Email Thread with Colleagues

Here’s an email thread I had with colleagues that presents some good reading and video links, which I thought I should share with readers. The email thread starts with someone sending me this interview video:

That was an excellent interview, thanks for the link. A much-younger Pat Michaels is featured in this BBC Channel 4 documentary from 1990 called “The Greenhouse Conspiracy”:

That documentary is still as relevant as ever and some of the points Pat makes in it are the same as in that recent interview.

Are you aware of Tony Heller? He is an accomplished physicist who has worked at various agencies including climate research agencies in the past. Here are a few recent excellent videos of his which are particularly important going over data tampering of the temperature record in order to create a fake correlation between rising temperatures and rising CO2 levels:

Going back to Pat Michaels, it is important to note his references to parameterization. That this how the greenhouse effect (GHE) is coded and inserted into models. And we note that the models which have this GHE parameterization all run hot compared to recorded data. You can imagine the reason for this: there is no GHE that should be parameterized into the models in the first place, and thus the models run hot. We (the group I work with on this) were at one point in contact with a Russian climate modeller who said that their model does not have the so-called greenhouse effect, to quote “because it is not a mechanism.” The Russian models match observation!

Here is probably my most well-written article on the current state of things:

https://climateofsophistry.com/2020/02/10/earths-thermodynamic-energy-budget/

which is in the wake of my paper stating that the Sun heats the Earth being rejected by the AMS because it is their position that the Sun *does not* heat the Earth in order to protect the fake “greenhouse effect” from being exposed and debunked as literal flat Earth pseudoscience (video embedded):

https://climateofsophistry.com/2020/01/26/ams-official-sun-does-not-create-earths-weather/

Please everyone spend the time on the provided links. Please also forward this email to colleagues. I think that most scientists are simply unaware of what the actual rational skeptical positions are, and what *documented* fraud is openly occurring in this political field of climate science. Just look at the fraud I myself deftly exposed occurring at the peer-review level at the AMS!

The supposed climatological greenhouse effect is an ad-hoc mathematical addition to flat Earth theory in order to make flat Earth theory more reasonably approximate measured temperatures. It is the ad-hoc development of flat Earth theory into physics! Whereas, of course one can arrive at measured temperatures directly by using a spherical Earth (with no “greenhouse effect”), and in fact in this case the atmosphere/climate becomes a massive cooling system and heat sink rather than an additional heat source generating twice the energy than what the Sun provides.

PS:

This is from Jeff Bezos’ Twitter recently:

“Today, I’m thrilled to announce I am launching the Bezos Earth Fund.

Climate change is the biggest threat to our planet. I want to work alongside others both to amplify known ways and to explore new ways of fighting the devastating impact of climate change on this planet we all share. This global initiative will fund scientists, activists, NGOs — any effort that offers a real possibility to help preserve and protect the natural world. We can save Earth. It’s going to take collective action from big companies, small companies, nation states, global organizations, and individuals.

I’m committing $10 billion to start and will begin issuing grants this summer. Earth is the one thing we all have in common — let’s protect it, together.

– Jeff”

With $10 billion dollars to influence scientists, political activists, NGO’s, global corporations, and nation states…how is this not something to be a little paranoid about as some sort of insane global plot or conspiracy to dominate world opinion and economies when there is in fact zero threat of “climate change” and the very term itself of “climate change” doesn’t even have any rational meaning other than as an emotional trigger? Do you wonder if the massive scale of such funding could influence scientists to reject papers which say that the Sun heats the Earth so that they can protect their funding which is predicated upon the political climate change flat Earth theory of the Sun not heating the Earth? I do. Scientists are just people. They, We, are not exclusively more moral or intelligent or trustworthy or ethical than any other random person. The Sun heats the Earth doesn’t it? So why would a scientist say that it doesn’t? There are lots of non-scientific reasons why.

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

199 Responses to Email Thread with Colleagues

  1. boomie789 says:

    To put 10 billion dollars in reference. If you had a 10 billion dollar net worth, you would be in the top 150 in the world.

    There are barely 100 people with over “legit” 10 billion dollars.

  2. Barry says:

    What frightens me is when we declare we will give money to activists. This becomes a huge problem as they are a very vocal minority,that for some reason invokes fear in our politicians that makes them go against the majority in favour of a good report by the now kept msm. You only have to look what is happening in Canada right now,a small group of non elected getting their way as a weak and ineffective govt. looks on. Politicians tend to do what ever is trendy in the msm rather than what helps the majority. Some real leadership would be appreciated in the climate debate but not sure how we get that on the table.

  3. CD Marshall says:

    How is a “fact” required to have so much funding to “prove it”.

  4. boomie789 says:

    This was on r/climateskeptics

  5. It’s like this:

  6. Good comment from FB:

    “This is what disturbs me most. What was sent to you is a lesson plan . Containing the much used “just like a greenhouse” “trapped just like the glass”, “some gases in the atmosphere stop some of the heat from escaping to space and send it back to the surface.”

    Every freaking day! And for the last 30 yrs. Countless children are being subjected to this by their respected teachers as being fact. It is truly unbelievable that such a fallacy could continue for so long.”

  7. CD Marshall says:

    Activists know how to look like a majority that’s why they keep winning, they have the money funneled to them. This money allows them to:

    >Buy off politicians.
    >Rent a mob and send them anywhere in the world to protest and create fake outrage.
    >Control the Media: Which is the pivot to everything else. They have programs to make one user look like thousands of real accounts online. They have bots that track conversations against their agenda and track them down. How else can they attack the most remote website just after they protest global warming?
    >They control the narrative they control the information allowed out. Peer review is in their control.

    Some of the conversations I have on YT I swear are AI or they have some automated responses.

    The truth is the opposition are better financed and exploit technology for their agenda.

    Joseph your blog is probably required reading for “climate deniers 101” ,

  8. Let’s not encourage the use of the phrase, “climate deniers” — it’s wrong on several levels. Even in jest, we give the cult an inch, when we use it.

  9. Good interview discussing the monied corporate interests and influences dominating the narrative:

  10. Jopo says:

    Real Scientist back in the day from NASA 1973 had a symposium on the SUN and weather. This is what they had to say about our SUN

    Page 185 of 254.

    Energy
    The energy source for meteorological phenomena is (virtually) entirely provided by sunlight absorbed by the Earth’s surface…………
    …………..But much of it first becomes involved in the tropospheric weather system, where it establishes temperature differentials to drive convective systems and evaporates large quantities of water to provide for interesting instabilities within these convective systems.

    Download link provided below 24 MB

    https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19760007440.pdf

  11. Holy wow! That’s excellent. Real science. And just what my diagram shows too.

  12. Jopo says:

    Yep pretty well mirrors you stance on this. No dilution of the numbers by NASA back then.

  13. Thanks so much for finding that. Invaluable. I am going to use that excerpt in the edit of my paper!

  14. Jopo says:

    I found this search engine at NASA to be most useful. I have found so much stuff from them on the SOLAR – Terrestrial relationship that was written back in the 60s , 70s and 80s.

    https://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp

  15. CD Marshall says:

    Copy that before it disappears with the rest of NASA climate history.

  16. This nasa link is NOT working either:

    https://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp

    Mmmmm.

  17. CD Marshall says:

    https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19760007440.pdf

    Still working, I use Firefox though not sure if that matters?

  18. I had to use the Wayback Machine to get to that first NASA pdf about sun and meteorology — I saved it on my computer in its entirety.

    Anyhow, here’s a photocopy of page 185 from that NASA document Jopo tried to link us to, where I have highlighted the relevant passage:

    How about that … “pi r^2 F(1-A)” … ? No divide-by-four is there?

  19. Thanks for that grab! I managed to download the PDF too so I have all the info I need to reference it, etc.

    But look at that…that is excellent. That is PRECISELY the point of my global energy budget paper which was rejected. Because what it is in that box is directly contradictory to the modern flat Earth diagrams such as K & T, etc. Eat this you bastards. Can’t wait to edit my paper now and add this in.

  20. Looks like it’s actually page 189, as the actual document pages are numbered.

  21. Oh, but now they’ll say, “Times have changed, research has advanced since then, we now know the most appropriate way to frame this discussion, and so your thesis is still irrelevant, with respect to the current times and the current accepted view.”

    Of course, the subtext there is, The popular view is what supports our reputations, our salaries, our website and all publications we have done since then, which serve as official references for all the politicians who vie for election by voters convinced of our truth, who are the ones who ultimately control our grant funding, salaries, reputations, favorite educational institutions, journals, yaddah, yaddah, yaddah, …

  22. Wow, just skimming through half that NASA publication from the 70’s suggests to me that critical lines of research have been hijacked by CO2pocalyptic funding that has sucked the life out of climate-reality research.

    Climate research itself has been zombified by this mental illness.

  23. So terrible! They’ve been at work for decades! Who tf would be behind such a grand long term scheme!!??

  24. CD Marshall says:

    Robert asks. “critical lines of research have been hijacked by CO2pocalyptic funding”

    His name was Hansen and he destroyed the reputation of NASA. The real question is who funded him?

    https://principia-scientific.org/nasas-james-hansen-knew-models-are-fudged/

    Who was president of the US when Hansen came to office and who was funding influence in the UN?

    Carter would have had his 2nd term, a socialist of the Obama/Clinton level of corruption. Reagan ended that.

    In 1986 it was still being fed in full force, global warming, sea levels rise, California swallowed up by the sea no later than the year 2000…

    This of course got its second wind with Gore,Strong and Clinton. Third wind with Obama…Now what was once a wind gail has become the perfect political storm.

  25. CD Marshall says:

    A bit of a dark comparison but the UN became what it was meant to prevent.

  26. Not-in-my-name says:

    I have recently read two papers which support the points you make.
    The first by Schmidt et al, 2017, “Practice and philosophy of climate model tuning across six U.S. modelling centers, explains the modelling: “Climate and weather models consist of three levels of representation of physical processes: fundamental physics (such as conservation of energy, mass and momentum), approximations to well-known physical theories (the discretization of the Navier-Stokes equations, broadband approximations to line-by-line radiative transfer codes, etc.) and empirical approximations (“parameterizations”) needed to match the phenomenology of unresolved or poorly understood sub-grid scale or excluded processes.”
    My interpretation of this is that the models include a relationship between CO2 and temperature which is not based on any known physics or empirical evidence. There are also other approximations and so they have to tune the models against past climate to determine the parameters. The parameterization was done at a time when the temperatures were increasing and, hence the models will always predict ever increasing temperatures as CO2 increases. Christopher Essex has expressed views on errors building up in numerical models and the also that the initial conditions are not well defined.
    The models are not accurate over long periods and we all know that from weather forecasting which is not accurate more than a few days ahead. The climate scientists tell us that because their models are an average over a long term, they are more accurate, which is just rubbish.
    But more important than the modelling in my view is the work of William DiPuccio in a document called “Have Changes in Ocean Heat Falsified the Global Warming Hypothesis?” [http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/reprint/changes_in_the_ocean.pdf] says: “NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), directed by James Hansen, and the British Hadley Centre for Climate Change, have consistently promoted the use of surface temperature as a metric for global warming. “ …. “However, use of surface air temperature as a metric has weak scientific support, except, perhaps, on a multi-decadal or century timescale. Surface temperature may not register the accumulation of heat in the climate system from year to year. Heat sinks with high specific heat (like water and ice) can absorb (and radiate) vast amounts of heat. Consequently, the oceans and the cryosphere can significantly offset atmospheric temperature by heat transfer creating long time lags in surface temperature response time. Moreover, heat is continually being transported in the atmosphere between the poles and the equator. This reshuffling can create fluctuations in average global temperature caused, in part, by changes in cloud cover and water vapor, both of which can alter the earth’s radiative balance.” ….. “Temperature may vary from point to point in a moving fluid such as the atmosphere or ocean, but its heat remains constant so long as energy is not added or removed from the system. Consequently, heat not temperature is the only sound metric for monitoring the total energy of the climate system.”

