a 1 second in time model, any second of any day any week or month …
    That one second snap shot if it were real science would have each half of the earth emitting 480w and one side absorbing 960 w
    The half sphere absorbing per second the watts/joules that the whole sphere is emitting per second.

  141. Pierre D. Bernier says:

    Gary Ashe
    Like geran said, Fluxes cannot be added, subtracted, divided, averaged etc. But take a look at figure 7 in http://junksciencearchive.com/Greenhouse/Earth-s_Climate_Engine.pdf. That is where the divide by 2 comes from. The Earth receives 980 W/m2 on the zenith meridian but it’s effect on the surface is only 480 W/m2 because of the greater spread going towards the poles plus the fact that the Earth is wider at the equator then at the poles.

  142. Pierre D. Bernier says:

    Gary Ashe
    If we take into consideration only the meridian on which the Sun’s zenith lies on, our flux power on the surface will reduce as a function of cos(y) poleward. At the equator you will also fit a lot more width of flux which will also decrease as a function of cos(y) going poleward. Therefore…

    F(y) = 1368 * cos^2(y)

    The total flux density on the meridian is the integral of that function from –π/2 to + π/2…

    F = Intg 1368 * cos^2(y) dy for y = -π/2 to +π/2
    F = 1368 * [ (cos(y) * sin(y) + y) / 2 ] for y = -π/2 to +π/2
    F = 1368 * [ (0 + π/2 – 0 + π/2 ) / 2 ]
    F = 1368 * π/2

    This is the total flux density on the meridian. Since the meridian has an arc length of π, the mean flux density on the meridian is…

    F = 1368 * π/2 / π = 1368 / 2
    Can’t make it any simpler.

  143. CD Marshall says:

    geran says,
    “There still appears to be some confusion over flux. In general, flux cannot be treated as energy. Fluxes cannot be added, subtracted, divided, averaged, except in very special cases.”

    geran’s Geo Activist says,
    “Who said that fluxes from two different raw energy sources can’t be added?”

    They also said,
    “The moon’s “geothermal” energy is enough to prevent it from dipping below 90 Kelvin without that sun.”

    {oops guess someone missed the memo: The moon’s surface can drop to -173C, however The Diviner instrument on NASA’s Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter measured temperatures of minus 396 F (minus 238 C) in craters at the southern pole and minus 413 F (minus 247 C) in a crater at the northern pole.}

  144. Pierre D. Bernier says:

    Sorry, forgot albedo…
    Multiply by 0.7 for albedo = 480

  145. Pierre D. Bernier says:

    CDM
    / “The moon’s “geothermal” energy is enough to prevent it from dipping below 90 Kelvin without that sun.” /
    Doesn’t it remind you of someone ?

  146. CD Marshall says:

    Oh and NASA’s own satellites measure the ToA so how is Joseph lying about the energy flux? If you buy solar panels and look on their websites they show you the ToA energy flux, explain the cosines (?) and tell you exactly how you can optimize the panel throughout the day depending on area location. This isn’t secret knowledge. Not one place anywhere have I seen 960 W/m^2 given for solar input.

    How does something so small it is measured in less than a hundred Terrawatts (is that really true?) become 360 W/m^2.

  147. Joseph E Postma says:

    You guys are on the forefront here – you are witnessing the real-time strategy change from one argument to a different one.

    The end-point is the same: that there is some other heating effect, which for some reason they really want us to believe in. But the reason has changed – now it is no longer their RGHE as that has been debunked and no one will believe it anymore, but it is now geothermal.

    Now that we see how their argument has changed, we have a massive new insight. *The core of their desire is to believe in some other heating effect, some other heat source.* The fake RGHE served that role, but now that we’ve debunked it and it will no longer survive, we see them change to this new geothermal idea. So that tells us that while the reasoning can change, the belief in some other heat source is the true goal. Previously they would switch RGHE arguments to some variations upon it…but now they’ve been outed going to an entirely new scheme, which makes the point that it is specifically some other heating effect that they want to believe in, not the mechanism of the heating per-se.

    You guys are all on the front lines of the battlefield here. You’re all extremely well-trained, masters of the subject matter, and full of spirit, to still be here at this point. You’re witnessing, and also taking part in, the crumbling and defeat of the enemy forces. You’ve seen how they’ve tried to infiltrate us here, and how they tried to sway us over to some new scheme of theirs with extra heat coming from somewhere else. You defeated them. You’re watching them die. Good work, one and all. I allowed them to play their game here for a while, and we almost a few people…but you remained, and you and we won.

    As I have said – you have to extrapolate the nature of this enemy. You have to look at what it mocks, and what it pleads for. You have to look at the strategies it employs. You have to look at what arguments it is willing to abandon, and in that abandonment what it is trying to save.

    I have stated my conclusions, at this point, above. It is some sort of force which hates the Sun.

    One has to go to the occult and the esoteric to penetrate further…and one can.

  148. Joseph E Postma says:

    They discount the Sun entirely in their energy budget models…and make the warmth of planet Earth due to something else entirely. *ANYTHING* else entirely.

    They wish to attribute the warm of the planet Earth to something else, to *anything* else than the Sun.

    Think about that.

  149. CD Marshall says:

    well IF they pull off geothermal they can still claim too much digging is causing the Earth to overheat and we must stop mining a once or some such nonsense never mind the rare Earth metals mined for less effective “green method”. The plastic is killing the oceans we need to stop CO2.

    Pierre,
    That was “someone” they are on PSI trying to prove their geothermal dogma and discredit JP in the process. Not sure when they went from attacker of pseudo science to defender. Someone called her out for being employed by the H-land Ins. on YT a while ago and she did not deny it for whatever that’s worth.

  150. Pierre D. Bernier says:

    CDM
    What do you mean by “someone” ? They use the name / someone / or you mean they are the same person ? Whatname ? what article ?

    I’m not surprised. The other day on YT ZP used the name /M P/ to try to screew me while she was screewing someone else with geothermal on the same post. That’s how I found her.

  151. CD Marshall says:

    yeah she on there I just stumbled upon her relied from a link overhead and one thing went to another.

    https://principia-scientific.org/the-circular-reasoning-greenhouse-gas-theory-argument/

    “The sun doesn’t produce an average of 390 W/m^2 out for 24 hours, as observations show.”

    The Sun is a “blasting ray” on the Earth constantly. What is she talking about? The Sun never stops shinning on the Earth for nearly 5 billion years.

    Just like I read a post somewhere where they asked what the ToA irradiance was. Someone answered 240 W/m^2.

    They said but I thought it was higher and they said well yeah but it’s divided by 4 at the ToA for a sphere.

  152. Joseph E Postma says:

    Check out this brilliant comment from someone on FB:

    “The agenda absolutely is one of severing mankind’s reverence for the sun. The psychological impact of that process is the goal, not environmentalism. Solar energy represents life-creating order. Light creates definitive, objective boundaries between objects in contrast to the endless relativism of darkness. It is synonymous with truth and the expansion of reason over the default superstitiousness of humanity. That this sun-denying psyche also seeks the destruction of white civilisation is no surprise then.”

  153. [“However, we’ll have to agree to disagree on the science.”]

    How can this person disagree with what he/she apparently does not even understand?

    [“I’m going with the 97% majority.”]

    No such thing as the 97% majority, and so this person is going with the MYTH of the 97% majority.

    [“I don’t trust fossil fuel companies at all and for good reason. I also travel the world a lot and I have worked in Thailand for the past 16 years.”]

    This person does NOT trust fossil fuel companies, and yet he/she travels the world, using transportation, I presume, REQUIRING fossil fuels from companies that he/she does not trust. Practice hypocrisy much?

    [“I’m seeing first hand the destructive nature of humans. The oceans are full of plastic… I see that every day with the massive overuse of plastics here every day.”]

    Plastics in the ocean are NOT fossil-fuel CO2 in the air. Conflate much?

    [“I go to Borneo and I see the rain forest gone and replaced with Palm Oil.”]

