The Nub of the Argument

An email exchange worth sharing:

“Dear Joe,

The chap I have been corresponding with has, I think, come to the distillation of his argument and it is below, in his second paragraph, here in italics.

In my opinion he is wrong on many fronts, not the least of which is the lack of any historical correlation between global temperatures and levels of atmospheric CO2.

Be that as it may,  if you could please look at his argument that seems to come down to 1.68 watts/sq meter being held in our atmosphere and let me know what you think, that would be very helpful.

His point:

Let’s concentrate on the unit of measurement of that incoming energy, which is Watts per square meter.  We know that 1 Watt is 1 joule per second of energy. So the unit of measurement by definition tells us that energy is constantly arriving from the Sun. (My comment – Though as I understand, it arrives in packages – quanta) It is not a single finite fixed amount of energy that just hits us once. The Sun is overwhelmingly our main source of energy, and it’s a massive amount of energy as I mentioned in my previous email. If none of the Sun’s energy ever escaped our atmosphere then the earth would have boiled millions of years ago.

But for 12 thousand years that incoming and outgoing energy has been in astonishingly stable equilibrium, never causing more than 0.4 degrees Celsius of variation either side of the average. What the extra bit of CO2 is doing, even though it instinctively sounds like a tiny quantity, is altering that equilibrium just enough to create a surplus retention of energy of that 1.68 Watts per square meter I mentioned in my last email. That’s not new energy. No energy has been created here and no thermodynamic law has been broken. That energy came from the Sun. It’s just that our atmosphere is no longer letting that 1.68 Watts per square meter back out into space like it used to, so the energy can therefore ONLY do one thing, and that is to make the atmospheric temperature go up.

Trust you are well,

Kind Regards

DM”

My reply:

Hi DM,

The problem is that these people have created an entirely false interpretation of data based upon their false theory of the greenhouse effect, which comes from the logically false model of the flat Earth with cold sunshine. You see the progression there, the connection, and how one falsity leads to the others? They’ve created an entire mechanics and theory of how flat Earth must work, but do not recognize or comprehend that the logic is fundamentally flawed from step one, way back. This is compounded because the empirical data can be interpreted in any which way because the empirical data is noise, is the natural statistical variation of the system itself. They’re looking at noise over short time scales and interpreting it as signal. They also just make stuff up, because there is no way of knowing how stable the Sun has been over 12,000 years. The last 12,000 years has also been a warm period, which is unusual because most of the time for the past few million years the Earth sits in an ice-age. And it is not just solar radiance which is a factor in any case, as the magnetic activity of the Sun is what seems to drive the cycles of climate.

Now here is the fundamental exposure of his argument: If GHG’s emit radiation, but non-GHG’s do not, and do not forget that non-GHG’s make up ~99% of the atmosphere…then GHG’s provide a way for the atmosphere to emit energy. Non-GHG’s have poor or little emissivity…they do not emit, whereas the entire concept of GHG’s is that they do emit. If GHG’s emit half to the surface and half to space, but non-GHG’s do not emit at all…then what gases are holding on to thermal energy and which gases provide a vector for the atmosphere to shed energy?

Non-GHG’s are already holding on to thermal energy and are already preventing the atmosphere from emitting to space and hence are already helping to keep themselves at higher temperature. If you add in GHG’s, which are collisionally-dominated with the other non-emissive gases of the atmosphere, and these GHG’s can emit the energy they pick up from the other gases in the atmosphere, and they can emit this energy to space…then now we have “opened a valve” which provides a vector or method for the atmosphere to lose thermal energy.

So you see: If you look at the real basic physics, their argument falls apart because it is in 100% contradiction to the physics of emissivity, etc.

They said: “No energy has been created here and no thermodynamic law has been broken. That energy came from the Sun. It’s just that our atmosphere is no longer letting that 1.68 Watts per square meter back out into space like it used to, so the energy can therefore ONLY do one thing, and that is to make the atmospheric temperature go up.”