    Christopher Essex and Ross McKitrick have shown that the earth’s calculated average annual surface temperature has no physical meaning and that it is just a statistic which we might use to decide when and where to go on holiday. But I think DiPuccio gets to the core of the issue. We can only determine if the earth is warming or cooling by considering the total heat content of the earth’s climate system

  27. Great comment, thanks!

  28. So, choose a time in modern history where temperatures were rising — a time when CO2 could NOT have been the cause of said warming (because it was too early before current levels of industrialization). Next, tune climate models to simulate this era, while attributing the temperature rise to a cause that it could NOT possibly have been. Then use this pattern as a predictive pattern for future temperature increases, still using the initial, NOT-possible cause as THE major cause of warming. Brilliant!

    Oh, and let’s just fiddle with those unsolvable Navier-Stokes equations and force them to work for us by doing some tricks that we can make people believe are valid because we use lots of sciency-sounding big words, and make some really “edgercated” guesses to fill in some pesky little critical blanks, and call resulting findings “research”, even though it is computer-land fantasy wanna-be “research”. Now hype this as gospel. That’ll get everybody’s attention.

  29. boomie789 says:

    Did you guys see this Tucker Carlson bit? Amazing!

    The great awakening is heating up guys. The lie is collapsing.

  30. boomie789 says:

    Found some good links.

    There is No Climate Emergency: Stop using misleading climate models

    https://saltbushclub.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/guus-berkhout-essay.pdf

    Mototaka Nakamura: Confessions of a Climate Scientist

    https://c-c-netzwerk.ch/images/ccn-blog_articles/717/Confessions-Nakamura.pdf

    “Closing Remarks
    The take-home message from the above discussion is this: all climate simulation models,
    even those with the best parametric representation scheme for convective motions and
    cloud, suffer from a very large degree of arbitrariness in the representation of processes that
    determine the atmospheric water vapor and cloud fields. Since the climate models are tuned
    arbitrarily to produce the time-averaged atmospheric water vapor field and cloud coverage
    that best resemble the observed climatological ones, but still fail to reproduce the observed
    fields (especially miserably when the instantaneous field and temporal variability are
    examined), there is no reason to trust their predictions/ forecasts. With values of
    parameters that are supposed to represent many complex processes being held constant,
    many nonlinear processes in the real climate system are absent or grossly distorted in the
    models. It is a delusion to believe that simulation models that lack important nonlinear
    processes in the real climate system can predict at least the sense or direction of the climate
    change correctly.”


    u/clemaneuverers

  31. NASA today:
    https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/EnergyBalance/page1.php

    The Earth’s climate is a solar powered system. Globally, over the course of the year, the Earth system—land surfaces, oceans, and atmosphere—absorbs an average of about 240 watts of solar power per square meter (one watt is one joule of energy every second). The absorbed sunlight drives photosynthesis, fuels evaporation, melts snow and ice, and warms the Earth system.

    A “solar powered system” with an average intensity of 240 W/m^2 … “drives photosynthesis, fuels evaporation, melts snow and ice, and warms the Earth system”???

    See — whoever is in charge of this has no idea of the contradiction that these words spell out. Those people do NOT know what the numbers actually mean ! A solar powered system cannot drive processes that require more power than 240 W/m^2.

  32. Exactly!!!! 240 CANNOT power those systems!!

  33. Crap!
    Again,
    NASA today:
    https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/EnergyBalance/page1.php
    The Earth’s climate is a solar powered system. Globally, over the course of the year, the Earth system—land surfaces, oceans, and atmosphere—absorbs an average of about 240 watts of solar power per square meter (one watt is one joule of energy every second). The absorbed sunlight drives photosynthesis, fuels evaporation, melts snow and ice, and warms the Earth system.

    A “solar powered system” with an average intensity of 240 W/m^2 … “drives photosynthesis, fuels evaporation, melts snow and ice, and warms the Earth system”???

    See — whoever is in charge of this has no idea of the contradiction that these words spell out. Those people do NOT know what the numbers actually mean ! A solar powered system cannot drive processes that require more power than 240 W/m^2.

  34. I don’t understand why that second paragraph still shows as italics — those are my words and should NOT show as italics.

  35. There are so many html tags in that comment I can’t make sense of it. However it is clear what the quotation is and what your voice is.

  36. From that link: “Because greenhouse gas molecules radiate heat in all directions, some of it spreads downward and ultimately comes back into contact with the Earth’s surface, where it is absorbed. The temperature of the surface becomes warmer than it would be if it were heated only by direct solar heating. This supplemental heating of the Earth’s surface by the atmosphere is the natural greenhouse effect.

    Effect on Surface Temperature

    The natural greenhouse effect raises the Earth’s surface temperature to about 15 degrees Celsius on average—more than 30 degrees warmer than it would be if it didn’t have an atmosphere. The amount of heat radiated from the atmosphere to the surface (sometimes called “back radiation”) is equivalent to 100 percent of the incoming solar energy. The Earth’s surface responds to the “extra” (on top of direct solar heating) energy by raising its temperature.”

    It is impossible for the atmosphere to provide additional heating…heat flows down gradients only and never back to where it came from. This scheme is the ad hoc mechanics created to make flat earth with 240 input work.

  37. Pablo says:

    So now they are halving the “greenhouse effect”!
    and say…
    “Because the maximum possible amount of incoming sunlight is fixed by the solar constant (which depends only on Earth’s distance from the Sun and very small variations during the solar cycle), the natural greenhouse effect does not cause a runaway increase in surface temperature on Earth.”

  38. boomie789 says:

    Imagine if the earth had a at least 100ft deep ocean across it’s whole surface, and no atmosphere.

    Take the temperature of the sea floor of the side of the earth facing the sun, and the temperature on the sea floor on the opposite night side. Same distance underwater of course. These two temperatures will be quite close together.
    (anybody know what the temps would be?)

    Now remove all the ocean and do the same temperature measurements again, the temperatures will be on completely opposite sides of the spectrum.

    “The natural greenhouse effect raises the Earth’s surface temperature to about 15 degrees Celsius on average—more than 30 degrees warmer than it would be if it didn’t have an atmosphere.”

    That quote made me think of this. Once you start to read some of the literature the audacity of this statement leaves me speechless. People have no conception of that the atmosphere is actually like.

    If we were fish the atmosphere would be our water. It has substance, it flows, we breath it.

    The atmosphere narrows the temperature spectrum, it is not responsible for increased temperatures.

    The atmosphere prevents the sun from burning us alive during the day, and retaining and transferring heat to the dark side so they don’t freeze.

    My understanding is correct?

  39. Exactly boomie. And they shouldn’t be referring to the ground as the surface anyway…it’s only the human surface, not the physics or mathematical surface. This logical reality is lost on these mouth breathing idiots!! They’re SO dumb. Anyone whose become an adept commentator on my blog is much more intelligent than these morons…we could easily together reform climate science entirely into something rational and educational in math, physics, and logic and teach the principles at the university level.

  40. CD Marshall says:

    These climate models are useless. Monitoring ocean temperature is the only reliable predictor of future “global temperature.”

    Surface temperatures rise and fall by the hour. Ocean temperatures can be maintained for a century.

    They claim the ocean surface average is 17C that has been in play for over a century now. Deep oceans are between 0-3C.

    They claim the deep oceans have increased by 0.055C is 30-50 years: Now if they just created this way of measuring ocean how are they claiming the 30-50 years mark as valid when no information existed. Just like claiming CO2 was lower in the atmosphere in past centuries when no means of measuring it aside from core samples were available.

    “The Argos and BIOS program have both published results that confirm that the ocean is warming. Surface water temperatures obviously change from season to season and year to year, but the whole ocean has warmed about 0.1 degree Fahrenheit (0.055 degree Celsius) in the past 30-50 years. This may not seem like much of a temperature change, but it is significant. Think about a pot of water heating on a stove. A small pot of water will heat quickly, while a large pot of water at the same heat setting will heat very slowly. This is due to a difference in heat capacity. The ocean has an enormous heat capacity because of its large size.”

  41. Policy makers must understand that the very basic concept driving critical, civilization-changing decisions and expenditures being asked of them is wrong. They must understand that the ultimate authority promoting this concept is the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

    Voters who elect policy makers must also understand that the IPCC is brainwashing an unprecedented number of seemingly intelligent people with this wrong concept.

    In CHAPTER 1, page 126 of the IPCC Report …

    IPCC, 2013: Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Stocker, T.F., D. Qin, G.-K. Plattner, M. Tignor, S.K. Allen, J. Boschung, A. Nauels, Y. Xia, V. Bex and P.M. Midgley (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, 1535 pp.

    https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2017/09/WG1AR5_Chapter01_FINAL.pdf

    … we see this wrong concept clearly stated and illustrated:

    The red highligted-and-border-framed text reads:

    The downward directed component of this LWR adds heat to the lower layers of the atmosphere and to the Earth’s surface (greenhouse effect).

    The red arrow points towards the part of the diagram illustrating this falsehood. Inside the circled, big gray arrow, we find the label, Back Longwave Radiation (LWR), which illustrates the physical impossibility of a cold atmosphere adding heat to an already warm surface.

    This is the IPCC’s “greenhouse effect”.

    The IPCC — the primary authenticating source for all current, climate-policy decision making — clearly bases its recommendations on the basic concept that the cold atmosphere heats the already warmer surface of Earth, just as an ice cube might heat a piece of freshly-made toast.

    This is the logic that drives our politicians, who plead with us to embrace the “climate emergency”.

    We are being asked to believe that an ice cube heats fresh toast, and to vote for policy makers who believe that an ice cube heats fresh toast.

    No matter what other details are being preached or how scientifically valid these details might appear, the underlying concept driving them all is this one horribly unreal, physically impossible, falsely elevated, wrong assumption — that cold heats hot.

  42. boomie789 says:

    They detected a .1 degree Fahrenheit increase?

    Is that even worth saying? To me that sounds like its within the degree of error.

    In other words.

  43. Yep exactly. And that is the false ad hoc scheme which inserts literal flat Earth theory into modern science and politics. We’re doing politics for flat Earth theory! What a world.

    Guys…we cannot live in this. We cannot live in a world of instituted flat earth theory.

    We need to form an army. Seriously. We will only be able to correct this by force…it is obvious reasoned discussion will not work. They’ve already instituted force upon us with government carbon taxes. They’re imposing violence-backed force on us already. We’re going to have to.

  44. MP says:

    Satire will destroy the deep state (all revolutions started with massive satire). So we need digital soldiers, not real ones at this point, that would be counter productive.

  45. boomie789 says:

    It will happen in it’s own time.

    I was skeptical at first but this Propertarianism idea seems solid. Be ready to thrust it forward as the new paradigm when the time comes.

    That John Mark guy is right, they don’t have an enforcement arm. The military and police voted 2/3 for Trump. The American militia is the single greatest military force on the planet, unconquerable by conventional means. Then there is the veterans, more of them than active military.

    I love how you can actually sell it to leftist as well. If they reject it it just outs them for the parasites they are! You get your city states to run however you like! brilliant!

  46. CD Marshall says:

    War is inedible…in fact it has been far too long for one to happen just on mathematical causation. ISIS was suppose to be the big Obama funded war but Trump pretty much ended it. No war is coming, the math doesn’t lie. When is the only question. The UN and those behind it are trying to use peace to seize power as the Nazis seized it by force, but if they can’t sway the world to surrender their rights (and consequently their lives) by choice then “by force” is coming, I guarantee you that.

