Watch “Global Warming – What is the Truth? Interview with Astrophysicist Joseph Postma” on YouTube

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

256 Responses to Watch “Global Warming – What is the Truth? Interview with Astrophysicist Joseph Postma” on YouTube

  1. CD Marshall says:

    Interesting video I see you two had fun.

    So reading all of your posts and comments around I thought I had heard every version of political climate change out there, but once in while a new version pops up. This one states that the ideal gas law supports global warming for as CO2 increases, the atmospheric pressure increases the temperature. I’m not that well versed in “atmospheric pressure equilibrium” but I know that it exists. Again sounds like a teacher is mixing a student up on the laws of physics. Not sure if they used Venus as an example again, but I’m sure it will be in there somewhere.

    Now I know the total mass of the atmosphere is overwhelming compared to the minuscule contribution of CO2. The amount of CO2 required to make temps go up (or increase atmospheric pressure) would probably kill us first being as 12,000 ppm is the ideal max thought feasible to ever put in the atmosphere if we burned all fossil fuels at the same time and depleted it completely.

  2. CD,

    Just intuitively, any pressure increase from CO2 additions to Earth’s atmosphere would seem to be unnoticeable, if existent at all.

    The process of creating CO2 uses oxygen, so seemingly O2 would simply be replaced by CO2 and the total number of molecules in the atmosphere would not increase, where pressure is dependent on number of molecules, I think.

    In short, total craptology.

  3. I think Robert Homes actually did the calculation for the change in CO2 concentration for Earth via the ideal gas laws. The result was a cooling of the atmosphere by 0.02C because although the pressure rose with the extra mass the molecular density parameter with the change in atmospheric composition ratio counter acted it.

    The Connolly’s research into weather balloon data also showed density was the most important variable to correlate with temperature and explains the stratosphere as well as the troposphere.

  4. TEWS_Pilot says:

    Joseph, very few people know the primary reason why propellers were put on airplanes. it is actually to keep the pilots cool. You can prove it by watching the pilot if the propeller ever stops turning in flight…he will become very hot and sweaty.

  5. CD Marshall says:

    Thank you both now that you mention it I do recall seeing a comment on one the post’s here about that. Does anyone have a link for Connolly’s work? Don’t go out of your way but if its handy I’d appreciate it.

  6. CD Marshall says:

    So my Ideal gas law guy is back his latest post:

    “1.Let’s use Ideal Gas Law
    Earth 100% CO2
    T = 101.3 / (8.314 x 1.225/44) =437.63 K (result in absolute temperature)
    437.63K – 273.15=163.85 °C (conversion to Celsius)
    163.85 x 0.04%=0.06°C (now equal content)
    More CO2=more warming”

  7. These people are so insane that they have to STILL cling on to a negligible degree of warming of 0.06C lol! Literally retarded.

  8. CD Marshall says:

    He’s fixated on the Ideal Gas Law, it’s like the one thing he clings to and forfeits all other reasoning. Again another post:
    “Overall: i see the Ideal Gas Law is explaining everything with CO2 partial pressure effect worth 0.06°C. Water vapour has no measurable effect because is is liquid as drops, so with very difficult to model. The only thing that is changed by it is albedo.”

    Thank you.

  9. So this is yet another version of their greenhouse effect then? lol

  10. Pierre D. Bernier says:

    / More CO2=more warming” /
    GREAT ! He’s just proven that the heating would be due to physical characteristics of the atmosphere and not back radiation. How nice of him !

    Pressure and density would change in a 100% CO2 atmosphere. He did not change any of the variables. Any idiocies will do for them.

  11. CD Marshall says:

    Is his math right though, would it be 0.06C? I can’t imagine our atmospheric layers remain a constant fixed pressure. Seems a bit high of an increase from 0.04.

  12. NOTHING that these people do is ever right…

  13. CD Marshall says:

    I like learning so I use these opportunities to broaden my understanding. He has a good angle if they had used this approach in the first place it may have slipped over better. Just no evidence our atmosphere is increasing in pressure or if it were (and it’s not) that CO2 would be the cause.

  14. CD Marshall says:

    For now I just replied,
    “Have you heard of the ISA? (International Standard Atmosphere) it hasn’t changed much in many decades. The standard sea level pressure/temperature is 29.92 in. (1,013.25 mb) and 59°F (15°C).

    The “physics” used to disprove CO2 warming is not new, it’s very old. The laws of thermodynamics to disprove the warming by CO2 is also very old.

  15. Pierre D. Bernier says:

    The molar mass of CO2 is 12.01 g/mol + 2 * 16 g/mol = 44.01 g/mol
    At S.T.P, one mol of CO2 occupies 22.4 L = 22400 cm3
    So, the density of CO2 at S.T.P is = 44.01 g / 22400 cm3 = 0.001965 g/cm3
    Or 1.965 kg/m3

    So, for Earth 100% CO2
    T = 101.3 / (8.314 x 1.965 / 44) = 272.9 K (result in absolute temperature)
    272.9 K – 273.2 = -0.3 °C (conversion to Celsius)
    More CO2=more cooling


  16. CD Marshall says:

    He is trying to claim warming without the GHE. That’s why he’s focused on the Ideal gas Law it’s no different than saying geothermal is the cause. Same climate snake, different skin. In this case CO2 is still the cause.

  17. Pierre D. Bernier says:

    Look at the calculations above. 0C instead of the 15C. NO WARMING even with 100% CO2. Just push it in his face. CO2 is causing COOLING !

  18. 0.06°C is an artifact of a calculation that has no meaning in the physical world, where that sort of temperature measurement for the surface is probably outside the calibration error of temperature-measuring instruments. Now figure in other sorts of errors, and show me somebody who can make a temp measurement of the ENTIRE Earth, where two decimal places to the right of zero has any physical meaning at all — it does NOT, as I see it.

  19. CD Marshall says:

    When desired theory overrides the scientific verification process, you get idiots who know some science, not scientists who know you’re the idiot.

  20. CD Marshall says:

    So I found my way “in” to one of Joseph’s videos, he mentioned the S-B Law used in his calculations so I sent him to “Real Climate Physics vs. Fake Political Physics” for a lesson on how to properly use that. Either way my work here is done.

    If the lad has one ounce on sincerity he’ll ask the right questions and if not another log for the fire.

    Sorry bad eye sight!!!! I didn’t even see the corrected math you did on his calculations.

  21. CD Marshall says:

    So a left field question are black holes a perfect black body or is that a different phenomenon? Is dark matter considered an absolute black body? Would that mean it is theoretically absolute zero?
    IF it is absolute zero that would be evidence absolute zero can indeed be achieved in nature. Right?

    Technically nothing visible is a perfect black body?

  22. CD Marshall says:

    Back to PV=nRT guy he has now shown the head of the climate snake as they always do: Uroboros.

    “Proper calculation is from the volume and partial pressure:
    Earth 100% CO2
    T = 101.3 / (8.314 x 1.225/44) =437.63 K (result in absolute temperature) 437.63K – 273.15=163.85 °C (conversion to Celsius)
    163.85°C x 0.04%=0.06°C (now equal content)
    If we double the CO2: 163.85°C x 0.08% = 0.1 °C
    To confirm the results we need more ways:
    0.06°C (Meteorologist Chuck Wiese)
    0.06°C (Fred Goldberg)
    Let’s see we can use Solar irradiance:
    There are only two wavelengths where CO2 acts as a GHG (around 4 microns and 15 microns) and they are quite narrow, and represent less than 5 percent of the total spectral range of earth’s natural radiative heat to space.
    Now equal concentration to define the energy density:
    Water vapor concentration: 10 000 ppm (average) or 1%
    Carbon dioxide concentration: ~400 ppm (average) or 0.04%
    10 000/400 = 25 or 1/25 ~0.05
    0.05 x 5% = 0.002
    We know greenhouse gases increase global temperature by 33 °C.
    33°C x 0.002 = 0.06°C
    total influence of Carbon Dioxide is 0.06°C.”

  23. Pierre D. Bernier says:

    Ok. Here’s my full picture ! STP stands for Standard Temperature and Pressure. It is defined as 0C (273.15K) and 101.3 kPa. With that in mind, the volume occupied by 1 mole of gas at STP is…

    V = n * R * T / P = 1 * 8.3145 * 273.15K / 101.3 = 22.42 L
    The molar weight of our atmosphere is 28.97 gm/mol. So, the density of our atmosphere at 0C is…
    ρ = 28.97 / 22.42 = 1.292 kg/m3.
    Putting that in Holmes gas equation gives…
    T = P * M / (8.3145 * ρ) = 101.3 * 28.97 / (8.3145 * 1.292) = 273.19 K = 0.04 C
    Small wonder !!! I put in 0 C and get back 0 C !!!
    OK. Let’s go for the Engineering tool box temperature of 15C at sea level.
    V = n * R * T / P = 1 * 8.3145 * 288.15K / 101.3 = 23.65 L
    ρ = 28.97 / 23.65 = 1.225 kg/m3.
    Here it is, Holmes’ density of 1,225 kg/m3.
    T = P * M / (8.3145 * ρ) = 101.3 * 28.97 / (8.3145 * 1.225) = 288.13 K = 14.98 C
    Yet another wonder !!!
    OK. Let’s go for Earth 100% CO2 at 15C.
    V = n * R * T / P = 1 * 8.3145 * 288.15K / 101.3 = 23.65 L
    ρ = 44.01 / 23.65 = 1.861 kg/m3.
    T = P * M / (8.3145 * ρ) = 101.3 * 44.01 / (8.3145 * 1.861) = 288.12 K = 14.97 C
    Look at that… 15 = 15 !!!
    Earth’s temperature with atmosphere 100% CO2 wont change at constant pressure of 101.3 kPa. No GHGE !

    Joe !

    Question ! My blind spot here. Where will 101.3 kPa be relative to sea level with composition change ? Higher, lower or same ? A small rock (N2) or a big rock (CO2) fall with the same acceleration !?!?.I’m getting too old !

  24. Why are people speculating about an Earth with 100% CO2? Why not speculate about a unicorn with the color pink as its primary attribute? Why do we defer to mythological thought experiments to try confirming what is right before our eyes? It all seems like another sophistic diversion to me — a mind game to keep the religion in play.

    Entertaining sophistic mythological thought experiments is giving too much consideration to people (people?) thinking them up. Steel greenhouses, 100% CO2 Earth atmospheres, electric circuits, or whatever analogy du jour might arise, … don’t entertain them. Deal with the facts.

    I was thinking of a good analogy that might appeal to farmers, called the “milk bucket effect”, which involves the concept of “back milking” to describe the phenomenon of how milk from the cow’s utters accumulates at a greater rate than it otherwise would without the effect.

  25. CD Marshall says:

    The key to his deceptions is snuck in around his math:
    “We know greenhouse gases increase global temperature by 33 °C.”

    After he had just stated that PV=nRT correlates temperatures in his previous posts. now we are back tot he GHE. Smoke and mirrors.

    These people…

  26. geran says:

    Robert, the “MBE”–what an ingenious analogy!

    And all the add-ons like “We need to outlaw milk buckets. Otherwise all the cows will explode!”

  27. Funny you should focus on this line:

    “We know greenhouse gases increase global temperature by 33 °C.”

    … because my reaction, upon reading it, was NO, WE DO NOT !

    Smoke and mirrors and going in circles.

  28. CD Marshall says:

    This is what I said:
    “The atmosphere creating it’s own increased temperature, really? What thermodynamics class did you learn that from?

    Oh I know they teach it but that +33 degrees is already accounted for in the Sun’s surface irradiation. The atmosphere does not create it’s own temperature.

    The average surface temperature certainly is 15C but the average solar irradiance shouldn’t be divided by 4 for incoming solar energy. That is the political version of science for whatever reason.

    Pure nonsense:

    I know I’ve heard all the excuses as to why. However outgoing radiation is 240 W/m^2 becasue it is a global average divided by 4 in a 24 hour period (still not quite accurate but close enough). The effective blackbody as seen from space is -18C. Incoming solar irradiance is not global, is it? Therefore it should only be divided by 2 and by doing that your missing +33 degrees is present and accounted for.

    If you had watched that video you’d know that.

    You can read it here:

    In any case your questions have been answered.


  29. tom0mason says:

    Interesting video Joe. So much to think about.
    On your ideas of Illuminati, with at one end chaos and 0 the other, I prefer a Smith Chart for a view of reality (probably due to my training).
    Smith_chart_gen.svg.png from wikipedia (

    At the right side there is infinity (emotionalism, madness and chaos) and at the left is zero, in the center is 1 — where our true reality resides. Above and below are the imaginary domains (+j and -j) where through thought we amble as we try to get to reality (1 or the center), or away from it.
    Currently with ‘climate science’ it is close to infinity (emotionalism) and dancing wildly from imaginary +j to -j.

    Have a good day

  30. Joseph E. Postma says:

    Cheers TM.

  31. tom0mason says:

    Oops, plot of the chart failed, so lets try this one but it’s BIG!

  32. tom0mason says:

    You all may be interested to read “Scientists: Climate Records ‘Correlate Well’ With Solar Modulation…” at

  33. CD Marshall says:


    Thanks to your excellent photon example you shared for us I was able to knock out three of Potholer’s trolls one after the other.

    The final frustrated response I received was:
    “Go away anyone reading this thread knows who provided the peer reviewed papers and who didn’t. as stated ,the same place as Dentists Doctors Architects Engineers Lawyers Chemists (People in my life , Hydrologist,Teacher. Robotics, R N Nurse.}
    ALL learned from.Universities. built off the peer reviewed system !! Take Care !!”

  34. [“ALL learned from.Universities. built off the peer reviewed system !!”]