Note that he acknowledges that the energy came from the Sun. But this is the thing: At what forcing potential did it come from the Sun? Did it come from the Sun at -18C worth of heating potential spread over the entire surface of the Earth at once? If you think that, then you must also think that this -18C energy can be recycled a few times to create higher temperature. And this is their flat-Earth mechanics. However, in reality, solar energy came in at ~+121C heating potential and created the entire climate and weather system, and further, if we refer to some basic physics, and you must have seen this quoted by me elsewhere, heat can only flow down temperature gradients and cannot be recycled. The heat from the Sun on the surface cannot come back to the surface again to cause more heating.

They said: “If none of the Sun’s energy ever escaped our atmosphere then the earth would have boiled millions of years ago.

If you want to talk about “radiation being held back from emission which then leads to warming of a surface”, then this is a discussion about a surface’s emissivity, as we touched on above. However, one needs to *lower* a surface’s emissivity in order to make it raise in temperature. So a few things: A surface’s emissivity is not a tunable parameter – it is a fixed property of the surface itself. The presence of GHG’s does not change another surface’s ability to emit. Secondly, if GHG’s have better emissivity than non-GHG’s, then this means that GHG’s will both be cooler and also provide a mechanism for cooling to rest of the gas where non-GHG’s do not emit.

So they have an argument which they can make, sure. And on its own terms it cannot be defeated, because on its own terms it is entirely logical. But the problem is that its own terms are not connected to reality and leave out significant portions of basic theory, based as they are on a flawed initial model of reality, and also in consideration of their claimed empirical support which is nothing more than the natural noise variation of the system.

Hope this helps,

Joe

Follow on:

This is all about the concept of a paradigm, a “box” within which all thinking takes place so-to-speak, and how the boundaries of the box limit what type of thinking and what type of ideas can be contained within the box. This is intimately related to the idea presented in Plato’s Allegory of the Cave which I wrote about in my books.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/paradigm

Definition of paradigm

1: example, pattern

especially: an outstandingly clear or typical example or archetype

//… regard science as the paradigm of true knowledge. — G. C. J. Midgley

2: an example of a conjugation or declension showing a word in all its inflectional forms

3: a philosophical and theoretical framework of a scientific school or discipline within which theories, laws, and generalizations and the experiments performed in support of them are formulated

//the Freudian paradigm of psychoanalysis

broadly: a philosophical or theoretical framework of any kind

We all know the phrase “thinking outside the box.” Outside-the-box-thinking is what is said to be required when a solution to a problem cannot be found within the bounds of assumed knowledge and theory. We all know what this means.

What happens though when we create a box to bound our thinking, and then fight to protect that box’s limited thinking in the face of external knowledge which destroy the edges of the box? Typically we recognize such behavior as the providence of religion.

A few examples:

  • Ptolemaic (geocentric) astronomy is a paradigm within which one cannot envisage or imagine or postulate that the Earth moves in an orbit or rotates upon its own axis
  • Newtonian and Galilean mechanics and physics is a paradigm within which one cannot envisage or imagine or postulate that light speed is constant
  • Scientific materialism is a paradigm within which one cannot envisage or imagine or postulate the existence of mind existing independent of matter
  • Biblical literalist creationism is a paradigm within which one cannot envisage or imagine or postulate evolutionary theory and an incredibly “old” Earth

And pertinently:

  • Flat Earth theory is a paradigm within which one cannot envisage or imagine or postulate that the Sun heats the Earth and creates the climate and weather
  • Flat Earth theory is a paradigm within which one must envisage or imagine or postulate that heat flow can be reversed and that energy can be passively recycled to cause amplified heating
  • Flat Earth theory is a paradigm within which one must envisage or imagine or postulate that the passive atmosphere provides twice the energy input than the Sun provides
  • Flat Earth theory is a paradigm which must ignore and reject existing swathes of known theory in thermodynamics and which must ignore the importance of consistency with empirical physical reality

Don’t let yourself get put into the box!

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

402 Responses to The Nub of the Argument

  1. boomie789 says:

    Debunker
    >The GHE doesn’t exist
    Believer
    >Yes it does, C02 is like a space blanket, look at this C02 in a bottle under a headlamp, green houses get hotter than the surrounding environment, how do you explain Venus then?
    Debunker
    >None of that is the greenhouse effect…*explains greenhouse effect model*
    Believer
    >No no you’re misinterpreting it/it’s to simple/it’s more complex than that.
    Debunker
    >Then when can you add cold to hot?
    Believer
    >C02 is like a space blanket, look at this C02 in a bottle under a headlamp, green houses get hotter than the surrounding environment, how do you explain Venus then?
    >Debunker

    Something like that lol. They just keep you going in circles.