    Land use patterns are NOT fossil-fuel CO2 in the air. So, “yes” to the previous question, I guess, since here he/she does it again.

    [“I teach at a school and [we are approaching air pollution season right now. I already had one day where we were not allowed to take kids outside for PE because air pollution was too high.”]

    Air pollution is NOT fossil-fuel CO2 in the air. Conflates a lot, apparently.

    [“We have droughts and floods in the same country at the same time, just in different regions.”]

    This person might be in regions experiencing droughts and floods, WITNESSING the hardships of such events first hand, but, world-wide droughts and floods are no more frequent than they have ever been. Obviously, there’s a failure to look at the research here.

    [“I see shark fin soup in restaurants while we know many millions or sharks are disappearing and many are now endangered.”]

    Not CO2-climate related. Not that critical an issue, I’m guessing.

    [“So to me humans are reason for numerous problems.”]

    But humans are NOT the reason for climate-change problems. And humans are the sources of numerous practical solutions, to which I doubt this person has given much thought.

  154. Rosco says:

    Are people saying Neogen Geo is Zoe ?

    Ans surely the arguments about the craters on the Moon strongly support the anti greenhouse argument ?

    The only reason anything drops to cold temperatures is when it is deprived of solar radiation for long periods – be it Earth, the Moon or Pluto.

    Climate “science” is a step backwards to the dark ages !

    Experiments showing a hot object placed at the focus of a parabolic mirror caused an increase in temperature of a thermometer at the focus of another parabolic mirror distant enough so that conduction through the air was ruled out. The response was too fast.

    Then 200+ years ago – “Towards the end of the eighteenth century it was discovered by Marc-Auguste Pictet of Geneva that cold emanations from a flask of snow could be reflected and focused by mirrors in the same way as the emanations from a heated object. Pictet’s discovery had an
    invigorating effect on research on radiant heat. ”

    Pictet established beyond doubt that the radiation from a really cold object placed at the focus of a parabolic mirror DID NOT cause any increases in temperature of a thermometer at the focus of another parabolic mirror 16 feet away.

    In his experiment the thermometer cooled rapidly – apparently being cooled by some emanations from the cold source.

    But Pictet was smart enough to realise immediately what was happening – in this experiment the thermometer itself became the source of heat being transferred between the two and naturally decreased in temperature – quite rapidly if we believe the account from the scientifically credible witnesses.

    The greenhouse effect nonsense spruikers deny this well proven scientific reality – they say the radiation from a cold object – the layer of minus 18°C GHGs high in the sky – transfers heat to the warmer surface and heat it more.

    This is proven wrong by Pictet’s experiment – end of story.

    There is one take out from this and that is why the thermometer which is constant contact with the stable air temperature in the lab should decrease in temperature so dramatically.

    There is one thing I would like to have explained.

    That thing has been sitting there defying the force of gravity for ten years. I know it is magnetic repulsion but where does the energy to defy gravity come from ? It has no external source of energy.

    Surely evidence of “There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.”

  155. Joseph E Postma says:

    Great comment Rosco!

  156. Joseph E Postma says:

    “Cadet Nala was half way through her psychological evaluation of a relatively well-known Starfleet officer she was reading about on her screen when two freshmen exited the Dean’s office. They both nodded in her general direction and she briefly reciprocated by making eye contact with them as they exited the foyer.

    Continuing reading, this particular officer had made a name for themselves at a planet called Eridu, by liberating the population from an alien entity which had made them believe that the population collectively owed this entity their lives. Although the planet was technologically advanced, to a primitive degree by Federation standards but still sufficiently enough, the alien entity had somehow managed to convince Eridu’s population that their planet was flat, that the Eridu Sun was not strong enough to heat their planet and to provide warmth to its surface, and that the entity was instead responsible for providing heat to the planet’s surface. Naturally, the entity claimed to be their “god”, their creator, and their caretaker, while of course it was merely parasitically consuming the mental energy of the planet’s humanoid population. The energy-based entity could not be forcefully removed without doing significant harm to the psyches of the Eriduans, and so the officer, who was a lieutenant at the time, came up with an ingenious strategy to insert a naked paradox into the belief system of the Eriduans, which would eventually lead to the Eriduans themselves becoming mentally incompatible with the presence of the entity, causing the entity to leave due to starvation. The plan took several years to come to finality, after the clandestine initial insertion of the paradox through the planet’s media and education system.”

    This is NOT actually what the story is about! This is just character development.

  157. geran says:

    Rosco, yes I’ve seen the Pictet experiment. Years ago, I even thought about trying to replicate it, using an old satellite dish. I got the dish sanded and ready, then got distracted and never finished. But now reminded, finishing would be a good project for this winter.

    Photons from a colder source cannot warm a hotter object. This is already well known, except by the sophists. But, could the “cold” photons cool the hot object? This was supposedly verified by Pictet. Certainly if the photons were absorbed by the hotter object, they would lower its average internal energy. But the problem is getting the “colder” photons to be absorbed by a hotter object due to wavelength mismatch.

    Would the “order” imposed by a parabolic reflector be enough decrease in entropy to force absorption? It’s worth an experiment to find out. Maybe a couple of million $$$ would fund such an experiment….

    I’m not sure I understand your photo. It appears to be an object suspended in a magnetic field. Really good magnets can be produced these days. If the object is not very heavy, good qualtity magnets could keep it suspended for 10 years, easily.

  158. geran says:

    “…the alien entity had somehow managed to convince Eridu’s population that their planet was flat, that the Eridu Sun was not strong enough to heat their planet…”

    My first smile of the day!

  159. “Cold” photons slow warming. (^_^)

  160. Rosco says:

    Yes geran it is supported by a magnetic field. If you spin it carefully it spins for ages.

    We have these experts yelling at us all the time things like “don’t you believe in conservation of energy” or “where does the extra yatta yatta joule come from” or other simplistic nonsense in insulting terms.

    All I wanted to show is that this is really unexplained – OK magnetic fields are known but what drives them and where does the energy come from ?

    Clearly the “Revolution” shown must require some energy to counter the bending moment imposed on it by gravity – the plastic “mount” simply holds it in place. After all a joule is simply a newton metre. This is entirely different to the usual engineering of a supporting structure with all of its complex interactions of stress and strain – there is no structure yet a force must exist. And a complex one at that as analysis of its spin would show.

    Earth has a magnetic field, is constantly rotating and moving through a larger variable magnetic field – this couldn’t possibly induce any electromagnetic energy could it ?

    None of us should ever have the stupid arrogance to assert anything like settled science.

    Pictet’s experiment is illuminating. I fully accept the account of the person’s involved – they were well respected scientists and Pictet understood that the thermometer became the source of the heat flow to the ice and snow flask. The “modern” interpretation that placing the mirror reduces the radiation from the room impacting the thermometer is interesting and I don’t accept it.

    Initially the mirrors would be carefully placed and the thermometer allowed to reach thermal equilibrium to the situation so the mirror’s reducing the ambient radiation is already explained before the ice is introduced. Removing and placing the mirrors is far more difficult than simply placing and removing the ice flask hence I don’t entirely accept the “modern” interpretation.

    Why did the thermometer is constant thermal contact with the approximately constant air temperature in the room. It was clearly a radiative effect requiring the cold source as clearly shown when they move the thermometer from the focus and it increased in temperature.

    There is no simple satisfactory explanation for this yet it forms clear unequivocal empirical evidence that under no circumstances does the radiation from a cold object induce warming in an already warmer object.

    Thus the simple model of the greenhouse effect is stupid beyond belief.

  161. CD Marshall says:

    Joseph,
    Remember in writing fiction (not needed for backstory) use a close first person POV. Video games have conditioned people to relate better in the first person, and always in fiction the golden rule is express emotions don’t write them.

    “Jon Cross pressed his body hard against the cracked drywall. Sweat covered the handle of his Glock, shakily held near his hip. He squeezed his eyes shut and snuck one deep breath.”