    This, of course, assumes that the peer reviewed system has sustained its integrity, which I have been led to believe that it has NOT, and THAT’s the problem — the assumption that the peer reviewed system has integrity is open to challenge. Hence, the products of the peer reviewed system are open to challenge.

  35. geran says:

    Thanks CD. Glad it helped.

    But another mistake your adversary makes, in mentioning “Dentists, Doctors, Architects, Engineers, Lawyers, and Chemists”, is that all those professions have to get it right. They don’t get to change established laws of physics and science to match their beliefs. They don’t get to live off computer models. They have to GET IT RIGHT.

    Climate clowns only have to work to keep the hoax going so the funding continues to roll in.

    And speaking of climate clowns, what infamous “University PhD” stated the following:

    “My blog post simply points out that less infrared energy escaping from the Earth to space leads to net energy accumulation, and a temperature increase.”

    “As we add more CO2, slightly less infrared energy is lost to outer space, strengthening the Earth’s greenhouse effect. This causes a warming tendency in the lower atmosphere and at the surface…”

    “To answer your question, more CO2 does not, strictly speaking, ‘add heat energy to the system’, it instead reduces the rate of energy loss. EITHER ONE INCREASES TEMPERATURE.”

    “But while I am in general supportive of questioning even our most cherished and long-held scientific beliefs, I do not yet see a reason for abandoning the basic physics of the greenhouse effect.”

    All direct quotes. Charlatan extraordinaire!

  36. CD Marshall says:

    This I think was my favorite troll comment after going through geran’s thorough explanation of the insignificant power of an IR photon at 15 microns, how many would equal a joule, how many joules it takes to raise 1 gram of water 1 Celsius THIS was his reply:

    “Very interesting, but can you cite a scientific study that concludes that this means that CO2 can’t drive temperature?”

    These people are deranged, ignorant, stupid and corrupt. They are really like the walking dead. Brain dead zombies. Automatons programmed but without natural thinking capacity or apparently self awareness.

  37. [““Very interesting, but can you cite a scientific study that concludes that this means that CO2 can’t drive temperature?”]

    The most appropriate reply to this question would be:

    Can you cite a scientific study that concludes that this means that CO2 CAN drive temperature?

    Of course, he could not, because most climate “science” … “studies” … do not analyze from this point of view.

  38. Pablo says:

    Found this…in agreement that 480W/sqm incoming needs to be used for any calculation of real heating.

    “A rough estimate of the irradiation incident per unit area (H) of the Earth’s surface can be made if we assume that 30% of the Sun’s energy is lost in the atmosphere and that the a day is an average of 12 hours long at any location.
    H=0.7\times 684\times 12 = 5.75~kWh/day
    Or if we assume that the Sun is only at an appreciable strength for an average 6 hours in the day (as is likely in more northerly latitudes):
    H=0.7\times 684\times 6 = 2.88~kWh/day”


  39. geran says:

    Pablo, your link is mostly correct, but just so there is no confusion:

    Most people agree that 30% is reflected back to space. It is NOT “lost in the atmosphere”. The 30% is not part of Earth’s energy balance.

    And although it is clearly stated, “…irradiation incident per unit area…”, the units for area were left off.

    “5.75~kWh/day” >>> should be 5.75 kWh/m^2/day

    “2.88~kWh/day” >>> should be 2.88 kWh/m^2/day

    Almost any attempt to simplify the solar impact on Earth is better than the failed example from pseudoscience. However, I believe the best illustration was done by Postma, years ago.

  40. Pablo says:

    geran, that got my attention too, but maybe they are onto something regarding the separation between diffuse and direct radiation to the surface. They do mention the /sqmetre in the chart…

    “Figure 2.10 shows the yearly profile of mean solar radiation for different locations around the world. The solid grey line show the value of 5.75 kWh/day and the dashed grey line shows 2.88 kWh/day.”

    It seems that water vapour changes half the power of direct sun to the surface in the tropics to a more diffuse form which plants actually prefer.

  41. CD Marshall says:

    I have noticed even in “actual readings” of specific area solar irradiation they average it to 24hrs which makes no logical sense to me at all (now). Why are they taking real records and spreading over an entire day and claiming that is the average? I saw that both in the Stockholm readings and the Potsdam, Germany readings. Instead of it being around 120 W/m^2 it should be double that during daylight hours only.

    How can this tiny math error be so prevalent over the entire world and no one has ever said, “Hey I want the actual reading of real solar irradiance on the surface…???”

    I could see doing an average of surface irradiation in 24 hours but that would have to be allocated by the trajectory of the Sun not just the region. For example what is the average solar irradiance in 24hrs around the entire equator. That would be a reasonable average becasue you are following the sunlight to the surface, not regional sunlight average.

  42. Christopher Marshall says:

    IF that comment above made any actual sense to a real scientist?

  43. geran says:

    Joseph, I had time this morning to go back and look at some of your previous posts, many of which I had missed. I found this:

    You shared several emails from “Monckton of Brenchly”. He attacked you for not accepting the GHE pseudoscience. His emails are quite revealing, and now preserved for everyone to see.

    Thanks for all of your efforts, including all the unjustified abuse you must deal with. It’s nice to have “Climate Heroes” to counter the “Climate Clowns”.

  44. Forgot about all that. Great article, glad I posted it!

  45. CD Marshall says:

    Is 1 W/m^2 1 joule per second?

    How do you convert that to temperature?

    I have a feeling this is going to lead to homework…

    Thanks as always.

  46. Joseph E. Postma says:

    1 joule per second per square meter. Use the Stefan Boltzmann Law to convert to temperature.

  47. geran says:

    CD, since you have fun debating with Warmists, here’s a fun way to also learn the S/B equation:

    A thin, blackbody plate is perfectly insulated on the back side, with the front side facing the sun. It is suspended in space so that it receives the solar constant, minus albedo, or 960 Watts/m^2.

    The only way energy can enter or leave the plate is from the front side. So, at equilibrium it is emitting 960 Watts/m^2, to equal the 960 Watts/m^2 incoming. The S/B Law tells us that for the plate to emit 960 Watts/m^2, its temperature must satisfy:

    960 = σT^4
    or T = 361 K (87.6 ºC, 189.6 ºF)

    So now you can rattle Warmists’ cages. Earth’s average surface temperature is about 288 K. Tell them Earth’s “Refrigerator Effect” (RE) cools the surface by 361 – 288 = 73K!

    They’ll like that….

  48. CD Marshall says:

    I’m talking to another “physicist” right now. We’ll see how this rolls. Our main subject wasn’t climate but I rolled it in to see where he’s coming from. Talking to you guys and how brilliant your unfettered science is I have my doubts about all these YT proclaimed “physicists”.

    Then again even if he is a physicist he is still only as clever as his education.

  49. You kinda have to realize that most of them are literally braindead…high IQ braindead…able to repeat what they’ve been shown but braindead…like a computer. They literally can’t understand that you can’t do good science with flat Earth theory- this is beyond them.

  50. CD Marshall says:

    Yeah my brother talked to someone like that. He argued with my brother for 45 minutes on how ballistic forensics is fake, that’s its impossible to tell what barrel a bullet was fired from. So my brother (in detail) explained how a gun barrel was made, the temperatures, the lbs of pressure, the machines used, everything, He went in detail about how microfractures occur on the barrel and how 2 barrels could never be the same on a microscopic level.

    His reply (and this is from a very intelligent person) “I just don’t believe it’s possible.”

    Good grief.

  51. CD Marshall says:

    “Yes. Explaining VENUS is easy. There inst a radiation greenhouse effect, firstly because the amount of light which reaches the surface is about 1 to 3%, meaning it doesn’t get there to warm it, so therefore its heat cant be as a result of back radiance from the light warming the ground, being warmed and then re-radiated. Secondly Venus is highly volcanic. Thirdly, Venus has an extremely thin crust which enables a high rate of heat transfer from the mantle below & to top it all off Venus has an air pressure of 90 Bar. On earth just walking into a greenhouse set to 2 bar air pressure will cause a big rise in temperature even just using air. These are the reasons why Venus is so hot.” -Geraint Hughes

    Anything to add or is this pretty good as is? Geothermal does contribute to the temperature of that planet. How does the sulfuric acid fit in? Joseph you mentioned you might do a video on this?

  52. “-The Glamorous Joseph of Postma-“

    (^_^) … (^_^) … (^_^) … a priceless signature.

  53. boomie789 says:

    Great interview. Keep fighting the sophist.

  54. Pierre D. Bernier says:

    / this is from a very intelligent person) “I just don’t believe it’s possible.” /
    I worked 32 years as a chemist at the Montreal Provincial Forensics Lab. Tell the guy it’s not only possible, it is so !

  55. CD Marshall says:

    I believe you but this fellow has emotional logic. What comes as no surprise is at one point he had hi level clearance in our government. Just more proof the world is ran by idiots.

  56. CD Marshall says:

    This comment tells it all:
    “My sister is married to a noaa scientist and he’s the biggest POS on the planet. He got a massive payoff about 15 years ago because all of a sudden they had a lot of money and bought a multi million dollar house … that guy would sell his mother for the right price so of course he lies about climate change. he’s also a really hateful backstabing person who no one in our family has ever liked and that was from ‘day one’… my sister was always sort of a bitch but after she went to college for 6 years she’s completly insane and a tryrant if there ever was one. It’s all quite sad really/about her anyway but so far she just keeps getting more insane. as for her husband he is evil to the core and bullies anyone he can. He hates our family because none of us will take an ounce of shit from him /thus meaning he has cut us off for the past 10 years … “oh darn” LOL … ‘good riddince to bad rubbish’ “

  57. CD Marshall says:

    “Climatology is such a great profession, you can never be wrong about anything.” -Tony Heller.

  58. Pierre D. Bernier says:

    Dont worry about your sister. You’re not alone. Everyone has one like that. Even me. She reads Erich Von Daniken if that tells you anything. By curiosity, I read his book on alchemy when I was in university. It’s a real eye opener on how stupid and gulllible people can be. Anyways, I dont talk or see her anymore for at least 20 years now. She’s a waste basket know nothing case environmentalist. The kind of people that makes Albertans want seperation from Canada. Now, I feel better !!!

  59. CD Marshall says:

    That wasn’t from me Pierre, it was a comment from someone else verifying the corruption of NOAA. However, I do have a sister I haven’t seen in so long it does fit in that category. Sometimes I forget she exists, it’s been 30 years since I seen her. I know nothing about her and yes that was her choice to separate from the family and have no contact. As long as she’s happy what do I care? For the record, I don’t think she’s ever been happy.

    Family is great aren’t they?

  60. … a philosophical diversion now:

    What is the purpose of life? ANSWER: To die.
    — Sir Kernodle of Earth

  61. CD Marshall says:

    What’s the difference between a dead person and live person? Nothing, their molecular structure is exactly the same. -Joke from the Watchmen.

  62. CD Marshall says:

    I have a bloated bs scientist here who is long winded or had it prepared before hand:

    “CO2 is the main driver of the climate currently, not the only one Chris. You saying: if the science is wrong, it is wrong is just as ridiculous as saying if you are wrong about what you are saying, you are wrong. If you want to know more about the radiative forcing effects on the climate, see below.

    – Surface Albedo has changed due to activity such as deforestation. This increases the Earth’s albedo – the planet’s surface is more reflective. Consequently, more sunlight is reflected directly back into space, giving a cooling effect of -0.2 Wm-2.

    – Ozone affects the climate in two ways. The depletion of stratospheric ozone is estimated to have had a cooling effect of -0.05 Wm-2. Increasing tropospheric ozone has had a warming effect of +0.35 Wm-2.

    – Solar variations affect climate in various ways. The change in incoming Total Solar Irradiance (TSI) has a direct radiative forcing. There is an indirect effect from UV light which modifies the stratosphere. The radiative forcing from solar variations since pre-industrial times is estimated at +0.12 Wm-2. Note that the radiative forcing from solar variations may be amplified by a possible link between galactic cosmic rays and clouds. However, considering the sun has shown a slight cooling trend over the last 30 years, an amplified forcing from solar variations would mean a greater cooling effect on global temperatures during the modern warming trend over the last 35 years.

    – Volcanoes send sulfate aerosols into the stratosphere. These reflect sunlight, cooling the earth. A strong volcanic eruption can have a radiative forcing effect of up to -3 Wm-2. However, the effect of volcanic activity is transitory – over several years, the aerosols wash out of the atmosphere and any long term forcing is removed.

    Aerosols have two effects on climate. They have a direct cooling effect by reflecting sunlight – this is calculated from observations to be -0.5 Wm-2. They also have an indirect effect by affecting the formation of clouds which in turn affect the Earth’s albedo. The trend in cloud cover is one of increasing albedo which means a cooling effect of -0.7 Wm-2.

    – Stratospheric Water Vapour has increased due to oxidation of methane and had a slight warming effect of +0.07 Wm-2.

    – Linear Contrails from aviation have a slight warming effect of +0.01 Wm-2.

    – Nitrous Oxide reached a concentration of 319ppb in 2005. As a greenhouse gas, this contributes warming of +0.16 Wm-2.

    – Halocarbons (eg – CFC’s) were used extensively in refrigeration and other industrial processes before they were found to cause stratospheric ozone depletion. As a greenhouse gas, they cause warming of +0.337 Wm-2.

    – Methane is actually a more potent greenhouse gas than CO2. Pre-industrial methane levels, determined from ice core measurements, were around 715 parts per billion (ppb). Currently methane rates are at 1774 ppb (eg – 1.774 parts per million). The radiative forcing from methane is +0.48 Wm-2.

    – CO2 levels have increased from around 280 parts per million (ppm) in pre-industrial times to 384 ppm in 2009. The radiative forcing from CO2 is +1.66 Wm-2. CO2 forcing is also increasing at a rate greater than any decade since 1750.

