A commentator (CDM) has been in contact with a PhD in physics regarding my AMS paper and the video produced about it, which you can see here. The American Meteorological Society has had to take the position that the Sun does not heat the Earth or create Earth’s weather in order to protect their political interpretation of the weather and their fake greenhouse effect. Because once we point out that the Sun in fact heats the Earth, there is no longer any need to invent a fake climate “greenhouse effect” and hence no climate alarm based on that. The replies from this randomly-selected PhD in Physics demonstrates that all of academia is in on this climate pseudoscience fraud. They all seem to be coordinated in their sophistry and lies in order to protect the pseudoscience of climate politics.
PhD Physics Dr. Strong: “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? Of course the gas powers the car. And the Sun does power the weather by supplying the energy. The gas creates/supplies the energy for the car to MOVE. Likewise the sun supplies the energy for the weather to move/be created…for the meteorological responses. Do you see these people just LIE and sophize!?
PhD Physics Dr. Strong: “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.
PhD Physics Dr. Strong: “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 closest to the surface…but this slice is obviously by definition not representative of the entire Earth…the temperature found here is not “Earth’s temperature”.
PhD Physics Dr. Strong: “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.
PhD Physics Dr. Strong: “A paper stating that the Sun heats the Earth 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. Thus such a paper does in fact forward the science because right now in climate science it is believed that the sun does not *power* the weather.
PhD Physics Dr. Strong: “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 to the Earth?”
Jupiter has the most violent weather. Not the same thing…apples to oranges. Jupiter is a gas giant hundreds of times larger than the Earth, with thousands upon thousands of times the mass of atmosphere.
These people literally have no sense or clue of cause and effect…they literally cannot think basic things. They all seem to be actively complicit in the fraud, and come up with sophistry to pretend to claim that the Sun does not heat the Earth and create weather…even while admitting that the Sun must supply to the power to do so. They simply create self-contradictory statements in order to confuse, because within that confusion is where they protect themselves, protect their fraud, protect their paycheck, protect their parasitism, etc. If they can leave you confused, then they protect themselves. They want you confused. Their last attempt to protect themselves is now to state the fact but pretend that the fact is not the face. It is double-think and cognitive dissonance at its end. Break through their sophistry, and expose them.
They’re all in on it.
Climate of Sophistry 
The total lack of common sense ( least common of all the senses) never ceases to amaze me. We live on the west coast with an abundant supply of firewood and so heat are house with wood. You have to keep that fire going continuously to maintain a warm environment,at no time can you let the fire go out and have the house magically continue to warm itself if you open a door or window it cools rather quickly. That heat once gone will never come back unless you light the fire. It is just that simple.
Well said! That’s exactly the situation. You need high intensity solar input to maintain (and create in the first place) the climate. *Everything* is a response to the input.
They’re pretending that your fire can be -40C input…and then the house will amplify that to room temperature.
As side note was tiring one day to get yearly summaries for Tofino as it is uncorrupted data. But Env Canada stopped doing yearly summaries in 2007 for that location. They still take daily measurements but no longer sharing the summaries. We can only imagine why. So yes they are all in on it
Exactly. They’re doctoring the data.
Joe, sorry about repeating another post, but the Second Law of Thermodynamics is key.
Have you looked at the paper [1]? This contains a picture of a round earth in Table 1. Further in, Figure 5 sets out energy and entropy flux budgets alongside each other. This illustrates how actual heat fluxes balance in terms of convection, net insolation and net outgoing emissions, all without any non-physical (virtual) back-radiation from colder surfaces to warmer ones. The point of the paper is that the Second Law is as important as the First Law in shaping climate mechanisms.
This is sadly lost on many climate scientists, who seem to wilfully disregard the Second Law, for example, take the introduction to [2]:
“In a single second, Earth absorbs $1.22 x 10^{17}$ joules of energy from the Sun. Distributed uniformly over the mass of the planet, the absorbed energy would raise Earth’s temperature to nearly $800,000K$ after a billion years, if Earth had no way of getting rid of it.”