    You know Jon is stressed even though it wasn’t mentioned once.

    Plus the devil is in the details:
    Cracked drywall, denoting the place is older or unkempt. Instead of pistol, it was a Glock. Could have even gone in more detail and say what kind of Glock but in this stress moment a little detail to move along the scene is better than an info dump. So writer’s choice.

    Detail over generic descriptions always a plus for immersion.
    “Jon looked at the surroundings in full view of the light: A cherry wood grandfather clock stood in a corner. The second hand on the clock moved forward in normal sequence. Jon placed a hand on the mantle of an old cast iron fireplace that smelled of wet ash.The room had worn floral cream carpet and a torn Victorian couch that revealed yellowed padding.”

    Not that anyone really cares but just in case you did.

  162. It’s just a short story…but maybe I’ll ask you to edit it for me once a draft is finished.

  163. CD Marshall says:

    Alas, I can’t write anymore neurological problems and all that. That was from a short story I had written over a decade ago when my brain fired on all cylinders. I do miss my brain working in extreme overdrive but I sleep better (my brain never shut off) so pros and cons I guess. I also wrote feature articles and novels.

    I was in the process of publishing my first book, a 100k words when life hit the fan with a messy splatter. I am not confident I would be good at edits.

    I just found out my former writing teacher died in a plane crash in March of last year, Mary Rosenblum, a very talented and highly accomplished science fiction writer who in turn was taught by Orson Scott Card. Small world.

    So ya never know what life is going to bring you so enjoy it while you can. Having your background would make you an excellent science fiction writer but I would use a pseudo if ever you decided to do it. All my names used in writing were psuedo. For once it would be nice to read a science fiction story with sound science. My expertise was fight scenes. I was complemented a lot on how believable they were. Former martial arts and weapons training helped in making the choreography believable. Plus my brother is invaluable information on combat, guns and tactical warfare. Did you know the shell casings from a Vulcan Gatling Gun can burn a hole through your flesh? Being shot with a .45 is like 250 lbs dropped on you. My brother is also a tactical gun trainer. Always helps to have contacts to get little things right.

    The Flat Earth story sounds hilarious. You should call the creature Yor (spell it backwards).

  164. geran says:

    CD contributes: “You should call the creature Yor (spell it backwards).”

    Hilarious CD.

    How about “Yor Recneps”?

    Make sure to make him a PhD in sophistry, standing on a street corner with a cardboard sign begging for funding….

  165. Pierre D. Bernier says:

    The Sun’s Flux On Earth For Geothermalist Dummies

    Since fluxes cannot be added, subtracted, divided or averaged, etc, from here on, when speaking of flux, it will be in reference to the effective energy received by the Solar flux falling on Earth. From figure 7, http://junksciencearchive.com/Greenhouse/Earth-s_Climate_Engine.pdf
    we can see that the Sun’s rays falling on Earth are weaker as we approach the poles because they fall on a greater surface. The flux at any given location on the hemisphere facing the Sun is a function of the cosine of the solar zenith angle, zero degrees pointing toward the sun, 90° along the periphery of the hemisphere. So, for any point on the hemisphere, from -π/2 to +π/2 in the East-West direction and from -π/2 to + π/2 in the North-South direction, the Sun’s flux density should look like…
    F(x,y) = 1370 * cos(x) * cos(y).
    We have defined what the effectiveness of each unit beam reaching Earth will have, but not the effect of the number of them. Let us imagine the Earth, as seen by the Sun, as a disk. It is easy to see that a whole lot of unit widths of beam will fit along the equator of the disk but less and less will fit at each latitudes going towards the poles until we get to zero units of flux.

    Since this loss of flux is also a function of cos(y), because the surface it falls on is spherical, we have to correct the incident flux density by that factor. So our Sun’s flux density at any point (x,y) on the sphere becomes…
    F(x,y) = 1370 * cos(x) * cos^2(y).
    To find the total flux density on the hemisphere we double integrate that function from –π/2 to + π/2 for both integrals…

    F =Intg Intg 1370 * cos(x) * cos^2(y) dy dx for (x,y) = -π/2 to +π/2
    F = 1370 * sin(x) * [ (cos(y) * sin(y) + y) / 2 ] for (x,y) = -π/2 to +π/2
    F = 1370 * 2 * [ (0 + π/2 – 0 + π/2 ) / 2 ] = 1370 * 2 * π/2 = 1370 * π

    This is the total flux density on the hemisphere. Since the hemisphere has a surface of π/2, the mean flux density on Earth is…

    F = 1370 * π / 2π = 1370 / 2 = 685 W/m^2.

    If we take into account an average albedo of 30%, 70% of that energy will reach the Earth’s surface, which gives us a heating potential of 480 W/m^2.

    What we have here is a snapshot in time where the Earth receives 480 W/m^2 on that hemisphere at that precise moment and radiates 240 W/m^2 from the whole sphere at that precise moment. One second later, or 1 minute later, or 1 hour later, it is another hemisphere which receives those 480 W/m^2 while the whole sphere still radiates 240 W/m^2.

    All energy is accounted for, in and out, and there is no need for a Greenhouse Gas Effect or a Geothermal Heating Effect.

    The Stefan-Boltzman Law gives us a mean radiative temperature of 303 °K or 30 °C. Warm enough to create the climate !!! Really no more need for those GHGE or GTHE inventions here !

  166. BR says:

    This video looks promising. I have yet to read it.

    Btw, are you familiar with Joseph Heller’s work. He oes a good job deconstructing some of the pseudoscientific reasoning of climate modelers here:

  167. CD Marshall says:

    Joseph,
    Been a while since I even thought about the craft of writing. Limited 1st person is the best narrative for fiction, meaning you see what they see and you know what they know. Granted it is the hardest to pull off but the most entertaining to read. Ever see those shows where after a few minutes you still don’t know whats going on? Usually they have chosen a form of limited 1st person (or it’s just garbage).

    When creating your own world (mostly all of mine were) you not only have to guide them you can’t overload them with info dumps. You string them along with bread crumbs, just to keep the narrative moving.

    The great thing with fan fiction such as star trek you don’t need to give much backstory or detail on the world building, they already know it.

    If they don’t already know what a Klingon is why are they reading it in the first place?

    Must be frustrating for you physics/astrophysics guys to watch most science fiction shows or movies. My brother was like that with modern combat movies.

    geran,
    Yor, funny coincidence. Yor Recneps could be a law suit. Maybe just use Yor-Mutcer.

  168. Keir Watson says:

    Pierre, thanks for your mathematical breakdown. I can follow it except for the step “ Since the hemisphere has a surface of π/2, the mean flux density on Earth is…” can you please explain what you mean by having a surface of π/2. Thanks.

  169. Keir Watson says:

    I have seen a lot of people here and elsewhere arguing against the concept of back radiation. E.g. saying that a colder object cannot heat a warmer object etc. But I always see a flaw in their argument. Usually it boils down to the way the term “heating” is being used. By a strict thermodynamic definition, heat is defined as the net transfer of energy between two bodies due to their temperature difference. In such a definition it is clear that a cold body can never heat a hot body. But the devil in the definition is the word ‘net’. When you start looking at the energy flows that contribute to the net flow you realise that energy does flow from a cold object to a hot object, but always at a lower rate than from the hot to the cold. When focusing on the two flows that contribute to this net flow both can be considered less formally as “heat flows”. The distinction between the strict and less formal use of the term “heating” is where the confusion arises. For example…

    Taking bodies in a vacuum (so we only need refer to radiative heating) An isolated hot body receiving no radiative input will cool over time due to radiative losses. If, however, an identical, but cooler body is placed nearby that body also will be radiating, but at a lower rate. Some of the radiation from the second body will fall on the first body decreasing its net heat loss. Hence after a certain time it will be warmer (will have cooled less) than it would if the second body was not present. Strictly the second body has not heated it, but it has reduced the rate of heat loss of the first body. When you are focused on explaining this reduction in heat loss it is convenient to refer to it as heating caused by the second, cooler body. (Which is what I understand they are doing in the radiative greenhouse model when they speak of back radiation)

    In the case of the Earth it is a bit different because it is receiving a continual and constant input (from the sun). When it is at thermal equilibrium it’s temperature remains constant because it is radiating energy at the same rate it is receiving it (=steady state). If the atmosphere absorbs any of the outgoing radiation it’s temperature will rise, making the atmosphere like the second, cooler body above. This second body will therefore radiate. Some of this radiation will return to the first body(the Earth). This has reduced the net outgoing energy. The Earth will therefore be in disequilibrium and it’s temperature will increase until it again reaches equilibrium. If you only focus on the Earth/atmosphere energy exchange it appears that the atmosphere “heated* the Earth, but that is not the case. The sun heated the Earth, and the atmosphere via back radiation, increased the temperature at which equilibrium was reached. In other words back radiation does not heat the Earth, rather it increases the temperature to which the sun heats the Earth. Which said in common language means GHGs insulate the Earth.