    A year? A decade? A century?

    All it will take is one more “Hitler”, “Caesar”, “Alexander the Great” or some human personification of evil to head a new Rome with a conquest for world domination.

    Do you seriously think these “evil entities” have just stopped being produced on the planet? No, they have become more clever.

    My brother has a military mind he sees what his fellow intelligence veterans see, the formation of setting things up globally.

    Syria has been mass arming themselves for years where is all this coming from? Russia. For what purpose? To finally make a move on Israel when the time is right. Hatred for Israel through the UN has been stemmed up for decades.

    Another note my brother has picked on, the antisemitism is getting stronger world wide, who is fueling that? Now countries are proposing that Jews should be “protected” by placing them in a safe place “a camp” not hard to read between those lines.

    Trust me, Israel said, “Never again” and they mean it, even if it means going agaisnt half the world to prevent it.

    Nope war is coming, maybe not in our lifetime, but it will come.

    Russia is a very poor country, violent, and in great need of resources. They plan on taking those resources by strength when the time is appropriate. Rumors have been flying around for years that something may be happening in Israel that will make them one of the richest nations in the world.

    Maybe an enormous oil deposit somewhere or new technology we don’t know about. For some reason Russia is stockpiling weapons in Syria and for some reason they have not made the move yet?

    Trust me, war is coming. As long as evil minds are left to make war, war is undeniable.

    Hope for the best outcome but be prepared for the worse.

  47. MP says:

    CD Marshall

    This is not a geo-politic blog. But Just know that almost all MSM shows regarding geo-politics is fake. And patriots never blame whole countries. It is always certain corrup people/corrupt factions.

  48. CD Marshall says:

    Denial doesn’t change the facts it just prevents you from being prepared for it. I don’t live in denial. Neither should anyone else.

    Doe anyone really think the end game of the UN is peace, joy and love on planet Earth? They plan on wiping out most of the population on Earth.

    Reality check.

  49. I would rather hope that some really rational people become really wealthy and start funding rationality to the point that it outbids the stupidity we see today.

    The dollar is mightier than the sword.

  50. boomie789 says:

    All power flows out of the end of a gun.

    Just watched the new Chernobyl HBO miniseries, highly recommend it.
    There was a quote in it.

    “For every lie that is told, incurs a debt to the truth..someday, that debt must be paid”

  51. CD Marshall says:

    The fact is the “Evil Mind Overlords” are very few, somehow they manipulate multitudes. When I say, “Russia” I simply mean the few evil minds in the government not the whole country (thought that was self evident). Look at Iran for example what the people want and what the “few evil minds in control” want are totally different.

    Obama was an evil mind and he had evil minds working with him but that was not the main bulk of the country.

    However a King has no power unless his subjects choose to obey him. Charisma has a lot do to with it.

  52. Joseph E Postma says:

    “For every lie that is told, incurs a debt to the truth..someday, that debt must be paid”

    Imagine if that were true. Imagine if there was some sort of a cosmic ontological mathematical energy cycle balance that required this to be so. Imagine if the fulcrum between two eras is now…from an era of absolute lies…to the re-balancing.

  53. boomie789 says:

    “We must not confuse dissent with disloyalty. We must remember always that accusation is not proof and that conviction depends upon evidence and due process of law. We will not walk in fear, one of another. We will not be driven by fear into an age of unreason, if we dig deep in our history and our doctrine, and remember that we are not descended from fearful men – not from men who feared to write, to speak, to associate, and to defend causes that were, for the moment, unpopular”
    Edward R. Murrow

    We are not decendent of fearful men.

    Who listens to Hardcore History?

  54. Barry says:

    Those who are destined to repeat it. Got the wrong thread at psi instead of here. I was saying how I owe thanks to Joseph and the many followers here sharing their knowledge. A month ago I wold not have had the confidence to argue this lie on a scientific bases. I have always thought it wrong because of the people involved in it,but thought there must be something to the whole co2 warming thing or surely no ph’d would try to defend it. Amazing what people will do for money. This will obviously go away at some point but not sure how long before the cult moves on to the next disaster.

  55. boomie789 says:

    Makes me think of one of the most dastardly ways to lie.

    What do you guys think about controlled opposition?

    Watch out for people who give you most of the truth, but undermine it with a critical lie.
    One example is the libertarian party, full of truth, completely undermined by one lie. Immigration.

    Another example, this is my own theory, Flat Earthers. This is poison by association. Remember when I posted about Moral relativism and Moral Absolutism? Flat Earthers preach the same thing.
    They are poisoning the well, they have deep truths poisoned by ridiculous lies. They want those truths associated with those lies.
    So when I tell people one of the deepest truths I know, Moral Absolutism, I am associated with flat Earthers.
    They preach about the Cabal. They take the christian teachings and turn them into a joke.

    They are the mockery of truth seekers.

  56. CD Marshall says:

    And by the way I’m calling it now, the seeds for Phase 2 of “climate Change” is already in motion. The so called “oceans warming” is being blamed on nuclear power.

    It never ends,
    Ouroboros.

  57. Joseph E Postma says:

    We live in an amazing world of lies. Some have said that the entire human condition is a lie.

    For example, the Bible begins with the Elohim stating “let us create man in our image.”

    But if you look up the actual footnote MEANING of the words in that sentence, then you discover what it actually means: The Elohim are not God but are some angels, the fallen angels, and “man in our image” means “as a vain show, as a simulacrum”. We were created as some sort of lie. As a vanity project. We are a lie, and we love the lie.

    It’s interesting. Disturbing if true.

  58. CD Marshall says:

    Union of Concerned Scientists
    Bill Nye’s fake science group.
    https://progressive.org/dispatches/nuclear-power-causes-global-warming/

  59. Joseph E Postma says:

    What amazing idiocy.

  60. boomie789 says:

    How pissed would you be if straight up Nazis or Black Panthers or something started praising your work. CNN goes to the Nazis and interviews them talking about you and your work.

    They could even just use actors mixed into the group.

  61. tom0mason says:

    ~Dear old H.H. lamb knew a lot about weather and climate and here’s his paper about it. Publish during the cold snap of the 1970 it is still very relevant (especially about the wondering jet-stream) https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/00063657509476457

  62. CD Marshall says:

    The obvious reason why AMS rejected you:
    https://ams.confex.com/ams/Annual2006/techprogram/paper_100737.htm

    Notice bottom:
    “AMS Home Page”

  63. CD Marshall says:

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

  64. [“The earth’s climate system is warmed by 35 C due to the emission of downward infrared radiation by greenhouse gases in the atmosphere (surface radiative forcing) or by the absorption of upward infrared radiation (radiative trapping).”]

    … warmed by downward infrared radiation ?
    … radiative TRAPPING ?

    Clearly these are clowns. But I’m not laughing.

  65. Rosco says:

    Why is the paper referenced earlier titled “Possible…” ??

    Joe there’s nothing new in this anyway – the first thing I ever read that you produced quoted the standard calculation for TOA solar constant and introducing albedo.

    I remember asking Roy Spencer what was wrong with your first attempt and he said you forgot to divide by 4 !

  66. It’s so bad. We may be screwed here guys. There may be no way to correct flat earth theory in modern science. This will be our real life horror show as we watch it sweep over our protestations. The only thing that could save us from this now is total societal collapse. Assuming they’re not the ones with the plan to rebuild based on their pseudoscience.

  67. Today: There is no way to rationally convince a scientist academic that the Earth isn’t flat. None of them. Not possible.

    Just ruminate on that internally for a while. Extrapolate.

    It’s not fn good. It’s quite disturbing and frightening. It’s going to hurt really badly.

    Like that John Mark says…at least maybe we can separate? Imagine all of us together untethered by the idiocy of modern science academia. What a relief that would be. Alternatively, imagine us chained to this pseudoscience forever.

  68. They’ll SAY that the earth isn’t flat. But they nevertheless cannot comprehend that flat earth math and physics is invalid. Therefore they would never consider themselves as flat earth cranks, yet they cannot comprehend that math and physics for flat earth is indeed flat earth theory.

    Isn’t that an amazing achievement of cognitive dissonance? Who ever designed the psychology of this situation, mass instituted, has the mind of a super genius god.

    It’s as if we’re being trolled. Trolled by some super intelligence. Just additionally consider the wholesale acceptance in STEM, among atheist scientific materialists who believe in selfish gene theory and Darwinism, and as Bill Nye describes as *evolution* for genetic nodes to sterilize themselves in an attempt to simulate the opposite sex. How does a sterilized genetic node reproduce its genetics? Sterilization is the definition of extinction. And of course it is all as biologically insane as flat earth as modern physics. So it’s quite consistent in demonstrating the idiocy of modern academia, by trolling them into believing things which are quite obviously opposed to reality.

  69. Joseph E Postma says:

    It’s a perfect execution of double-speak, of willingly ingrained cognitive dissonance, of the total destruction of reason in a conscious mind. As I’ve said, it seems as though the academics are actually unconscious automatons…just robot AI’s with no mind at all.

    It may only be up to the Gods now.

  70. boomie789 says:

    Copernicus and Galileo probably felt the same way.

  71. boomie789 says:


    “Holy Shit! I’m surrounded by idiots!”

    The look when you relies sane people are actually a minority.

  72. They were fighting to present new knowledge.

    We are fighting to preserve existing knowledge. But unlike Galileo’s opponents, we’re not trying to preserve religious doctrine for the sake of the institution, we’re trying to preserve existing knowledge against its replacement by pseudoscientific doctrine instituting itself akin to a new religion.

    How the tables have inverted.

  73. This is the age of the anti-enlightenment.
    Renaître de saison – the re-birth of the season, the Renaissance.
    Décès de saison – the death of the season, the Décèssance(?).

  74. boomie789 says:

    Some really important years coming up.

  75. Pablo says:

    More from LOL@KLIMATE KATASTROPHE KOOKS in comments at https://climatechangedispatch.com/fiction-man-made-global-warming/

    “Laboratory test results show that CO2 acts (in a freely-convecting atmospheric environment) as a coolant… in a convection-restricted atmospheric environment, it acts to heat (during daytime) and cool(during nighttime) the atmosphere more rapidly. Our planet’s atmosphere is free to convect.
    The climate scientists, the UN IPCC and various US government-funded agencies claim that CO2 will cause catastrophic global warming, and the only remedy is to radically alter our economic system and our way of life.

    They claim this occurs via the following mechanism: CO2 absorbs 14.98352 µm radiation, becomes vibrationally excited in the CO2{v21(1)} vibrational mode quantum state, then collides with another atmospheric molecule, whereupon that vibrational mode energy flows to translational mode energy of the other atmospheric molecule. Since we sense translational mode (kinetic) energy as temperature, this process purportedly raises atmospheric temperature. The climate catastrophists claim that CO2 is capable of causing catastrophic warming.

    The half of the story the public has been told, that CO2 causes warming, is a narrow and intentionally misconstrued truth hiding two much wider lies.

    The truth is that CO2 can indeed cause warming via the mechanism described above… up to ~288 K and at low altitude. Above ~288 K and at low altitude, CO2 is a net atmospheric coolant. Above the tropopause, CO2 is a net atmospheric coolant at any temperature because collisional processes happen less often there due to low atmospheric density, so radiative processes dominate.”

    Strange that 15ºC is the magic number.
    Thoughts?

  76. geran says:

    That’s correct, Pablo. Sun energy transfers to surface, then surface energy transfers to the atmosphere, then the energy transfers to space. Earth’s surface warms the atmosphere.

