The official position of the American Meteorological Society is that the Sun does not create Earth’s weather or climate. I present to you direct quotes and statements gathered during peer-review with the AMS and from the Bulletins of the AMS editorial board that their position is that the Sun *does not* create our climate on Earth!
Follow up: I did receive a reply from the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society’s journal editor, about my request for reconsideration. This is his reply:
“After again reading your manuscript and the reviewers’ comments, I do not see reason to change the decision.”
Thus, the confirmed official editorial position of the AMS is that the Sun *does not* create our climate or Earth’s weather.
I have written the editor back just now with the release of this video:
“Thank you for the reply #####. Thus, I will take it as the official position of the AMS and its Bulletin’s journal that the Sun does not create the climate and meteorological phenomena on Earth, given that this was the clearly-stated position of one of the reviewers. You may be interested in watching this YouTube video where I discuss the BAMS peer-review process and what the AMS states as it official position of the Sun not being responsible for the creation of Earth’s weather and climate: [Y/T link]”
Sorry for the ling video, but I have to fill you entirely in on why I’ve been gone for so long, and what project has been developing behind the scenes. I’ve been hard at work, and you will be amazed at what I present to you in this long video.
A YouTube comment and my reply:
MH: “From The Skeptic Journal: Joseph E. Postma is a climate change denier. He uses his master’s in astrophysics to try to convince others to trust his authority. However, Postma has never been able to pass peer review in any legitimate scientific journal regarding anything he has written about climate change. The only place he has been able to post his ideas are to Principia Scientific, which is a website created by Tim Ball, a climate change denier. I also read another negative article on you in Skeptical Science – “This work makes extraordinary claims and yet no effort was made to put it in a real climate science journal since it was never intended to educate climate scientists or improve the field; it is a sham, intended only to confuse casual readers and provide a citation on blogs. The author should be ashamed.”
Firstly, I have never told others that they must “trust my authority” just because I have a degree in astrophysics. I barely ever mention it. What I do, however, is try to explain things so that anyone can understand what is going on. On the other hand, we can see the classical case of psychological projection here: THEY are the ones who berate everybody and everyone with their “consensus of experts”, their “degrees in meteorology”, etc., and that we should only listen to them because they’re the experts and we should dismiss ANY and ALL critics. The alarmists are the ones who berate everyone into trusting their authority!
Secondly, we have now all witnessed what happens when an “outsider” to the field of climate science attempts to publish something in climate science as innocuous as pointing out the simple fact that the Sun heats the Earth, and creates Earth’s weather. The climate/meteorology journal, the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, had to take the position, such as to reject the paper, that the Sun does not heat the Earth or create Earth’s weather! They had to take this insane position in order to protect their political interpretation of the weather, to protect their fake greenhouse effect from being exposed as being based in flat-Earth pseudoscience. I, Joe, should be ashamed? Get bent. The climate science scam is itself utterly shameless…now exposed as being utter quack-science with a fake and ridiculous “peer-review” journal process.
Climate of Sophistry 
Joe,
Welcome to our world.
Sorry your paper was rejected. I’m not sure describing them as liars is helpful. Reviewer #1 thinks heat flows up the temperature gradient. This doesn’t strike me a lying but as a world-class level of incompetence and blinkered thinking.
Keep up the good work. I’m sure you followed them but I have just discovered the blogs Watts Up With That and The Electroverse. Great contributions.
Barrie
I’m not “sorry” about the rejection at all.
The entire purpose of this exercise is to demonstrate the fraud of climate science, peer-review, and the academic system.
I am quite happy at how well I have succeeded.
Was watching a climate scientist from env Canada stating that Canada was warming up twice as fast as the rest of the world. You would think that someone in the business would know the diff between weather and climate. No wonder are children are confused.
Common sense should dictate that if the sun has no ability to heat earth there should be little diff between night and daytime temps on the moon. I think it should be obvious to anyone with a brain tha t the sun is the only heat source of earth.
Cheers boomie789 that’s great!
The following is a very important, relevant question: Does a zombie know that it is a zombie? — I think not.
Describing the reviewers as liars, then, might be giving them too much credit, because telling a lie requires intent, and I’m not sure that there is any intent. Rather, a sort of brain death is in force, which prevents any intent from being behind what non-zombies might frame as a “lie”.
“Grossly negligent”, “incompetent”, “incapable”, “clueless”, and a number of other descriptors might apply.
If gross negligence in understanding basic principles that should support one’s status as a reviewer is the case, and if such gross negligence hinders the advancement of another scientist because it leads to rejection in professional journals, then provable harm exists for the rejected scientist.
In short, … just wow!
I hate to say that I fully expected this outcome for that paper.
Joseph, you have shown that AMS is beyond logic and science.
The paradigm that AMS subscribes to, namely that atmospheric recycling heat energy to provide the climate, is just illogical madness!
The 3 steps to madness —
1. The idea of reducing the solar input to a theoretical average spread evenly over a flat surface (representing the TOTAL Earth’s surface area).
2. Heat (as radiant energy) can go from a cooler body to a warm one.
3. Observational evidence is of no consequence as the math fits.
This is a sad moment but it shows how much the AMS is in the thrall of the current madness and hysteria.
Spread it widely. Everyone needs to see just how they’re being lied to.
The operative word is “gatekeeping”.
(Keep actual science out. Protect the funding.)
I just read (probably on Skeptical Science) that they accept that we are in a Brightening and that means more solar irradiance is reaching the surface but that in no way is contributing to the warming caused by CO2.
The climate church has excommunicated the Sun.
Thus let it be written, thus let it be done!
Can anyone re-interpret what this person is saying, I think they are German and not sure if they are using a translator or it’s just mash up science (or both).
“First: generally CO2, and every other gas, emitts and absorbs at generally the same wavelength. But in the atmosphere it absorbs energy and mainly transfers it by bumping into other molecules which emitt at different wavelengths.
Second part is that the absorption on the ground changes the wavelength. Incomming is sunlight at around 6000°K (aka mainly visible light) and outgoing is IR radiation has a temperature of 16°C. Incomming light isn’t absorbed by greenhouse gases but the outgoing frequencies are.
Third: Every energy transfer causes a change in temperature. Normal temperature measurements are measuring the average Temperature of something. That doesn’t mean that all the molecules have the same temperature https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell%E2%80%93Boltzmann_distribution
Fourth: Thermodynamik is about results. So when it says that heat flows just in one direction this “heat” is the result of the energy flowing in both directions. So it makes a hughe difference when you are comparing the energy flow between the surface and the Troposhere at -40°C and the surface and outer space at -270°C. The temperature of the colder Troposphere or atmoshere will massively REDUCE the amount of heat that is transferred compared to outer Space. Difference between a hole in a Bucket and the whole bottom missing. This is the way Greenhouse gases are warming earth: they are reducing the flow of energy from the surface to outer space up to the point where earth got so hot that the radiation outside the bands of the GGs is emitting the same amount of energy the earth is absorbing from the sun.”
J.P.,
Is this what you are talking about at the end?
https://propertarianism.com/what-is-propertarianism/
Yes, Pablo.