    Modern double glazing uses the same process to keep a building warmer. The outer pane of glass has a fine layer of metal atoms on the inside. Some of the outgoing long wave radiation is reflected back into the house, keeping it warmer. That outer pane is colder than the interior of the house, but by any normal way of speaking, keeps it warmer. It seems to me that the AGW argument about adding more GHGs is equivalent to adding additional layers of reflective ‘e-glass’ to a building. It is going to increase the temperature of the room, informally by ‘heating’ it, formally by reducing the net flux.

    As I say, attacking these arguments (at least in the ways I have seen them attacked) appears foolish as they seem to involve pretty basic, sound thermodynamic principles, and so far I have only seen people demonstrating their own misconceptions. I believe skeptics need to focus where the real meat of the matter lies and not discredit themselves wasting time on dead ends. For me, the question is the degree of radiative forcing from the different GHGs, not the basic mechanism.

  170. geran says:

    Keir, a cold object in space will radiate energy to a warmer object in space. But that does NOT imply 1) the warmer object will absorb that energy, or 2) the radiation from the warmer object will be slowed, or 3) the temperature of the warmer object will be raised.

    You are “assuming” 1), 2), 3), or combinations thereof. Be careful with assumptions. Assumptions and opinions should NOT violate the established laws of physics. Such violations lead to pseudoscience.

    Believing all photons are always absorbed is akin to believing you can bake a turkey with ice cubes.

  171. Heller is great @BP. Though I’ll do a vid correcting him on what the greenhouse effect is.

  172. Joseph,
    I’ve been sharing your videos around. I got a comment from someone linking this, see below, in answer to the climate flat earth model used in you’re videos. I don’t know one way or another and would appreciate your response. Thank you very much.

    Do GCMs Model a Flat Earth? | Roy Spencer, PhD.
    https://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/05/do-gcms-model-a-flat-earth/

  173. Pierre D. Bernier says:

    Keir Watson
    For a same radius R, the surface of a hemisphere is 2π compared to the surface of π for a disk. Therefore the average energy is the total energy divided by the surface on which it falls, 2π !

  174. I’ve been sharing your vids around. I received a comment from someone sharing this link that you may have already addressed. Please point me to that if you have, and if you haven’t yet, can you please? Thank you.

    Do GCMs Model a Flat Earth? | Roy Spencer, PhD.
    https://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/05/do-gcms-model-a-flat-earth/

  175. Cheers Jesse. Look at some of my earlier videos which address that article. That article is a red herring because it’s not about gcm’s but about where and why the GHE is derived in the first place, and how it is simply not needed. All the answers you need are in my vids…please do watch more.

  176. CD Marshall says:

    Keir,
    You just used an enclosed space as an example for an open atmosphere. When will you people get it in your heads the open atmosphere is not a greenhouse or for that matter a source cannot raise it’s own temperature more without work, which is the Sun. Insulation is not work and it by no means increases it’s own temperatures. Insulation at best would maintain or delay a decrease in temperature never increase it and the atmosphere has no work to increase temperature.

    I think Joseph and geran have been thorough in their explanations and Joseph has certainly produced enough material for an honest person to come to an objective decision. I’m curious what makes you so desperate to believe an ice cube can warm your drink?

    Deserts should be the only proof an honest person needs to know the GHE doesn’t exist. CO2 is not “insulating” temperature through the night is it?

  177. Pierre D. Bernier says:

    Keir Watson
    Sorry. Just caught that. I meant 2π and not π/2. Got it right in the equation below though. Had a 15 hours electricity failure yesterday due to high winds. Guess I got tired.

  178. Joseph E. Postma says:

    Keir: “When focusing on the two flows that contribute to this net flow both can be considered less formally as “heat flows”. The distinction between the strict and less formal use of the term “heating” is where the confusion arises.”

    Yes…for YOU Keir. *You are either conformal with the laws of physics and their mathematics, or you are not.* You cannot invent that there are “less formal” uses than the definitions – there are only the definitions. Anything else is sophistry.

    Heat is ONLY the difference between the two sources, heat is NOT either source.

    And so sure, of course, when you allow yourself to use “less formal” definitions, of course you can then go on to make up analogies and hand-waving argument sot support some fictitious examples which themselves do not conform to the situation at hand (closed room vs. open atmosphere, as pointed out above).

    And so Keir, you have made no argument whatsoever. You created a premise in your first paragraph that you allow yourself use of “less formal” physics and math, which has ZERO meaning, and then you invent some scenario based on how you speculate the world might work if formal physics doesn’t apply to it. You’re inventing fictions. You’re doing sophistry.

    The greenhouse effect, with backradiation, from the energy budget models which use “less formal” physics, posit that the inert atmosphere provides twice the energy to the Earth than the Sun does. They posit, with “less formal” physics, that the Sun cannot create the climate *AT ALL*, and that the climate thus creates itself, with no identifiable liberation of energy, with two-times the energy than the Sun provides.

    Yes indeed Keir, confusion arises when you allow yourself to use “less formal” physics than actual physics. LOL!

  179. Prof: “OK Kids. Today’s lesson is on how to use less formal physics than physics, and less formal mathematics than mathematics, to do physics and mathematics. Now, can anyone tell me what one plus one equals with less formal mathematics?”

    Student: “Ummm…I think that the answer is ANYTHING Sir?”

    Prof: “Correct! But you get no mark for that answer because you’re still wrong, because your anything could be different from my anything.”

    Please let hate and death come down upon this Earth, and swing that scythe…

  180. Pierre D. Bernier says:

    Keir Watson
    Here is an extention of what I have written above. If after reading it you still feel that somthing is missing like GHGE, Backradiation, Geothermal, then there is nothing else I can do for you.You probably come from the other side.

    Above it was shown that not only the Earth is in energy equilibrium with the Sun’s power flux but also that the Sun can create the climate. To further demonstrate the later point, let’s see what happens in that central area directly under the Sun defined by -23,5° to +23,5° E-W and -23,5° to +23,5° N-S.
    F = Intg Intg 1370 * cos(x) * cos^2(y) dy dx for (x,y) = -23,5° to +23,5°
    F = 1370 * 0.6187 = 847,6 W/m^2
    We come up with a total flux density of 847,6 W/m^2 over that area. Keeping the same x,y co-ordinates, the surface area of the spherical partial wedge is…
    A = 2 * x * sin(y) = 2 * (π * 47 / 180) * sin(23,5°) = 0,65419
    Therefore, the mean Sun’s flux density on that area is …
    F = 847,6 W/m^2 / 0,65419 = 1296 W/m^2.
    Allowing for that very same albedo of 30%, 70% of that energy will reach the Earth, which gives us a heating potential of 907 W/m^2. The very same Stefan-Boltzman Law gives us a mean radiative temperature of 355 °K or 82 °C. That’s very hot yet proving that the Sun alone can create the climate !!!