    Also, CO2 can “heat” a much colder object, say an object at -150 ºC (-238 ºF). That’s the same with ice. Ice can “heat” an object that is much colder than the ice. “Hot” can warm “cold”, that’s not a problem.

    The problem arises when they claim a 15μ photon can warm a surface at 288 K. That is pseudoscience.

  77. Barry says:

    Up date of what is happening in Canada this am Teck have pulled their application for the frontier oil sand project in northern Alberta citing uncertainty over climate change regulations in the future. This is what happens when you start threatening companies with onerous climate policy. Mr Trudeau should be very happy he won’t have to make that decision that he has now caused with his sadly misguided climate policy. People better wake up and soon

  78. Joseph E Postma says:

    Who benefits?

    The competitors, that’s who. Justin’s stalling has been for that purpose. He’s a traitor.

  79. Pablo says:

    geran,
    But how weird that CO2 adds warmth up to 15ºC (the average temperature of Earth’s surface) and cools thereafter. Coincidence or what?

  80. boomie789 says:

  81. boomie789 says:

    Check out what the writer of Chernobyl said. Skip to 4:53.

    https://deadline.com/2019/06/chernobyl-jared-harris-craig-mazin-hbo-emmys-interview-1202629374/

    “I think it would be fair to say that Craig had an understanding about that resonance. The idea of talking about lies, and the corrosive effect of lies upon a society, is right there from the very beginning of the show. It was always a part of our conversations, with regards to the script, the direction it took, and the narrative. It was in the DNA of the show.”

    This show is hitting Breaking Bad levels, I think it is significant culturally.

  82. Joseph E Postma says:

    Wow! I’m going to start watching that show ASAP…have it dld’d already.

  83. boomie789 says:

    He has a seemingly misinformed straw man perception of “climate deniers”, but everything else he said was awesome!

    Honestly, it’s a masterpiece.

  84. Joseph E Postma says:

    OK I finally listened to it. Wow. Wow that is an excellent exposition.

    But so sad and amazing that he thinks it applies to “climate alarm deniers as the liars”.

  85. boomie789 says:

    “There is real merit to this argument. The lesson of Chernobyl isn’t that modern nuclear power is dangerous. The lesson is that lying, arrogance and suppression of criticism is dangerous.

    The flaws that led to Chernobyl are the same flaws shown by climate change deniers today.”

    I am in favor of modern, safe, well-regulated nuclear energy. It’s one of the best options we have to avoid irreversibly catastrophic climate change.

    “Everything about their system was so oppositional to ours. We would never behave as they behave. They didn’t do anything we weren’t capable of doing. And we are now doing things similar to what they do. We are acting in firm denial of something we don’t want to be true. The nuclear reactor was the one thing they could not control. Our climate doesn’t give a shit, heat melts ice, that’s how it works. That we are still engaging in climate change debate is remarkable. Most of us get it. It’s just bizarre to me: there’s no political advantage to getting hot.”

    https://www.indiewire.com/2019/08/chernobyl-craig-mazin-hbo-emmys-1202167548/

    Jared Harris-Lead Actor

    “In the end, the truth is the truth. It doesn’t care what we’re doing. We can have endless debates about climate change. We can come up with all sorts of interesting charts, and figures, and facts. The climate doesn’t care. The wind doesn’t care, the rain doesn’t care, the ice doesn’t care. It will do what it does,” Mazin says. “And the same is true for the inside of a very poorly designed, poorly run, nuclear reactor. It will do what it does.”

    https://www.menshealth.com/entertainment/a27395817/hbo-chernobyl-why-now-climate-change/

    It seems they actually talk about climate change quite a lot. Interesting.

    “there’s no political advantage to getting hot”

    So he thinks the planet is warming? He is brainwashed in lies much more than he knows lol.
    Maybe he will see the light one day.

    The Media will make it about climate change or anti-nuclear with or without their help.

  86. Joseph E Postma says:

    Well that connects back to my feelings yesterday: how insane that these people think that their perspectives on lying apply to climate deniers, as if anyone denies climate change as if that is remotely what the question is even about, etc.

  87. CD Marshall says:

    Let’s not forget they are going to do the same to Nuclear they have just done to fossil fuels. Joseph we might want to try and nip this in the butt before it becomes Stupid 101 that nuclear is warming the oceans. It won’t stop there though, acidity, corral reefs, fish species depletion, all will now be blamed on nuclear power.

    What’s next?

  88. boomie789 says:

    Forced vegetarianism.

  89. CD Marshall says:

    Replace that with babies, the other other white meat.

  90. boomie789 says:

    @CD Marshal lol

  91. I just bought Nakamura’s ebook at Amazon, with the English additions. It costs a US dollar.

    I know boomie789 linked to somebody’s pdf copy of the English part, but I wanted to see it in the actual book to fully trust it. Here’s the Amazon link:

    This is a real scientist who knows the ins and outs of complex climate models, which he totally trashes as serious predictive tools.

    This is a must-read for anybody who wants to respond to the “Oh, but this is a simple model” comeback of the flat-Earth-model watchdogs.

    The “simple model” is based on a blatantly simple error. Complex climate models are based on more complex problems that make them unfit for the uses that the IPCC proclaims.

    If you want to go Nakmura on the IPCC (IntergovernMENTAL Prophets of the Climate Church), then read his book.

  92. MP says:

    Patriots are against NAZI’s …they will be met with fire and fury.

  93. I just wrote this article that links to JP’s previous thread:

    https://hubpages.com/politics/Intergovernmental-Panel-on-Climate-Change-Promotes-False-Science

    Feel free to fact check it for integrity.

  94. boomie789 says:

    The best one

  95. MP says:

    @ Boomie

    Here is a fresh good one.

  96. boomie789 says:

    lolol, not bad.

  97. RE: “the Sun does not heat the Earth” see the Figure 2.11-1 from Working Group 1 of the 5th UN IPCC Assessment Report. It shows 161 W/m^2 from the Sun absorbed by the Earth’s surface then, by some magical process – the Greenhouse Effect?,- it shows 398 W/m^2 emitted from that surface with no mention of the source of the additional energy. Then it shows 342 W/m^2 being returned from the atmosphere again with no mention of a source to generate the additional energy.
    My suggestion to resolve the issue is to ask a person to stand out in the open, face the Sun and feel the warmth therefrom, face away from the Sun – up to the sky, along the horizon or down at the ground and there will be no warmth. It works here in Australia but, sadly, a person with no science background does not seem to understand the significance.
    Wishing You Well in Your continuing endeavour to retrieve us from returning to the Dark Age.

  98. CD Marshall says:

    “face the Sun and feel the warmth…”
    Something mostly all kids have done and yet PhDs don’t want to acknowledge such simple logic.

  99. Here’s the diagram Bevan D refers to:


    Figure 2.11
    IPCC, 2013: Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Stocker, T.F., D. Qin, G.-K. Plattner, M. Tignor, S.K. Allen, J. Boschung, A. Nauels, Y. Xia, V. Bex and P.M. Midgley (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, 1535 pp.
    https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/observations-atmosphere-and-surface/

    It might be useful to review the following information:

    https://notrickszone.com/2017/06/01/3-chemists-conclude-co2-greenhouse-effect-is-unreal-violates-laws-of-physics-thermodynamics/

  100. “The Physical Science Basis” — such a joke !

    … from the Intergovernmental Prognosticators of Climate Catastrophe (IPCC)

  101. Again, do the math, and then do the meaning of the math:

    342 divided by 161 = 2.12, … which means that Earth’s atmosphere provides 2.1 times the power of Earth’s sun.

    One … more … time:

    The math? — 2.12

    The meaning? – Earth’s atmosphere provides over double the heat of Earth’s sun.

    The deeper message? — Humans can control the atmosphere, and so humans can control the climate. We, thus, rob the sun god(ess) of his/her cosmic power. Humans are gods.

  102. Jopo says:

    Have some warmies a tad confused as to why I am going on about flat earth theory. It is irking them actually. One of them has thrown this paper back at me. I suspect it may be useful.
    ……….
    https://www.pnas.org/content/116/39/19330

    A round Earth for climate models
    Significance
    Early climate and weather models, constrained by computing resources, made numerical approximations on modeling the real world. One process, the radiative transfer of sunlight through the atmosphere, has always been a costly component. As computational ability expanded, these models added resolution, processes, and numerical methods to reduce errors and become the Earth system models that we use today. While many of the original approximations have since been improved, one—that the Earth’s surface and atmosphere are locally flat—remains in current models. Correcting from flat to spherical atmospheres leads to regionally differential solar heating at rates comparable to the climate forcing by greenhouse gases and aerosols. In addition, spherical atmospheres change how we evaluate the aerosol direct radiative forcing.

    Abstract
    Sunlight drives the Earth’s weather, climate, chemistry, and biosphere. Recent efforts to improve solar heating codes in climate models focused on more accurate treatment of the absorption spectrum or fractional clouds. A mostly forgotten assumption in climate models is that of a flat Earth atmosphere. Spherical atmospheres intercept 2.5 W⋅m−2 more sunlight and heat the climate by an additional 1.5 W⋅m−2 globally. Such a systematic shift, being comparable to the radiative forcing change from preindustrial to present, is likely to produce a discernible climate shift that would alter a model’s skill in simulating current climate. Regional heating errors, particularly at high latitudes, are several times larger. Unlike flat atmospheres, constituents in a spherical atmosphere, such as clouds and aerosols, alter the total amount of energy received by the Earth. To calculate the net cooling of aerosols in a spherical framework, one must count the increases in both incident and reflected sunlight, thus reducing the aerosol effect by 10 to 14% relative to using just the increase in reflected. Simple fixes to the current flat Earth climate models can correct much of this oversight, although some inconsistencies will remain.

  103. Joseph E Postma says:

    Guys I just had several dozen notifications come through of Zoe trying to link to my blog from what is apparently her new blog.

    WHAT A FN STALKER!

    “Zoe’s geothermal insights” or some retardation.

    “Flat Earth is OK! We just need to use geothermal to make up the temperature instead!”

    Basic bitch.

  104. CD Marshall says:

    Wait Zoe or Rosie? Or was it Zosie? Just kidding…mostly but with a little bit of concern.

  105. Joseph E Postma says:

    RC: “I’ve come to think of Galileo in an even greater manner.

    He accepted his punishment of house arrest/home confinement even though it was horribly unjust.

    In a way, we can see that Galileo was the truest of geniuses. He couldn’t give up his Science, yet he couldn’t give up his Faith.

    “The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function.”

    F. Scott Fitzgerald”

    JP: Galileo didn’t consider his discovery to be at odds with his faith though. There was no internal conflict within him.

    However, what FSF refers to is just a moralizing fancy sophistry of willingly accepting and adopting cognitive dissonance. His statement is the purest cancer. Only academics think this way, and believe that holding such a mental state denotes intelligence. It denotes cowardice, laziness, stupidity, and is the very definition of irrationality. It is the very reason why atheist scientific materialist academics can reject flat Earth theory on the one hand, while fully embracing it as the basis of political action on the other; why they believe in selfish gene theory and Darwinism on the one hand, yet call sterilization for the sake of simulating the opposite sex to be evolutionary; why they use the cause and effect and reason of mathematics on the one hand, but believe that the universe is random and inexplicable on the other, etc.

    FSF presents that cognitively dissonant state as some sort of virtue, as some sort of end in itself. That state he describes though is only temporary, transient, a place to move away from, when an actual active intelligence seeks the resolution of that state.