  2. Follow on:

    This is all about the concept of a paradigm, a “box” within which all thinking takes place so-to-speak, and how the boundaries of the box limit what type of thinking and what type of ideas can be contained within the box. This is intimately related to the idea presented in Plato’s Allegory of the Cave which I wrote about in my books.

    https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/paradigm

    “Definition of paradigm

    1: example, pattern

    especially: an outstandingly clear or typical example or archetype

    //… regard science as the paradigm of true knowledge. — G. C. J. Midgley

    2: an example of a conjugation or declension showing a word in all its inflectional forms

    3: a philosophical and theoretical framework of a scientific school or discipline within which theories, laws, and generalizations and the experiments performed in support of them are formulated

    //the Freudian paradigm of psychoanalysis

    broadly: a philosophical or theoretical framework of any kind”

    We all know the phrase “thinking outside the box.” Outside-the-box-thinking is what is said to be required when a solution to a problem cannot be found within the bounds of assumed knowledge and theory. We all know what this means.

    What happens though when we create a box to bound our thinking, and then fight to protect that box’s limited thinking in the face of external knowledge which destroy the edges of the box? Typically we recognize such behavior as the providence of religion.

    A few examples:

    Ptolemaic (geocentric) astronomy is a paradigm within which one cannot envisage or imagine or postulate that the Earth moves in an orbit or rotates upon its own axis

    Newtonian and Galilean mechanics and physics is a paradigm within which one cannot envisage or imagine or postulate that light speed is constant

    Scientific materialism is a paradigm within which one cannot envisage or imagine or postulate the existence of mind existing independent of matter

    Biblical literalist creationism is a paradigm within which one cannot envisage or imagine or postulate evolutionary theory and an incredibly “old” Earth

    And pertinently:

    Flat Earth theory is a paradigm within which one cannot envisage or imagine or postulate that the Sun heats the Earth and creates the climate and weather

    Flat Earth theory is a paradigm within which one must envisage or imagine or postulate that heat flow can be reversed and that energy can be passively recycled to cause amplified heating

    Flat Earth theory is a paradigm within which one must envisage or imagine or postulate that the passive atmosphere provides twice the energy input than the Sun provides

    Flat Earth theory is a paradigm which must ignore and reject existing swathes of known theory in thermodynamics and which must ignore the importance of consistency with empirical physical reality

    Don’t let yourself get put into the box!

  3. Carl says:

    Another absurdity of his argument is his assertion that the Earth/atmosphere thermodynamic system is out of balance by +1.68 W/m2.

    Solar radiation measured at the top of the atmosphere averages ~1380 W/m2. 1.68 W/m2 is only 0.1% of that average. Outgoing longwave radiation at the top of the atmosphere averages ~240 W/m2. 1.68 W/m2 is only 0.7% of 240 W/m2.

    The typical margin of error of the instruments being used measuring both incoming solar radiation and outgoing IR radiation is plus or minus 5%! He is therefore quoting a number (down to the 1/100th of a W/m2) that is way, way, way below the margin of error of the instruments being used to measure the W/m2!

    In other words his +1.68 W/m2 number is completely made up, i.e., imaginary. Science has its limits. It can never be more accurate than the instruments being used to measure objective facts in the physical world.

    The imagination on the other hand is without limit. One can imagine with ease that the Earth/atmosphere thermodynamic system is out of balance by +1.68 W/m2 and that that imbalance is being caused by rising carbon dioxide levels. The imagination, after all, is not bound by the laws of physics and empirical evidence.

    One can consequently imagine with ease that rising carbon dioxide levels are causing more frequent and intense droughts, storms and heat waves and are causing rising sea levels, melting glaciers and warming oceans, which one can further imagine is directly harming animals, destroying the places they live, and wreaking havoc on people’s livelihoods and communities.

    In fact, sometimes “scientists” themselves are the ones that have the most active imaginations of all.

  4. arfurbryant says:

    DM,

    There are several misconceptions with your opponent’s arguments.