    The lower atmospheric temperatures on Earth never go anywhere near that supposed 82 °C at any time. We know the energy to do it does come in. So where does it go ? The waters ! The energy flows from the Sun to the oceans, to create the climate, then from the oceans to the atmosphere to create the weather. SIMPLE ! ! ! Really no more need for that GHGE nor GTHE here ! ! ! All explained.

  181. Keir Watson says:

    Geran said “ Keir, a cold object in space will radiate energy to a warmer object in space. But that does NOT imply 1) the warmer object will absorb that energy, or 2) the radiation from the warmer object will be slowed, or 3) the temperature of the warmer object will be raised.

    You are “assuming” 1), 2), 3), or combinations thereof. Be careful with assumptions. Assumptions and opinions should NOT violate the established laws of physics. Such violations lead to pseudoscience.

    Believing all photons are always absorbed is akin to believing you can bake a turkey with ice cubes.”

    1. We are talking about black body radiation. So yes, the warmer object will absorb that energy. 2. No one said the energy transfer from the hot object will be slowed (? = reduced?) I said the net energy will be reduced, which by definition is the heat; so yes, placing a cool object next to a hotter object will reduce the heat transfer from the hot object. That is the basis of how insulation works. 3. I didn’t say the temp would be raised for an isolated object cooling in space. I said it’s rate of loss will decrease. However, in the case of an object with a constant energy input (sun heating earth) an atmosphere cooler than the surface will lead to an increase in the temperature of the surface as it reduces the net energy transfer away from the surface. It is the sun doing the heating, but back radiation from a cooler atmosphere will lead to a higher surface temp than the same surface without any back radiation. No principles of physics are violated for this to occur.

  182. Keir Watson says:

    Joseph,

    No, the physics I used is perfectly formal and basic. Personally I only use the term heat in the formal sense as the net transfer of energy from a hot object to a cold one. However, their are other ways that the term heat get used in physics e.g. “the heating effect if an electric current”. Strictly there is no such thing as (for example) the filament if a bulb does not get hot due to heat transfer, but because of electrical work, yet this less formal use is widespread and accepted. It is not a matter of one being correct and the other incorrect, it is just a matter of knowing what you are saying. So, it would be pedantic to argue with an electrical engineer that a current can’t possibly heat the filament in a bulb because he is using the term heating to indicate an increased temperature and for his purposes this is correct. If you are trying to understand back radiation or any other form of insulation, there is a need to focus on bidirectional energy transfers and it is fine to refer to the energy from the cooler body heating the hotter body without that breaking any laws of physics. To make the point: if you go camping you use a sleeping bag because it keeps you warmer. Obviously the sleeping bag is not an energy source, you are, but the sleeping bag ensures your surface temperature remains higher than if you didn’t have the sleeping bag. By what mechanism does the sleeping bag achieve this if not as I have outlined?

  183. No Keir,

    There is only formal physics. Full stop. THEN there is “less than formal” physics which you yourself make claim to, where you can then argue “different” versions of what heat is and how it works. Of course this is part and parcel of the basis of climate pseudoscience.

    Your “less than formal” physics of climate alarm requires that the inert atmosphere provides twice the energy to the Earth than the Sun provides. THAT is what you’re arguing for, nothing more, nothing less. You’re arguing for the climate creating itself because the Sun cannot create the climate.

    Work is NOT what the backradiation GHE is about – not at all. Very nice for you to try to conflate things here, once again, as you people always try to do.

    The sleeping bag slows convective cooling. Again, NOT what the backradiation GHE is all about.

    We’re having a great laugh over your appeal to “less than formal” physics. That’s a great one! Quite great of you to be so open about it! hahaha

  184. “there is a need to focus on bidirectional energy transfers and it is fine to refer to the energy from the cooler body heating the hotter body without that breaking any laws of physics”

    NO, that is NOT fine. It is meaningless. It IS, of course, your “less than formal” physics. And the result of your belief and usage of “less than formal” physics is extreme and utter confusion on your part.

    Comparing convective stoppage in a closed atmosphere to a free open atmosphere and backradiation is indicative of the core confusion you people have created for yourselves with your “less than formal” physics.

  185. Pierre D. Bernier says:

    Keir, Then explain this to me…
    ttps://climateofsophistry.files.wordpress.com/2013/06/greenhouse.jpg
    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 that states that energy cannot be created nor destroyed, only transformed from one form to another. 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, not 4. That way we get our required 30 °C from the start, which creates the weather and climate, and we have no more need for GHGE ! Also, the earth having received 479,4 W/m2 on one hemisphere can now radiate it back to space at half that rate (239,7 W/m2) from both hemispheres at the same time as measured by the satellites.

    But unfortunately, that is not the full story yet. The Stefan-Boltzmann law and Wien’s law are both derived from Planck’s law. So, any mathematical operation using the SB law should be reflected in an appropriate way using Plank’s law. From the Washington University “greenhouse model” diagram above… 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 the Earth to ~303 K such that the earth emits 479.4 W/m2. Performing the same algebra using Planck’s law must give the same answer IF the SB law algebra is VALID.

    IT IS NOT ! ! ! 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 law. The 479.4 W/m2 curve resulting from the addition of two 239.7 W/m2 curves is not a Planck curve. 239.7 W/m2 + 239.7 W/m2 is not equal to sigmaT4 from Planck’s law. Therefore the SB law is used incorrectly. This nullifies all of climate “science’s” modelling.

    AND YOU’RE FROM THE OTHER SIDE. STRIKE 3. YOUR OUT. BYE !!!

  186. geran says:

    Keir,

    1. A “black body” is an imaginary concept. By definition, it absorbs all photons. So, when using the concept for thought experiments, you have to be careful not to violate the laws of physcs. The laws of physics supercede the definitions of imaginary concepts.

    2. Placing a cold object next to a hot object will not “reduce the heat transfer from the hot object”. You are confusing conduction through insulation with radiative emission. And you are also confusing heat transfer with energy transfer.

    3. You did say the temp would be raised: “However, in the case of an object with a constant energy input (sun heating earth) an atmosphere cooler than the surface will lead to an increase in the temperature of the surface as it reduces the net energy transfer away from the surface.”

    And that was your agenda, exposed again. You don’t want to understand. You want to twist and spin reality to fit your belief system. No matter how many different ways different people try to explain things to you, you remain locked in your false religion.

    We’ve seen it all before.

  187. Lol…yah, a cold object touching a warm object raises the temperature…of the warm object!!! Hahahaha

  188. Rosco says:

    Keir has forgotten all the real basic facts

    An atmosphere which is 99% composed of infra-red inactive gases cannot possibly be heated by this mechanism.

    The laws of black body radiation do not apply to substances, particularly gases, that DO NOT emit such radiation. There is experimental evidence that conclusively shows that as temperature increases the emissivity of CO2 and steam decrease. If they obeyed the Stefan-Boltzmann equation this would not happen.

    “However, in the case of an object with a constant energy input (sun heating earth) an atmosphere cooler than the surface will lead to an increase in the temperature of the surface as it reduces the net energy transfer away from the surface. It is the sun doing the heating, but back radiation from a cooler atmosphere will lead to a higher surface temp than the same surface without any back radiation. No principles of physics are violated for this to occur.”

    The atmosphere does NOT “reduce the net energy transfer away from the surface”.

    Only an idiot could make such a stupid assertion.

    A desert atmosphere free of the “major GHG (water vapour)” DOES NOT “reduce the net energy transfer away from the surface” you idiot !

    Surely even a moron like you can understand that conduction always cools Earth’s surfaces – it doesn’t insulate it from cold space.

    And “cold space” – what a fucking stupid argument !

    Deep space undoubtedly has very low levels of radiation BUT we are close to a powerful star which irradiates every bit of space in a “sphere” defined by Earth’s radius with a continuous flux capable of boiling water.

    The Moon has no atmosphere at all yet the surface temperatures reach far higher levels than anywhere on Earth – the difference according to NASA is Earth’s highest surface recorded land temperature is ~70.7°C whilst the Moon reaches close to ~110 – ~120°C.

