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.

36 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

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