Also look up “John Mark” on YouTube:
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCIGlVALFPYRROlXk511Cfhw
Watch all videos starting at the beginning first one.
I see this morning a report from NASA that claims ghg cools not warms the atmosphere. Whoops, I wonder how mr Hansen and his crowd will spin this. This may be the beginning of the end for the agw bunch. Keep up the good work mr Postma, I have no formal education but have been following gw for over 20 years. It’s so nice for people like me to have some one educated in this subject that they can understand,most physics gets so complex we can’t comprehend it.
Have a great day
Cheers Barry, nice to have you. It is clear that the establishment is ruined. It is going to be up to people like you and I who fix it.
Spread this widely. People need to know just how much they’re being lied to.
@CD: That’s just the “slowed cooling” argument again. And trying to conserve heat flow rather than energy,
New comment by professor Denis Rancourt, in the comment section beneath the interview with Stephen Wells
———-
NOTE: Whether there is a greenhouse effect (GHE) on planet earth, and whether the GHE leads to increased CO2 having any measurable effect on weather, temperature, or climates, are TWO SEPARATE QUESTIONS. The first can be true and can lead to a warmer than otherwise earth, at the same time that the second can also be true. Adding CO2 is different than no CO2 and no any GHE gases.
Evan Ammeson, you state: ” I’m disturbed by how many climate skeptics are denying the existence of the greenhouse effect because I don’t think it’s a defensible position.”
—- Yup, that was my motive for doing the interview with Stephen Wells. I wanted him to show his best arguments and to challenge him. It turns out these particular GHE-deniers are teflon and actually believe their own words no matter what.
—- If it were true that a cold object cannot produce circumstances in which another object’s temperature is increased by the presence of the said cold object, then insulation would not work. This group of GHE-deniers is, in logical equivalent, exactly saying “insulation is impossible because 2nd law of thermodynamics”. Their such “arguments” are simply utterances of complete nonsense.
—- Here is a description of how insulation works, in case one is confused about the 2nd law of thermodynamics: https://www.energy.gov/energysaver/weatherize/insulation
—- And here is a statement of the second law of thermodynamics: <> [I added emphasis in capital letters.]
Source:
h ttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dcsHwFObKqE
CD, I’m focusing on the last sentence of the long comment you asked about:
This is the way Greenhouse gases are warming earth: they are reducing the flow of energy from the surface to outer space up to the point where earth got so hot that the radiation outside the bands of the GGs is emitting the same amount of energy the earth is absorbing from the sun.”
Pure fiction. Yes, it’s the “slowed cooling” thing again.
The atmosphere, as a whole, is warmer than outer space, as it provides the massive gaseous medium through which a temperature gradient sustains a habitable zone within the laws of thermodynamics. CO2 alone cannot do this. Any “slowing” is hardly different from zero, … under a second, I think, which can be easily made up over the course of a day.
Keep up the good work Joseph! At the moment it looks as though the power elites are hellbent on destroying our civilization with their climate fraud. Even the central banks have now joined the fight against CO2. Fraudsters like Elon Musk are becoming richer every day and are hailed as saviors.
By the way, there does exist real man made climate change due to wind power
:https://www.cell.com/joule/fulltext/S2542-4351(18)30446-X
Climate policies are reminiscent of the Chinese Communist policies under Mao under the name ‘The great leap “. These caused the biggest famine in history.
Therefore exposing the climate fraud is of utmost importance.
Cheers Manfred.
Think of the psychological damage let alone the biospheric damage engendered by hating CO2…the very molecule that creates and gives life! They’re scheming to wipe out life as we know it or something!
I don’t think they are scheming at all. Again, giving them too much credit. (^_^)
Scheming requires conscious intent of acting against known truths in order to gain an advantage from lies that are intentional to accomplish said advantage.
Zombies cannot operate at this level of consciousness — they just push ahead with raw impulses, driven by reflexes, shaped by handlers who are not very smart.
Yesterday, I just noticed Zoe over at PSI, making her contributions in the thread about Joe’s recent publication attempt — she’s a mess [some will say I’m too polite].
Peer review is always a joke – it is simply a bunch of people with the same belief system and prejudices reinforcing their group think.
Any real and valuable review must be done by qualified people outside of the “scientific” discipline being discussed.
These clowns think only they are intelligent enough to see their “truth” and belief systems and they are completely correct – EXCEPT they have little intelligence.
I finally made my way through the long video. (Joseph, you should use the youtuber trick of dividing long videos into a series.)
Everyone should make sure to check the video at about 30 mins to about 40 mins, where Joseph absolutely eviscerates Reviewer #1. It’s hilarious. (I watched it twice!) It’s too bad we don’t know Reviewer #1’s name. My bet is he is receiving funding to promote the GHE nonsense. Conflict of interest, on display in dazzling glitter.
Reveiwer #2, at about 20 mins, seemed reasonable. He was likely a real scientist.
So the present Solar Cycle 25 has some flares, indicating we are not going into a minimum. However, what is going to happen if we do go into one in 2030-2050. Odds are I won’t be around that long and this interglacial will end in several thousand years or less. Does anyone have a guess when the next ice age will hit and what is the world going to do depleted of resources needed to survive?
Nuclear and geothermal will be required to maintain a large population in an ice age. “Global Warming” will be a myth told to children and food will no longer be for pleasure.
Anyone want a’ La Carte roti rongeur, cooked in a fine boues d’epuration sauce? Hmm.
If my French is horrible blame it on Google even though I didn’t use it blame it anyway becasue it seems like the right thing to do.
The only thing I know in French was taught me by a girl I worked with…ferme ta bouche.
Why are peer reviewers anonymous? It could be one person all the time. Al Gore even!
I can almost feel the emotional outrage of reviewer number 1 as he pours his knee jerk scorn upon your paper. There is no thought process involved. It’s just instinctively lashing out because his paradigm has been challenged and his ego is offended. There is no rationality in any of his responses and it looks like he didn’t bother to check anything he said before sending it off. Just madly typed the response and pressed send.
If may interpret #2 better, “I agree with your premise but my job depends on me passing the decision to someone else who I know will not agree with you and is also paid not to agree with you…”
Isn’t the difference between the two reviewers amazing?
One behaves like a real human. The other is a total inversion to thought and communication itself.
CD,
On solar cycles.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-45584-3
This comment from you is hilarious!
“…What the greenhouse effect requires is that after the initial impulse of the ball drop, supplied by the Sun first raising the ball, then the ball bounces higher afterwards because of “back-bounce”.
What a great analogy. If soldier’s only learned that ricochet projectiles have greater force than the original discharge, we could win battles based on ballistic back bounce.
So still talking to the German fellow…Key points in his comments:
>Energy moves in both directions. When GGs capture more energy more energy flows back to earth reducing the net amount of heat transferred.
>Energy transfer without temperature change is only true on the macroscopic level. On the molecular level one molecule absorbs energy and get warmer while another loses energy and gets colder. Statistically, and that’s what temperature is, the amount stays the same. Maxwell-Boltzmann shows that the amount of molecular temperatures varies widely for a certain temperature.
Thank you, Pablo.