    Our atmosphere reduces the heating impact of the solar radiation – it does not enhance it.

    I find it funny that back radiation heating a surface that the solar radiation could only heat to 254 K according to climate “science” has morphed into the equally insane argument that it is actually due to reducing the cooling rate – “When you are focused on explaining this reduction in heat loss it is convenient to refer to it as heating caused by the second, cooler body. (Which is what I understand they are doing in the radiative greenhouse model when they speak of back radiation)”

    What complete gobbledygook !!!

    The claim that a surface at 254 K and an “atmospheric layer” at 254 K exchanging equal energy can cause the surface to reach 303 K is absurd – they try to cower behind the continuous input from the Sun yet THEY obviously claim it can only cause 254 K in the first place.

    STUPID BEYOND BELIEF !

  189. Rosco says:

    All energy input to Earth does not simply result in an increase in temperature !

    Only a half educated fuckwit could claim this – oh wait I meant climate “scientist”.

    Energy in can cause any number of changes in state that do not necessarily increase temperature.

    Change in internal energy, changes of state, changes in viscosity, chemical changes such as photosynthesis.

    These people are half educated charlatans and do not follow the scientific method at all – they revers it and try endlessly to prove an unsubstantiated hypothesis which has so many holes in it Swiss cheese is envious.

  190. Rosco says:

    And just where did this nonsense about a black body absorbing all incident photons come from anyway ?

    As far as I understand it the cavity oven experiments were conducted in a cavity oven because the temperature of the cavity caused the emission. The concept of an incident photon entering the cavity being unlikely to escape was to ensure the internal temperature alone was the source of the emission – the radiation entering became part of the internal radiation field. There is zero evidence the radiation from the ambient temperature caused the cavity to be hotter but climate zealots can, and do, believe what they like.

    Without this a solution is impossible.

    To turn this around as climate “science” tries to seems ludicrous in the extreme as does applying laws derived from a continuous emission spectrum of black body radiation to substances that do not emit a spectrum even remotely similar is also dubious, if not absurd beyond belief.

  191. Greenhouse theory compares two different surfaces and then conflates the two, implying that the two are one and the same, in order to claim a difference that needs to be added to.

    It compares a surface that never had an atmosphere to a new “surface” that really is not a surface but the bottom part of a spherical shell of gas with THICKNESS, and it tries to call this spherical shell (with THICKNESS) a … “surface” … in the same way it calls a planet skin with no gas shell a “surface”, all the while pretending that the planet skin without the gas shell is the same surface as the gas shell (with THICKNESS).

    “Hey, look at this table top. Watch as I place a sheet of 1/2” plexiglass over the table top. So now the “top” under the glass is the same as the entire thickness of the glass. The properties of the surface under the glass, with the glass not there, are the same as the properties of the glass itself, even though I add new properties that create an entirely new table/glass system. I mean, you can see the table top under the glass, and so the glass is really not different from the table top without it.”

    … or something like that.

  192. CD Marshall says:

    Joseph,
    Heller is on Twitter. You should say hi.

  193. To Keir W:

    “By a strict thermodynamic definition, heat is defined as the net transfer of energy between two bodies due to their temperature difference.”

    Can you show me (cite) a formal definition of heat that has the word, “net”, in it? My understanding is that heat is defined as the transfer of energy between two bodies at different temperatures, where the energy transferred is from the hotter body to the cooler body. There is no “net”. There is just energy transfer from hot to cold.

    “In such a definition it is clear that a cold body can never heat a hot body.”

    … clearly sidetracked by the word, “net”.

    “But the devil in the definition is the word ‘net’.”

    That’s the “devil” in YOUR definition. I don’t think any formal definition has the word, “net”, in it.

    “When you start looking at the energy flows that contribute to the net flow you realise that energy does flow from a cold object to a hot object, but always at a lower rate than from the hot to the cold.”

    This is not my understanding. The cold object has less energy, which is always overridden by the greater energy of the hot object, and so no cold-body energy can ever flow towards the hot object. Energy FLOWS because it is GREATER than the cold body’s energy, and, therefore, has something to add to it. The energy of the cold body has NOTHING to add to (hence, flow towards) the hot body. The energy from a cold object does NOT “flow” towards the hot body, because it has nowhere to go — only the energy from the hot body can flow towards the cold body, because it DOES have somewhere to go, namely towards INCREASING the energy of the cold body.

    “When focusing on the two flows that contribute to this net flow both can be considered less formally as “heat flows”. “

    Two flows do NOT exist. Only ONE flow exists, and that is the flow from hot to cold. Hence, if no flow exists from cold to hot, then no heat flow exists from cold to hot, by ANY definition. As JP said, there is no such thing as a “less formal” definition of heat flow. This is something that you are making up, while using the erroneous idea that “flow” of energy is happening in both directions. If flow happens, then it is because the energy actually gets from one body to another to penetrate it to have an effect. No energy from the cold object actually gets to the hot object to penetrate it to have any such effect that you might imagine that it does.

    “The distinction between the strict and less formal use of the term “heating” is where the confusion arises.”

    There is not any confusion in people trying to explain this to you, which, to bring up a famous quote, makes you “not even wrong”. You have invented the idea of “less formal” to support your claim of backwards “flow” from cold to hot. The confusion, I’m afraid, is yours.
    ____________________________________________________

    “1. We are talking about black body radiation. So yes, the warmer object will absorb that energy.”

    No — that’s wrong. That energy is ALREADY enacted in the warmer body — there’s nothing further for the warmer body to “absorb”, therefore, from the lower-energy cooler body.

    “2. No one said the energy transfer from the hot object will be slowed (? = reduced?) I said the net energy will be reduced, which by definition is the heat; so yes, placing a cool object next to a hotter object will reduce the heat transfer from the hot object. That is the basis of how insulation works. “

    Whether a person says “energy transfer is slowed” or “net energy is reduced”, the same idea is being put forth. What does “net energy reduced” mean, if not “energy transfer slowed”? — how does reduction happen without slowing? One way of saying it is merely talking about an effect, while another way of saying it is talking about the cause of the claimed effect. It’s just a different approach to describing the same idea. And my understanding of insulation is that this is NOT how insulation works.

    “3. I didn’t say the temp would be raised for an isolated object cooling in space. I said it’s rate of loss will decrease.”

    Slowed cooling, right? — which makes the temp raised, right?

    “However, in the case of an object with a constant energy input (sun heating earth) an atmosphere cooler than the surface will lead to an increase in the temperature of the surface as it reduces the net energy transfer away from the surface.”</b.

    A cooler atmosphere leads to an increase in surface temperature — will you LOOK at what you are saying there?! The sun gives energy to the surface, which heats the atmosphere in a manner of decreasing air warmth with altitude, so at the highest levels where the air is cold, this cold air somehow gives MORE heat to the surface than the sun originally gave to cause the altitude-graded temperature gradation to begin with. You are lost.

    “It is the sun doing the heating, but back radiation from a cooler atmosphere will lead to a higher surface temp than the same surface without any back radiation.”

    It seems pointless now, but I ask you again to look at what you are saying — you are saying that a COOLER entity can add heat to an already WARMER entity. You are saying that the sun warms the surface in such a way that this warmth dissipates with altitude to create very cold air high up, and this very cold air high up, already heated as much as is possible by the Earth-radiated sun energy, adds even MORE heat than the heat that caused the high-up air temperature-existence to begin with.

    “No principles of physics are violated for this to occur.”

    You are not only lost but also possibly hopeless, if you cannot eventually see that yes, the most basic principles of physics ARE violated for this to occur.
    __________________________________________________________

    “No, the physics I used is perfectly formal and basic. Personally I only use the term heat in the formal sense as the net transfer of energy from a hot object to a cold one. However, their are other ways that the term heat get used in physics e.g. “the heating effect if an electric current”. Strictly there is no such thing as (for example) the filament if a bulb does not get hot due to heat transfer, but because of electrical work, yet this less formal use is widespread and accepted.”