    If you paid attention you would notice that CO2 has the largest radiative forcing effect with +1.66 Wm-2. If you still want to fight that CO2 is the main driver of the climate currently, please show me scientific evidence to back up your claim. Show me the science, Chris. Where are your numbers?”

    The bs express is full tilt on this one.

  63. Joseph E. Postma says:

    There is ZERO radiative forcing from CO2 – radiative forcing from CO2 is *impossible*, and the entire idea of radiative forcing from the colder atmosphere to the warmer surface comes from the flat Earth models where sunlight is written *out* of the climate by averaging its input over the entire surface at once…thus requiring that the climate makes up the difference for itself by warming itself.

    It is amazing that they cannot understand the logic of how that works!

  64. CD Marshall says:

    This was my reply I hope I got it right. I did find it interesting that the is recording warmer temps in the upper troposphere. Where can I find TSI again? I had the link once and lost all my bookmarks. Actually I need ToA solar irradiance as well and solar cycles again.

    Anyway this was my reply:

    “The science is simple Water Vapor is the main greenhouse gas and according to your logic temperatures with greater water vapor mixed with CO2 should be higher. They aren’t. Deserts are by far the hottest places on earth in direct sunlight . Period.

    Same regional locations from desert to humid regions are far cooler from water vapor overwhelming any contribution of CO2.

    Simply put no CO2 holds temps over deserts at night, ever.

    last but not least, 15 microns, the peak absorption rate of CO2, is nothing. Convert that to meV equivalent tell me what you get? Do you know how many 15 micron photons-equivalent is needed to raise 1 gram of water 1 Celsius? It is phenomenal.

    Nothing in the atmosphere increase the temperature. The temperature is created on the surface *from solar energy*. Andy and I have had this conversation before.

    Emissivity or albedo is generating/reflecting from one source: solar energy.

    Solar activity has not decreased in the last 30 years you are so full of political science you have become delirious.

    The temperature gradient of the atmosphere has not changed in decades, your Bolsheviks analogy aside. Average surface temperature 288.15 Kelvin and the middle of the troposphere around 15,000 feet its 216.7 Kelvin and near the top, or the tropopause, it’s a tad warmer at 226.5 Kelvin according to the ISA. So CO2 is making the middle of the troposphere colder but the top warmer?

    Of the 104 key location/region temps I use everyday, no more than 20 regions (10%) in the entire world is over 80F/26.6C and that doesn’t change. Most of the time it’s only 14 regions and of those regions few ever reach 90F/23.2C as of right now, only 2. In fact I haven’t seen 100+F temps since the summer in the Northern Hemisphere.

    Finally, Conservation of Energy is equal in and out.

    In=960 W/m^2

    Sun only shines on half the globe so it is 480 W/m^2 divided by 2 and that accounts for all the solar energy you need to warm the climate.

    Out=960 W/m^2. (240 watts per square meter divided by all the globe (4) is 240 W^2, or the effective black body temperature of -18 Celsius/255.15 Kelvin.)

  65. CD Marshall says:

    Is this correct or did I muss up again? I hate redacting.

  66. Joseph E. Postma says:

    It’s fine I would think.

  67. CD Marshall says:

    I am puzzled about the upper troposphere being recorded as warmer than the middle now by the ISA.

    Anyone thanks for your time. I know genius never rests.

  68. Joseph E. Postma says:

    They just constantly lie and misinterpret. Don’t worry about it. They may be referring to the region above the troposphere where the temperature does weird stuff and does get hotter, but this is outside of the idea-gas range because the density of gas is so low. As long as you’re in the troposphere proper, it decreases in temperature with altitude, period (aside from temporary inversions ofc).

  69. ___________________________________________________________
    “– CO2 levels have increased from around 280 parts per million (ppm) in pre-industrial times to 384 ppm in 2009. The radiative forcing from CO2 is +1.66 Wm-2. CO2 forcing is also increasing at a rate greater than any decade since 1750.

    If you paid attention you would notice that CO2 has the largest radiative forcing effect with +1.66 Wm-2. If you still want to fight that CO2 is the main driver of the climate currently, please show me scientific evidence to back up your claim. Show me the science, Chris. Where are your numbers?”

    Radiative forcing is a crock. I’d like to see how that +1.66 was derived. How can you apportion W/m^2 anyway? — that seems like a crock too. How does anybody know, or how could anybody know any “radiative forcing” in 1750 — this all seems to be deduced from preconceived fallacies, propagated by ill conceived computer models. Crap. Crap. Crap.

    “Please show me some real science, in place of this pseudo science”, would be part of my reply, along with “Where are your wits?”

  70. CD Marshall says:


    Climate Scientists Are (Quite Literally) Flat Earthers
    May 13, 2017


  71. Oh wow. But he doesn’t know just how true that statement actually is!!!!!!!!

  72. CD Marshall says:

    Still doesn’t, apparently. Tony seems to have glimpses but isn’t seeing the whole picture yet.

    I’m curious, were your talents discovered at a young age and were your parents supportive? Good parents push you towards your talent to the point you may hate them at the moment, but appreciate them later on in life. My parents were good, but never pushed us into our talents.

    I know it sounds strange to normal people but I’d rather have given up a normal child life and instead pursued my future more. Most childhood friends in school fade and disappear. It’s a pseudo life and not usually a glimpse into your future. In blunt words, I felt like most of my childhood was a waste of time. Many countries incorporate a child’s education as their future over anything else. I respect that decision for a kid.

    That’s just my opinion based on logic without emotional attachment. Everyone has different childhood experiences that make you or break you I suppose.

    For example my brother found parents who pushed him over my own parents. One of his friend’s father was an architect and taught my brother architecture in the 9th grade. IF we had supportive parents he would have taken the promised college scholarship (from football) and used it to further his mental skills. He did not choose that and ended up in the Marines, then special forces and if I hadn’t talked him out of it an anti-terrorist squad named after a Canadian Indian tribe, the Saskatchewans.

    Now he is a builder/gun trainer and most importantly, not KIA over a political dispute.

  73. Joseph E. Postma says:

    I’ve been too busy lately but do have a video discussing Tony Heller (positively but that he misses what the GHE is about) in the workds…have the slides mostly finished and so just need to narrate it.

    You want to know about my childhood? Oh my.

    It was a witness of the spectacle and debauchery and parasitism of Boomerism. My dad inherited a beautiful farm with lots of land and quota and crop, which I luckily got to grow up on a few times, and he squandered it away on chasing tail. My mom took us on and off that farm several times through break-ups and reconciliations, and my siblings and I ever knew where we would end up next. We would repeatedly go from “having it all” (i.e. the farm we liked and the security and family life), to starving in some strange house that mom moved us out into because dad cheated on her and beat her up again. We would spend days by ourselves (my siblings and I) in these other places not knowing where mom was, eating the batter off of onion rings, and sugar on white bread. This is me at 5-6, my little sister at 2, my older brother and sister at 8 and 10, etc. But it went on and on like this from my age 0 through 12. We would watch as my mom and dad kicked the shit out of each other, literally, across the farm, through the chicken barns, rolling around in chicken shit, throwing chicken shit in each other’s faces, down the lane behind the barn, back up into the house now covered in chicken shit…kicking and slapping the F out of each other, and while we little ones chased them along crying and in fear and begging them to just stop, pleading and crying for them to just stop fighting, but of course they wouldn’t. Our parents *did not GAF* about our protestation, desires, needs, wants, well-being, etc etc etc…*AT ALL*. We were simply not there. They had their issues together and that was that. Cheating, fighting, mom’s new boyfriend literally coming to kill our dad one day so that him and mom could take over the farm…only stopping the final kill at the last moment because thankfully this other guy couldn’t do it with kids literally around and watching. Boiling pots of water containing what should have been our hot dogs for supper thrown across the table at each other…supper’s over another fight. Wooden broom sticks splintered into a thousand shreds as they snap over my dads knees from my mom’s rage. My dad hanging us out of the 2nd floor window of the house pretending he was going to let us drop so that he could enjoy the fear, screaming, and, eventually, catatonia he would get out of us watching us think that we were about to die and splat on the ground. Catatonia was the only solution to get him to stop…the more you begged for your life, the more he would pretend you were about to slip from his grip and fall to your death and die. A multi-million dollar business farm with several hundred acres (one of the largest in that particular area of Southern Ontario) squandered to divorce lawyers…nothing left whatsoever after all was said and done. I had a mental nervous breakdown in grade 3 and FN lost my mind one day…LOL. My mom brought me to the local dump when I was 14…to find a job there for me. They didn’t hire me…even at the dump our family’s reputation was by now so abhorrent to the community. Didn’t eat anything at highschool for the first two years – nothing to pack, no money for food. Same old same old. In elementary the teachers would ask where my lunch was…said I ate in on the bus…but there was never any lunch…lol. In 3rd year highschool I think I finally got a job pumping gas…gave me beer money and then some friends. Drank SO much FN beer. In 3rd year HS was still taking 1st year highschool classes which I repeatedly failed.

    At some point between third and fourth year in highschool, walking to the store for some cigs…I felt like I wanted to know what the word “solar system” was. And what the word “galaxy” meant. When things were *stable* in my childhood I always wanted the telescope in the Sears Christmas Catalogue…but the stability never ever lasted long enough so that what you wanted from the catalogue ever became something you got from the catalogue. Anyway, went to the HS library for the first time ever, and found a Time Life series book about the universe. They, Time Life, had a whole series called “Voyage Through the Universe”. Great series. I learned was a solar system was. And what a galaxy was. And a universe. And I was shocked at the idea that people could ask and answer “where the universe came from”!!?? The Big Bang are you serious??!! Something transformed through me. I took adult-ed courses outside of HS hours to get caught up on math, so that I could take physics. A teacher told me I could go to university. To what??? lol So I eventually aced all my classes and got a small scholarship to go to Western. Would have done a lot more…but as you can imagine my internal emotional life was completely FKD and could never have a stable relationship with women. You can imagine…I was emotionally extremely needy and insecure *AF*…normal healthy women from proper families don’t take that, and I had nothing to offer such women anyway. So a few shitty relationships but did “get some” every now and again. Now with wife who likewise comes from a broken childhood similar to mine…cause there’s no way people like us can function with normal people from normal childhoods…there’s just not the understanding or compatibility.

    So…there’s a brief overview.

  74. Joseph E. Postma says:

    You ever hear the high-pitched shrieking voice of a person, your dad for example, about to be murdered? It’s an interesting pitch.

    So I say I grew up on a farm…but I really mean that I intermittently spent time on a farm, in between staying at a dozen other places my mom moved us to as my parents destroyed each other’s lives.

    This summer, going on vacation back in that area, I drove past one of the places we lived…when I was in grade 3. I hadn’t been by there since. The lane was all grown in with grass…as if it was abandoned, and lost to history. As if no one cared for that place any more. I had the strangest sensation come over me, seeing that picture and the abandonment it evoked. It made me think of my own younger self, and how I have avoided all that for so long and just tried to forget about it all. But I thought of myself there, of the little boy who needs some TLC to be brought up to standard. Man I think of my own daughter and the innocent little thoughts and ideas and questions she has sometimes…and it reminds of that boy I was just like that, with the same child hood innocence. I never thought of myself of being an innocent child…I was obviously part of something very horrible and so that must mean something about me too. But when I saw that lane way all grown in with grass, as that place we lived one time in between all other things…I saw an innocent little property that just wanted to be remembered and just wanted some TLC so make it look nice again…and I thought…that’s the boy that I’ve forgotten about that lived there once. I remember I had a nice bed-side lamp that we left at that place when we moved off it to the next place…it was a ceramic piece of a boy fishing. I wanted to keep that lamp and take it with. Mom said to leave it…I didn’t need it.

  75. geran says:

    Wow Joseph, that’s quite a saga. It adds a whole new dimension to the word “poignant”.

    Maybe all the abuse you had to endure as a child has toughened you to handle the abuse from the climate-fraudsters. You seem to gain more stature each time they attack you.

    Hang in there, you are both needed and appreciated.

  76. CD Marshall says:

    My brother’s father gave his mom to settle a poker debt. Yes he almost killed her too. No surprise she went mentally ill after that. My brother’s father had an entire family aside from my brother’s, which was the complete opposite with a loving, caring supportive father. He actually spent time in Germany for murdering someone in a bar fight. He’s dead now. My father abandoned me right after birth never to be seen or heard of again.

    That’s just the tip of the iceberg. Now my step dad was at least around but never supportive of us. At this point my mother was mental so not much there. My sister took off at 15 (can’t say I blame her) and my brother lived with other people until he was 18 and shortly after joined the Marines. I had no motivational home life at all and that’s why I find childhood useless.

    I know it sound weird but I hate my birthdays and holidays.For my birthday I just want to be alone.
    I have a great wife now and I’m sure you are a great dad becasue you never want a child to go through what you did.

    I had a better childhood than my siblings becasue I was young when the evil bastard was around. My mother moved all over the place and my real education came from books being I was never in school.

    You seem to have done well for yourself considering.

    So I guess we are in agreement, most of our childhood was a waste of time. I block most of it out forward is better than backwards.

  77. CD Marshall says:

    Joseph with your permission I want to throw the gauntlet down on Potholer once again since he has chosen to ignore you. One of his acolytes is trolling Tony Heller’s site, this this is what I want to say:

    “Not one point you strive to make is anything but political. Whereas, the science disproves global warming by CO2. Potholer is a coward, I have invited him several times to comment on Joseph’s Postma’s videos he has refused to do so. I guess he is afraid to go up against an actual physicist who can utterly destroy his “radiative forcing” fallacy.

  78. CD Marshall says:

    I know you are busy so I sent tot he troll although I dialed it down a bit.