Joseph just reading about Joule,
“In 1844 a paper by Joule on the same subject was rejected by the Royal Society. To convince skeptics, he produced a series of nakedly simple experiments whose message proved impossible to refute…”
Too bad you can’t do something similar, proving the real time effects of the Sun by experimentation and observation.
CD,
You can… take off clothes, lie on beach under a midsummer sun without suntan cream and see what happens!
Simple experiment light a candle on a table put a mirror on the far side of the candle then place another mirror on the near side wait 20 minutes then blow out the candle the room will continue to heat as the back radiation warms one mirror then the other. I will leave the math up to people that are more qualified than myself.
Pablo I think for better results no more than a dozen supermodels would be needed each with varying degrees of sunscreen and without sunscreen, time of day and so on. Observation would be imperative to the results of this project.
Over the past few years, I have gotten the impression that defenders of this so-called simplified model of the “greenhouse effect” attempt to overlook the painfully obvious flaw in it, by dismissing it entirely as irrelevant, when compared to climate models that do not incorporate it directly.
… as if the errors of climate models, obscured in their incomprehensible complexity, vindicate and forgive the simple model.
… as if it’s okay to use an absurd model to introduce beginners or newcomers to the subject, with the implied expectation that aspiring professionals just move on past the simple model to the more “complex” climate models.
This, in a sense, keeps the idea of Santa Clause [Greta Clause?] alive for those who do not go into the computer-modeling stage of the “greenhouse effect”. Oh, it’s just a simple model — the real adult model does not treat things like that.
What a totally irresponsibly, evasive, lacking-in-integrity approach !
If a basic model designed for beginners or newcomers is fatally flawed, then how is it more acceptable for this critical segment of the learning population? How do more complex computer models justify this abuse of beginning learners?
But that’s not the crux of it. The crux of it is that the “more complex” climate models have more complex problems than the supposed “simple model”. Those problems are just, again, obscured in this “complexity”. I use scare quotes on the word, “complexity”, because that word is a disguise for the word, “failing”. That word is a cover-up for the even worse, glaring flaws in those supposed grander, more adult models.
Here’s an idea of what I’m talking about:
View at Medium.com
R K. Couldn’t agree with you more. When you look at their former climate models that now have over 90 percent failure rate soon to be a hundred you would think the Cult would modify its message. It now appears that they are just digging in hoping that political rhetoric will carry their narrative.
Joe,
Wow, just wow! Thank you for recording the video. I’ll try to use the link to it in response to alarmists (eg on Twitter) whenever I can.
Best.
S
On Sun, 26 Jan 2020, 19:25 Climate of Sophistry, wrote:
> Joseph E Postma posted: “The official position of the American > Meteorological Society is that the Sun does not create Earth’s weather or > climate. I present to you direct quotes and statements gathered during > peer-review with the AMS and from the Bulletins of the AMS editorial boa” >
Joe, to help everyone, perhaps you could post the clear, pure, precise, (thermodynamics) textbook definitions for energy, heat and temperature (+ any others you think necessary). I don’t have the textbooks. Thanks
JP.
I have just finished a sequence of screenshots of the video so that I can print out the text of your rebuttals to peer reviewer #1’s comments.
Hopefully I have got them all.
Here are the timecodes.
L32 at 30.10
L37 and 43 at 31.00
L60 at 32.34
L60 and 72 at 34.55
L78 – 95 at 35.39
L99 – 110 at 40.23
L117 at 47.05
L121 at 48.28
L129 at 52.35
L132 at 54.58
L149 at 56.31
..text accompanying your rebuttals… I should have said
L 121 is interesting …where the reviewer states:
“..most heat is from latent heat…..plus sensible heat from eddies. Almost none from conduction.”
So not only is his/her world flat but it also windless.
Pablo,
A windless world is a natural offshoot of a mindless reviewer.
More on forced convection:
“Convective heat loss in newborns occurs when ambient air temperature is less than the infant’s skin temperature. Convective heat loss includes natural convection (passage of heat from the skin to the ambient still air) and forced convection, in which mass movement of air over the infant conveys heat away from the skin. The quantity of heat lost is proportional to the difference between air and skin temperatures, and to air speed. The effect of forced convection in disrupting the microenvironment of warm, humid air layered near an infant’s skin usually is not appreciated in the nursery, where drafts, air turbulence, and consequently heat loss can occur within the relatively protective environment of an incubator.”
from: https://www.sciencedirect.com/sdfe/pdf/download/eid/3-s2.0-B9781437701340100307/first-page-pdf
We haven’t got an oven in our kitchen. All six surfaces in our lounge are emitting 400W so anything we want to cook we hang in the centre of the room where there is 2.4kW.
Ah, the famous ‘Solar Oven’ 🙂
Can one of you math people explain to me how it can be if back radiation heats the earth that winter and summer are possible. Given the air circulation in our atmosphere and the radiation spread from molecules 4 or 5 miles up in all directions our climate on the surface should hardly be affected by the small tilt in the axis.
Some questions
Just how does dividing by 4 equate to accounting for all rotational and seasonal variations ?
The solar “constant” varies by ~100 W/m2 from Aphelion to Perihelion – where is that accounted for ?
What sort of a moron thinks the Earth could possibly cool to zero Kelvin over night ?
Have they never even heard of the Diviner program ?
These people even divide by 4 on non rotating planets – one hemisphere continually hot the other continually cold – just how does that work ?
I believe this guy is so stupid he thinks you haven’t any rotation of the Earth – he is too stupid to see the clear evicence that your model is different to their averaged nonsense – how else could he make such an absurd statement like “then the temperature on the night side goes to absolute zero.” I notice Zoe must have been drinking the same Kool-Aid as she has joined this insane mantra.
Just how does dividing by 4 equate to accounting for all rotational and seasonal variations ?
As near as I can tell, Rosco, Reviewer 1 is melding the idea of the solar constant’s being an average quantity over the year (which accounts for the ~100 W/m^2 Aphelion-to-Perihelion variation) with the idea of averaging of that solar constant over the whole Earth sphere at once.
Well, “melding” was a bit polite. “Confusing”, “conflating”, “erroneously associating”, “cluelessly extrapolating from incomprehension”, maybe would be better descriptors.
I don’t think the reviewer has a clue about exactly what average Joesph is focused on. Dogma blinds a person this way. He/she simply sees the word, “average”, applies the only understanding of “average” that he/she has about this quantity, and he/she cannot comprehend that there is ANOTHER, ENTIRELY DIFFERENT average being discussed.
Great video. Your frustration is understandable.
I noticed your call for a new philosophy of science. I share that view.
I found that science has never been properly defined in a clear and consistent manner, so I spent a few years on cutting into the core of it.
You might find that the result of that work is interesting.
If so, let me know what you think.
Of course Reviewer 1 is asserting that reality is wrong !
People like that used to be shut away for their own protection.
AMS own research paper on models and why they fail to accurately track and follow clouds says —
[my bold]
From a paper called Scale Dependence of Solar Heating Rates in Convective Cloud Systems with Implications to General Circulation Models
A. M. Vogelmann, V. Ramanathan, and I. A. PodgornyCenter for Atmospheric Sciences and Center for Clouds, Chemistry and Climate, Scripps Institution of Oceanography, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, California
Freely available at https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/1520-0442%282001%29014%3C1738:sdoshr%3E2.0.co;2
So solar heating of clouds affects clouds, the weather and the climate — who knew?