    First:
    [“But for 12 thousand years that incoming and outgoing energy has been in astonishingly stable equilibrium, never causing more than 0.4 degrees Celsius of variation either side of the average.“]
    Says who? As always the pro-CAGW crowd make an assumption that it is scientifically honest to compare proxy data with modern thermometer data. (And, furthermore, they then compare older manual thermometer observations with modern platinum electric thermometer readings, automatically taken continuously and recorded every minute!) The very idea that one can objectively compare x-axis data from different sources with vastly different margins of error is scientific fraud. The ‘stability’ of historic data is due to the lack of instantaneous – and accurate – observations.
    [“What the extra bit of CO2 is doing, even though it instinctively sounds like a tiny quantity, is altering that equilibrium just enough to create a surplus retention of energy of that 1.68 Watts per square meter I mentioned in my last email.”]
    Has anyone noticed how the pro-CAGW crowd have subtly changed the thrust of their argument? As Joe points out, this guy admits that the heat energy is overwhelmingly from the Sun. Correct. What is NOT correct is to say that CO2 ‘traps’ heat. The bottom line is that they have changed their argument from one of ‘back-radiation’ causing surface heating to one of ‘insulation’ by the additional CO2. Again, NOT correct. When have you ever put hot coffee into a vacuum flask only to find that the coffee is hotter when you pour it out? It may be true that the CO2 molecule (or any non-condensing GHG molecule) can delay the path of outgoing LWIR to space but the very idea of this delay needs to be considered carefully. Any delay caused by CO2 molecules absorbing LWIR and re-emitting ‘back-radiation’ (after losing some of the gained energy to low-energy collisions with non-GHG molecules) is negligible. The delay can be measured in seconds (or, at most, a few minutes) and yet the increase in CO2 is measured in months or years (130 ppm in 160 years is less than 1 ppm per year!). So the ‘surplus retention of energy’ comment is nonsense because the energy is NOT retained, it is merely re-routed on its way to space.
    Additionally, any radiation re-emitted from the atmospheric CO2 molecules to the surface HAS NO THERMAL effect globally, since each CO2 molecule is colder than the surface (globally. Some very small areas may be subject to an inversion but over the planet these are tiny areas and short-lived). The fact that the source of the ‘back-radiation’ is colder means it emits energy that is of lower average energy (longer wavelength) than the average energy being emitted from the planet’s surface. Therefore the internal (thermal) energy of the surface molecules CANNOT be increased by this back-radiation. It is thermally irrelevant to the surface molecules.
    The new argument that CO2 works like an insulator is specious. Given the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere (0.04%), it would be equivalent to having a string vest made up of 0.04% cotton and 99.96% air. There is no measurable insulating effect.
    So this guy’s arguments fall down on two fronts:
    1. The theory (that atmospheric CO2 can cause warming of the planet (or atmosphere) is wrong. There is no mechanism!
    2. Valid empirical evidence is non-existent.
    With the pro-CAGW crowd, always look for the assumption they make at the start of their musings.
    Objectivity is the key!

    All the best,

    Arfur

  5. arfurbryant says:

    Erratum: Please insert ‘Second:’ before the second set of quoted/ italic text!

  6. MP says:

    Here is the new Dr. Robert Holmes equation.

    It disproves the GHG hypothesis but also disproves that other things like albedo and emissivity has an overall effect on the equilibriium state, what is (according to this formula) dictated by the solar input at the toa and the mass off the atmosphere related pressure.

    That seems to confirm the Connoly et al findings, that the atmosphere is in thermal equilibrium state (in vertical columns). And has a pressure wave way (that can skip layers) to get in pressure equilibrium to the pressure level provided by the solar input at the TOA (and/or the electromagnetic field) and the mass of the atmosphere.

    So there is a radiative equilibrium but that seems to be a result of a dictating pressure equilibrium.

    Any toughts on this?

  7. geran says:

    MP, 0.85 X 737 = 626 K = 353 ºC = 667 ºF ???

    Mucho problema, señor.

    No way, Jose.

  8. geran says:

    MP, you already showed how to calculate it. That was wrong, as I indicated.

    If you have a new equation, I will gladly examine.

    There is no need to blast off to another planet to disprove the bogus GHE. It is easily disproven with the physics on this planet.