    “I wouldn’t be so proud of your Potholer, I have invited him several times to comment on Joseph’s Postma’s videos he has refused to do so. I guess he is afraid to go up against an actual physicist who can utterly destroy his “radiative forcing” fallacy.”

  79. suitiepie says:

    Joe, check this idiot extention rebellion guy and then the comments about the sources I have linked (one of which is your site the other is Tony Hellers site)

  80. suitiepie says:

    Provided kirk a link to the 15 page pdf and he replied that there is no mention of the ocean in this doc.
    There is no helping these people.

  81. CD Marshall says:

    Yeah they are attacking Heller’s site. Joseph you may have to do some blocking on your site, these nut jobs are a new brand of social media terrorist. Dumber than soup as well, I might add.

  82. suitiepie says:

    The idiot I am going back and forth with linked me to this: with the condescending comment: “If you want a simple read that explains it perfectly and includes links to peer reviewed studies for the key points ”


  83. CD Marshall says:

    Tell numbnuts according to the Argo Program the ocean has warmed 0.055 Celsius in the last 50 years.

    Oceans also go through natural warming and cooling cycles and the only thing that can throw these cycles off is geothermal activity under the ocean.

  84. suitiepie says:

    There’s no real point. I told him maybe I should make a video on him showing him who the idiot really is.

    His reply:
    “Kirk Claybrook
    1 hour ago
    @Sᴜɪᴛ Yᴏᴜʀsᴇʟғ You still wouldn’t get it. You’d make a great leftard with those logic and reasoning skills.”

    I mean, really? I’m now a leftard? And this all began because I left a comment for Isaac, the channel owner and video creator who platformed an extinction rebellion guy on his channel which has over a million subs.

    When you have 1.11M subscribers, I think you kind of have a responsibility to not platform crazy. So I asked him to reach out to Joseph or Tony Heller and talk real science.

    Back to this Kirk Claybrook commenter, I don’t think he’s worth wasting my time doing a video on.

  85. CD Marshall says:

    Odds are he’s a rent-a-troll, social media is saturated with them. 🙂
    Troll bashing should become a sport.

    Without Sir Joseph the Sky Dragon Slayer (and the rest of the founders) and the excellent people who support him none of this bashing would be possible.

    Joseph is an outstanding teacher. At the beginning of the year I didn’t know the greenhouse effect was a fraud and absolutely no background in science. I still have a lot to learn I mean these guys are brilliant. I started out doing a personal study on the extremists and that’s how I found Joseph. Something about global warming didn’t add up. Joseph gave me the answer I was looking for.

    I posted my cursory findings on these activist nutters on here somewhere. Really they fall into 3 categories: Religious zealot, Fraud or Ignorant.

    I was ignorant, most of the en masse are zealots and those running this scam are usually the frauds. However, these categories can mix and make a dangerous hybrid.


  86. Joseph E. Postma says:

    Good work Lads!

    I’ll try to get a new video out soon.

  87. JP’s childhood story made a big impression on me. It shows that nature CAN overpower nurture.

    Tragic, yet funny, and inspiring in a beat-all-odds sort of way.

  88. CD Marshall says:

    We are all part of Joseph’s family now, a band of misfits.

  89. Jack Spinner says:

    If you ever need peer reviewed papers that prove that CO2 does not drive temperatures or that there is no radiative greenhouse effect, here are two thoroughly researched papers: and and Make decisions based in facts, not hearsay.

  90. Gary Ashe says:

    I’m just catching up and haven’t watched vid yet.
    I have a question i hope someone will answer.
    Example a candle flame and ice cube beside each other.
    Heat is flowing from the flame to the ice cube, and ”potential” eat flowing from the icube to the flame.
    My Q is this, is it Railiegh scattering that happens to the potential heat from the cube to flame, when the photons arrive at the flame.
    Also a thought occurred to me, is the Earth an example of cooling without warming as a sphere in the vacuum of space.
    The earth cools 24/7 but the heat it emits never warms anything, so therefore it is not heat but potential heat is it not

  91. Gary Ashe says:

    I’m just catching up and haven’t watched vid yet.
    I have a question i hope someone will answer
    Example a candle flame and ice cube beside each other.
    Heat is flowing from the flame to the ice cube, and ”potential” eat flowing from the icube to the flame.

    My Q is this, is it Railiegh scattering that happens to the potential heat from the cube to flame, when the photons arrive at the flame.

    Also a thought occurred to me, is the Earth an example of cooling without warming as a sphere in the vacuum of space.
    The earth cools 24/7 but the heat it emits never warms anything, so therefore it is not heat but potential heat is it not……………….

  92. I would say that there is no such concept as “potential heat”. “Heat” has a definition only when it is actual.

    That being said, I would like to introduce the concept of … “back temporality” … to describe how I remain younger than I would otherwise be without it. (^_^)

  93. CD Marshall says:

    Are you thinking about potential energy? Heat can be a result of energy but not always (as I’m sure everyone hear knows all too well). I suppose the Earth could produce some energy without increasing temperature?

    Interesting thought. I look forward to an educated reply.

    Geothermal in the oceans as potential energy and not always heat. Is that even possible?


  94. Gary Ashe says:

    I was talking about lwir earth light as seen from space, i.e. 960w absorbed by the sphere an d 960w a second emitted by the sphere to space,

    The earth is cooling to space, but nothing is warming, it is redundant energy, unemployed as nothing is getting warmed by it.
    Heat is thermal or thermalising radiation, nothing is thermalised with the earths waste radiation.
    But it could be if the mass were there to be warmed .., the satellite will be warmed by the earth light it is recording / observing would think.

    See i know all radiation is heat when impinging a 0 kelvin environ, but less and less of the radiation is thermal as the temperature of the 0 kelvin environ warms.

    So as it warms and less and less of the impinging radiation acts as heat, does the rest of the wavelenghts that are not acting as heat just get railleigh scattered without being absorbed or having their wavelength altered.

    I read many years ago that there are only 2 types of energy CD,
    Moving and resting.
    Kinetic or potential.
    All other descriptions of energy either internal or external are sub types of those 2.

    Earth light is just potential energy because theres no mass for it to reach any potential.

  95. geran says:

    It’s easy to get into endless semantical arguments over the word “heat”. The safest way is to just use the word “energy”. You can say “energy” moves from the candle flame to the ice cube. And you can say “energy” moves from the ice cube to the candle flame. But, “heat” only “moves” from hot to cold. Typically, “heat” is associated with an increase in temperature of the colder object.

    “Heat” is associated with a transfer of energy AND a ΔT. A unit of heat is the amount of energy to raise the temperature of a substance or object. For example, 1 Joule will raise the temperature of 1 gram of water, 0.24 ºC. If there is no energy transfer, and no ΔT, then there is no “heat”. Consequently, an object does not “contain heat”. An object contains “enthalpy”.

    What happens to the energy moving from the ice cube to the flame? It depends. A flame can contain particles. So the energy could be affected by scattering or reflection. Or, if it missed the particles, it could go right through the flame, unaffected. Infrared and visible waves do not interfere with each other. The energy from the ice cube will NOT raise the temperature of the flame!

    Energy emitted or reflected from Earth is just “energy”, until it is absorbed by mass (transferred) resulting in ΔT, thereby becoming “heat”.

  96. CD Marshall says:

    Temperatures are higher already in the thermosphere if I get where you are coming from so any energy from the Earth would do nothing in regards to increased temperature. Dispersion being very different in the thinner atmosphere.

    You said, “The earth is cooling to space, but nothing is warming, it is redundant energy, unemployed as nothing is getting warmed by it.
    Heat is thermal or thermalising radiation, nothing is thermalised with the earths waste radiation.”

    It could be cooled a little by the Earth’s exhaust though, could it not? Such as space junk, satellites, and my kickball from the 6th grade…

  97. Does energy move from an ice cube to a candle flame? Basic question, I know, but I’m thinking maybe not even this happens.

    How do we decide what this means? Energy is the motion of particles, right? So, how does the energy (i.e. motion of particles) of an ice cube manifest in the energy of a candle flame, if it does not modify the motion of the particles of the candle flame? What is this “moving to”?

    If the motion of the ice-cube particles does not manifest in some sort of modified motion of the particles of the candle flame, then there is no correct meaning to the statement.

    What does this motion of ice-cube particles do to make itself “known” to the particles of the candle flame?

    I think the energy of the ice cube is part of an energy field between the cube and the flame, and this ice-cube energy occupies a proximity to the candle flame in a region of the gradient between them to sustain this gradient. The ice-cube energy, then, never … “moves” … “to” … the candle flame but is sustained in the energy gradient field between the two.

  98. I’m baffled by the diagrams in this paper:

    How is it consistent with the definition TOA (“Top Of Atmosphere”) to have diagrams that show DIFFERENT values for TOA, depending on whether the focus is on ocean or on land? TOA is TOA, isn’t it? The reference surface area for determining W/m^2 is the same, isn’t it? How can we have a seemingly different surface area for TOA for the whole globe, talking about LAND ONLY or OCEAN ONLY? How is it reasonable to split up things this way?

    I experience dissonance with this division of things, let alone have any assessment of conclusions derived from a system of reasoning that employs what seems to me to be a fundamental misunderstanding of basic definitions.

    Correct me, if I am misguided, but speaking the language of astrology to point out shortcomings within astrology does not seem to be the most overriding approach to discussing reality.

  99. CD Marshall says:

    You want baffled look at this absolute manipulation of data from NASA:

  100. geran says:

    Robert, the energy is emitted from ice as electomagnetic flux. It so happens that ice is a nearly perfect emitter. An ice cube at 270 K is emitting about 300 Watts/m^2. Everyone knows that an ice cube can’t bake a turkey, but Warmists believe if you have enough ice you can, because “fluxes add”!

    But, it gets even funnier.

    The peak of the emission curve for an ice cube occurs at about 10.7 μ. The CO2 photon is 15 μ. Since photon energy is inversely proportional to wavelength, the ice photon is 15/10.7 = 1.4, or 40% “hotter” than the CO2 photon.

    Ice is “heating the planet”!

    The comedy continues.

  101. Yeah, CD, let’s just manipulate the different scales however we want. Make a W/m^2 look like a HUGE amount, while making a tenth of a degree look like a less huger amount, while making a decade look tiny. Oh, and let’s just consider two variables that just happen to support our bias, that we have graphically created accordingly to deceive most levels of intelligence. Never mind changes in cloud cover or moisture level or ocean cycles or any of those other pesky variables that can mess up our propaganda (I mean “scientz”).

  102. Better spelling would be “sciuhntz”.

  103. Robert, the energy is emitted from ice as electromagnetic flux.

    Yes, but the energy does not really make it TO the candle, does it? The motion that defines what
    “energy” is does not get TO the candle – it maintains in an energy field between the two entities, doesn’t it? There is no energy going FROM the ice cube TO the candle. If energy went TO the candle, then it would somehow enter the defining configuration of the candle and have some effect of having gone TO the candle. It never gets TO the candle – it “stays” between the candle and the cube, I’m thinking.

  104. CD Marshall says:

    I just caught your mention of ocean and land and looked at it. My mouth hung open as it often does when I am baffled, I thought at first it meant upwards which would make sense but it wasn’t.

    As far as NASA’s fraud graph is concerned go here for a real version of DSR:

  105. Gary Ashe says:

    It doesn’t Robert, the energy is in the wave within the particle, the photon.
    Raman scattering is where the photon is to big to be absorbed by the molecule and it gets scattered.
    Now i struggle with the science speak as i just talk from memory, ”i think” that is a near enough explanation.

    i may have raman and railleigh scattering mixed up mind, railleigh scattering is where the wave photon is scattered without altering its length… i think.

    Anyway the ice is pulsing light to the flame by fluxing photons, if they are of a too short or too long a wavelength they are raman or railleigh scattered……

    With Electromagnetic energy Thermodynamics are the result of electrodynamics aren’t they.

  106. CD Marshall says:

    Dark Flow,

    Proof of other dimensions?
    Proof something else exists outside our perception of the known Universe?
    Or just proof we have no clue?

  107. Gary A,

    My further question would be, then, where do the scattered entities “go”? Might it be correct to say that the scattered entities “go” back into the energy field, within the energy gradient of which they are a part and define by said scattering? That’s how the energy field physically maintains??

    CO2 alarmists can use general language to appear very competent, but down at the finest level of detail, I’m thinking, is where their misunderstandings might reveal themselves fully.

    Actually, that’s not true, their misunderstandings are glaring even at the most basic general level (i.e., spreading sunshine over the entire Earth at once). Their misunderstandings seem to loom at all levels of analysis.

  108. geran says:

    “There is no energy going FROM the ice cube TO the candle. If energy went TO the candle, then it would somehow enter the defining configuration of the candle and have some effect of having gone TO the candle.”

    There IS energy going from the ice cube to the candle. That’s why it’s important to make the distinction between “energy” and “heat”. Energy goes from the ice cube to the candle via photons emitted from the cube. Once emitted, photons travel in a straight path. They travel until they impact mass. Upon impact an instantaneous determination is made, based on wavelength. If the wavelength of the photon is incompatible with the target mass, the photon will not be absorbed.

    If a photon from the ice cube is emitted toward the candle, the photon will move in a straight line to the candle. If it does not impact mass first, it will impact the candle. If the photon gets reflected, then there was no energy transfer and no ΔT, so there was no “heat”.

    Photons emitted or reflected from Earth may travel forever, if they do not impact mass. The energy is traveling, but there is no heat. The planet lost energy, but it did not “lose heat”. Heat cannot be “lost”, it is a process. `For there to be “heat” (the process), there must be TWO things occurring: 1) energy transfer, and 2) a ΔT.