Also from an AMS paper called The Influence of the Solar Cycle and QBO on the Late-Winter Stratospheric Polar Vortex
by Charles D. Camp and Ka-Kit TungDepartment of Applied Mathematics, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington
They acknowledge that solar heating is not correctly quantified, especially at the poles …
[my bold]
Oops I forgot the link to AMS paper called The Influence of the Solar Cycle and QBO on the Late-Winter Stratospheric Polar Vortex …
https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full/10.1175/JAS3883.1
Maybe Reviewer 1 studied this 1992 professional manual by the US Department of Energy:
Click to access Thermodynamics-Volume2.pdf
The Thermodynamics, Heat Transfer, and Fluid Flow Fundamentals Handbook was
developed to assist nuclear facility operating contractors provide operators, maintenance
personnel, and the technical staff with the necessary fundamentals training to ensure a basic
understanding of the thermal sciences.
Page 1
Temperature is a measure of the amount of energy possessed by the molecules of a substance.
Stating it this way seems unclear, because this could be interpreted erroneously to mean that temperature is a measure of the total amount of energy possessed by the molecules of a system of molecules. For example, a tub of cold water has more energy than a tiny ember from a campfire, but the tub of water certainly has a lower temperature than the campfire ember.
Heat is energy in transit. The transfer of energy as heat occurs at the molecular level as a result of a temperature difference.
This is very clear — ENERGY IN TRANSIT
Page 27
All bodies above absolute zero temperature radiate some heat.
This statement seems so unqualified that it destroys the clarity of the former statement above.
The sun and earth both radiate heat toward each other.
No, I think this qualifies as outright wrong.
This seems to violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which states that heat cannot flow from a cold body to a hot body.
It does not just “seem” to violate the Second Law — it DOES violate the Second Law, as I understand it clearly interpreted.
The paradox is resolved by the fact that each body must be in direct line of sight of the other to receive radiation from it.
RADIATION, yes, but radiation is not “heat”, if it does not meet the first requirement of being a TRANSFER. There is no energy TRANSFER, counting as “heat” that radiates towards the sun. Consequently, there is NO “paradox”, but an inconsistent, seemingly incorrect use of terminology here.
Therefore, whenever the cool body is radiating heat to the hot body, the hot body must also be radiating heat to the cool body.
Again, no, I think this qualifies as outright wrong too.
Since the hot body radiates more heat (due to its higher temperature) than the cold body, the net flow of heat is from hot to cold, and the second law is still satisfied.
This is precisely the sort of confusion that is allowed to continue, thus providing seeming validation for the further propagation of these erroneous ideas by climate supposed experts.
QUESTION: Am I correct about this supposed professional thermodynamics manual?
I really messed up my HTML bold and italics tags above, but I hope you get the gist.
Damn it ! And I checked it carefully before posting.
A comment by Schroeder textbook on thermodynamics is:
“Much of thermodynamics deals with three closely related concepts: temperature, energy, and heat. Much of students’ difficulty with thermodynamics comes from confusing these three concepts with each other.”
Not only students.
What do I say to this guy on WUWT?
Pablo February 1, 2020 at 5:51 am
The question that needs to asked is why they have divided incoming solar radiation by 4 instead of 2 to get an average for a sphere, instead of the reality that only the hemisphere is in sunlight all the time.
If you do that, sunlight has a power of only 240 watts/sqm and isn’t warm enough to melt ice.
Incoming high energy light only equals outgoing low energy light AFTER weather has done it’s work in moving sensible and latent heat from the sun-warmed surface to the dark side.
Reply
Leonard Weinstein February 1, 2020 at 6:13 am
The sunlight intensity at the surface (without clouds) varies with angle and decreases away from the equator. When that is taken into account, the “average” is divided by 4, but the local intensity at the equator is double the average. The only reason the poles get any sunlight is due to the tilt of the axis. Slso, 240 W/m2 is a lot of power, and can easily melt ice if it were continuous, and if the air temperature and wind were not too extreme.
Reply
240 W/m2 is -18C and this CANNOT melt ice! hahahaha
And yes…LOCAL INTENSITY is what actually drives the physics, melts the ice, creates the weather, etc.
Continuous 240 W/m^2 (-18C) CANNOT melt ice. They’re saying that continuous -18C cant melt ice….lol.
JP, Can I copy and paste that with your name?
Sure.
Pablo,
That whole paragraph reads like crap to me. How in heavens does removing clouds and figuring incidence angle on a HEMISPHERE justify dividing by 4, which is the SPHERICAL diluting factor in question?!
Pablo, your WUWT clown would hate to learn that ice emits about 300 W/m^2! Much more than the fabled “240 W/m^2”.
Not sure that would matter to these nutjobs. I had someone argue even photons from ice changes temperature on a molecular level even while passing to each other. After I exposed the GISS graph as fraud he stopped responding proving he was not out for a debate on science in the first place. The whole “gotcha” crap they try and use is tiresome. I can see how the veterans in real climate science grow tired of the same old garbage regurgitated over and over. I have lost faith in my fellow deadbots.
@MP – He’s going to the insulation argument. Talk about teflon! Slimy little weasel. Maybe I’ll visit over there.
Isn’t the crux of the question that Joe is getting at, is that the ‘earth would be colder without greenhouse gases’ is the wrong way around? It’s not that the earth would be colder without greenhouse gases, it’s that without the sun, there would be no greenhouse gases, principally water vapour. It’s the sun that creates the atmosphere, and it’s ‘temperature’ (with the lapse rate over the gravity induced pressure gradient).
Indeed. They’ve literally removed the sun from creating the climate!
They keep telling us not to question their science,anyone that knows how science is done would want the opposite as mr Postma does . Please prove me wrong,otherwise how would a real scientist learn,if everyone agreed with every hypothesis put forward the world would indeed still be flat. I wish there was a simple way to make the general public understand how ridiculous their whole argument is. When the IPCC first put this forward it was simply to get the developed world to share their wealth with developing countries and that hasn’t changed ie the Paris accord. The mantras from the UN is simply give us your money and we will change nature. Ridiculous..
The other backward things the alarmists/AGWers are confused by are:
1. “The forests are the lungs of the earth”!. No. They *absorb* CO2 and *emit* O2. Lungs do the opposite.
2. “Loss of rain-forests affect climate”! No. The rain as part of the prevailing climate *creates* the rain-forests.
@ilma630 A rational conversation with crazy people is impossible. You are right…
Trees have nothing to do with climate except in the politcal science realm where CO2 is the driver of climate. Trees help sequester CO2 which in fake climate science is helping to control the climate.
In real climate science oceans create the climate and solar energy powers the oceans (with some geothermal).
Joe, new to your site and I was wondering whether you made the article presented in the video available somewhere. Also, should you be able to find the time, I would be interested in your and/or others thoughts on the paper of Peter Stallinga “Comprehensive Analytical Study of the
Greenhouse Effect of the Atmosphere” https://www.scirp.org/pdf/acs_2020011611163731.pdf
This is the conclusion
“”We have analyzed here the greenhouse effect, using fully analytical techniques,
without reverting anywhere to finite-elements calculations. This gave important
insight into the phenomenon. An important conclusion is that the analysis in
terms of radiation-balances-only cannot explain the situation in the atmosphere.