    A “first-rate intelligence” would identify that they are in this state, and then seek to resolve it. Instead, the third-rate intelligentsia of academia has embraced this state as an end in itself, and then have gone on further to forget that they are even in this state, and even further still, do not understand what value there would be in resolving this state if it is ever pointed out to them. And of course, they avoid it being pointed out to them like the plague, and the rare occasions when you do get to point it out to them, they simply blink and continue on as if nothing of the most profound importance had just passed in front of them.

    That is such a wonderful quote because it smacks directly of what I have been saying for a while: cognitive dissonance has been inculcated into the academia as the sensation of virtue, as the sensation of what it is supposed to feel like when one deems themselves and their peers “intelligent”. They have adopted that state as the pinnacle of their supposedly scientific craft.

  106. CD Marshall says:

    So this is compiled from what I could glean from your comments on IR devices. Anything you care to add/correct? Don’t hesitate, correction is the only form of growth, to hate correction is to hate growth (yes adults need correction too).

    >Anything above 0 Kelvin has thermal energy, a heat signature, with an IR device/thermal camera that IR can be detected.

    >The error is in believing that the thermal signature detected (even from a cooler object) can increase the temperature.

    >An IR camera operates by the photoelectric effect, with sensors designed to detect infrared wavelengths, this is not heat transfer. This is energy not necessarily heat-energy/IR detection would not “know” the difference.

    >The 1st Law of Thermodynamics states that either heat/work is required to raise temperature. Thermal energy from a cooler source cannot provide heat. Therefore in accordance to the Laws of Thermodynamics, although with specialized photoelectric equipment you can detect IR, it does not mean that IR can increase temperature.

  107. … or Rozie?

    Flat Earth okay. Flat atmosphere okay. ……… for fiction, yeah.

    Jopo’s link to the paper on flat atmospheres shows a deeper-level flatness in climate models that seems like a separate issue from the overall bizarre juxtaposition of cell-resolved climate models that lack critical resolution for proper fluid-dynamic processes and generalized energy budgets STILL linked to the simple model’s divide-by-four fallacy.

    On one hand, the IPCC defers to complex computer models, seemingly based on well-intended cellular structuring over a whole sphere. But, on the other hand, they present diagrams of Earth’s “energy budget” that embody the “average solar flux” fiasco. Somehow they manage to weave these two seemingly vastly different levels of sophistication together — a legitimate modeling exercise and an illegitimate, fantasy diagram — to try convincing the public that this melange of computer science and fake physics constitutes evidence of catastrophe.

  108. Interesting, while I was typing my latest reply, Joe presented his monologue on cognitive dissonance.

    This appears to be what the IPCC indulges in. They hold to legitimate modeling efforts that are fine for study and education, and, at the same time, they endorse illegitimate diagrams and explanations using the idea of “average solar flux”. Then, when you criticize the model approach, they defer to the flat-Earth diagrams, and when you criticize the flat-Earth diagrams, they defer to the models.

    It’s a perfect example of ping ponging between two opposing levels of legitimacy and accepting the ping ponging as normal mental functioning.

  109. CD Marshall says:

    My IR questions is becasue I am dealing with someone who gave me that paper which I have been given to before and you all have commented on it before (or something exactly like it) about the “IR detection nonsense”.

    https://ams.confex.com/ams/Annual2006/techprogram/paper_100737.htm

    By this arrogant ****:
    “My 30 year career is in RF telecommunications, very much involved with radiating energy. I constantly use RF power meters, spectrum analysers and vector signal analysers in my work. I’ve developed many measurement systems for analysing the quality of RF signals. We sold our last start-up (NEUL) to Hauwei for $25 million in 2014. ”

    https://www.businessweekly.co.uk/news/hi-tech/17552-neul-sold-huawei-25-million

  110. boomie789 says:

    @ Postma

    “First rate intelligence” People sound like they score high in openness.
    On the big 5 personality test.

    “One should, for example, be able to see that things are hopeless and yet be determined to make them otherwise. This philosophy fitted on to my early adult life, when I saw the improbable, the implausible, often the “impossible,” come true. Life was something you dominated if you were any good. Life yielded easily to intelligence and effort, or to what proportion could be mustered of both….
    I must hold in balance the sense of futility of effort and the sense of the necessity to struggle; the conviction of the inevitability of failure and still the determination to “succeed” — and, more than these, the contradiction between the dead hand of the past and the high intentions of the future.”

    This is the thinking the commies and lefties lack. This is the type of thinking that leads to a strong middle class, with a small underclass, quite stable.

    The true American Dream where only you are your worst enemy.

    High avg IQ of your nation is necessary for a strong middle class as well.

  111. As I understand it, IR detection is based on separating out objects by comparing their relative levels of IR radiation. The equipment detects RELATIVE DIFFERENCES in radiation.

    All radiation is NOT heat, though, as we know. Heat depends on the magnitudes of relative differences in radiation, where high radiation objects emit in the direction of lower radiation objects.

    You can be located in a place where your ambient temperature is higher than what you are aiming your instrument towards, and still you can detect radiation of a warmer object, RELATIVE cooler objects next to it.

    Let’s say I’m standing in a spot where the ambient temperature is 20 C, and I point an infrared detector towards a fly on an ice cube, near a block of frozen CO2. An infrared camera might separate the fly from the ice cube from the frozen CO2 by assigning different colors to them — red, say for the fly, light blue, say, for the ice, dark blue, say, for the frozen CO2 [I’m just guessing here on the colors].

    This does not mean that the fly is sending heat your way — it just means that the instrument is detecting the relative differences in levels of radiation for objects close to one another.

    Somebody correct me, if I’m wrong.

  112. boomie789 says:

    At noon central time( less than an hour) John Cook from Skeptical science is doing an AMA on Reddit.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skeptical_Science

    Skeptical Science (occasionally abbreviated SkS) is a climate science blog and information resource created in 2007 by Australian cognitive scientist John Cook.[1] In addition to publishing articles on current events relating to climate science and climate policy, the site maintains a database of articles analyzing the merit of arguments put forth by those who oppose the mainstream scientific opinion on climate change.

    I’ll link it as soon as it’s live.

    You can ask him any question. Should be fun.

  113. Joseph E Postma says:

    I still have a backlog of comments on here to go through, and am at work as it is. Ah heck maybe I should try.

    Ask him why they would teach flat Earth theory as a 0-order model? Ask him if the ad hoc mathematics invented to make a 0-order flat Earth theory model approximate reality is actually good physics?

    You’ll get nothing but BS from this guy.

  114. CD Marshall says:

    Yeah the thing that gets me is the claim anything above 0K has a heat signature, no it has an energy signature, not necessarily a heat signature, as I understand it.

  115. boomie789 says:

    @Postma

    “It’s Just a learning tool we use to teach 1st year graduates, you bigot.”

    🤣👆

  116. CD Marshall says:

    BOOMIE LOL

    As to Phil, I replied,
    “…and yet you can’t tell the difference between heat and energy? Yes all heat is a form of energy but not all energy is heat. This is novice college physics.”

    Still haven’t had a response I must have bruised his delicate ego.

  117. geran says:

    CD, a couple of clarifications:

    “An IR camera operates by the photoelectric effect, with sensors designed to detect infrared wavelengths, this is not heat transfer. This is energy not necessarily heat-energy/IR detection would not “know” the difference.”

    Typical IR photons do not have the energy to produce the photoelectric effect. Inexpensive IR detection is due to the interaction with a doped semiconductor p-n junction. The device requires both a correct design and external energy, since “cold” photons are normally not absorbed by “hot” surfaces.

    “The 1st Law of Thermodynamics states that either heat/work is required to raise temperature.”

    It’s the 2nd Law that relates to increasing temperatures. First Law is basically just the thermodynamic statement of the Conservation of Energy.

    Also, for anyone feeling feisty, go to Spencer’s blog and post a comment linking to Joseph’s latest model. Ask Spencer, since he’s a meteorologist, Why the AMS rejects “divide-by-2” while they accept “divide-by-4”?

    If that doesn’t get you banned, I’ve got some more questions.

    🙂

  118. boomie789 says:

    This is the 97% Consensus guy! wow.

  119. geran says:

    Joseph gets all the women! (Who knew physics could be so sexy?)

    Rosie, over at PSI, has posted her third attempt to somehow correct JP’s model, but she just gets more and more tangled up. She’s one of the funniest clowns over there.

  120. boomie789 says:

    “John, please don’t respond to this drivel”

    first response lol.

    Up-vote me so my question goes higher up! If you let me know your question I’ll make sure to up vote you.

  121. boomie789 says:

    “I’m not sure where to start here… maybe I should ask you if you think infrared radiation goes through CO2 or is reflected by it…”

    Me-The IR from C02 does not get added back to surface temperature. You are adding cold to hot.

  122. boomie789 says:

    “The model you’re complaining about is the most simple model that is taught in an introductory to climate science course, GCMs are slightly more complicated.”

  123. Joseph E Postma says:

    haha. Love your memes boomie.

    We know. It is a simple model of flat Earth theory…which as you admit you teach at the very basis of climate science, in introductory climate science courses. You admit you teach flat Earth theory at the basis of climate science. And then you create more complicated models based on what you think you learned from flat Earth theory…which is that the Sun does not heat the Earth or create or sustain Earth’s weather and climate. Brilliant!

  124. CD Marshall says:

    Geran,
    So what exactly are these devices detecting? Are they detecting the actual photon or the interaction “of” photons with absorption?

    In other words, would a reflected photon even be detected?

  125. boomie789 says:

    already the top controversial comment.

  126. geran says:

    CD, the photon is absorbed first, producing a “surge” of current across the p-n junction, which is then detected.

    That’s an over-simplification because it’s actually the average of all absorbed photons producing the current that gets detected.

  127. boomie789 says:

    well it was.

  128. boomie789 says:

    Does this sound stupid?

    “A low energy photon does not add to a higher energy”

    What’s a smarter way to say that? Is it fine how its said?

  129. Joseph E Postma says:

    Heat only flows from hot to cold. This applies to all photons.

  130. CD Marshall says:

    Geran,
    So that’s where the confusion is planted. Absorption does not automatically equal heat, they are assuming.

  131. boomie789 says:

    Ok, the guy just said I have No comprehension of the subject.

  132. Joseph E Postma says:

    By that he means that he doesn’t want you to use the language of thermodynamics. They only want you to use the language of the ad-hoc scheme to support flat Earth theory.

  133. “The model you’re complaining about is the most simple model that is taught in an introductory to climate science course, GCMs are slightly more complicated.”

    So, why does IPCC’s AR5 report state clearly that solar flux is 1360 W/m^2, while the “energy budget” diagram near this clear statement shows INCOMING solar flux at 340 W/m^2, which is 1360 divided by 4 ! FLAT EARTH !! — It’s right there in print, … in the latest non-beginner authenticated report ! And still they deflect from this fact by appealing to the “slightly more complicated” GCMs, whose output they claim rises above the “simple model”, while their policy justification for the … “science basis” … is illustrated with FLAT-EARTH-mathematically-derived solar input !!

    Two faced, wouldn’t you say? And either impervious or willing liars.

  134. boomie789 says:

    An ice cube emits 240w^m2, piping hot coffee emits over 1000w^m2.

    If you add the 240w^m2 ice to the coffee, what happens to the energy of the coffee?

    Does it get hotter or colder?

    According to that model the coffee would get hotter! Do not confuse energy and heat!

    Thought of a new question to ask alarmist physicist

  135. boomie789 says:

    @Robert

    Zealots

  136. CD Marshall says:

    Phil sent me this link:
    http://www.graphene.ac.rs/eq-spectroscopy.html

    Geran, thoughts? Anyone?

  137. Joseph E Postma says:

    Being able to measure the IR from an ice cube or the cold atmosphere does not mean that those things heat a warmer surface.