  109. Pierre D. Bernier says:

    JHFC. Just received an e-mail of the french version of / Who are the 500 scientists that say there is no climate emergency / on CBC internet. You know the drill. They say that Mickey Mouse signed it or what ever. Reminds you of anything. For those who dont know CBC is the equivalent of CNN, MSN, MSNBC and BBC. The worst part, I rreceived it from my brother in law and he’s a BSc in chemistry of all things. JHFC I’m sick of it !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    Not sure I feel any better at this moment.

  110. geran,

    I think the distinction I’m trying to make is subtle. For me, the word, “to”, means something more than just traveling in the direction of, in this instance.

    “Energy”, as I’m seeing it, is not some sort of stuff — it is some sort of action involving stuff.
    Maybe my conception of reality is not as particle-like as yours at this level of description.
    Consequently, I might be having some issues in describing photons as “particles” that travel. What I’m thinking travels is a wave through a field of stuff that manifests the motion (energy) of travel.

    In this conception, deflection is probably not (in my mind) what it might be in yours.

    If the subtle conveyed motions of the ice cube never impact the subtle motions of the candle, then the energy defining this motion never gets TO the candle — it gets constrained somehow away from the candle (what you call deflection, I guess).

    But my idea is that this constraining of energy is the shaping mechanism of maintaining the energy gradient between the cube and the candle. The cube-energy never gets TO the candle-energy to influence it in an additive (or subtractive) way. The energy is constrained to the gradient of the energy field between the two entities.

  111. Pablo says:


    This might be of interest, on “Electromagnetic radiation and resonance phenomena in quantum mechanics”…. might be best just to skip to the last paragraph!

  112. geran says:

    “Not sure I feel any better at this moment.

    Don’t get discouraged, Pierre. The clowns are attempting to pervert and corrupt physics. That will never work.

    Naturam expellas furca, tamen usque recurret. (You may drive out Nature with a pitchfork, yet she still will hurry back.)

    Enjoy the comedy, while it lasts.

  113. CD Marshall says:

    I was dealing with one of Joseph’s “Climate AIs” the name fits the mentality perfectly I admit. After a meaningless volley of to and fros like I was actually talking to a computer where nothing changed his mechanical responses I just ended it with this:

    “First off the science proves CO2 doesn’t trap heat, physics in particular. Therefore everything else is discarded because the premise is fraudulent. You are on the thread with one of the guys who proved it in experiments. Not that any credible physicist didn’t already know the properties of atmospheric CO2.

    *Sorry wrong thread, Geraint Hughes*

    CO2 follows warming never preceded it all those boreholes and soil samples have proven that.

    Although in one ice age not only was CO2 in the thousands ppmv it all nearly vanished by end of it.

    The current warming is not occurring faster than ever before. The models runs hot or are complete fraud becasue of the numbers NOT put in them. They omit older temps, got caught and then had to remove those temps from the record books. Fraud of the highest order. One day they will be prosecuted for it (I’m hoping).

    Anyway thank you for letting me know what climate means to you. It’s retribution, perhaps penance for something you did in your life or crimes you feel humans have done to the planet.

    Don’t think for a minute that anyone who can look at the evidence with a learned eye can’t see this farce for what it is. I’m not paying to make you feel better about yourself. Join a church just not the climate church.

    If you want to suffer for your sins by all means do so, but I don’t need to suffer for it and neither does the rest of the world in a one world socialist government.

  114. Gary Ashe says:

    Or Robert stick a terminator line dead centre of the flat earth model.
    Insert the figures with one side dark and one side light.


  115. Gary Ashe says:

    Sorry the terminator line makes it a flat earth one second model.

    With 0 w in one side and an average 480 w in on the lit side, and the 30c created averaged by 2 to the real world meaningless average temperature 15c land and ocean.

  116. Gary Ashe says:

    God dammit, only after you have provided the intensity of the solar radiation do you divide by another 2 the average temperature created, not before as in the flat earth model.

    Sorry for the multiple posts.

  117. CD Marshall says:

    Has anyone done thoroughly investigated correlation between the Earth’s magnetic field decay and temperatures?

    Someone on here had this:

    It sparked a memory that magnetic field decay in Africa has proven drought in that area for thousands of years and they have evidence to prove that.

  118. CD Marshall says:

    I found the paper I was looking for as usual not quite what my brain thought it was.

  119. CD Marshall says:

    See I didn’t even post the paper I have brain drain at the moment:

  120. Gary Ashe says:

    These lads are great, follow up on their other work.
    These cookies have got the electrdynamics sussed CD.

  121. Jack Spinner says:

    Also check Robert Felix’s splendid site with two books published as well, one about magnetic reversals:

  122. CD Marshall says:

    Thank you good sir will watch right now er after posting actually.

    I do have a another question for anybody. The atmosphere does not create heat, it comes from the surface do to the energy needing to strike a physical barrier first (or whatever the proper physics term is for it) . All well and good.

    So explain the thermopshere. Energy is reflected by CO2 and NO from the bulk of solar storms. However even though it is claimed as “reflected” (which from my understanding means no heat exchange) it certainly becomes hot from what seems to me as a heat-energy conversion.

    Now why is it considered a physical barrier when the atmosphere is not. Clouds don’t create heat energy when energy is reflected off them it is simply reflected, diverted back into space until it comes in contact with a solid object. Somehow, in the thermopshere it becomes heat? What am I missing?

    Naturally how does the rest of the energy slip in through the atmosphere unmolested.

    All I can think of is it’s different rays, or form of radiation, but how exactly does that work?

    No I really don’t ask easy questions, do I?

    Sorry I just must understand these things to the best of my ability.

  123. geran says:

    CD, the wikipedia page covers the basics pretty well. Should answer all your questions.

  124. CD Marshall says:

    Thank you geran I read it didn’t satisfy me yet. Still looking into it.

    “The problem is that once you treat the flux as energy (divide), you can NOT go back and consider it as flux. That is, you can NOT use the new value (divided) in the S-B equation. The S-B equation is only valid for the EXACT flux impacting the surface, not an average.”

    More clarification, W/m^2 is 1 Joule per second? So the emissions to outer space is calculated as 240 W/m^2 divided by the entire sphere. So this is flux or energy and is it still correct to use the SB law? In other words should it be counted as W/m^2.

    I know Joseph’s whole point is that climate science is mixing flux with energy and mostly everyone doesn’t know the difference.

    This seems to get confusing.

    Oh well.

    If Physics were taught by drill sergeants maybe everyone would have a greater understanding of this.

  125. geran says:

    Yes it does get confusing, CD. Possibly that is the plan. Whenever someone tries to explain it, or make it easier to understand, there are those that seek to complicate it again.

    A blackbody sphere receiving a flux of 960 W/m^2 in a vacuum will reach an equilibrium temperature of 255 K, emitting 240 W/m^2.

    So, the energy balance, each second, is:

    Ein = Eout
    960A = 240(4A)
    960A Joules = 960A Joules

    Where A is the area of the “disk”, in m^2. (The surface area of the sphere being 4A.)

    Note that the emitted flux is 240 W/m^2, NOT 960 W/m^2.

  126. CD Marshall says:

    Got it.
    Thank you.

  127. Gary Ashe says:

    Geran does that mean the in coming 960 w m2 is coming in on an angle and is obviously just falling on one hemisphere, so at that point you only divide by 2 not 4.

    You divide by 2 again the average temperature created per m2 by 960w falling on just one hemisphere to then include the dark half.

    Total division is still 4 but no need what so ever to invoke a greenhouse effect.
    First you divide the incoming energy by 2.
    Then to get an average whole surface average temperature you divide by 2 the lit side temperature.

    I am i close.

  128. Gary Ashe says:

    Damn, i missed the add both half average temps together and divide,…..

    What is the average temperature of the dark side using constants please.
    Never heard any one mention the 2 average temps that make up the land ocean average
    Any given second the average surface temp consists of those 2 averages.

    So what 2 figures is the 15c average temp made up of.
    I know its a network etc but some one must be able to define the average darkside temp at any given second and the average lit side temp at any given second using constants.

  129. geran says:

    Gary, in this simple example, the sphere is considered a perfect conductor. So, even if it were not rotating, all the surface would reach the equilibrium temperature. The purpose of the example is to show where the 240 W/m^2 comes from. It comes from the correct S/B calculation, but from an imaginary object in an imaginary situation.

    Otherwise, known as “pseudoscience”.

    The claim is that Earth’s surface emits 390 W/m^2. Again, that is based on the S/B calculation for a blackbody surface at 288 K (Earth’s believed “average” temperature). Then, “they” subtract the “240” from the “390” (which violates the laws of radiative physics) to arrive at “150 W/m^2”. That allows them to claim the 150 W/m^2 is “trapped” in the atmosphere!

    Otherwise, known as “pseudoscience”.

  130. geran says:

    Gary, I missed your reference to 15C.

    288 K = 15 C = 59 F

  131. CD Marshall says:

    The scum have already attacked and discredited it to stupid people who can’t think for themselves, or the Climate AI. These people are just so corrupt, disgusting, vile refuse of human waste.

  132. Jack Spinner says:

    Here’s the answer as to why climate alarmism continues unabated, regardless of all the evidence proving beyond any doubt that it is a carefully concocted hoax:
    Pertinent quote: “Prof Eileen Barker of the London School of Economics, who has spent years studying groups like the Moonies and Scientologists, says there are similarities between OneCoin and messianic millennium cults, where people believe they are part of something big that is going to change the world – and no matter what the evidence, once they’ve signed up, it’s very hard for them to admit they are wrong. “When prophecy fails they believe more strongly,” she says. “Particularly if you have invested something, not only money, but belief, reputation, intelligence. You think, ‘Wait a bit longer.’” ”Money might push people to invest in the first place, but the sense of belonging, of doing something, of achieving something, is why they stay, Barker says. “And in that sense it’s cultic.””
    So, you can debate the proper science to debunk the alarmists ad infinitum, but you have no real chance to stop their zealous belief in their version of the end-of-the-world hoax. It’s a psychological war that level-headed scientists stand little chance of winning.
    All the while, kudos to Postma for his unwavering support for honest science.

  133. Everyone,
    The climate fraud is based on a flat-earth model as Joseph has so clearly shown. This fake earth model uses a divide by 4 metric to reduce the solar power intensity flux to a weak sun value that is not consistent with reality. The fake flat earth model has no dark night side and also no terminator.
    It must be replaced with a round earth model that has both a day lit side (with a divide by 2 metric) and an atmospheric mechanism to transport the captured solar flux from the warm day side to the cold dark night side.
    My Noonworld DAET climate model of a tidally locked planet with a single global atmospheric Hadley cell is the basis for a geometric climate model that honours observed reality and can be universally applied.

  134. Gary Ashe says:

    Geran the flat earth model is wrong from the get go by making the emission temp of -18 a property of the bottom line i.e. the surface,….
    It is the average temp of the top line, the TOA emission average T in the model it is the emission as seen from space, so it is a skin value, not an internal value.
    So the 240 is a pseudo figure anyway.
    i took as a simple exercise your maths of the 480 w m2 av on the lit side creating a blackbody T of just over 30c av over the whole lit side in any 1 second in time model, i.e. a frozen terminator line.
    So real world av is 15c, i simply divided by 2 the 30c and assume the darkside is an average 0c.
    Their simple model is corrected if you add a centre frozen terminator line and turn one half black and one half white, the white side gets 480 w m2 the black side 0.
    The blackside gets half the temperature created on the white side then.
    i.e half the energy or 240.
    Total division of energy from top to bottom is still by 4.
    But you end up with an av surface T 15C ..
    i can see the error an average T OF 15C m2 emits more than 240w .
    The incoming energy is only maintaining the av 15c whole surface temp that was ”created” along time ago, the suns energy is like warming a cooling bath with fresh water ya let alittle cold out and you add abit of real hot water, then your good to go for another half hour, and that little bit of added heat has a remarkable effect.

  135. geran says:

    Gary, I agree, the “flat earth” model is wrong.

  136. geran says:

    From Jack Spinner’s comment:

    “So, you can debate the proper science to debunk the alarmists ad infinitum, but you have no real chance to stop their zealous belief in their version of the end-of-the-world hoax.”

    And we see this continually.

    “It’s a psychological war that level-headed scientists stand little chance of winning.”

    But, nature/reality is on the side of science. “Truth will out”.

  137. Pablo says:

    Phillip Mulholland and Stephen Wilde,
    Thanks for your contribution here.
    All mounting evidence of the “greenhouse” effect being a pressure dependent effect.

  138. CD Marshall says:

    Climate AI: This was addressed to me:

    @Christopher Marshall: You write: “If you calculated incoming solar irradiation correctly it would account for it at 15C. That is the point. You can’t spread the power of real time sunshine as an average day and night over a 24 hour period and expect to get the results needed to account for real time global temperatures. How utterly stupid is that?” My response: There is nothing stupid about it. The calculation that yeilds -18C is based on an assumption which does not hold (that Earth has an atmosphere that is transparent to all wavelengths of electromagnetic radiation). If you take into account the real atmosphere, then you have an atmosphere which absorbs and reemits infrared. This causes the surface of the Earth to receive more radiation than just what it gets from the sun. The surface of the Earth will therefore radiate more back away from itself as a result (which results in a higher temperature in accordance with the blackbody radiation model).

  139. Joseph E. Postma says:

    “in accordance with the blackbody radiation model”

    LOL. They just use phrases which mean nothing.

    Heat flow is irreversible, and their scheme requires heat flow reversal because they dilute the power of sunshine to a level at which it cannot create the climate…and so the climate creates itself by reverse heat flow.

    Real time sun creates the climate.

  140. “in accordance with the blackbody radiation model”

    I don’t think so. THAT’s stupid.

  141. CD Marshall says:

    I wish I could use that trick the next time I go to the bank. For each 67 dollars I supply 33 more dollars is created from “back money”.