In the extreme case, a differential equation of layers with absorption coefficients,
etc., gave the same results as a much simpler 2-box mixed chamber model.
However, the underlying assumptions in these calculations are not physical.
Therefore we set out to model the greenhouse effect ab initio, and came up
with the thermodynamic-radiation model. The atmosphere is close to thermodynamic equilibrium and based on that we can calculate where and how radiation is absorbed and emitted. This model can explain phenomenologically and
analytically how big the effect of the atmosphere is, specifically Equations (56)
and (58).
Continuing with the reasoning, we find that the alleged greenhouse effect
cannot explain the empirical data—orders of magnitude are missing. There where
Henry’s Law—outgassing of oceans—easily can explain all observed phenomena.
Moreover, the greenhouse hypothesis—as presented here—cannot explain the
atmosphere on Mars, nor can it explain the geological data, where no correlation
between [CO2] and temperature is observed. Nor can it explain why a different
correlation is observed in contemporary data of the last 60 years compared to
historical data (600 thousand years). We thus reject the anthropogenic global
warming (AGW) hypothesis, both on basis of empirical grounds as well as a
theoretical analysis.””
“It’s My Party”…. and I’ll Cry if I Want To
Hi @tensegrityenergy
Glad to have you here. Yes I absolutely agree with that paper’s conclusions. It sounds like they’ve gone about things in a different way than I usually do, but indeed anyone who attempts to actually perform any experimental empirical test or measurement of the climate greenhouse effect will find that it does NOT exist. This will naturally lead them to examine the basic theory, and then subsequently discover the flaws in the theory which explain the empirical null-result, of no measurement.
@tensegrityenergy
Similar to Joseph Postma, I like the general direction of Stallinga’s approach and conclusions.
Unfortunately, even though my calculus is very rusty, and I have not read the whole article, … something glaringly amiss seems to jump out at me:
That’s the divide-by-four maneuver we all complain about here, except performed at a much higher level of mathematical skill, as I see it.
Average global flux is NOT real. Such a quantity defines a fantasy situation where sunshine strikes the whole Earth all at once (night and day side simultaneously), with one-fourth actual, real-time, INPUT power. What sort of Earth is that? — a flat Earth
Somehow, though, Stallinga seems to manage to use it against the “greenhouse-effect” idea.
I guess that’s still applause-worthy, though. … https://media.tenor.co/images/60be18c26ffe69b92710a9afeb5c7ce2/raw
If you want a real headache check out this guide to climate change.
https://history.aip.org/history/climate/index.htm#contents
The political reinterpretation of the weather. Wow all that text sure is convincing…lol.
This is great stuff from “The Discovery of Global Warming” this is the largest compilation of garbage I have ever seen.
VENUS:
The greenhouse effect of the sulfates could be calculated, and by the late 1970s, NASA climate modeler James Hansen stated confidently that the sulfates together with CO2 “are responsible for the basic climatic state on Venus.”
CO2:
Worse still: past some tipping point a cascade of irreversible self-reinforcing processes might gradually push the global system into an ancient ice-free “Hothouse Earth”,
Hahaha that’s great!
This is a runner up for crazy…the Chemtrails Conspiracy yet they flat out reject global warming.
http://www.stopsprayingcalifornia.com/Chemtrail_Planes.php
I have a question about this:
> Atmospheric CO2 absorbs mainly at a wavelength of 15 μ. That corresponds to energy of 0.0827 eV. To put that into perspective, it would take about 77,760,000,000,000,000,000,000 (77.76^21) such photons to equal 1 Joule. So it would take 4.2 times that many photons to raise 1 gram of water 1 degree C.
My question is a photon can’t radiate above its spectrum so wouldn’t that mean even stacked photons of 15 microns would never produce enough heat to boil water ever?
Thanks for your comment Robert. I think the author addresses these concerns somewhat in paragraph 3.3.
” Because of before-mentioned heat creep and thermodynamic equilibrium in general, it does not matter where and how the planetis heated (where radiation is absorbed, etc.), what matters is only the total amount of power, (1− a S) absorbed in the Earth system and U h( ) emitted
by it, in equilibrium they are equal.” ….. and further
“…so wouldn’t that mean even stacked photons of 15 microns would never produce enough heat to boil water ever?”
That’s correct, CD. All the 15μ photons you can imagine cannot boil water. Nature does NOT “stack” energy. An example is the old tired, but reliable, example of ice cubes. No matter how many ice cubes you have, you can’t raise the temperature of anything above the temperature of the ice.
Organizing energy requires more energy. A good example is a CO2 laser, which can cut steel with CO2 photons, but not if you unplug the power cord.
Before they claim that a CO2 laser proves the greenhouse effect…note that the atmosphere does not produce laser light out of CO2 emission…lol.
Joseph, too late! I remember years ago seeing the clown Tim Folkerts using a CO2 laser as evidence atmospheric CO2 can warm the planet. I could probably find his comment, with enough funding….
Another aspect of a laser is the required “design”. As was discovered by Claude Shannon, in his development of “Information Theory”, the laws of information transmission parallel those of energy flow. In fact, he came up with the term “information entropy”.
The Second Law requires external energy (work) to transfer energy from cold to hot. But in reality, “design” is also required. Energy alone will not make a CO2 laser function. The laser requires external energy AND an intelligent design.
That is such an excellent point. It is definitely related deeply to information.
There is more “information content” in a warmer body as compared to a cooler one. The warmer body has higher frequencies that the cooler body does not, and the warmer body has all of the frequencies that the cooler body does. Hence the cooler body has no extra or additional information to give to the warmer body. The warmer body already “knows” everything that the cooler body does.
It is like that quote from Heinlein: “Democracy can’t work. Mathematicians, peasants, and animals, that’s all there is – so democracy, a theory based on the assumption that mathematicians and peasants are equal, can never work. *Wisdom is not additive; its maximum is that of the wisest man in a given group.*”
Information, and knowledge, like heat, is not additive.
“The Second Law requires external energy (work) to transfer energy from cold to hot. But in reality, “design” is also required. Energy alone will not make a CO2 laser function. The laser requires external energy AND an intelligent design.”
That’s a really great statement. I wonder if it applies to the development of life????
^Should have said, *temperature* is not additive, instead of heat there above.
Geran,
Thank you.
Joseph,
Funny how they also forget to mention the energy requirements to run that CO2 laser and the conversion needed for it to work. Heck that would be a great video for you to do someday.
Alas,
I am in a loose conversation with DK Strong, a retired physicist who was employed by the government decades ago and is a Solar expert (so he says).
He is a weasel being politically driven his whole life I doubt he sees any other method of seeing science. However he is not as crass as Potholer (who has some geology education).
So far our conversation has been tempered but pointless. I’d love to ask him a question only a physicist would understand to ras him some, in a method only a physicist would understand just to see where he’s coming from. Being a “solar expert” I’d love for it to be in that field. Considering the Sun is excluded from politcal climate science I can see why he’s out of a job now.