  138. CD Marshall says:

    So it comes back to the confusion between heat, energy and temperature or the “choice” to deliberately confuse those subjects.

  139. Joseph E Postma says:

    Yes.

  140. As a public service, to correct what I believe is fraudulent information put forth as worthy of policy-level action, I present the following page, illustrating faulty physics of a “simple model” being applied to a diagram supposedly backed by “more complex” GCMs (Global Climate Models):

    Chapter 2, page 181
    IPCC, 2013: Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Stocker, T.F., D. Qin, G.-K. Plattner, M. Tignor, S.K. Allen, J. Boschung, A. Nauels, Y. Xia, V. Bex and P.M. Midgley (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, 1535 pp. https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2017/09/WG1AR5_Chapter02_FINAL.pdf

    Governing officials cite this information as authoritative justification for how they spend tax money, which, in my view, constitutes negligence due to ignorance and unwillingness to determine the truth that should be guiding responsible spending of tax payer dollars.

  141. geran says:

    Here are two of the games clowns play, just involving photons:

    Game 1 — All photons are always absorbed, or else where do they go? You can’t violate the First Law! You can’t just destroy energy.

    Game 1, OVER — All photons are NOT always absorbed. That’s why you can see objects in a dark room when you turn the light on. That’s why you can see trees during the daytime. Photons not absorbed, are not being “destroyed”. They are being reflected. Ask the clowns what happens to the reflected photons in a darkroom when the light is turned off. Ask the clowns what happens to the reflected photons from the tops of clouds.

    Game 2 — Photons from a cold object will be absorbed by a hotter object, but that does not violate the Second Law because the hot object is sending more energy to the cold object. So since the Second Law is not violated, the photons from the colder object are adding energy to the hot object, so the hot object will increase in temperature. See, “cold” heats “hot”, and there is no violation of Second Law.

    Game 2, OVER — Photons are NOT always absorbed. (See Game 1, OVER) Even if a photon from a colder object were somehow absorbed by a hotter object, it would have to increase the average kinetic energy, to raise the temperature. Temperature is the measure of the average kinetic energy. If two molecules have an energy of “4” and “5”. the resulting temperature is based on “4.5”. If a third molecule absorbs a photon with energy of “3”, the resulting temperature of the 3 molecules is then based on “4” [(3 + 4 + 5)/3 = 4]. The “cooler” photon would actually cool the mix. Tell the clowns that’s the reason they can’t bake a turkey with ice cubes. Just “adding energy” does not always mean a temperature increase. The average kinetic energy MUST be raised for a resulting temperature increase.

    The comedy continues.

  142. Joseph E Postma says:

    That’s the game! For the past 10 years.

  143. boomie789 says:

    Idiot-“This is so many levels of misunderstanding, it’s hard to know where to start…

    I would suggest practicing the problems in Chapter 3 — energy conservation and the first law of thermodynamics. These are toy problems much simpler than the complexity of Earth, so you should be able to get them all correct if you know what you’re doing.

    If you don’t understand any of those problems, I’m happy to help.”

    His link-https://stemez.com/subjects/technology_engineering/1DThermodynamics/1DThermodynamics.php

    My response-
    concern troll, how about you ask me a question?

    Guess what f@*king question this idiot asked?

    Keep in mind, this is a response to a lengthy post were I explain back radiation and their irrelevance to greenhouses.

    Idiot-“Ok, why does the inside of a car get hotter than the outside air temperature when it’s sitting in the sun?”

    My response-
    The same way a greenhouse does, convection. Trapped air warming up, nothing to do with back radiation.

    If the model were correct the car would create an energy feedback loop doubling the suns energy input, probably melting the car.

    Did you even read my post?

  144. boomie789 says:

    @Robert

    That comment will come in handy.

  145. Joseph E Postma says:

    Good one. These poor morons think that the greenhouse effect inside a car (or a real greenhouse) is from backradiation!! Whereas the high temperature inside those is FROM THE SUN!

    You see what I mean? They’re writing the Sun out of theory!

  146. CD Marshall says:

    https://www.compustar.com/blog/how-hot-can-a-car-get/

    Yet still not understanding the full power of sunshine can reach that in Celsius.

  147. CD Marshall says:

    If anyone needs references to Arctic/Greenland warming in the 1920s and volcanic activity playing a part in Antarctica I have complied some data. I’ll admit I’ve been sitting on this a while waiting for the opportunity to dump this on some troll. Finally I did. Now if you have more information I’ll be happy to add it to my data set.

    Antarctica:

    http://epsc.wustl.edu/seismology/doug/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/seroussi_etal_jgr_2017.pdf

    https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2017JB014423

    https://www.nasa.gov/feature/jpl/hot-news-from-the-antarctic-underground

    Greenland/Arctic warmer in the 1920s:

    > Vinther et al. 2010: “Winter season stable isotope data from ice core records that reach more than 1400 years back in time suggest that the warm period that began in the 1920s raised southern Greenland temperatures to the same level as those that prevailed during the warmest intervals of the Medieval Warm Period some 900-1300 years ago. This observation is supported by a southern Greenland ice core borehole temperature inversion”.

    >Lennart Bengtsson, Vladimir A. Semenov, Ola M. Johannessen, The Early Twentieth-Century Warming in the Arctic—A Possible Mechanism, Journal of Climate, October 2004, page 4045-4057

    > Igor V. Polyakov, Roman V. Bekryaev, Genrikh V. Alekseev, Uma Bhatt, Roger L. Colony , Mark A. Johnson, Alexander P. Makshtas, and David Walsh; Variability and trends of air temperature and pressure in the maritime Arctic, 1875 – 2000; 2003; Journal of Climate, Vol. 16, p. 2067-2077, 2003. Extract via: Website of the Int. Arctic Research Centre, IARC).

    > I. V. Polyakov, G. V. Alekseev, L. A. Timokhov, U. S. Bhatt, R. L. Colony, H. L. Simmons, D. Walsh, J. E. Walsh, V. F. Zakharov, 2004, Variability of the intermediate Atlantic Water of the Arctic Ocean over the last 100 years, Journal of Climate, Vol.17, p. 4485-4495.

    >Lennart Bengtsson, Vladimir A. Semenov, Ola M. Johannessen, The Early Twentieth-Century Warming in the Arctic—A Possible Mechanism, Journal of Climate, October 2004, page 4045-4057.

    >Brooks, C.E.P.; 1938, “The Warming Arctic”, The Meteorological Magazine, p.29-32. With reference to an explanation by R. Scherhag, 1937 that the rise of temperature derives from an increase in the strength of the atmospheric circulation, Brooks notes that this “only pushes the problem one stage further back, for we should still have to account for the change of circulation”.

    > Ola M. Johannessen, Lennart Bengtsson, Martin W. Miles, Svetlana I. Kuzmina, Vladimir A. Semenov, Genrikh V. Alekseev, Andrei P. Nagurnyi, Victor F. Zakharov, Leonid Bobylev, Lasse H. Pettersson, Klaus Hasselmann and Howard P. Cattle; Arctic climate change – Observed and modeled temperature and sea ice variability; Nansen Environmental and Remote Sensing Center, Report No. 218, Bergen 2002; Tellus 56A(2004), p. 328 –341, Corr. 559-560.

    >James E. Overland; 2006, “Arctic change: multiple observations and recent understanding”, Weather, Vol. 61, p. 78-83.

    >James E. Overland, Michael C. Spillane, Donald B. Percival, Harold O. Mofjeld; 2004, “Seasonal and Regional Variation of Pan-Arctic Surface Air Temperature Over the Instrumental Record”, Journal of Climate, Vol.17, pp.274-288.

    > Lennart Bengtsson, et.al., op.cit (Part A, I); See also: K.F. Drinkwater, 2006, “The regime shift of the 1920s and 1930s in the North Atlantic”, in: Progress in Oceanography, p.135.
    https://judithcurry.com/2013/04/10/historic-variations-in-arctic-sea-ice-part-ii-1920-1950/

  148. Barry says:

    Boomie maybe ask that idiot why on an overcast day when the sun is still overhead the car doesn’t heat up if back radiation is the main driver of the climate providing so much more heat than the sun then indeed the cloud cover should add more heat to the car. You know like in a greenhouse on a sunny day when a cloud comes over and it gets instantly hotter from the increased back radiation. My own greenhouse doesn’t work that way but apperantly theirs does.

  149. boomie789,

    Your idiot said, “This is so many levels of misunderstanding, it’s hard to know where to start…”

    This is such a standard response. Anytime you can provide a lengthy description, you are accused of being so misguided that it would take a book to explain all your mistakes. It’s an easy way to reduce your logic to a heap of crap, without really commenting constructively on it. It’s a disguised form of refusing to engage in a constructive dialogue. It’s so lame. I’ve seen it numerous times.

    Anybody who can actually carry on a different kind of conversation, using different words than the popular format, is somehow confused or unable to grasp basics, so the reasoning seems to go. If you don’t speak their language, they simply refuse to engage, offering this tired response as their cover.

    It’s most laughworthy.

  150. They have to avoid the language and definitions of thermodynamics at all costs. This is their primary imperative.

    In fact this is a very good way to characterize their basic m.o.: the avoidance of the language and concepts of actual thermodynamics.

    Now that we can see that that’s their first imperative, we should think of language which *directs* them to the language of thermodynamics. Well, this is why I frequently refer to the definitions, etc.

    But since we know that that’s their strategy, there must be some way to counteract it that is more manipulative than merely begging them to acknowledge the correct language and definitions.

  151. Philip Mulholland says:

    Jopo @ 2020/02/21 at 7:28 PM
    Thanks for the link to the works of Alexander J. Dessler
    https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=A.+J.+DESSLER+&btnG=
    https://en.everybodywiki.com/Alexander_J._Dessler

  152. boomie789 says:

    Idiot’s response-
    You severely misunderstand the model. But ok. Ignoring that. Isn’t the air on Earth also trapped?

    Edit: Add-on question. If CO2 doesn’t block infrared, how does this experiment work?

    A true Pigeon, did I say C02 doesn’t block IR?

    And why would this idiot say “block” and not reflect or re-emit like he is supposed too.

    Seriously, this dude is one of the worst Pigeons I’ve encountered.

  153. boomie789 says:

    @ Barry

    Right, are they from another planet? No, not even, they would have to be from a completely different universe with different physics.

  154. geran says:

    boomie, all that video proves is what is already well known. Radiative gases absorb and emit. We all already know that!

    The photons from his hand are being absorbed and then emtited in ALL directions. They bounce off the glass until they get reflected out. They do NOT go back and warm his hand!

    He’s amazingly stupid, and doesn’t even know how to set the correct volume level!

  155. What geran said is what I was going to say: CO2 absorbs and then emits in all directions — the radiation no longer goes straight through in the line of sight of the camera, and so it is, of course, reduced in that direction of sight, because it is going in all other directions.

    Now about this: “You severely misunderstand the model. But ok. Ignoring that. Isn’t the air on Earth also trapped?”

    Good Lord ! — the answer is “no”, the air on Earth has mass, UNLIKE RADIATION, and air, therefore, is under the influence of GRAVITY, … UNLIKE RADIATION, which does NOT respond to gravity. You severely misunderstand the difference between the molecular realm and the atomic realm, which means it is your mind that is trapped in ignorance.

  156. Barry says:

    The air on earth is trapped. I guess these people think that rockets are sent through the greenhouse ceiling door to escape our atmosphere and then the door is closed quickly before all the air gets out. Must be why we have to make them go so fast to achieve orbit or risk a huge air leak. Why do these cults open their mouths,better to be thought stupid than remove all doubt

  157. CD Marshall says:

    Don’t fret boomie. idiots are everywhere and PhDs are the worse. This is the last reply I recieved from PhD #2…
    PhD “I did not miss that point.
    However you missed this point. How do you account for all the IR radiation that SHOULD be radiating into space but instead is redirected back towards Earth from GHGs? Therefore GHGs are part of the WARMING process of the Earth NOT the cooling process.”