This is even though the temperature of the sun’s surface is only $5777K$ and the Second Law of Thermodynamics prohibits heat transfer from a colder body to a warmer one?? There is no mention of entropy in [2].
If leading climate scientists avoid the subject of entropy, what ground do we have for trusting that any of the energy balances in GCMs are consistent with the Second Law?
With respect to AMS and the PhD, why not just cite [1] at them and ask what they disagree with?
[1] H. Ozawa, A. Ohmura, R. D. Lorenz, and T. Pujol. The second law of thermodynamics and the global climate system: A review of the maximum entropy production principle. Reviews of Geophysics, 41(4), 2003.
[2] R. T. Pierrehumbert. Infrared radiation and planetary temperature. In AIP Conference Proceedings, volume 1401, pages 232–244. AIP, 2011.
“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.”
I suppose if I said the atmosphere of Earth creates all life as we know it, then he would tell me that the atmosphere does NOT create life — it supplies air. Common sense allows one to understand that a generality is being based on a primary causative factor of the category of effects being focused upon.
In your case, the basic overriding importance of the sun is the main focus. There are levels of reasoning, from general to the specific. Your PhD commentator is just being obtuse, in order to deflect attention away from the importance of your general point — your STARTING point.
When a person deflects from the general like this, the specifics are figured wrongly. If the general importance of the sun in creating the weather cannot be acknowledged, then the specifics of HOW it creates the weather are figured wrongly, … as we see they ARE.
Let me propose now that water enables all life as we know it. “No”, the sophist will say, “water supplies hydration that enables physio-chemistry of life to take place.” Well, yeah, that’s HOW — I wasn’t there yet. I was making the general statement, which a rational person should understand and be willing to follow through to the details later.
I say, “My name is Robert.” Sophist says, “No, ‘Robert’ is the collection of letters that integrate into the label applied to categorize yourself.”
I say, “The sky is blue.” Sophist says, “No, the sky diffuses light in such a way that the receptors in your eyes respond selectively to certain frequencies that enable you to delineate your response using verbal code we all come to agree on.”
I say, “I’m hungry”. Sophist says, “No, your brain is detecting a drop in blood sugar that signals your need to ingest food.”
I could look at his other quotes, but I’m already sick of him. You see the game here, I hope.
Wonderful elucidation.
Deflecting like this indicates a form of intellectual blindness and unwillingness to consider a line of discussion. If his terms are not used, then he denies YOUR terms, and thus prevents you from creating your dialogue.
We don’t talk like this. This is not how we talk about it. Talk like we do, or we do not acknowledge that your words have significance. Only the way we put words together has significance, even though your logic is sound. We just don’t like your choice of words. Use our words, and you’re good to go, son.
Exactly. It’s the creation of double-speak.
RK thanks for brighning my day ,am still laughing.
Robert should write articles. You are a talented writer. Artist too.
“If his terms are not used, then he denies YOUR terms, and thus prevents you from creating your dialogue.”
Robert
Very well put. Framing the discussion is a political strategy. This is why climate science is a political activity and has nothing to do with climatology, which used to be the real study of climate.
Rudi K.’s 2 citations show exactly how climate “science” “works”.
Citation number 1 is available as a free download.
Citation number 2 isn’t – $30.00 purchase. Actually I’m surprised you can even buy it but it wasn’t published by Michael Mann !
$30.00 to buy some biased BS by a climate alarmist is a very poor investment choice.
Reblogged this on Climate- Science.press.
One important and perhaps the most disappointing note, is this man is a Solar Physicist. He made his career out of studying the Sun, and yet does not accept the Sun can create our climate.
I find that sad.
Maybe you could get him to debate you, Joseph?
How can dry ice in the sky cause global warming?
The CO2-driven AGW theory is dead, and I killed it. It’s just not buried yet. Please help me. So what if a bunch of fake physicists lose their careers? A giant Marxist railroad will be derailed.
http://www.historyscoper.com/thebiglieaboutco2.html
“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.” says the PhD Physics Dr. Strong.