  142. CD Marshall says:

    JP the Bold,
    Yeah I just read one of your older posts explaining everything he is arguing but he won’t watch a video or read a post (I tried). Nothing can challenge the climate religion!

  143. CD Marshall says:

    Greenhouse gases in the atmosphere (such as water vapor and carbon dioxide) absorb most of the Earth’s emitted longwave infrared radiation, which heats the lower atmosphere. In turn, the warmed atmosphere emits longwave radiation, some of which radiates toward the Earth’s surface, keeping our planet warm and generally comfortable. Increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide and methane increase the temperature of the lower atmosphere by restricting the outward passage of emitted radiation, resulting in “global warming,” or, more broadly, global climate change. -NASA: The Earth’s Radiation Budget


  144. Reverse heat flow.

  145. geran says:

    CD, you found some more “dirty laundry”. You’ve learned enough you can probably debunk it yourself.

    JP’s 3 words do the job quite well: Reverse heat flow.

    They use some devious techniques, in the quote you provided. In the first sentence, notice how they use the phrase “greenhouse gases”. They are laying the groundwork for their upcoming con.

    Greenhouse gases in the atmosphere (such as water vapor and carbon dioxide) absorb most of the Earth’s emitted longwave infrared radiation, which heats the lower atmosphere.

    So far they are correct. The sun heats the surface and the surface heats the atmosphere. They haven’t violated any laws of physics.

    In turn, the warmed atmosphere emits longwave radiation, some of which radiates toward the Earth’s surface, keeping our planet warm and generally comfortable.

    Notice they didn’t say “raise the temperature”. They merely imply a connection between CO2 and “keeping our planet warm”. They’re still just in the setup mode—getting ready to spring the trap.

    Increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide and methane increase the temperature of the lower atmosphere by restricting the outward passage of emitted radiation, resulting in “global warming,” or, more broadly, global climate change.

    Now, they’ve got ya! They use the phrase “increase the temperature”, but that is in reference to the lower atmosphere. Yet they imply it results in “global warming”!

    They never actually say CO2 will increase the temperature of the surface, but the reader is prompted to infer that falsehood.

    The Sun heats the surface; the surface heats the atmosphere; and the energy moves on to space. There is no 2-way heat flow.

  146. CD Marshall says:

    The Sun heats the surface; the surface heats the atmosphere; and the energy moves on to space. There is no 2-way heat flow.

    I’m dealing with someone who is going to try and work around this. I’ve been expecting it so they are going to try to say warm air rises in the atmosphere and falls back down to the surface and the adiabatic lapse rate and pressure make that air warmer claiming that’s proof that the atmosphere can warm the surface up more.

    His comment: (he’s trying to set me up for it)
    “Then we agree that claim three which was 3) In order to cool off, the surface of the Earth emits thermal radiation (which has a longer wavelength than visible light). This means that we have agreed to all of the 4 claims which were 1) The sun emits mostly in the visible light range (this is why we have evolved eyes to see in this range). 2) The atmosphere is transparent to much of visible light so that it strikes the surface of the Earth and warms it. 3) In order to cool off, the surface of the Earth emits thermal radiation (which has a longer wavelength than visible light). 4) The atmosphere absorbs and reemmits some thermal radiation.

    The above 4 claims amount to the greenhouse effect. Because the surface of the Earth will be warmed by rebounding thermal radiation from the atmosphere on top of visible light that strikes the Earth (delivered by the Sun) it follows that the surface of the Earth will necessarily be warmer than it would have been, had the atmosphere not rebounded thermal radiation to the surface of the Earth. Do you agree?”

    Any suggestions from you guys would be great. Notice he is saying thermal radiation not IR radiation, trying to trip me up.

  147. Joseph E. Postma says:

    The adiabatic gradient is NOT the greenhouse effect FFS. Heat flow is still all one way, from hot to cool, and the cooler atmosphere never heats the surface. There is no GHE, finished.

    Rebounding thermal radiation leading to something being “necessarily warmer” would be reverse heat flow, which is impossible.

    “If a physical process increases the total entropy of the universe, that process cannot happen in reverse since this would violate the second law of thermodynamics. Processes that create new entropy are therefore said to be irreversible. […]
    “Perhaps the most important type of thermodynamic process is the flow of heat from a hot object to a cold one. We saw […] that this process occurs because the total multiplicity of the combined system thereby increases; hence the total entropy increases also, and heat flow is always irreversible. […]
    “Most of the process we observe in life involve large entropy increases are therefore highly irreversible: sunlight warming the Earth […].” – Thermal Physics (pg. 82) (Schroeder, 2000)

  148. geran says:

    “…it follows that the surface of the Earth will necessarily be warmer than it would have been, had the atmosphere not rebounded thermal radiation to the surface of the Earth.”

    CD, your tormentor uses the same old, tired pseudoscience. Infrared from the atmosphere does NOT warm the surface. Ask him if he heats his room in winter with ice cubes.

  149. They went to a lot of effort to put this together:

    They mainly misrepresent what it is and try to discredit the people who are signatories.

    It is NOT a detailed list of evidence. It is a statement of concerned based on evidence that these signatories have already reviewed and agreed upon.

    As for the signatories being engineers or other rational, disciplined people, instead of climate “scientists”, well, that’s just a tired old ploy to deny the fact that engineers and others know the basic physics of climate “science” AS GOOD or BETTER than climate “scientists”. They know it well enough to know that climate “scientists” are doing the physics and math incorrectly or in a shoddy way.

    Clearly, this group of good ol’ boys got together out of concern for loosing their integrity and loosing their livelihoods that depend on falsehoods. They pulled out all stops to discredit those who have a solid basis for disagreeing with them.

    Basically, they are saying our credentials, our clout, and our misrepresentation of the facts trump your rationality and reasonable assessment of the evidence.

  150. CD Marshall says:

    I have to ask, were the ones discrediting them climate scientists? If not, that would be the hypocrite on the cake wouldn’t it?

  151. Everyone,
    The issue of the global average temperature and greenhouse effect is very similar to the standard hydrological problem of “How much water can be stored in a leaky reservoir for a given constant input of supply?”
    When talking about the greenhouse effect I use the term “atmospheric reservoir” and here is why: –
    Have a look at my first essay on Calibrating the CERES Image of the Earth’s Radiant Emission to Space. In this essay I describe how, by using some very simple known meteorological parameters, it is possible to calculate the global average atmospheric temperature of a terrestrial planet. The required parameters are as follows.
    For each atmospheric cell we need to know the temperature of the tropopause, the altitude of the same, and the lapse rate of the given cell. From these data we can calculate the surface temperature of that cell. For the Earth these three cells are the Hadley, Ferrel and Polar cells. Next, we need to know the percentage of the global surface area occupied by each cell. Using this metric, we can calculate the areal weighted percentage of the surface temperature for that cell, and hence by simple addition calculate the global average surface temperature.
    That was fun wasn’t it, but where does this take us?

    Well, back to the leaky reservoir problem of hydrology. In constructing my Dynamic-Atmosphere Energy-Transport Model for Stephen Wilde, I used the concept of a leaky reservoir, but in this case the leaking fluid is power intensity and not water. The rate of leaking in the DAET climate model is determined by the surface partition ratio, that is the quantity of surface captured high frequency solar radiant flux that is retained by the air versus the quantity of flux that is lost directly out to space. This loss is by low frequency thermal radiation through the transparent atmosphere of the model, and is equivalent to the observed radiant atmospheric window of meteorology.

    Now we come to the interesting mathematical twist. The sum of an infinite series of descending fractions is a finite number. Think about that, it is very important. What this finite limit means is that for a given partition ratio and a given solar flux the quantity of energy stored in the atmospheric reservoir has a fixed and calculable limit. So, no runaway greenhouse effect due to thermal radiant opacity.
    Next, and even more interestingly, we can calculate the height of the troposphere from the DAET model for each atmospheric cell, if we know the lapse rate for that cell. The height comes from the difference between the S-B temperature of the lit surface and the S-B temperature of the emitting surface AFTER the partition ratio is applied. Say what? How can you have two separate temperatures for the same surface? Think of it in this way; the radiant emission surface is a pseudo surface, and the real emission surface is held at elevation in the atmosphere at the tropopause, We can now see why atmospheric opacity (greenhouse gases) play no role whatsoever in the establishment of this temperature separation, and that the greenhouse gas conjecture is well and truly dead.

  152. CD Marshall says:

    Postma Online School for Climate Education.

  153. CD Marshall says:

    Postma Online School for Advanced Climate Education.

    Sounds much better.

  154. Pablo says:

    The main radiative gas is water vapour.
    Here are some things to convince alarmists that this main player in greenhouse theory is simply a redistributor of solar energy in the daytime and a moderator of extreme surface temperatures more generally.

    It does this in daytime by:

    1.Direct absorption and scattering of sunlight, so the surface is warmed less by the sun.
    2.Creating clouds, so the surface is warmed less by the sun
    3.Cooling the surface via latent heat of evaporation and moving it elsewhere.
    4.Cooling the surface by increased convection and moving warmth elsewhere.

    And at night by:

    1.Slowing down the radiative cooling of the surface on a clear night.
    2.Creating clouds which also slow radiative cooling of the surface

    And to point out that if water vapour did have the power to raise average surface temperature by 10ºC per percentage point of water vapour content in our atmosphere, then humid regions should be hotter than dry deserts at the same latitude and altitude.

    And then there are the oceans……

  155. CD Marshall says:

    Philip Mulholland

    Link me up please, if you so desire. Learning more is all I can do, wish I had better means of not forgetting what I learned!

    How is Pierre doing? Unusual not to see his comments. I find them valuable as I do the others.

  156. Pierre D. Bernier says:

    Hi CD
    Doing good. Just not much to say. Hope you and all others had a very good thanksgiving.

    I here thanksgiving has become an attack on American-Indians. The show must go on, paid by the Soros of this world.

    Here we have TURD’o wanting to pass a law rendering illegal to say someone that hurts someone’s feelings. Yesterday I saw a video of Merkel saying that to protect free speech they have to outlaw hate speech. Imagine !!! Now we know they all get their marching orders from one central point.

    It wont stop until heads roll.

    Philip Mulholland … Very nice piece you have there. Congratulations.

  157. CD
    You can follow me on LinkedIn.

    Pierre & Pablo

  158. CD Marshall says:

    I’m not on LinkedIn discarded that after writing.Was a little awkward having to explain to everyone I wasn’t writing anymore. I admit it’s more stress free, pushing an ideal goal of 3 novels a year at 100k each was not fun to think about.

  159. CD Marshall says:

    Good to know.

  160. CD
    Research Gate is my only other platform.

  161. CD Marshall says:

    I found this in an older post from Pierre:
    “It is believed that night surface temperatures can’t go below dew point temperature. As long as there is humidity in the air, and the fact that water can hold a lot more energy than air (per unit weight), as air cools, water condenses and will heat back up the air.”

    Wouldn’t that explain the nights warming faster in the Arctic? I mean warm air moves from the tropics through the top of the troposphere to the poles anyway (which explains why the top of the troposphere is warmer at 30k). I’m seeing pieces to the puzzle but I can’t put them together without a good hammer.

  162. CD Marshall says:

    I’m been reading your older posts and you have covered in great detail every question I had about the division of 4 and the energy budget you provided.

    One simple process, dividing by 4 is for an entire sphere, not half of it. How do I know it’s an error? Because they also divide by 4 to count emissions out to space. By their own perverse logic shouldn’t that be divided by 8?

    The more I study this the more it baffles me.

    I would love to see a real 3-D active model of the Earth and near real time solar energy input. That would be absolutely amazing. The only way I can see that done would be to have satellites placed globally synchronizing the data. That would be a marvel of a project but the results priceless. Maybe in the far future we could have satellites covering the entire solar system. Wouldn’t that be a something?

    Unmanned monitoring stations in the middle of space between solar systems…

    But no all the money is wasted on climate change.

    When I was a kid the first plans for a space station were under way. We have not made huge steps in the space program since then. All becasue of politics.

  163. Pablo says:

    And this from the comments:

    RickWill 3. December 2019 at 1:30 AM | Permalink | Reply
    Few people realise that top of atmosphere solar insolation at zenith varies by 85W/sq.m annually – for 2019 from 1319W/sq.m to 1402W/sq.m. That variation, combined with the axis obligatory and location of surface water, cause the atmospheric water vapour to cycle over a significant range each year. In 2018 the global average water column ranged from 17mm in January to 22mm in July. Over the same period globally averaged outgoing long wave radiation increased from 236.8W/sq.m to 243.9W/sq.m. They both then cycled down. In 2018, each added mm of water vapour increased OLR by 1.6W/sq.m and each mm reduction in water vapour reduced OLR by 1.6W/sq.m.

    This is the actual monthly data from NASA Earth Observations for 2018:
    Mnth-TPW- OLR
    Jan 17.04 236.8
    Feb 17.29 236.5
    Mar 17.73 237.9
    Apr 18.19 238.7
    May 20.40 240.6
    Jun 20.92 243
    Jul 21.89 243.9
    Aug 21.04 243.4
    Sep 20.54 242.2
    Oct 19.68 239.5
    Nov 18.93 237.1
    Dec 18.91 236.5

    This data is highly POSITIVELY correlated:!Aq1iAj8Yo7jNg1ITK3Yk3q3yhL3_
    A similar cycle occurs each year.

    This data clearly demonstrates the “greenhouse” gas fairy tale is simply that. Increasing water vapour is associated with increased surface cooling.

  164. Joseph E. Postma says:

    @CD that’s what my own model is – is a 3D representation, but as a static 2D image. 3D is naturally embedded in the way it is laid out though.

  165. Joseph E. Postma says:

    Excellent stuff Pablo!

  166. geran says:

    Do you have a link for the “actual monthly data from NASA Earth Observations for 2018”?