  9. MP says:

    @ geran

    Don’t over simplify the few words that fit in a tweet to prove something that doesn’t fit your conditioned narrative. Feel free to read the paper. It is downloaded over 20k times. Withouth serious math opposition.

  10. boomie789 says:

    Geran always happy to burst a bubble lol.

    The real trick is to break the box(paradigm)

    People automatically conflate the greenhouse effect with venus.

    For every person we reset the paradigm, 10 more are born into it.

    Whe never inoculated our children in the first place.

    Daunting task. I think this is why Postma likes Propatarianism so much. We could make spreading this mind virus illegal on the basis of falsehood and false promise.

    We need to take the “GHE” to court.

    You need the force of law behind this or they will keep lying forever. They can always lie faster than we can correct their lies.

    Mark Twain-A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes

    Just my 2 cents.

  11. boomie789 says:

    “There is no need to blast off to another planet to disprove the bogus GHE. It is easily disproven with the physics on this planet.”

    100% true they are just lying faster than we can correct them

  12. MP says:

    You guys are not getting it. The key point is what are the key points that determin the equilibrium temperature state.

    It is not against what Joseph postma states. It is just another layer, suggesting that the equilibrium state is also and mainly because of a pressure equilibrium.

  13. That’s really great MP! Shows that atmospheric constituents don’t matter.

    When people finally see that these fellows have *demonstrated* that there is no GHE…people will then begin to wonder WHY and HOW that is possible.

    We here have the answer why! And the philosophy of this is going to have to become core pedagogy, and will introduce the (what should be obvious) idea of *ontological mathematics* to science, i.e., that science must use math that makes logical sense and has logical foundations and to recognize when we create “ad-hoc” mathematical tricks, etc. Of course all this is already known…it is just not appreciated and the current academics seem too lazy and stupid to appreciate it.

  14. geran says:

    MP, I didn’t “over simplify the few words”. I just proved them wrong. I asked for a “new equation”, which you cleverly ignore.

    And, what is my “conditioned narrative”? Or is that all you really have, some kind of imaginative slander?

  15. CD Marshall says:

    I have another shot at Potholer with your videos should I take it and which ones?

  16. CD Marshall says:

    Odds are he’ll refuse to respond again, but he has an upcoming video where he is going to “debunk” Top 10 climate myths he might add you to it.

  17. boomie789 says:

    @CD Marshall

    I nominate the one that talks about real greenhouses.

    If I had a vote that mattered.

  18. CD Marshall says:

    Joseph Postma,
    I meant you JP, in my head anyway.

  19. CD Marshall says:

    Not discounting you Boomie 🙂 I really like the response he gave Richard Beaumont (?) last year it was good.

    LOL you should send him an invitation personally. Folly has been on his site but they made an idiot out of him, sadly. He was not as well versed in climate clown 101 back then, apparently. They twisted his words and got him confused by baiting him and then copying his replies.

    I always like to use “the anchor bait” for such occasions. I plant a word which I use as the anchor of the argument in the first statement such as this,

    “Show me anywhere in particle physics an experiment where 0.08266 eV (or below) can increase a warmer (15C) temperature more under natural conditions?”

    My anchor is “natural” which will be used as my bait as well. Then they show a series of experiments that are not “natural’ and you refer back to the original anchor until you filter out the trolls and maybe one honest person will eventually reply (just don’t hold your breath and wait).

  20. [[What the extra bit of CO2 is doing, even though it instinctively sounds like a tiny quantity, is altering that equilibrium just enough to create a surplus retention of energy of that 1.68 Watts per square meter I mentioned in my last email. That’s not new energy. No energy has been created here and no thermodynamic law has been broken. That energy came from the Sun. It’s just that our atmosphere is no longer letting that 1.68 Watts per square meter back out into space like it used to, so the energy can therefore ONLY do one thing, and that is to make the atmospheric temperature go up.]]

    Peeyu! 1.68 watts per square meter up in the atmosphere is heating it up but the atmosphere itself doesn’t register it since air temperature drops by 18.8F per mile up to the tropopause, which is what they call the lapse rate.

    See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lapse_rate

    People living in ignorance like this are like criminals on Better Call Saul with many many misdemeanors who are hoping to get off on a felony. Or more like the Three Stooges, who have a rap sheet longer than a freight train.