So lets stop the gas from getting to the engine and see when turning the steering wheel and pressing the gas pedal, how we can control how fast we go in what direction. We would go NOWHERE! This show exactly what you don’t understand PhD Physics Dr. Strong! Your sophistry coupled to reductionist paradigm means that you can never see that systems like weather and climate are greater than the sum of their parts (because the many interactions in the system are dynamic and intricately linked).
No PhD Physics Dr. Strong you are wrong! You are forwarding this stupid analogy because you have zero observed evidence for your consensus view. Are you truly denying that the sun in powering the Earth’s weather/climate system does not have a large part to play in the way our climate and weather progresses? Even I, as a non academic, can see that you, PhD Physics Dr. Strong, are just spouting hubristic nonsense with no REAL world evidence to back it up. As Einstein said “If you can’t explain it simply, you don’t understand it well enough.” Obviously you, PhD Physics Dr. Strong, like so many in academia, do not understand so much about our sun and how it effects this planet.
Exactly.
And the weather doesn’t “decide” where to put the sun’s energy! See…this is them believing that the climate creates itself! Lol.
The weather IS the sun’s energy…as a natural cause & effect response to solar heating…no deciding required.
Stupid beyond belief
This is Dr. Strong’s YT channel if you wish to peruse.(Our conversation is not here).
https://www.youtube.com/user/drkstrong/videos
I love this kid! My opinions about the Heartland Institute are mixed, considering the “experts” they keep but this kid’s heart is still honest.
“I’m back and more determined than ever. I will not let slander, defamation and conspiracy theories about myself and my friends take away my courage.” -Naomi Seibt
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0m2wKSadeoM
From FaceBook:
Hope Malapanis: “Weather is local and temporary. Saying the sun creates weather is like saying the US Secretary of Education teaches geometry at Dimond High. The functioning of the high school can be traced back through many levels to the Secretary of Education, but she doesn’t personally get involved at that level. The Sun powers EVERYTHING on earth, and of course the earth’s temperature is closely related to the sun’s temperature (and despite periodic sensationalist headlines, climatologists don’t deny that) — but it’s not really accurate to say it creates weather.”
As IF we now have people trying to argue that the Sun doesn’t sustain the weather…in order to protect climate alarm and the fake greenhouse effect! My goodness.
Just read that sophistry: “The sun powers everything, but, it doesn’t get involved with the weather.”
Double-think at its best!! Literally insane.
Andy Paul: “Hope Malapanis the sun absolutely creates weather. The sun drives warming and its radiation creates heat energy which causes all weather phenomena.
To say otherwise really is obtuse. 🤗
The laws of thermodynamics apply, always, particularly the second law, and a cooler body cannot heat a warmer body; thus the atmosphere cannot “warm” the earth, and in observed science, it does not do so.”
Unbelievable, what do they think would happen on earth if the sun was removed from the equation. You just can’t win an argument with an idiot,they simply don’t have the intellect to comprehend the simplest things. How do they think all systems on earth are linked to the sun for example all life but it has no effect on weather that is simply made from the magic properties of co2.
Weather is the thermodynamic response to uneven solar energy, continually working to establish equilibrium.
Without the sun, there is no weather.
Idiots!
You guys are all so wrong. I see it clearly now, without weather there would be no Sun! LOL.
More from the Spin Doctor: I showing how you can reach temps without the GHGe, the Sun’s part in it and so forth temperature. Even Venus which is isothermic at the surface has different temperatures in atmospheric layers.
Jupiter has the most violent weather in our solar system based on an incredible core temperature, core surface temperature and atmospheric pressure a 1000 times greater than Earth.
So you need an energy source. The atmosphere is not an energy source so the energy is either provided by the Sun or the core. We know very little geothermal contributes to (Earth)surface temperatures, so that leaves solar energy.