    What you are trying to talk about there does NOT relate to YOUR use of the phrase “less formal”. When an engineer speaks of electricity “heating” a light-bulb filament, he/she is talking about electrical energy that meets resistance in such a way as to raise the temperature of the filament, which is a discussion about how electrical energy increases temperature of the filament. The reason increased temperature is detectable is because of heat transfer from the filament to a measuring instrument or just the sensation of nerve endings in human skin. Heat transfer DOES happen, because the filament is hotter than what it is compared to it to call it “hot”.

    “It is not a matter of one being correct and the other incorrect, it is just a matter of knowing what you are saying.”

    You are both incorrect, and not knowing what you are saying. You incorrectly describe a two-way flow, where only a one-way flow of energy actually occurs. You do not know that you are using “heat” in a way that violates accepted physics.

    “So, it would be pedantic to argue with an electrical engineer that a current can’t possibly heat the filament in a bulb because he is using the term heating to indicate an increased temperature and for his purposes this is correct.”

    Again, you do not really know what you are saying here, because you are falsely comparing your way of speaking “informally” with how engineers might speak informally to talk about increasing temperature in materials. Those engineers know that increased temperature in materials is a sure sign that the heat in those materials flows ONLY from hot to cold, and that there is no such thing as back-radiation from, say, a lamp shade that causes the filament in a light bulb to be hotter than if the lamp shade were not there.

    That’s all the time I have.

  194. Also to Kier,

    The word “net” is simply superfluous. Because the end result is always the same: temperature decreases in the hotter object and increases in the cooler object. So if you say “the net transfer of heat was x from point a to point b” it is exactly the same as saying “the transfer of heat was x from point a to point b”. The word “net” is meaningless. It is a distraction. It is nothing more than a deliberate attempt to unnecessary complexity for the sold purpose of trying to confuse and deceive. In short. It is Sophistry.

  195. * sole purpose

    Also if we have a constant power source keeping object a at a constant temperature then the heat flow is determined solely by the power output of the power source. And the temperature is a product of the power output and the resistance of the materials receiving the energy.

  196. CD Marshall says:

    “For energy to be available there must be a region with high energy level and a region with low energy level. Useful work must be derived from the energy that flows from the high level to the low level.” Fundamental thermodynamics.

  197. Pierre D. Bernier says:

    WoW ! I can see that everybody was pissed off just about equally by that guy (gal). We can say that the NET flow of energy was pretty much one way 🙂

  198. Joseph E Postma says:

    You guys know by now that these people, these freaks, are unrepentant, unmitigated, consummate sophists and liars. Let us look at the definition of “net”, as it applies here, i.e. how it is used for defining heat flow:

    https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/net

    “net – adjective

    Definition of net (Entry 3 of 5)
    1 : free from all charges or deductions: such as
    a : remaining after the deduction of all charges, outlay, or loss”

    *REMAINING AFTER THE DEDUCTION*

    That’s pretty clear. That’s pretty singular. That’s precisely what one gets when one does B – A, is the difference, the remaining, after A is deducted from B. 1 is what remains when 2 is deducted from 3. Q = sigma*(Th^4 – Tc^4) is what remains, the NET, after the cool is subtracted from the hot. *THE DIFFERENCE, the REMAINDER after the deduction, is the heat.*

    But these sick freaks, these perverted, sick, disgusting freaks, think somehow that people are unfamiliar enough with the word “net” that they can then redefine it so that both the difference and the original quantities are the same thing…when heat is specifically defined as being only the net, which means the result after the difference.

    They just openly pretend to redefine the entire meaning and usage of the term “net”. As in:

    “Heat flow is defined as the NET difference, but the energy from the cooler source can still be considered heat less formally.”

    NO….it CAN’T!

    You see this often…all of the sudden they start talking about “NET difference” as if it is useful for them…as if with that they can redefine which bodies have heat relative to other bodies.

    It is just open, blatant sophistry. The very last tactic they can use…the very last LIE that they can use after being debunked…is to just say that the definitional debunk of their position is in fact the supporting basis of their position.

    You all know this by now: these people are sick, demented, supremely perverted, and entirely degenerate. They are a disease…they represent a sick mental and physical disease. They’re AIDS, and cancer, and Alzheimer’s.

  199. Pierre D. Bernier says:

    Joe
    There’s a guy named Pierre R Latour PhD PE posting Radiant Energy Transfer Surface To Atmosphere. on PSI. He’s supposed to be a sceptic but I find anyone talking CO2 and SB Law at the same time freaks me out. Trudeau is just about to break the country apart under false science pretence. The bloc Québécois is all against pipelines and for Saudi oil imports and this guy puts his feet in the door preventing us from closing the fuckin GHGE door once and for all. What do you think of the guy ? Should I be worried or am I over reacting ?

  200. Joseph E Postma says:

    Oh yes Latour is a clandestine fraud who spent years infiltrating us. Seriously, about two or three years. Once he was firmly “in”, then suddenly he comes out with some “solution” where he claims that cold can heat hot, and this was after he originally came in with us writing an article for PSI refuting Spencer saying the same.

    After several years gaining confidence, then he writes this paper claiming he found a solution where cold heats hot by radiation. Most of the PSI people don’t have the full mathematical qualifications to examine such claims when put down in mathematical terms. I did though. It was all thoroughly debunked by me, and his paper used a strategy of constant and continuous *double and triple negatives* to try to make it so difficult to understand that the PSI editors simply couldn’t follow along and so would just accept it without being able to really review it. I reviewed it and pointed out what he was doing, and also pulled apart his sophistical math to show that it was invalid.

    You know it is so interesting that you bring this up just now…what a synchronicity. Because basically, he was mathematically implementing this idea that “net” means two things at once, that “net” means that heat also flows from cold to hot…just more from hot to cold. He came up with a way to write that mathematically, and make it look like thermodynamics. Of course, once you see that, then all I need to do is refer to the actual mathematical definitions and show how his new one is logically inconsistent with those…and then of course, what also happens, is that such math is inconsistent with regards to itself and so that can be shown too.

    Yah…he was quite the operation. A good several years getting in with us. Now, he’s just another Doug Cotton, or Zoe, attempting to harass me and my articles whenever they get the chance with sophistry. Sometimes he is still on email distro’s between us (PSI) and Spencer…and you should read him kiss Spencer’s ass and write about “how much he appreciates” Roy’s “excellent work” in climate science….lol barf. Then at the same time he’ll try to trash me for making the videos where I debunk Roy.

    Yah, Latour is a real disgusting fraud…a real operation. Not to be trusted.

  201. He even put the double and triple negatives all through his math equations to try to make them indecipherable too. He failed.

  202. geran says:

    Joseph, thanks for that info on Latour.

    I guess I was taken in by him also. I thought he was genuine. But today he posted on PSI, and I tried to show him where he was wrong. It was like dealing with a typical climate clown.

    I won’t waste anymore time with him.

    And thanks Pierre for asking Joseph about this. That clears it up.

  203. CD Marshall says:

    Too bad they are so well organized we can’t follow the money trail. I guarantee you the money trail would be quite illuminating on who is actually behind this scam. Some closed doors video would be helpful as well.

  204. CD Marshall says:

    So I have another question. When CO2 emits IR back to the surface is it absorbed? If so then what actually happens to it? I know it does not create heat, but what does it do?

    That energy is absorbed according to the 1st Law of Thermodynamics (If I am following this correctly), but according tot he 2nd law it doesn’t, no work is being done so is it even increasing energy?

    I can see where they try and slip in the sophistry. They are claiming the energy is part of net gain and claim that energy is increasing the surface temperature more because it’s increasing energy.

    Heat is not energy as you guys have pointed out ice cubes have energy but it certainly has no heat. Therefore they mix in temperature to try and confuse us of lesser education replacing heat with temperature to explain that an ice cube will change temperature and that proves it is heating.
    They have done this with the Arctic countless times. If it goes up in degrees they are calling it “warming” even though it is actually still freezing. A frozen ice cube remains a frozen ice cube as long as it’s freezing.