    I replied (yes I set him up with my previous reply): “80% of IR is emitted to space with no interference. Of the 20% not even half goes back to Earth, I very much doubt a quarter.

    You do realize we aren’t talking about ALL ghg just the tiny portion of the tiny portion you guys claim is creating “out of control warming”.

    That ~15 micron photon is rarely re-radiated, instead broken down into a wider range of wavelengths and redirected in all directions.

    The open window for IR is around ~8 to ~14 micron, half of the re-radiated IR from CO2 emits in this window immediately.

    On top of that, reflection happens more than absorption. A reflected photon can also be immedialey ejected into space.

    I’m still not touching the finer details yet aside that a line spectrum is not a direct heat source therefore is limited to its source spectrum emission.

    Which means, at that level of energy could not warm up an ice cube, let alone a planet.”

    It has now been 2 days of silence. He’s till on the thread replying to others, he just won’t reply to me. The best you can hope for these days, is to shut them up. They will never admit what they already know, that they aren’t telling the truth.

  158. CD Marshall says:

    I briefly looked at that John Cook thread most of those comments were planted and his replies pre-written. Just saying from a former writer, it was pretty obvious. The comments and replies were too cohesive, natural speech doesn’t exist like that, especially on a “live thread”, it was a total staged show.

  159. Joseph E Postma says:

    BP: “It totally is like fighting against religious zealots.

    I call it Scientism. Most people unfortunately seem to inherently need some sort of religion to adhere to or faith to believe in and when they all rejected and gave up their actual religions, that part of their brains that “needs” to have faith in something better or smarter than they see themselves as latched onto academia and their establishment “science” which isn’t science at all, it’s just scientism. It acts like science, it pretends at science and parades around in the garb of science but it’s not science at all, it’s the opposite of science, it’s just bullshit dogmatic belief in whatever they’re told to fraudulently back up to continue to get their billions in government grants and funding and continue to be seen as these all knowing high priests of knowledge, that the rest of us lowly peon serfs are supposed to blindly follow and believe even when they are constantly proven to be wrong over and over and over and over again for decade after decade.”

    JP: “Exactly that. Well said.

    And when you talk to them, you realize that the academe are the dumbest people you have met in your life. Dumber than the gal who cuts your hair, dumber than the guy who picks up your garbage, dumber than the waitress, etc.”

    BP: “yet they think they’re the brightest, most enlightened, most brilliant humans to ever grace the earth with their presences.

    They really do remind me of some deranged corrupted “priest class” from like 500 years ago more than anything else.

    The arrogance and close minded dogmatic sureness in their own righteousness and their unquestionable correctness is absolutely mind boggling, especially when so many of them are constantly proven to be totally wrong over and over again, if not even just complete and total frauds who faked their research, their data and their findings to come up with predetermined outcomes they needed to come to in order to continue to get their lucrative funding and keep their lofty tenured positions.”

    JP: “I am really enjoying the way you’re characterizing and capturing all this. You are saying perfect things.

    They are so dumb they comprehend NONE of what they are doing. They are twirling twirling twirling all around in la-la-land in a jester outfit with a painted clown face, drawling a deep whirling voice with severe down syndrome and a drooling open-mouth smile plastered on their face, eyes popped open.

    That’s a scientist, an academic.”

  160. boomie789 says:

    @CD

    No doubt.

  161. “Dumber than the gal who cuts your hair, dumber than the guy who picks up your garbage, dumber than the waitress, etc”

    Actually, comparing climate-catastrophe experts to these people is insulting to these people, because these people are realists, doing real things, in a real world to survive.

    Good hair stylists can be pretty smart, as can anybody who works in food service. Trust me, you cannot be as dumb as some academics a physically-mentally execute a 300-person party perfectly, if you are dumb. And I bet there are some pretty smart people down on their good fortunes who pick up garbage too.

    I think climate-catastrophe academics set the standard for dumb. Let’s not raise their bar to the level of a good waitress. (^_^)

  162. Absolutely. Well said.

  163. CD Marshall says:

    I worked in restaurant and banquet service. Trust me smart and idiot brush shoulders in all walks of life from rich to poor from successful to pauper. The question still exists, how does an idiot like that make any money?

    I mean if they are a pauper idiot yeah you get it, but when they are the rich idiot, does not make a lick of sense.

  164. Jopo says:

    Hello

    hoping to get some help here to sharpen up a response.
    i have attached two snips I have drawn up One being my version of input courtesy from you guys of course and the other highliting the well mixed middle and upper troposphere. I.e there is no diurnal heating present here which indicates a well mixed atmosphere and hence there is no need to dilute the Sun. They are just refusing to accept the flat earth argument. Extremely difficult to discuss with them. They always fall back to back and forth circular logic as you have been discussing.

    Anyway below is my draft I am ready to post tomorrow morning 10 hours from now. Hope someone can help me better get message across.

    Also two One drive pics attached.
    ………………………………………….

    Now here is how I see the Earth.
    There is no dispute about the average TOA Top Of Atmosphere output.

    Attached is two snips. One is Direct from Connolly and Connolly refer to this link and then the 50.00 minute mark to the 52nd minute. Their work was to do with over 90 million data entries from data gathering weather balloons. Below is a SNIP of 1 month of 2 times daily readings, morning and evening. Above the Lower troposphere Diurnal activity does not exist. The atmosphere has become well mixed. All that convection is now well mixed. Refer to the Connolly’s chart and video link

    THERE IS NO NEED to AVERAGE out solar input assuming the Earth is Flat. The hemisphere energy input from the SUN is naturally distributed throughout the whole atmosphere after the sun drives the tropospheric weather system, where it establishes temperature differentials to drive convective systems and evaporates large quantities of water to provide for interesting instabilities within these convective systems.

    Their is nothing inconsistent about having higher energy on the day side that is gradually distributed over the 24 hour hour cycle / Earth Rotation.

  165. Jopo says:

    The reference to the Connolly paper is incorrect. it was a presentation they did not a paper. re this link. just a minute or two for the diurnal activity component. https://youtu.be/XfRBr7PEawY?t=3000

  166. Barry says:

    We should quit endulging these people they are not looking to be educated. The cult are simply arguing to make sense of their own stupidity. As Joseph said above people need to have some religion to cling to as they can’t seem to understand their own wealth. It is quite simply mob mentality,I’m part of something much bigger than myself and if you think I am wrong I will have to defend my beliefs regardless of what is true. If we ignore them and simply reply that they aren’t capable of grasping the reality of how the climate works it will drive them completely over the edge.

  167. Jopo says:

    Sorry guys why the links dont work. Will try this through dropbox. Frustrates me so much.

  168. Jopo,

    Your image should be no larger than 700 pixels wide, or else they will not fit in the dialogue box here. Actually, 750 pixels might be the max, but I always aim for around 700 pixels. If you are saving to Dropbox, you can just edit the pics down to sized, re-save, and they will appear at the new size. I’ve been through the frustration, lived through it, and learned. (^_^)

  169. boomie789 says:

    Idiot-I have to figure out what you actually do and don’t believe, cause you’ve mixed up concepts and said a lot of things that don’t make sense. But ok, we’re stuck on infrared reheating.

    The first question is why is Venus hotter than Mercury? The answer is the CO2 greenhouse effect, but since you don’t believe in that, I’d like to know how you explain it. Mercury is much closer to the sun and gets significantly more solar energy.

    The second question is how does an emergency blanket (or “space blanket”) work? These things are super thin and work primarily by trapping infrared radiation. But again, since you don’t believe in infrared reheating, I’d like to know how you explain it.

    Lastly, I presume you believe in “normal” infrared heating — you can feel the heat of a fire before the hot air reaches you. And you understand that CO2 blocks IR. So if an object radiates IR toward a CO2 barrier and the photons are blocked, a portion of them will come back. How do those photons know they’re “reheating” photons as opposed to the original infrared photons? What if they hit something cold that’s right next to the hot source — will they heat that up? And why does a bottle with CO2 heat up faster than one without?

    My somewhat lazy and quick response.

    -The temperature is measured at multiples the pressure of earth. Jupiter is also hotter than mercury, because of pressure.
    -It’s a blanket
    -The photons to not reverse are reflect directly back. They disperse in all direction once they hit the C02.
    The dispersed Photon will be a lower energy.
    Cold doesn’t add to hot.

    The IR blanket one actually pisses me off. It doesn’t double the IR energy!

    I really shouldn’t bother since he obviously didn’t even read my post. Or he is incapable of comprehending it.

  170. geran says:

    Good answers boomie. Also,
    -Venus has molten lava on its surface.
    -A space blanket is specifically designed to reflect.

  171. Joseph E Postma says:

    A space blanket stops convection.

  172. boomie789 says:

    Lastly, we also lose body heat through radiation — it simply radiates off our body. The reflective agent on space blankets — usually silver or gold — reflects about 80 percent of our body heat back to us.

    Not 200%

    https://adventure.howstuffworks.com/survival/gear/space-blanket1.htm

  173. Mercury has virtually zero atmosphere. Venus has an atmosphere 100 times more massive than Earth’s, which also pretty much blocks out most of the sunlight. Mmmm, … mass, gravity, pressure, temperature — think about it.

    A space blanket, I thought, both stops convection and REFLECTS some radiation.

  174. boomie789 says:

    Idiot-
    Who said anything about doubling the IR energy? What makes you think that’s supposed to happen?

    Me-
    Why should I waste my time if you didn’t even read my post.

    The model recycles the suns energy and adds it back to itself, doubling the suns input through back radiation, off C02 in the atmosphere.

    Lastly, we also lose body heat through radiation — it simply radiates off our body. The reflective agent on space blankets — usually silver or gold — reflects about 80 percent of our body heat back to us.

    Not 200%

    https://adventure.howstuffworks.com/survival/gear/space-blanket1.htm

    And that is aluminum made by NASA, not less than 1% composition of C02 in the atmoshere.

  175. Three up to date alarmist arguments for GHE
    1. Absorption spectrum of CO2 seen from satellites proves heat is “trapped”
    2. Increase in “effective radiating level” from more CO2 causes surface to warm
    3. IR cameras like FLIR prove back radiation effect

    It’s hard to keep up with all the nonsense.

  176. geran says:

    I’d love to see an “absorption spectrum of CO2 seen from satellites”. I always hear about such, but all they ever have are computer simulations. It’s almost like there’s no such thing as an actual spectrum taken from satellites….

  177. Joseph E Postma says:

    That’s a good concise summary minarchist. They’re worth going over:

    1. Absorption spectrum of CO2 seen from satellites proves heat is “trapped”

    We know that their primary tactic is to misuse the language of thermodynamics, as is done here. Given that heat is a transient phenomenon when energy transfers across the boundary of a cooler surface as compared to the energy source’s surface, then this statement has no discernible meaning. From the 1st Law, dU = H + W, we see that heat (H) is identical with work (W) since they appear together being added together. The work that heat performs is in the increasing of the agitation, in the acceleration of the thermal vibrations, of the cooler surface. Heat transfer is directly related to the increased movement at the microscopic scale of the cooler object’s molecules, just as we normally think of work as being involved when we move something.

    So what would “trapping work” mean? If anything, it could possibly mean stopping the work from being performed? That would be ineffectual, since this is the cessation of anything occurring. Or does it mean to “trap the movement” that the work has done? That would be ineffectual too, since the movement was performed anyway.