His reply:
“You are forgetting planetary spin. The Earth’s rotational energy is about a million times the energy available to us in all the fossil fuels and radioactive materials (combined). I am not including the Moon (tidal heating) in that which might double it. The rotational energy, in part, is what is keeping the core hot.
The Earth is puny in size, mass and rotational speed compared to Jupiter.
I repeat it is not the sun’s energy that creates weather but what happens to it when it reaches Earth. You just made my point for me.
PS albedo is highly variable. Oceans about 0.1, ice and snow 0.8-0.9.”
Such an idiot! You made no point for him…he made YOUR point but of course uses sophistry to pretend otherwise.
The sun’s energy “happening” to the weather IS the sun’s energy creating and sustaining the weather. These people are consummate liars and sophists!!!!
Isn’t the “spin” energy used up mostly in winds?
Saying the sun creates weather is like saying the US Secretary of Education teaches geometry at Dimond High.
Good Lord ! — they can’t even come close to understanding a correct analogy!
Here’s a correct analogy:
Saying that carbon dioxide is the control knob of climate is like saying house flies moving through the air make the wind blow harder.
The atmosphere makes the surface warmer is like saying dry ice makes a stove burner hotter.
People calling themselves “climate scientists” is like a fiction writers calling themselves accountants.
People making stupid analogies are like clowns in a circus.
Shall I go on?
Yes of course, jet stream etc. But those do not sustain clouds, evaporation, etc etc etc. The sun sustains the climate which is then affected by rotation etc. These liars make irrelevant points pretending to split hairs etc.
They LOVE their idiotic analogies.
I repeat it is not the sun’s energy that creates weather but what happens to it when it reaches Earth.
What is “it”? “It” is the energy of the SUN. What is “happens to”? “Happens to” is the process in which it participates whereby weather is created.
So, sun reaches Earth.
Sun energy goes through a creating process whereby weather is created.
Thus, the sun creates weather, and THAT is exactly what he is saying in different terms, but he is too stupid to realize it.
They are actively participating in being purposefully obtuse to protect the fraud. You can’t be this dumb…it’s on purpose.
You both nailed it they are like water, anywhere you press they swoosh somewhere else, never wanting or intending an honest conversation. “Peer Review” is there fallback, becasue they know they win since nothing is allowed through the Gatekeepers.
Strong is just like the rest: Deny-Deflect-Discredit rinse and repeat.
This is why we must now expose them with the AMS fiasco, and destroy them.
During my art-intense, painterly days, I created a number of paintings.
But wait, … I did not create the paintings. I was merely present, when the materials were purchased, when time became available to allow the materials to be juxtaposed in such a way that the forces of muscles propelled by nerve impulses initiated a synergistic collective response to reflexive psycho-physiological predispositions.
Saying that I created the paintings is like saying that gas created driving. Well, gas DID largely “create” driving. Gas has no will, so it did not create in any sentient way. But, in the context of the assertion, using common sense, we know that the word, “create”, here does not mean the sort of create that sentient beings engage in.
Surely, the scientist does not think that we mean that the sun has a mind, with sentient abilities. Only a real idiot would think this.
A little flexibility in the sense in which we use certain words is also a sign of true intelligence.
Does a category 4 hurricane create property damage?
Does an f4 tornado create problems?
Does a meteorite strike create a crater?
Does hot weather create more sweat?
Does the universe create life?
Inquiring minds want to know.
Lol!
You sound like some kind of super nihilist, lol.
Yah that’s the other thing…two examples of likening the weather to an intelligent force: directing the car where to drive and creating the school curriculum…lol! What an absurd thing to analogize to the weather! They think that it’s the weather which decides how to use the sun’s energy to create itself! They don’t get that the sun’s energy itself creates the weather. So strange!
Purposefully obtuse…or they really don’t understand the concept of cause and effect. These are our scientists…
They’re selective who they let in, in the first place. Bunch of “yes men”. Their lack of meritocracy will be their downfall. You will be there to provide the new paradigm.
Cheers, boomie789.