    I cannot find such data. I only find color graphs, or MODTRAN crap, neither of which helps. The data you supplied appear to be actual measurements, so I was curious if the data are from one or more satellites, and what are the associated altitudes.

  167. geran says:

    Sorry, the above comment was to Pablo.

  168. CD Marshall says:

    Look at this graph;×900

    I may not be a scientist but I have seen enough graphs to absolutely know that the Earth never ever fluctuates like this. Natural waves do not flow like this, weather never flows like this, harmonics doesn’t flow like this, heat doesn’t flow like this. This is absolutely manipulated, nothing in nature has this kind of pattern. As the ole saying goes, Nature does not create straight lines…or hockey sticks.

    Plus they tampered with previous data to emphasize the fraudulent increase even more.

  169. CD Marshall says:

    Oh and they also removed the MWP can’t have that get in the way, this is from one of Potholerthanthou clowns.

    BTW Joseph I have invited him personally and through his trolls many times to comment on one your videos. They nor he ever responds.

    So I stopped. I doubt he would respond unless you were bored and said hi to him yourself and I doubt you will ever be that bored.

    PH is a putz.

  170. geran says:

    What caught my attention, in the data supplied by Rick Will, is the OLR values tend to average around 240 W/m^2. That value is seen a lot, but it is hard to find any supporting actual observations. The “240” originated with the imaginary blackbody sphere, absorbing 960 W/m^2. In pseudoscience, they attempt to link 240 W/m^2 to Earth. But, it’s all mythical.

    If Earth’s surface is emitting somewhere around 390 W/m^2 then we know at some distant point in space the flux should be 240 W/m^2, due to the inverse-square law. So finding “240” somewhere “out there” is meaningless. Meaningless, as in, “pseudoscience”.

  171. … something I just finished writing:

    In it, the greenhouse theory per se is not the focus. Rather, the focus is on practicality, based on an honest assessment of what is known.

  172. CD Marshall says:

    Robert in case you don’t already have this, it’s 1200+ papers on the MWP in case you are ever in need of it.

    NOAA sea level

  173. Thanks, CD, I made a mental note of that from a previous post of yours, I think, but it’s good to have it repeated here again, … in case I need to inject it into the micro-scale attention of a climate doomsayer.

    As you know, such people first make general statements that you are mistaken. Then they choose a few points and attempt to dress up their wrong interpretation as a legitimate argument against you, and finally, using their dressed-up wrong interpretations, they dismiss the rest of your evidence as “debunked”, which you are supposed to take on their word alone without further in-depth discussion of the case studies underlying their claims that they are too lazy to pin point and discuss point-by-point to dissect the flaws in them.

  174. CD Marshall says:

    Yes I read your paper, very good I might add and as usual the same Scott Belford who must be the appointed troll for HubPages is so quick to respond. A bit too quick if you ask me.

    Anyway I’m going to go over the paper again.

  175. Yeah, … Scott displays the quiet arrogance founded on false confidence in erroneous information-handling that I have seen before. It’s a style that brands the person being critiqued as having made so many mistakes that they are not worth going into any more depth with. How convenient. I suppose I could retort that this is so stupid that I have no more time to waste with it, but that’s just being as arrogant as they are, and so I have to dig in and try to out last them.

  176. CD Marshall says:

    Excellent comeback to Scott. You can certainly hold your own. Just a thought I’d remove amateur. You are no longer that. I’d simply leave it as, “Independent investigator researching and writing about climate issues.”

    Or you could say, I am an independent researcher investigating climate issues for over a decade. (the writing part is a given) Amateur just immediately invalidates you to opposition. All they see in amateur is one lacking in experience and competence in science. You have communicated/taught by professional scientists and experts that at least validates you as having some experience-by-association. Joseph is a brilliant physicist. Pierre has decades of Chemistry background. Philip Mulholland is a Geoscientist. Geran, Pablo, WickedWench and so on I don’t know their backgrounds but they are not novices and neither are you at this point. I don’t know the others but all have been a huge help to me directly or indirectly (including yourself).

    You do have writing skill. Ever think about trying to put one on PSI?


  177. CD Marshall says:

    Sorry meant for Robert. Anyone else read his article it is really good.

  178. Pablo says:

    Greta’s nemesis …..

  179. Naomi Seib = anti-Greta

    Put ’em together, and the universe might destroy itself. (^_^)

    But it would be worth it.

  180. CD,

    Concerning your comment about my bio blurb using the word, “amateur”,

    I am that, because I am not a credentialed scientist with a degree. I would rather the bulk of my words speak for me, rather than just that one.

    You’ve heard of the advertising motto — undersell/over-deliver ?

    If I were a pro, then I’d REALLY be a bad as, I suppose. (^_^)

  181. CD Marshall says:

    I’m not an amateur writer however I would not consider myself a professional either…So I guess I’m a nether professional.

  182. That’s “netherfessional”.

    Us netherfessionals rely on the wordhouse effect, which is writing better than we otherwise would without it. The mechanism involved is called “backwriting”

  183. CD Marshall says:

    Yes and becasue of that we have +33 more words than we would have had in our vocabulary.

  184. So, if I write the sentence, “Dogs are great pets” and the sentence, “Seals are great food”, then I can add them together to get the sentence, “Dog seals are great sea food.” The wordhouse theory allows for this.

  185. CD Marshall says:

    LOL, exactly.
    “My bathtub is cold.”
    “So I added hot water.”
    “Cold water made my bathtub hot.” The Wordhouse Spencer-Monckton Law.

  186. CD Marshall says:

    “Larger aerosol particles in the atmosphere interact with and absorb some of the radiation, causing the atmosphere to warm.” -NASA

    Is this part of the the NASA Greenhouse Effect?

    Maybe we should start calling them out according to theory. The NASA GHE, NOAA GHE, the Cliamatolgist GHE 1st, 2nd, 3rd edition…

    Maybe someone will start asking the question: “But why are they all different?”

  187. CD,

    They are all different, because we MUST be inclusive. Everybody is right, because everybody is equal. We MUST not discriminate. We must not have standards of agreement, for fear of being racist, sexist, imperialistic, toxic, gender-biased, etc.

    Science now is open to all — NOT just to those who can actually do it correctly, but to those who can break the barriers, crash the glass ceilings, … go where no humeperson [can’t say “huMAN” anymore] has gone before. [cue Star Trek theme].

    Damn it, Jim, I’m an amateur (i.e., netherfessional), not a climate cy-in-tist.

  188. geran says:

    CD, if you will permit a slight modification:

    “My bathtub is cold.”
    “So I added colder water.”
    “Colder water made my bathtub hot.” The Wordhouse Spencer-Monckton Law.

    This fits the clowns better, as they disallow any real “heat”. Their “sun” is icy-cold, for example.
    In their empty heads, the only thing that can “warm the planet” is more cold.

    (You and Robert are making this fun, as it should be. AGW is nothing but a comedy show.)

  189. CD Marshall says:

    Actually it’s gotten to the point o of being a comedy show. I had someone demand, yes demand, that I acknowledge IR radiation always increases temperature.

  190. Good on you immediately identifying the sophistry there!

  191. CD Marshall says:

    I have had excellent teachers. I enraged that “physics expert” so much he stopped responding. Simply becasue I said,

    For a physics expert he was not at all clever. He thought cows huddling together increased temperature. I said no it increases the radius of the temperature not the actual temperature. Huge difference, Cows huddling does not increase heat, it increases the boundaries of the warmth.
    A hundred degrees one square meter or a hundred degrees one square mile is still a hundred degrees.

    Similarly, an IR photon can increase energy without changing temperature. So no an IR photon impacting the surface again will not increase the temperature, only the energy.

    That ended the conversation.

  192. When you think about it [if you have the time to waste], the “greenhouse effect” IS my “wordhouse effect”, because it’s all a very bad play on words — that is, not a real greenhouse, but a redefined thingie that we shall now call a greenhouse, as we hijack a word from its correct application, transfer it to an application to which it never applied, and define this new application with wrongass physics and math that isn’t even true of our hijacked, reapplied word.

    They can’t even get repurposing right.

  193. geran says:

    In Joseph’s response to Spencer last June, another “Chris” commented about two weeks later (which no one noticed):

    Chris Hansen says:
    2019/06/25 at 3:22 PM
    I don’t get it. area of a circle = πr², area of a sphere = 4πr², hence one reduces the incoming solar flux by 4 to compensate for the sunlight being intercepted by a sphere in a thermal balance calculation. Seems like simple physics to me. What am I missing?

    Chris Hansen makes the all too common mistake of confusing geometry with physics. The surface area of a sphere is 4 times the surface area of the disk. That’s the correct geometry.

    But, you cannot divide the solar flux by 4. That changes everything, especially when you are considering a “thermal balance calculation”. An analogy would be like having 4 liters of water in one container at 40 C. Then removing one liter and trying to claim the one-liter temperature is 40/4 = 10 C.

    Chris Hansen doesn’t understand “simple physics”, and he was unable to learn from Joseph’s patient explanation.

    The comedy continues.

  194. Pablo says:

    even Robert Holmes does it to TSI variability at 31.30 mins. in!

  195. Or, as I would put it:

    [Chris Hansen says:
    2019/06/25 at 3:22 PM
    I don’t get it. area of a circle = πr², area of a sphere = 4πr², hence one reduces the incoming solar flux by 4 to compensate for the sunlight being intercepted by a sphere in a thermal balance calculation. Seems like simple physics to me. What am I missing?]

    Let’s look at the phrase, “reduces the incoming solar flux by 4 to compensate for the sunlight being intercepted by a sphere in a thermal balance calculation.” The divide-by-four value of sunlight is NOT being INTERCEPTED! … ANYWHERE! … EVER! Reducing the value of solar flux to “compensate” for something that never happens anywhere ever is an erroneous compensation.

    It is NOT, by any means, “simple physics” — it is simple averaging, to arrive at a correctly calculated value that is physically meaningless, hence, NOT even close to correct physics.

    What you are missing is the understanding of averages that have physical meanings. Without physical meanings, there is NO physics being done, … just math with no application to reality whatsoever. What you are missing is understanding the distinction between math and physics. Physics encompasses math, but the numbers of the math have to have physical meaning.

  196. It’s just mind boggling how even really bright people cannot distinguish between ACTUAL input, as opposed to output over a sphere. “Interception” happens over a half sphere, while the divide-by-four discharge happens over a whole sphere. There is no violation here. The half receives the solar flux. The whole processes it and discharges it. The equality is preserved, because the discharge over the whole IS the divide-by-four, which reconciles with the interception over the half.

    It does not have to come in at one-fourth power to go out at one-fourth power.

  197. CD Marshall says:

    If you were going to follow real climate science you’d need to divide solar energy according to region/cell surface.

    The Hadley cell clearly being the largest area fueled by the most solar power. You can’t divide the energy evenly it’s just impossible. The Ferrel cells take on far less than the Hadley and the Poles take on nearly nothing.

    It would be a pie chart of percentages, the largest being a the Equator fueling the Hadley cells (N&S).

    I would find it interesting how much each area absorbed. 60% Hadley/30% Ferrel/10% Poles or even more and or less?

  198. CD Marshall says:

    This garbage from VOX on my splash screen:

    “Scientists have gotten predictions of global warming right since the 1970s” LOL what a load of crap!

  199. Of course, they are going to redefine the very meaning of “accurate”.

    Hey, I’m going to shoot at a target. Ooops, I missed the bullseye by five inches. I’m going to now make the target bigger. I missed the bullseye by four inches. My accuracy is improving. Now, I’m going to make the target even bigger, because I have discovered, from past performance, that if I make it bigger, then I can get closer to the target. Wow, I hit the bullseye this time! I am a very accurate shooter.

  200. CD Marshall says:

    Exactly! And pay no mind to the man we paid off to make the bullseye bigger after each failed shot.
    Nothing to see here, we were right the whole time.

    Meanwhile in the real world…

  201. geran says:

    Pablo yes, the guy in the video made the same mistake. Many people get confused by “flux”. If they have no real understanding of “power”, they get even more confused, since solar flux is “power” divided by “area”. A common mistake is assuming flux, or power, is “energy”. and treating it as such. Energy can be averaged, flux/power cannot be averaged. That’s why the bogus “energy budget” is pseudoscience. They are trying to “balance” flux as you would balance energy. Energy is conserved, flux is NOT conserved.

    For a blackbody sphere, energy-in = energy-out, 960(A) Joules = 240(4A) Joules. But flux-in does NOT equal flux-out, 960 W/m^2 ≠ 240 W/m^2.

  202. … bears repeating:

    ” Energy can be averaged, flux/power cannot be averaged. That’s why the bogus ‘energy budget’ is pseudoscience. “

  203. CD Marshall says:

    Some people just don’t know what the FLUX they’re talking about. 🙂

  204. Or they do and just don’t give a flux.

  205. Pablo says:


  206. CD Marshall says:

    I caught that error you mentioned in the video, it was so subtle I almost missed it. Is this guy a physicist? I heard somewhere his PhD was in philosophy or something?

    I am a little concerned about Joseph getting his PhD, I hear PhD physicists can lose their marbles, which would make the current climate science understandable if crazy scientists were responsible.

    Climate, clowns and crazy. Yeah, sounds about right.

  207. Pierre D. Bernier says:

    Dont know why he made that mistake, He’s Robert Holmes. The guy behind the gas law that says that all temperatures are accounted for. PM/dR = T, No GHGE.

    __ _________________ Venus ___ Earth ___ Titan ___ S Pole
    Pressure (kPa) _______ 9200 ____ 101.3 ___ 146,7 __ 68,13
    Mol density (gm/mol) __ 43.45 ____ 28,97 ___ 27,78 __ 28,97
    Atm. density (kg/m3) ___ 65 _____ 1,225 ____ 5,25 ___ 1,06
    Temperature (K) ______ 739,7 ___ 288,1 ____ 93,4 ___ 224,0

  208. geran says:

    Clown Spencer, PhD, believes he can bake a turkey with ice cubes.