    But this is precisely the intention of sophistry: to create terms and imply concepts which have no connection to reality and no rational meaning at all. There is no such thing as “trapping heat”, and no way to interpret what it would actually mean. Heat flow is spontaneous and transient and represents the performance of work done at the molecular level – it doesn’t mean anything to say that one can “trap” this; it is like saying that we can “trap running”, or that we can “trap swimming”, or that we can “trap typing”. Heat isn’t a noun, it is a verb, just as work is a verb. This is why in the First Law heat and work appear equated to a delta, i.e. to a CHANGE, the dU, change in internal energy.

    If you ever see one of them talking about “trapping heat” again (of course, this is constant), then ask them how to trap “running”?

    As for the absorption spectrum: that represents that either IR energy has been resonantly scattered given that CO2 is already vibrationally activated from inter-molecular collisions, and/or that the CO2 absorbed the energy and was thus “warmed” by it. On the latter point, the absorption spectrum at the CO2 wavelengths would then indicate that heat has in fact been transferred, not “trapped”. There is of course nothing wrong with the warmer surface heating the cooler atmosphere, and, this is NOT their greenhouse effect.

    2. Increase in “effective radiating level” from more CO2 causes surface to warm
    3. IR cameras like FLIR prove back radiation effect

    These can go together simply because they contradict each other immediately. Again, as we know, their aim is to create language which has no rational meaning and which is constantly self-contradictory. Most of their goal seems to be just to confuse thinking…which is of course a step along the way to their goals of implementing pseudoscience to then use for political control, etc.

    Is their greenhouse effect warming caused by 2 or 3? Which one is it? Those are different mechanisms. Typically their greenhouse effect is first described via 3. However, all that number 3 indicates is that the atmosphere has a temperature. We can remotely detect with FLIR the temperature of an ice-cube. Like an ice-cube, the atmosphere is merely a passive object that has somehow attained a temperature from heating which was previously performed upon it. From what process did the atmosphere attain its temperature? Of course: from the Sun. Remotely detecting that an object has a temperature does not mean that the object is capable of supplying the performance of heat to a warmer object.

    The atmospheric gas in the presence of a gravitational field and hard surface at the bottom of itself then sorts itself out so that the average thermal energy state is found somewhere in the middle regions: it is mathematically impossible for the average thermal state of the atmosphere to be found either at the very bottom of the atmosphere or at the very top, *even though* most of the heating of the atmosphere occurs at the bottom via conduction with the sunlight-heated surface. Because of gravity, because it is a free gas, and because of statistical mechanics (mathematics), the average thermal state of the atmosphere must be found around the average of the atmosphere, i.e., around the middle altitudes (of the troposphere).

    This now goes to 2, in that the only way to increase the altitude of the average thermal state of the atmosphere would be *to have more atmosphere*. This is the reason why Nikolov and Zeller determined their solution that near-surface air temperature was a function only of the solar constant and the mass of the atmosphere.

    So as one can see, the alarmists are inventing language and concepts which are indefinable and un-understandable, and which are not consistent with basic mathematical laws, etc. In other words they’re just lying and sophizing, because they can get away with it, because few people in the world have the ability to parse and deconstruct their statements. The wonder is that they have the support of media and some governments and NGO funding which is intent on pushing their language onto the public, which thus indicates an entire and very well thought out campaign at play.

  178. boomie789 says:

    Idiot-
    I did read your post, but you only linked a single diagram, not where it came from. Your video also doesn’t have any sources linked.

    In the diagram, the arrow pointing down from the atmosphere is smaller than the arrow pointing up. They are also labeled differently — one is Tₐ and the other is Tₛ. If it was supposed to be double, they would be the same size and labelled the same thing, right? I’m still not understanding why you say it should be 200%…?

    Does it make more sense to you if it reflects just a little bit back, like 20%? Maybe you saw a typo somewhere?

    -ME

    240w/m^2 supplied from sun, 240w/m^2 emitted from earth, in (6) and (7) the atmosphere re-emits 240w/m^2 back and is added to the suns input of 240w/m^2.

    the atmosphere is literally doubling the suns input, not 20%.

    The model is pseudo science.

  179. boomie789 says:

    In number (8) that would be 480w/m^2 leaving?
    I want to put what temperature that is.

  180. Jopo says:

    Ok lets try it again with the resized pics

    Does this sound reasonable. Please help out as I have a bad habit of not be clear!

    ……………………………………

    Now here is how I see the Earth.
    There is no dispute about the average TOA Top Of Atmosphere output it is 240W m2

    Attached is two snips. One is Direct from Connolly and Connolly presentation “Balloons in the Air” they did last year at this link and then the 50.00 minute mark to the 52nd minute. Their work was to do with over 90 million data entries from data gathering weather balloons. Below is a SNIP of 1 month of 2 times daily readings, morning and evening. Above the Lower troposphere Diurnal activity does not exist. The atmosphere has become well mixed. All that convection is now well mixed. Refer to the Connolly’s chart

    THERE IS NO NEED to AVERAGE out solar input by assuming the Earth is Flat. The hemisphere energy input from the SUN is naturally distributed throughout the whole atmosphere after the sun drives the tropospheric weather system, where it establishes temperature differentials to drive convective systems and evaporates large quantities of water to provide for interesting instabilities within these convective systems this energy is then lost to space with the well mixed upper troppo.

    Their is nothing inconsistent about having higher energy on the day side that is gradually distributed over the 24 hour hour cycle / Earth Rotation.

  181. Joseph E Postma says:

    That’s really good! That is all a very good representation and further explanation of my own diagram:

    “The hemisphere energy input from the SUN is naturally distributed throughout the whole atmosphere after the sun drives the tropospheric weather system, where it establishes temperature differentials to drive convective systems and evaporates large quantities of water to provide for interesting instabilities within these convective systems this energy is then lost to space with the well mixed upper troppo.”

    Excellent!

    “Their is nothing inconsistent about having higher energy on the day side that is gradually distributed over the 24 hour hour cycle / Earth Rotation.”

    Of course that’s not inconsistent…it is REALITY! What is of course inconsistent is their flat Earth!

  182. JoPo,

    I second your great clarification.

    Well stated and well illustrated.

    Glad you won the battle of image re-sizing. (^_^)

  183. Hey JoPo – I don’t know what happened but somehow a couple of your comments had extremely toxic links that somehow totally wreck the WordPress interface. I have had two people contact me, plus my own experience, where One-Drive tries to take over when some of your comments are looked at or something.

    I checked and some of your links seemed to be invoking MS Office or something?

    The DropBox links should be OK…but there were other links I’ve removed from your other comments which were really weird looking…somehow they were trying to go to MS Office and/or One-Drive, etc. Causing the page to freeze entirely and everything to disappear.

    Anyway, just FYI. Be careful with links. Just use DropBox for images.

  184. Jopo says:

    Oops. Sorry. I will delete the one drive when i get home. Around 1/2 an hour from now. My apologies

  185. Jopo says:

    Thank you Robert Kendle for the heads up on the image sizing.

    Also again my apologies to link screw.up

  186. Jopo says:

    Thank you Guys and of course JP. This is a fantastic site that is continually asking questions of each other. You have given me the confidence to better express my thoughts with these morons. I see of late a greater push from you guys to takle the never ending merry go round.

    Here is my latest. Hope I got it right.. slight change to the stuff above I posted above earlier. I am chuffed with the ending if I say so myself. I promise not to post my POSTs again. Just feel I have finally been able to almost express my thought’s exactly on paper.

    If anything glaringly wrong please let me know. Better forewarned.

    …………………..

    Now here is how I see the Earth.

    There is no dispute about the average TOA Top Of Atmosphere output of our climate on this world is 240W m2

    Attached is two snips. One is Direct from Connolly and Connolly presentation “Balloons in the Air” they did last year RE. from the 50.00 minute mark to the 52nd minute shows that the diurnal activity of output radiation ceases. It becomes one thus indicating a well mixed atmosphere from across the whole globe at these heights.

    The work of the Connolly’s used about 90 million weather balloon data entries.

    Below is a SNIP of 1 month of 2 times daily readings, morning and evening looking at the well mixed atmosphere at around the mid troposphere. Diurnal activity of radiation ceases at this height!
    The atmosphere has become well mixed. All that convection is now well mixed.

    There is NO reason why as NASA has already pointed out that the AVERAGE SOLAR Hemispherical INPUT cannot be used to explain the heating requirements that drive the tropospheric weather system, where it establishes temperature differentials to drive convective systems and evaporates large quantities of water to provide for interesting instabilities within these convective systems.

    So as the Flat Earth science guys do they use a known excepted output and then assume this is the Input to comply with the Conservation of Energy Law. Energy cannot be Created or destroyed. Fien if your dealing in averages.

    They ASSUME the EARTH is FLAT. And holy moly they then find the SUN does not have the energy to drive the tropospheric weather system, where it establishes temperature differentials to drive convective systems and evaporates large quantities of water to provide for interesting instabilities within these convective systems.

    Just as your Chook did not cook after they averaged out the Cooking time and energy required for the 1 Hour to equate to the Global rotation period of 24 hours as per the opening piece.

    Flat Earth theory is CRAP science being used by the Settled Science elite!

    Nikolov / Zeller, Joseph E Postma, Connolly’s and Holmes. Each of those GUYS use LAWS of Science to prove their argument. Collectively it FITS

    None of those guys create energy to complicate science with non proven hypothesis or non observations. These guys just use observations, vetted NASA planetary data and LAWS of Science.

    Occam’s Razor. Keep it SIMPLE STUPID

  187. Philip Mulholland says:

    “I guess these people think that rockets are sent through the greenhouse ceiling door to escape our atmosphere”
    Barry
    No. they go out through the atmospheric window 😉

  188. Philip Mulholland says:

    Many years a colleague of mine with a wicked sense of humor was undertaking a geophysical gravity survey in the Midlands of England.
    A local approached him to ask why he was peering into a little box on the ground.
    I am measuring the earth’s gravity field was the answer.
    Why? was the inevitable next question.
    Because we are surveying for a new airport and we want to find out where it is easiest for the planes to take off from the ground.

  189. Joseph,

    Thank you for your cogent explanations which even this non-physicist can understand. Still, these are the responses I get from the sophists:

    “And HOW does the FLIR detect it? By measuring the IR backradiation FROM the sky and clouds.
    That backradiation doesn’t transfer net heat upwards (the surface OLR is still higher than atmospheric DLR), but it does reduce the net flow FROM the surface to TOA -> less cooling off.”

    –Apparently, the belief is that heat is being transferred from the colder atmosphere to the warmer FLIR camera? ???

    AND,

    “No one is claiming that CO2 molecules “trap heat”, that’s at best an misunderstanding.
    The planet can only cool to space via radiation (convection distributes heat between surface & atmosphere). If there’s less radiation (the gap in the spectrum), more heat remains in the system”

    –To which I replied,

    “More heat remains” is no different from “trapping”, both nonsense. Heat is not a “thing”.

    The denial of thermodynamics it a force not easily overcome.

  190. boomie789 says:

    lol, I mislabeled myself as Naive Fool. True in a sense, but compared to that guy, I know the mind of God.

  191. Jopo,

    You slipped and used the big-sized version of one of your images again. [Jopo curses profusely]

    And my last name is … K-e-r-n-o-d-l-e — pronounced Ker-NO-duhl , … not “Kendle”, but you’re welcome.

    Numerous people have reeked havoc with my last name, and so I’ll forgive you this time. (^_^)
    At least you didn’t rhyme it with noodle, as many do, somehow magically seeing a second “o” in there.

  192. jopo says:

    lol, apologies all round.

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Google photo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s