An excellent example of the water whoosh whiplash…
Strong (who mind you claims he only accepts peer reviewed literature) says the MWP wasn’t global.
I told hit it was.
He replies,”Some people claim that but the scientific literature does not.”
So when I present him with over 1,230 papers of scientific literature that does, the source he claims he adheres too, he comes back with one that says it’s not.
I give him this:https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer?mid=1akI_yGSUlO_qEvrmrIYv9kHknq4&ll=15.562898525710073%2C25.803805562698415&z=2
He gives me this like that proves anything. Hypocrites everyone one of them.
http://ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/myths/medieval-warm-period-myth
Deny-Deflect-Discredit…
drkstrong
“Deals with matters concerning astronomy, astrophysics, solar physics, Sun-Erath Connection, space weather, global warming, climate”
Says it all.
So, Strong cites ONLY a Northern Hemisphere assessment, because a “robust” Southern Hemisphere assessment does not exist. Even if this were true, at best, we just do not know.
Half-a-globe confidence = Half-ass confirmation, wouldn’t you say?
What is it with these people trying to make halves into wholes? — I suppose a Northern Hemisphere assessment can now be spread over the entire surface of the Earth at once, like sunlight?
Joseph,
I gave Dr. Strong both posts on his personal site and invited him to either refute on his site, come here and discuss with you or openly debate him.
So please don’t go Postma on him. Let’s try and be cordial as possible (within reason, naturally). You are the boss so it’s your call either way just a suggestion.
The papers I gave him proves it was global. He literally ignored evidence from half a globe, especially warming in Antarctica.
Selective sight is a new one on me. Wish I had that power with some of my ex-girlfriends in my younger and really stupid phase.
What makes summer and winter then ?
What makes summer and winter??
Well, NOT the sun. Rather, those are functions of axial tilt and orbital positioning. The sun just happens to be there providing energy.
I hope this answers the question sufficiently. (^_^)
Robert,
This should be of interest to you as well…The re-writing of the Vostok ice core data to reduce historical warming of the prior interglacials.
https://phys.org/news/2016-11-climate-sensitive-atmospheric-co2.html
Notice how they made 0.87 into 2+degrees!
Looks like Australia is getting hit with a cyclone (Damien) and another seems to be forming East of in the Pacific (91P).
Fare well our Aussie friends. Stay safe out there! Bush fires, cyclones, scorching summers and droughts what a place to live.
CD – every climate alarm story you hear from Australia is exaggerated beyond credulity !!!!
Here is an example of our new Green’s party leader – a scumbag beyond belief – look at this video and judge for yourself if anything you hear about climate in Australia is credible.
Latte swilling rich city alarmist morons in Melbourne vote for this idiot – thankfully he is the only one in the House of Reps.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/w7v6wndq6ahrw33/Brandt.mp4?dl=0
Can you believe anyone could vote for these lowlife ??
Yet the activists are the ones putting lives in danger. You know this garbage works, its been effective in Cuba for years blaming someone else for the acts you are doing and pretending you are standing up agaisnt this “giant unknown faceless ” enemy. Obama was a pro at pretending the acts done under his administration were out of his control. Yet so many people fall for it.
Disgusting.
You are being hit by a Cyclone though, aren’t you?
North Western Australia had a tropical cyclone Damien cross the coast – virtually no damage at all.
The cyclone passed over Karratha – a mere 3711 kilometres away from the populated East Coast.
1974 saw Cyclone Tracy hit Darwin on Christmas eve :-
No we’re not really having a tropical cyclone at the moment.
Wow now that was a storm.
Follow the projected track south of 91P here on Ventusky
https://www.ventusky.com/?p=-26.2;144.7;4&l=rain-3h&t=20200215/0000
I did thanks for that link love that site. Dr Strong tried debunking the site’s legitimacy.
8 hours ago that cyclone was a 91P now its down to 15.