    His response, upon failure, was “Flux it”.

    Scientists can learn from failed experiments, sophist-clowns never learn.

  209. CD Marshall says:

    This comment is worthy of repeating from someone on YT:

    “Warm air can hold more water than cooler air at the same relative humility. See a psychrometric chart. However, human caused global warming does not hold any water.”

  210. Pierre D. Bernier says:

    / However, human caused global warming does not hold any water. /

    Let’s give him a PhD !!! He has what it takes !!!

  211. Pablo says:

    Some relative humility is what my PhD brother needs!

  212. Pierre D. Bernier says:

    My wife is a graduate from the University of Montreal. She receives every month the university’s journal. This month there is a bunch of articles about carbon neutral shit. So I Just sent 2 of the writers my article describing where the University of Washinton climate diagram goes wrong. I asked them to tell me where I go wrong. I guess I must feel better, looking for a fight like this 🙂

  213. All the institutions are corrupt. Mentally corrupt at the least.

  214. CD Marshall says:

    So I was talking physics with my wife, the little I have learned anyway (short conversation). She had a hard time grasping the concept of energy not doubling, like the 2 light bulb example, she kind of got it but was a little dumbfounded. Which is exactly like I was meaning the general education system really sucks doesn’t it? She is very intelligent (why I married her) she asked about two electric blankets why you feel warmer if the heat doesn’t double.

    I said each blanket can’t heat beyond it’s original source, they will prevent more of your body temperature from escaping. Using one electric blanket and throwing a thermal blanket over that would be more economical and pretty much serve the same purpose of maintaining your body temperature.

    Educate myself further please, if you so desire. Never ever feel like you can’t correct me if I am wrong, at this point I need to start using proper terms.

    Why? Becasue I give a flux that’s why.

    Glad you are feeling better.

    General Consensus,
    Is Roy worth it at this point? He has sold out, no one can be this stupid can they?
    What about Christy, what’s his stance on this or is he a sell out too?

    Joe should start a contest, “Sophists Choice Awards.”

  215. geran says:

    CD, you’re on it, a second electric blanket would not be able to raise the temperature beyond the maximum temperature of the first electric blanket, but it would help get to that maximum temperature faster. It actually gets even more complicated than that due to how the exact problem would be set up, losses handled, etc.

    Such problems quickly get confusing without an understanding of “temperature”, “heat”, and “energy”. And in the “electric blanket” problem, understanding “heat source” is also necessary. People who have not studied these areas can get the wrong ideas. Just this week, I was trying to correct someone, over at PSI, who was confused about how a simple thermometer worked. He became belligerent!

    So to explain the concept of “energy not doubling”, first explain that “energy” can double, but that does not mean “temperature” doubles. Consider a brick that has a temperature of 100 C. If you put a thermometer next to the brick, the themometer would indicate “100 C”. Now position a second 100 C brick, in contact with the other side of the thermometer. The thermometer would still indicate 100 C. You “doubled” the energy, but you did not raise the temperature.

  216. Pierre D. Bernier says:

    That’s it ! I’m in the fight. Contacted 6 people (chairs) at 6 different university physics departments in the province of Quebec about the Washinton University climate diagram. Just gave them my interpretation and asked where do I go wrong ? That not too agressive is it ? I’m waiting for the fireworks….

  217. geran says:

    Also CD, Christy has not been openly perverting physics, but he has testified before Congress, presumably under oath, that AGW is fact. So, like Spencer, he does not understand the physics, but remains more in the shadows. Spencer openly flaunts his ignorance of, and disrespect for, science.

    As an analogy, someday Christy can claim he didn’t know he was involved in the bank robbery, he just went along for the ride. But, Spencer was holding the gun and demanding the money.

  218. Joseph E. Postma says:

    Good for you Pierre!

  219. CD Marshall says:

    Thank you Geran, adding that to my notes.

    Pierre, I am venturing the first reply back to you will be the same jargon they give Joseph, “You just don’t understand the science.”

    We shall see. I hope at least one person is reasonable but odds are not in your favor.

  220. CD Marshall says:

    Energy is not always heat, but heat is always energy. An increase in energy does not always indicate an increase in temperature?

  221. geran says:

    “…but heat is always energy.”

    Be careful CD, “heat” is not just energy. Thermodynamic “heat” has two components: 1) energy transfer, and 2) from “hot” to “cold” (ΔT).

    Without both components, there is no “heat”.

    A cup of hot coffee does NOT contain heat. It contains energy. Drop an ice cube in the cup of hot coffee and you now have “heat”–the transfer of energy from the hot coffee to the cold ice cube.

  222. Pierre DB,

    I predict that you will get a letter with very generic, placating language:

    Dear Mr. Bernier,

    Thank you for taking time to contact us with your concerns. We here at _____________ strive to uphold the highest standards of all professions. We have invested heavily in orchestrating the many resources necessary to elevate our fine institution to this plateau. We will forward your letter to our Provost, who will forward it to ________________, who will forward it to the relevant parties of your concern. As our faculty and staff are quite busy pursuing the high mission to which we are dedicated, a formal reply to your query could take quite some time. In the interim, please consider supporting our quest by making a contribution to our development fund. Thank you again for your interest in ________________________, and we hope that we can fulfill your further interests, as our time and resources permit.

    Yours truly,

    La Grand Fakaway Limpwad, PhD, DUD, OMG

  223. Joseph E. Postma says:

    Well said Geran.

    Following on Robert – they will also say something like it “only being a teaching model”…as if that justifies anything! lol I used to get that all the time “It is only used for teaching the basic concepts.”


  224. CD Marshall says:

    A gift for your tornado research if you don’t have it from NOAA which makes it even better.

    The Super Outbreak of April 3-4, 1974

    Geran you are starting to blow my mind. So a hot cup of coffee has energy (and temperature?) but not heat unless it reacts with something cooler. If you put hotter coffee in the cup then the coffee in the cup becomes the cooler source.

    I use to do this trick as a kid where I’d freeze my arm (in ice or in the freezer in the restaurant) and toss something down in scalding water and pick it up with no injuries to the shock of everyone else who had no idea I froze my arm first.

    That’s not the same thing as the coffee cup naturally, just something I remembered I use to do.

  225. Joseph E. Postma says:

    CD that’s so weird…lol. Just kidding it’s great. Think of the things we did innocently as kids…and now look at the effect it has on us knowing a bit more about thermodynamics intuitively than other people. I used to burn stuff with a magnifying glass. You did what you did. You learn the limits of thermodynamics….your cold arm didn’t make the water hotter still!

  226. Christopher Marshall says:

    While I am at it the argument of increased tornadoes from global warming is ironic since it takes just as much cold air as warm air to create one. Without the cold air the twister would not exist. So therefore one could conclude that if the planet was warming the tornadoes would be less not more becasue of less cold air being able to interact with the overall (global) warming air.

    Just as they say warmer air is creating colder air? But in that theory thermal equilibrium is being achieved therefore it’s not global warming…ing…continues…

    I am of course referring to the Robert and Scott conversation (?) at Hub Pages for those who not the know of the wit of hitherto I speak.

  227. geran says:

    “So a hot cup of coffee has energy (and temperature?) but not heat…”

    Correct CD. It’s best to think of “heat” as a process, not a “thing”.

    If “heat” blows your mind, then you don’t want to learn about “entropy”.


  228. Are Santa, The Easter Bunny, The Tooth Fairy teaching models too?

    I thought that sort of …. “teaching” … came to a close, long before a young person entered institutions of higher learning.

  229. CD Marshall says:

    $10,000 Prize To The First Applicant To Present Evidence that Man-Made CO2 Causes Catastrophic Global Warming

  230. Pablo says:

    From Richard Lindzen at

    “The Atmospheric Greenhouse Effect
    Let us assume for the moment that the earth has no atmosphere, and that the surface is non-reflec􏰀ting. What would the temperature of the surface be? Incoming radia􏰀tion would be about 341 Wa􏰁tts per square meter. In order for the earth to balance this, it would have to have a temperature given by the expression T4 where  the Planck constant, is 5.67×10−8 W⋅m−2⋅K−4 . Interesting􏰀ly, this leads to a temperature of about 278.5 K or 5.5 C, at which temperature, the Planck function􏰀on for the spectral distribu􏰀tion of radiati􏰀on tells us that the radiation emi􏰁tted by the earth is primarily in the infrared por􏰀tion of the spectrum. This is only about 10 C less than today’s 288 K. If we allow for a surface reflec􏰀vity of 0.1, then the incoming radia􏰀on is reduced to about 307 Wa􏰁s per square meter, and we get a temperature of about 271 K or -2 C. This is still only 17 C less than today’s mean temperature of 288 K.
    “The common claim that the earth would be 33 C less than today’s temperature comes from including the reflec􏰀tivity of clouds, which brings the reflec􏰀tivity to about 0.3. This reduces the incoming radia􏰀tion to 240 Watt􏰁s per square meter and leads to a temperature of 255 K. We will ignore the implausibility of an atmosphere-free earth having clouds. Of course, even in this simple situation􏰀on, the surface temperature will vary with la􏰀titude, but for convenience of presentation􏰀 we will assume that the temperature represents some sort of average.
    When the rest of our atmosphere is added, several things change because our atmosphere contains various substances (water vapour, CO2, clouds and other less important gases) that absorb infrared radia􏰀tion sufficiently to block radiation from the surface from being transmi􏰁tted directly to space.

    1. This, in turn, leads to a sharp drop in temperature above the surface that destabilizes the air and leads to convec􏰀tion.
    2. Convec􏰀tion, in turn, limits the rate of decrease to something known as the dry adiabatic􏰀 lapse rate, which is -9.8°C per kilometer for a dry atmosphere.

    The observed rate of decrease is closer to -6.5°C per kilometer, which is related to what is known as the moist adiaba􏰀tic lapse rate. However, the greenhouse substances in the atmosphere diminish with al􏰀titude unti􏰀l, at some level, the infrared radiation􏰀on can indeed escape to space.

    3. Due to the lapse rate, this level is colder than the surface, and the difference between this temperature and the surface temperature is what is referred to as the greenhouse effect.”

    From confused me:

    Point 1.
    I thought a drop in temperature at the surface stabilised the air and caused inversions.
    Point 2.
    Surely it is atmospheric density that creates the lapse rate not convection.
    Point 3.
    So is he is saying the lapse rate is the greenhouse effect and that radiative gases create it?

    It is the reduction of the dry lapse rate by latent heat in water vapour that gives an increase of potential temperature (as in the meteorological definition) with altitude is it not?

  231. CD Marshall says:

    I was wondering about Lindzen so thank you. To me he does not talk with an understanding of physics. When I hear “trap” I lose all confidence in the rest of the information because that signifies a lack of physics understanding to me.

    Real Meteorology (if it still exists) clearly teaches lapse rate and atmospheric pressure equals temperature.

    I remember reading one of Joe’s older posts where he explains the 288.15 Kelvin is the lapse rate/pressure from downward driven air from a higher temperature from the equator/ Hadley cells not from air that started on the surface, which would not account for the 288.15 Kelvin temperature.
    if I remember correctly. It was an excellent read!

    Naturally now that I need it I can’t find.

    I thought convection was started from surface conduction to convection to advection.

    I look forward to someone smarter than I explaining it.

  232. Pablo says:

    exactly… in my world it is a hot surface that causes convection.

  233. Pablo says:

    ….coupled with environmental lapse rate greater than the adiabatic so that rising air is always warmer than the surrounding air and continues to rise.

  234. geran says:

    Pablo and CD see right through that hilarious pseudoscience.

    The “Summary” is great humor:

    CO2 is not that bad.
    But, it could be.
    But, it’s probably not.
    It could be because we don’t know everything.
    We better get more funding for nonsense papers like this….

    And, speaking of humor:

  235. I’ve come to fully appreciate that meteorologists have no training in thermodynamics…no thermo courses in their curriculum. Therefore they make up this back radiation BS without knowing that is violates basic thermo law.

  236. CD Marshall says:

    I firmly believe if a rudimentary understanding of physics was a prerequisite for meteorology and 2 years of meteorology was a requirement to start climatology …we’d have far less climate scientists 🙂

  237. CD Marshall says:

    Are you sure Scott isn’t Mann? He is too well versed to be “mistaken” he is a member of the faculty of rehearsed deception. Nobody normal sleights facts with fiction that well. he is clearly using the models to claim the warming is happening and what will happen in the future even though the real world isn’t warming like he says. 64% (currently) is 15C or below globally.

  238. I’m confident that Scott isn’t Mann, because he actually is too polite. I think Mann would have hit me already with ad hominems out the wazoo, attacking my credentials, calling me a “denier”, touting is PhD and research, etc., … you know, typical Manntastic tactics.

  239. “is” = “his”

  240. CD Marshall says:

    Yes he is polite and hasn’t sued you…or threatened to sue you. His ideology is pretty extreme though.

  241. CD Marshall says:

    I’m covering this paper,

    As a critique to hone my skills,I have mostly everything covered (I hope) but this part I need walked through…

    “This experimental data should effectively end the argument by skeptics that no experimental evidence exists for the connection between greenhouse gas increases in the atmosphere and global warming.”

    I know energy can transfer w/o temperature change but what are these people even talking about?

    As always thank you very much for your input.

  242. I stopped reading when the article referred to warming started in 1850…which was the end of the little ice age. The entire article is sophistry.

  243. “When the molecules in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases re-emit this long-wave radiation back toward Earth’s surface, the result is warming.”

    Nope. That’s reverse heat flow.

Leave a Reply

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

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

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