Ask him if the Sun spreads over thee entire Earth as an input. Ask him if the solar constant at Earth is too cold and feeble to create weather and the climate. Ask him if someone were to submit a paper to peer-review where the author claim that the Sun heats the Earth, if it should be rejected given that the Sun does not heat the Earth. Send him this OP video.
Done!
I have a few questions for you if you don’t mind.
>Does the Sun spread over the entire Earth as an input?
>Do you think that the solar constant at Earth is too cold and feeble to create weather and the climate?
> Now if someone were to submit a paper to peer-review where the author claims that the Sun heats the Earth, should that be rejected on those grounds? In other words do you as a solar physicist, believe the Sun is not enough to heat the Earth?
Thank you if you choose to reply.
“That’s a really great statement. I wonder if it applies to the development of life????”
Bien sûr! Shannon’s enhancements to the Second Law go far beyond just the mundane relevance to telephone and radio communications. The implications are serious detriments to several areas of pseudoscience. That’s likely why Shannon never received a Nobel Prize. It’s necessary for them to relegate his great discoveries to the graveyard of history.
Just more “gatekeeping”…..
Indeed I suspected the implications. I am sure he was a great thinker who was lost by peer-review to history and obscurity. Imagine the peer-reviewers rejecting his papers…they coudn’t understand or accept anything other than base materialism.
MH: “From The Skeptic Journal: Joseph E. Postma is a climate change denier. He uses his master’s in astrophysics to try to convince others to trust his authority. However, Postma has never been able to pass peer review in any legitimate scientific journal regarding anything he has written about climate change. The only place he has been able to post his ideas are to Principia Scientific, which is a website created by Tim Ball, a climate change denier. I also read another negative article on you in Skeptical Science – “This work makes extraordinary claims and yet no effort was made to put it in a real climate science journal since it was never intended to educate climate scientists or improve the field; it is a sham, intended only to confuse casual readers and provide a citation on blogs. The author should be ashamed.”
Firstly, I have never told others that they must “trust my authority” just because I have a degree in astrophysics. I barely ever mention it. What I do, however, is try to explain things so that anyone can understand what is going on. On the other hand, we can see the classical case of psychological projection here: THEY are the ones who berate everybody and everyone with their “consensus of experts”, their “degrees in meteorology”, etc., and that we should only listen to them because they’re the experts and we should dismiss ANY and ALL critics. The alarmists are the ones who berate everyone into trusting their authority!
Secondly, we have now all witnessed what happens when an “outsider” to the field of climate science attempts to publish something in climate science as innocuous as pointing out the simple fact that the Sun heats the Earth, and creates Earth’s weather. The climate/meteorology journal, the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, had to take the position, such as to reject the paper, that the Sun does not heat the Earth or create Earth’s weather! They had to take this insane position in order to protect their political interpretation of the weather, to protect their fake greenhouse effect from being exposed as being based in flat-Earth pseudoscience. I, Joe, should be ashamed? Get bent. The climate science scam is itself utterly shameless…now exposed as being utter quack-science with a fake and ridiculous “peer-review” journal process
“However, Postma has never been able to pass peer review in any legitimate scientific journal regarding anything he has written about climate change.
Yes, it’s called “gatekeeping”. No one is allowed to enter unless they deny reality and edhere to Institutionalized Pseudoscience.
I received a reply from Dr. Strong:
>Does the Sun spread over the entire Earth as an input? No, not evenly, at any given time. The Sun supplies the energy, it does not create weather. Obviously day/night but also input to the poles is completely different depending on the time of year. The sub solar point will be getting more radiation than the areas where the Sun is just rising or setting.
It is like when you put gas in your car. It powers the car but does not decide where the car goes or how fast.
“>Do you think that the solar constant at Earth is too cold and feeble to create weather and the climate?” The term solar constant went out of style in the 1980’s when the first measurements of the total and spectral solar irradiance (TSI and TSSI) were made and we discovered it changed with the solar cycle.
The energy coming from the Sun to impact the Earth powers the weather systems, it does not “create weather”. First, the Earths temperature is higher than it should be by 32C due to the GHGs in the atmosphere. Temperature difference between the poles and equator drive circulation patterns in the oceans and atmosphere. The spin of the Earth affects these flows. Differential heating between the land and ocean creates high and low pressure system that are carried around the planet. Different amounts of land the Northern and Southern Hemisphere create differential heating between them. The location and height of mountain ranges affect precipitation rates. These and a host of other local and global factors create weather and averaged over long periods, climate.
As the Sun is supplying the energy does not mean it creates the weather, it is how that energy is used by the natural systems of the Earth that does. There is no pattern of temperature changes in the Earth associated with the solar cycle. We have just had one of the quietest periods of solar activity in 100 years. During that decade we have had the warmest temperatures ever recorded in the last 700 years, probably in the last 11500 years.
“Now if someone were to submit a paper to peer-review where the author claims that the Sun heats the Earth, should that be rejected on those grounds?” No, It would be rejected because it is trivial and does not forward science.
“In other words do you as a solar physicist, believe the Sun is not enough to heat the Earth?” Already answered that above.
Let me ask you a question in return:
Which planet has the most violent weather?
How much solar energy does it receive (per sq m) compared the the Earth?
OMFG.
“The Sun supplies the energy, it does not create weather. […] It is like when you put gas in your car. It powers the car but does not decide where the car goes or how fast.”
Do you see the insanity? The gas POWERS the car. And the Sun DOES POWER the weather. The gas creates/supplies the energy for the car to MOVE. The sun supplies the energy for the weather to be CREATED..for meteorological responses.
Do you see these people just LIE and sophize!!??
“The energy coming from the Sun to impact the Earth powers the weather systems, it does not “create weather””
Sophistry in semantics. Of course this is what we mean. The Sun powering the weather IS the sun creating the weather.
” First, the Earths temperature is higher than it should be by 32C due to the GHGs in the atmosphere.”
No…the Earth is precisely the effective temperature it is supposed to be. The warmest part of the ensemble is found at the slice of atmosphere closes to the surface…this slice is NOT representative of the entire Earth…the temperature found here is NOT “Earth’s temperature”.
“As the Sun is supplying the energy does not mean it creates the weather, it is how that energy is used by the natural systems of the Earth that does.”
Without the Sun’s energy and heat…NO weather. So yes, the sun’s energy DOES in fact create the weather by supplying the heat which produces meteorological responses which are weather. The “natural systems” do not “use” that energy as if they know what they are supposed to do with it…they ARE that energy, they ARE the manifestation of that energy and heat flow through the system.
“No, It would be rejected because it is trivial and does not forward science.”
One reviewer thought it was important and “thought provoking”! The other claimed that the Sun does not power the weather. It does in fact forward the science because right now in climate science it IS believed that the sun does NOT *power* the weather.
Jupiter has the most violent weather. Not the same thing…apples to oranges.
These people literally have no sense or clue of cause and effect.
Send that back to him.
Pingback: They’re All In On It | Climate of Sophistry
For weather to be created you need a temperature change, Jupiter’s center is 20,000C (I heard up to 50,000C) and with air pressure 1,000x that of Earth. So the average core surface temperatures is said to be about half it’s core temperature.