Cyclone Tracy was different in that it was small but compact. I went through Tracy. Granted the building structures are different today. But Royal Palms and Coconut trees do not change their building codes. The older guys back then and some still today talk of swirling winds almost tornado like within the cyclone. The destruction was a sight to be seen. Truly was. Some amazing stuff to see as a Ten year old. Our house and extended family was lucky. No serious injuries
Sorry for the side track. A memorable moment in my life.
The banality of the flat circular world is not just that the energy from the sun is spread evenly over the surface but also that the energy coming from the sun must equal the energy leaving the planet.
IMO this is plain wrong as this planet’s natural systems entrap the sun’s energy in many processes that keep life going on this planet, that is to say life, in and of itself, life continually sequesters the energy converting it into organic chemical bonds, then at some other later time dies back to give it up (many times through other living processes). At any one time solar energy in does not have to match the energy leaving the planet, in fact I would think that would be a surprising idea for that assumes the total aggregation of life on the planet is static — neither growing nor dying back.
No, life sequesters energy away in the chemical bonds it creates, life converts solar energy into chemical bonds of it’s vast organic process that delays giving up it’s energy on timescales from minutes (or less) to centuries (or more). Deposits of coal, peat, soils, and the organic sludge at the bottom of oceans are witness to this process. Research such as this ( https://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2019/10/21/northern-peatlands-double-carbon/ ) ignore the significant quantity of solar energy it took to make peat and (IMO uselessly) concentrate only on carbon content.
So to my thinking solar energy arriving at Earth does not necessarily equal energy leaving Earth because natural organic process inhibit and delay the release of the solar energy — eventually the energy will balance but eventually is a very long time.
Gotta love the way all the different energy flows in their budgets all balance including the amount retained.
They get a gold star from the kindergarten teacher though !
some people get it and other refuse because their reductionist methods tell them otherwise…
https://www.livescience.com/1349-sun-blamed-warming-earth-worlds.html
Couldn’t possibly be the Sun!
looking for the ultimate Question to put forward .
Need help to refine the Question to believers of AGW that we often joust with. Looking for a full proof practical scenario that best describes the limitations of the flat earth model that is presented by the IPCC
So below is the question that is not yet posted
…………………………………………..
thought bubble.
placed outside in the Midday sun.
Cubed enclosure of double glazed windows and Vac sealed between the transparent window panes.
But inside the inner chamber lay a ICE CUBE floating in mid space. The inner chamber is also also vac sealed. Yes a bit of imagination to create this scenario.
Using the IPCC energy budget constructed from flat earth theory the settled science models clearly state the the Earth surface only receives enough energy 161’C that equates to -40’C. And then after that the back radiation GREENHOUSE GASES ia seen as our warming saviour.
So this icecube within the double vac sealed transparent chambers that allows the SUNS short wave energy to pass through but not longwave from any source is now fully exposed to the SUNS rays.
Is this Ice cube going to MELT or NOT!
Is this something THAT any believer of AGW endorses.
……………….
Is this a reasonable scenario to put forward.
Excuse the few grammatical and spelling errors. Can tidy up later
tomomason,
I have to admit that the idea of energy-in/energy-out for the Earth/sun system has troubled me.
Maybe the assumption of energy-in/energy-out … “eventually” is built in to all the various presentations.
Energy-in/energy-out has troubled me too. …with the Earth/space system. They come up with all this high powered stuff about “energy imbalances” between Earth and space. How and where is all this measured? What is the difference between space.. as in “space” outside the Earth (say 1/2 way to the Moon) … and “space”.. as in the space between molecules in the atmosphere?
The same thing I would imagine. There’s a shit-load of sophistry for Joe to get his teeth into, there?
Mack,
Not all physics is made up. A lot of these things can be measured. But climatology makes very selective use of physics (and thermodynamics in particular) and comes up with a distorted analysis. For a climate realist physicist’s take on matters, I can recommend Will Happer’s talk: Climate Reality Forum from COP25
Thanks for that Rudi, I watched Will Happer’s lecture and thought it was excellent. He cleared up my understanding of the Plank curve… and the extra “coating of paint” for the doubling of CO2…etc.
Best… Mack.