    Very subtle.

  205. Pierre D. Bernier says:

    CDM
    Just reflected as geran explained

  206. geran says:

    CD, your questions bring up some common points.

    #1 The action of photons impacting a surface does not imply the photons will be absorbed. “Absorption” is only one of several things that can happen to a photon. It all depends on wavelengths. A very short wavelength, relative to the surface, will actually penetrate the surface—think X-rays. A very long wavelength, relative to the surface, will be reflected. Absorption depends on a close compatibility between the photon’s wavelength and that of the surface.

    #2 Atmospheric CO2 emits mainly at a wavelength of 15 μ. That corresponds to an energy of 0.0827 meV. To put that into perspective, it would take about 77,760,000,000,000,000,000,000 such photons to equal 1 Joule. So it would take 4.2 times that many photons to raise 1 gram of water 1 degree C.

    You mentioned ice. An ice cube emits mainly at a wavelength of 10.7 μ. So ice photons are about 50% “hotter” that CO2 photons. As it’s hard to heat the surface with ice cubes, it’s even harder to heat it with CO2.

    #3 If a photon is reflected then there is no energy exchange, meaning there is no violation of any laws of thermodynamics. Reflection happens as often as absorption, otherwise our eyes would be of little use. Unless you are looking into a source, such as a fire or the sun, you are able to see because of reflected photons.

    #4 Absorption is affected by temperature. If you want a surface to be a good absorber, cool it off. If you could cool to Absolute Zero, the surface would be a “black body”, able to absorb all photons. If you heated a surface to a very high temperature it would be a very poor absorber. At room temperatures, infrared wavelengths are typically not absorbed. 


    #5 Another mis-direction (“red herring”) Warmists use is “If a system has more energy coming in than going out, its temperature MUST increase”. They apply that nonsense to Earth’s surface (the “system”). Adding more CO2 to the atmosphere means more infrared energy coming back to Earth. So, in their pseudoscience, they believe that means surface temperatures must rise.

    Of course infrared impacting the surface does NOT imply absorption. (See #1.) But even their statement is unscientific. You CAN add energy to a system without increasing temperatures. Bring a bowl of ice cream into your den. The ice cream is emitting infrared. You have “added energy” to the system (den), but do you expect the room temperature to increase? Or, add a liter of water at 40 degrees to a large bowl already containing water at 45 degrees. You have added energy to the large bowl (system), but the average temperature DROPS.

  207. “… and his paper used a strategy of constant and continuous *double and triple negatives*…”

    Just for the record, I do not disagree that climate alarmists are not observing the facts incorrectly. It is not incorrect, therefore, to not take their nonsense seriously.(^_^)

  208. Focusing on this statement again:

    “Heat flow is defined as the NET difference, but the energy from the cooler source can still be considered heat less formally.”

    To me, the phrase, “net difference”, is redundant. The word, “difference”, already contains the idea of subtraction. The word, “net”, contains the idea of remainder after subtraction.

    So, “net difference” seems to mean “remainder after subtraction subtraction”, which would be like the negative of a negative, which is a positive, which would indicate an ADDITION to the original quantity from which the subtraction was made. Clearly sophistry.

    … sort of in the same arena as “slowed cooling does not mean adding heat” — yes it does, … in the way that climate alarmists make such a claim.

  209. Exactly Robert, great comment! Good insight into how they use that phrase.

  210. Also, there is no “informal” sense in which a net energy result can possibly be “heat” moving from cold to hot, because the definition of “heat” positively requires that the “net” or “difference” moves TOWARDS the cooler source. “Heat” has no definition in the direction of cold to hot — heat ONLY has a definition in the direction of hot to cold.

    “Net” can ONLY apply to the cold source, with respect to the hot source.

    Calmly stating that there is an “informal” sense of heat that allows a violation of this most basic fact indicates utter confusion.

  211. Or utter blatant lying. Either way…the practitioners need to end.

  212. Christopher Marshall says:

    Thank you geran, way more informative than I had anticipated. I’m starting to understand why honest physicists were initially insulted by this absurd pseudoscience. Nobody can be that stupid who has been educated in this…so that just leaves willing accomplices.

  213. I love your explanation Geran and I will copy and paste it for a Facebook post. I often use the analogy of a sponge to counter GHE fraudsters use of blankets. Water flows through a sponge from faucet to basin and the sponge absorbs water on its way through. There is no “back flow” into the faucet and doubling the thickness of the sponge doesn’t make the sponge any wetter. We’ve simply added to the amount of water temporarily held by the sponge, in the same way you’ve mentioned bringing more energy into a room without making it hotter.

  214. Pierre D. Bernier says:

    geran
    same here. Exellant explanation.

  215. geran says:

    Thanks Gents, you display your intelligence by being able to process facts and logic.

    Probably why you enjoy Joseph’s blog….

    wwf, don’t be surprised if you get a huge backlash (back-radiation ☺) from clowns. They won’t accept any part of it because it destroys their false religion, which makes for great entertainment for us.

  216. Gary Ashe says:

    Pierre below is precisely what i said to you above, when you took umbridge to it.
    And first a quote of your recent reply.

    ”If we take into account an average albedo of 30%, 70% of that energy will reach the Earth’s surface, which gives us a heating potential of 480 W/m^2.

    What we have here is a snapshot in time where the Earth receives 480 W/m^2 on that hemisphere at that precise moment and radiates 240 W/m^2 from the whole sphere at that precise moment. One second later, or 1 minute later, or 1 hour later, it is another hemisphere which receives those 480 W/m^2 while the whole sphere still radiates 240 W/m^2.”
    ………………………………………………………….
    Now there you are saying the same thing i said here.

    ”Pierre the greenhouse model is a one second snap shot in time.
    It isn’t a 24 hour day night av model..
    A snap shot of the energy balance.

    If your equations say that one side of the planet is dark every second of the day and one side lit every second of every day and the lit side is receiving 480 w/m2 double the greenhouse effect model av 240 watts per metre squared over the whole area every second of every day then i agree with them,
    If they dont then you are wrong.

    The sun isnt half strength over the whole planet 24/7 it is full strength over half the planet every second…..

    Quite simple to me, the RGHE model is a 1 second in time model, any second of any day any week or month …
    That one second snap shot if it were real science would have each half of the earth emitting 480w and one side absorbing 960 w
    The half sphere absorbing per second the watts/joules that the whole sphere is emitting per second.

    ……………………………………………………..
    You didn’t agree and spent 3 or 4 postings not agreeing,………..
    Now you do.

  217. Pierre D. Bernier says:

    Gary Ashe
    I’m not sure what you are trying to get to. Maybe I’ve expressed myself badly. Sorry.

    My position has always been the same. 480 in on 1 hemisphere (day time) while 240 out on the whole sphere (day time & night time).

    24 hrs/day * 60 min/ hrs * 60 sec/min = 86400 sec/day

    86400 sec * 480 J/sec/m2 * 1 = 5184000 J/m2 in every day.

    86400 sec * 240 J/sec/m2 * 2 = 5184000 J/m2 out every day.

    Looks pretty much equal to me !!!

  218. Pierre D. Bernier says:

    Gary Ashe
    Sorry, bad maths…

    86400 sec * 480 J/sec/m2 * 1 = 41472000 J/m2 in every day.

    86400 sec * 240 J/sec/m2 * 2 =4147000 J/m2 out every day.

  219. Pierre D. Bernier says:

    Gary Ashe
    Geez, again
    86400 sec * 480 J/sec/m2 * 1 = 41472000 J/m2 in every day.
    86400 sec * 240 J/sec/m2 * 2 =41472000 J/m2 out every day.

  220. Gary Ashe says:

    It will be me Pierre that you didn’t get, because i’m no where near able to express myself the way you can express yourself.

    The quote of yours agrees with everything i was trying to get over……
    But does it far more clearly and succinctly..

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