I’ll admit by looking it seems they are not willing to tell you the temps of Jupiter that aren’t below freezing. Political science has corrupted every other part of science it seems.
CO2 molecules act in nano or mm distance and after that convection takes over. Is that a true statement? What happens at the boundary between night and day? What affect does the Moon have on fluid tides? Can gravity waves be seen rippling the atmosphere? All I’ve got is questions.
They just want to be sure that you believe them when they say that the Sun has no influence in heating the Earth or creating the climate Frank!
When I was engaging the system in a legal fashion a judge said of certain statements by the other party that he found those claims incredible and astounding. The lawyer explained that the judge couldn’t, according to protocol, call them liars. We won.
Any thoughts on this anyone?
“It might, of course, be the case that the atmosphere is not in equilibrium. In that case, mass and heat can be transported through convection, diffusion, conduction and radiation. The latter two only heat (and no mass). This includes for example the effect Douglas Cotton calls “heat creep” [15], or the Connollies call “pervection” [16]. The cold upper atmosphere can absorb solar radiation and this absorbed heat is then transported to the hotter (sic) lower atmosphere that warms up by it, thereby seemingly going against the second law of thermodynamics that is often stated as “heat flows naturally from an object at a higher temperature to an object at a lower temperature, and heat doesn’t flow in the opposite direction of its own accord” [17]. The second law, however, merely states that entropy increases, which it does in heat creep. We’ll come back to it later. We merely state here that the atmosphere is empirically well described by a thermodynamic equilibrium.”
from page 58 of Stalinga’s paper at…. https://www.scirp.org/pdf/acs_2020011611163731.pdf
The entire atmosphere cannot be in equilibrium, given that weather exists. I don’t know why they would be so confused and surprised by that. However, when something is not in equilibrium, this does not mean that this is the scenario where heat flows from cold to hot!
We saw Denis Rancourt, in his debate with Stephen Wells, try to say that thermodynamics doesn’t apply to non-equilibrium systems. This is a sophistical lie. Heat ONLY flows when there is disequilibrium and the first and second laws are all about heat flow, and thus, thermodynamics applies to ALL conditions, and in particular, non-equilibrium conditions.
I did not think that “pervection” and “heat creep” were the same thing. Maybe they are. In any case, while it is certainly possible for the atmosphere itself to directly absorb solar energy and thus be heated by it, this does not then mean that the atmosphere will continue to go on to now have the ability to transfer heat from cold to hot.
JP,
Could they just mean that absorption at a certain level raises the temperature to higher than it should for it’s height and so creates disequilibrium within the existing thermal gradient and then via diffusion “colder” air can indeed raise the temperature of “warmer” air beneath?
Pablo,
Please see section 8 of the paper of Cotton on “Heat Creep” where Cotton explains it.
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2876905
t…..y,
Thanks, I have read Cotton’s paper before.
The reason I think the idea has merit is that a similar thing occurs when vigorous turbulent mixing can transform the moist lapse rate with its increase in potential temperature with height back to the “dry” adiabitic rate and so raise the surface temperature by a few degrees as happens within the boundary layer at sunrise when convection begins. But likewise cools the upper level of the mixed layer by the same amount, pivoting around the average in the mid level. So there is no added energy just a rearranging of the gradient.
Should have said…”But there is no added energy in that instance…”
Imagine an imaginary container around the system you’re considering. In thermodynamics, that imaginary container is called a “control volume”. The average temperature of that control volume cannot be raised without adding the “right stuff”. If the average temperature of that control volume is 288 K, adding ice cubes is NOT the “right stuff”. “Heat creep” is NOT the “right stuff”. CO2 is NOT the “right stuff”. Moving energy around within the system is NOT the “right stuff”.
geran,
I get all that, but solar energy being absorbed directly by the atmosphere is some of the right stuff.
As he says…
“No object can heat itself to higher temperatures, when it is al- ready in thermal equilibrium. The only radiation that matters is the one coming from the Sun, and it does not matter where and how it enters into the heat bal- ance of the atmosphere. Heat creep (convection, evaporation and radiation) will redistribute the heat to result in the distribution…”
Solar energy is definitely the “right stuff”, but it is also a constant source. So the control volume can do no more than what it is already responding to. Things like CO2, “heat creep”, etc. add nothing.
I have other questions. I’m thinking of the ocean surface, it’s in a state of constant flux rubbing up against the atmosphere. Then I think about the power of storms as they manifest and play out coming up against other regional conditions. The night and day edge of the world still seems like a major player in causing weather – starting at the equator and falling off at the poles.
Is that where the math gets too big to model? Are there any calculations for these forces that are
based on actual size or are they just derived from formulas? The chaos and non linearity of the
system with so many factors seems to be the crux of the climate crusades. We don’t know. Or is that naive and misguided.
Why isn’t there a good picture of how much of the Sun’s energy is hitting the Earth. It seems to me that everything quickly devolves into models that don’t address the actual amount but are guesstimations based on partial observations not hard numbers.
geran,
Heat creep is not adding anything in my view, it is simply another way of equalising imbalances.
Exactly Pablo, within Earth’s control volume things are variable. The solar energy is constant, but the surface is not. Oceans and land surfaces absorb differently. Axial rotation causes day and night. The tilt changes. Clouds are not constant. “Weather” is always the move to equilibrium.
Frank,
So long as there is enough energy from the sun and an atmosphere to lock in enough energy in a non radiative form we are OK. The oceans are the flywheel in the whole cycle. Maths can be confusing, I never trust it!
Zoe believes in geothermal “heat creep.” She is right but I don’t see it in the context she is referring to. You would need evidence of an exhaust of that magnitude and none exists. Geothermal doesn’t bypass the subsurface and make the air over the surface warmer. She is really stuck on this and I just don’t see any evidence to support it.
Volcanoes, deep ocean, subterranean venting yes sure, but the heat has to go somewhere.
My basement is still cold all year around.
From a professor in “Continental Philosophy” at Cambridge University!
Pingback: Earth’s Thermodynamic Energy Budget | Climate of Sophistry
Pingback: Email Thread with Colleagues | Climate of Sophistry
You haven’t mentioned ‘Jews’, as far as I’ve checked. Jews print paper money and can, and do, buy ‘experts’. All science has been corrupted by Jews, including of course climate frauds, from which Jews make money, by ‘carbon taxes’ and harming industry, biasing things to China at present. They also have run nuclear frauds since 1945, absurdly lucrative things. If you can’t understand this, you’re not much more than another part of the problem.
Off topic by another loon stuck in 1939…..get rid of this paranoid clown, Joe.
Ditto
New to this site. And very glad to to be able to follow fantastic insights into the sophistry going on in the craze “new age” science of climate alarm.
This AMS peer-review of Postma’ paper submission is bizarre, and points to a completely broken system where the KOL (key opinion leaders) by default can dominate the entirety of a field with almost impunity of consequences. As Joseph Postma poiints out, I hope at some point someone should be able to sue them for negligence or fraud. “They then need to choose their poison”.
Keep up the good work.
As to the Cotton 2013 reference, I got to start following a few individuals and teams who I refer to as the “thermodynamic equilibrium” proponents in that their hypothesis include this key change to the conventional screwed-up models. This includes as a key part the simple reality that the atmospheric column naturally tends to have a default temperature profile close to thermodynamic equilibrium (KE + PE = const) rather than thermal equilibrium driven by Convertion and Diffusion HT modes, while the Radiative mode tends to drive the column to thermal equilibrium over thermodynamic equilibrium.. So cheers to those individuals and teams of: Postma; Cotton; Holmes; Zeller & Nikolov; Connolly & Connolly. So far, I find the Cotton “heat creep” hypothesis as a very important mode of allowing Heat to creep down the atmospheric column (seemingly against a temperature gradient) while still obeying the 2LoT because gravity doing the Work to allow counter temperature heat flow. Obviously other important point also included in all the various theories including rebuttal of the RGHE, falsifying Back-radiation as a Heat source and many other convention theory “flaws”.
I look forward to further articles, studies, and elucidating comments to the various very questions of the CAGW threating our modern way of life.
Cotton’s “work” truly has nothing to do with Postma, Holmes, Zeller, Nikolov, or Connolly – it is not in the same class at all and does not represent any sort of meaningful or significant contribution whatsoever.
Many years ago Cotton presented his “heat creep” idea to Postma (myself) and other scientists at PSI, and was rejected as being an insignificant and erroneous claim. Why? Because the tiny fraction of solar energy which might be directly absorbed by the atmosphere does not and cannot stand-in for the doubling of energy which the atmosphere is supposed to produce via backradiation. A tiny percentage of direct absorption of solar energy by the atmosphere is not an alternative explanation of backradiation and the +33C warming which the “greenhouse effect” is supposed to provide. Of course the atmosphere can directly absorb some solar heat energy and of course this energy will dissipate into the column of atmosphere; it is a trivial statement, and the amounts of energy are trivial as compared to what is absorbed by the surface, and Postma’s numbers as well as everyone else’s already incorporates it in the total absorptivity of Earth via the albedo that everyone uses.
And so Cotton’s claims were insubstantial, and wrong. When his paper was rejected, due to his making these absurd claim, he suffered a mental emotional nervous breakdown and has been harassing and stalking PSI/Slayer members ever since, especially myself (Postma). It is a case of “unrequited love” and it is also a case of a mental breakdown.
Doug Cotton wrote elsewhere “[T]he 168W/m^2 of mean solar energy absorbed by the surface is indeed roughly correct and also appears in NASA diagrams.” He thus understands nothing at all about what is wrong with averaging the solar input over the surface of the Earth, and he thinks that this is a valid thing to do in physics. Cotton thus demonstrates himself to understand nothing about physics at all, and so what he’s trying to do is to say that his “heat creep” makes up the difference that this average solar input cannot produce. It is Cotton himself who is the heat creep…he’s a creepy old man that stalks people on the internet.
Other than that, it is wonderful that you understand the significance of what I’ve presented here in the OP! It is indeed bizarre, and the system is definitely broken.
Joseph Postma;
Noted on the Cotton outside the circle issue. I did get some strange feelings in a few casual comment exchanges with him, but I had no idea of the situation which sounds like a very unpleasant response towards you. His papers and book did help me get some of my thinking around the thermodynamic equilibrium default state of the atmosphere clear, but I note your caution on other aspects and completeness of his theory.
I am still relatively new to trying to understand the detail and real truth about the climate alarm hoax after initially being a casual harsh-sceptic (“it not that bad, and not that unprecedent, and very over-blown due to data manipulation” type stuff). But now switching to a rabid climate-change denier. This was partly following a read of Stephens Wells very entertaining book, and also after starting to realise that the whole concept of AGW due to CO2 radiative warming was very suspect, and potentially wrong, with GHG possibly actually cooling radiatively (albeit small). So, I’ve been treading on lots of landmines as I go. Fortunately, I have a good applied science basis as a Mech Eng, and also a good knowledge of geology and sciences in general which helps with wading through the “unprecedented” noise of climate-change alarm claims.
I have just finished a second read of your book, “In the cold light of day”, and am now starting to “get-it”. I have also just started “Slaying the sky dragon” which is filling-in a lot of the blanks and details on the implications of a more realistic earth energy model. I was somewhat fooled by the typical Kiehl & Trenberth energy budget, and also the halo effect and knowledge/wisdom of “experts”. But starting to realise it just isn’t so…!
Thanks again for the good work.
Kev – do also read the much simpler “Layman’s Guide to the Greatest Scientific Fraud in History”, and I hope you’ve seen the “AMS Official” video.
Ah….I see were are on the “AMS” post…hah. Here is the other book:
amazon.com/Laymans-Guide-Greatest-Scientific-History/dp/169480125X
Joseph – thanks for that other reference. I had not yet seen it, but mildly offended, “Laymans guide…”. You sound like so of the trolls on climate hoax sites that refer me to Climate change for Dummies stuff.
But I will get to it shortly, and take that as a small additional contribution to your cause.
Yes, I have been plowing thru several of your articles and the ensuing comments.
That’s my second book and the title isn’t meant to be offensive.
Absolutely none taken. I was pulling your leg with sarcasm. Sorry, always hard to communicate properly over short text bursts…
BTW: on FB I used your simply radiative glasshouse description from your book as an idea to get someone I was having a long debate/argument with to get him to understand that radiative exchange is more subtle than his mind was able to image, and must follow the 1st LoT, and also the 2nd LoT along both radiative directions of exchange independent of the other direction. He keep on insisting that Backradiation or Emiision from the atmosphere could either “warm” the surface or “slow its rate of cooling” by netting the return radiation (cold to hot) off against the initial surface radiation (hot to cold). He just couldn’t see that the back-radiation cannot act as heat… He seems to have given up now. I think his mind would have exploded if he had finally realised that his view meant the surface would have to go to 160C due to his insistance on backradiation acting as heat..
The GH example and detailed understanding was a great help in conveying the subtle proof of thermodynamic reality.
Kev in ZA,
If there was anybody responsible for Doug Cotton’s mental breakdown, it was probably me..here…
https://principia-scientific.org/is-no-greenhouse-effect-possible-from-the-way-that-ipcc-define-it/#comment-11469
Great comment Mack!
Joseph, as you expected it was inevitable that your paper would be rejected. I don’t know when we will see an end to the greenhouse theory nonsense, and at 76 I wonder whether I will ever see it happen. But I am certain that history will eventually look back at this strange episode and that you and people like Tim Ball and Ian Plimer, etc will be on the right side of history and science.
Indeed!
Wow, I just read the full exchange by the certain retired physics educator and Mack, and while his book covers and explains fairly well the typical atmospheric lapse, conservation of energy and thermodynamic equilibrium, he is seriously off scale with crazy assertions about solar input and bizarre temperature averaging claim. I am suitably informed. Thanks Mack
Pingback: Meaningful Conjunctions | Climate of Sophistry
Pingback: Risibly The AMS claims AND Tries to make the case for “The Sun does not Create Earth’s Weather”! … – ECLECTIC PODCASTS & VIDEOS