    Ever hear of the Three Strikes and You’re Out Law? Let’s count the strikes for this dude.

    1. It’s not about energy or power, watts per square meter included. It’s about HEAT. CO2’s absorption and emission wavelength of 15 microns corresponds to a Planck radiation temperature of -80C, about the same as dry ice, which can’t melt an ice cube. No matter how much -80C radiation CO2 in the sky emits, it’s not doing diddly for Earth’s climate any more than a big block of dry ice suspended 1 inch over the road will melt ice on it. A large portion of solar radiation is in the visible wavelengths (.4-.7 microns), which don’t heat the atmosphere and just travel through to the surface, where the ground and water have molecules with the right quantum structures to turn some of it into heat, which means kinetic energy in the molecules after disappearing the energy. The rest just bounces off, else we couldn’t see.

    The infrared heating wavelength range stops at about 10.6 microns, the temperature of water ice (0C or 32F). At the high end, +56.7C (131.4F) (hottest surface temperature recorded on Earth) has a Planck radiation wavelength of 8.8 microns, so the heating range is rather narrow. Microwave wavelengths are typically 100,000 microns (10 cm), which has a guess what of -273.1C (-469.6F). You can pump a million watts per square meter of microwave energy into a bagel and it won’t even start cooking. Therefore, talking about pure watts per square meter is Three Stooges physics.

    See; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infrared
    Or calculate the temperatures online with this toy: https://www.omnicalculator.com/physics/wiens-law

    2. Another big mistake is to ignore the fact that Earth’s atmosphere is a giant Carnot heat engine that turns heat into work to generate wind and storms, along with the lapse rate (drop in air temperature with height as it trades heat for work to expand against the decreasing pressure). That means there is no upper atmospheric energy balance, nor can there be unless Earth loses its atmosphere like the Moon. It’s more like a car with a gasoline engine and a gas tank that turns gasoline into work to move down the highway. And I didn’t even mention water evaporation and precipitation, which just increases the cooling of the surface.

    See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carnot_heat_engine

    3. Wanna really go Curly? Planck radiation isn’t emitted by gases in the first place, only solids and liquids that have a surface so that watts per square meter has a meaning. Gases are made of disconnected molecules bumping into each other, whereas solids and liquids have intermolecular bonds. If gases emitted Planck radiation they would talk about watts per cubic meter, so let’s drop that dead end trail. The only solid or liquid surfaces when it comes to Earth’s climate are the Sun’s and the Earth’s. The Sun emits 5800K (5500C) heat, and after solar radiation heats it, the Earth’s surface emits at most 56.7C (131.4F) Planck radiation, cooling itself down to equalize with the atmosphere, which is usually cooler than the surface. The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics forces heat to flow from a hotter to a cooler body, hence the atmosphere acts 24/7/365 like a giant chimney to vent the heat harmlessly via conduction and convection to the near absolute zero of space after wasting most of it on the way to create work to power the atmosphere’s Carnot heat engine

    Only the infamous globalist Marxist U.N. IPCC global octopus of kept scientists, academics, journalists, and politicians tries to push the hoax that atmospheric CO2 absorbs and emits quantum level radiation that causes global warming including heat waves, droughts, and famines. They’re NUTS 🙂 But even they don’t claim atmospheric CO2 emits Planck radiation. The IPCC’s Dragon in the Sky is one of the biggest fake scientific hoaxes of all time, but don’t try to tell them that, they’re smarter and better educated that we are, and we’re the stooges as far as they’re concerned even though they’re the ones with closed minds and a political agenda.

    See for yourself how the IPCC’s lame attempts to use an upper atmospheric energy balance to prove the CO2-driven greenhouse effect lead to absurd contradictions even on their own level:

    https://principia-scientific.org/un-ipcc-earth-energy-budget-exposed-as-junk-science/

    Let’s quit here. I can hardly contain my yawns. How boring to try to teach 5th grade physics to the Three Stooges. The teachable moment here is that CO2 greenhouse theory is dead and needs to be buried, but too much money is being made from pushing it to stop it anytime soon. In the meantime let’s hope smart savvy people like us aren’t hated too much for having beautiful minds.

    Here’s my killer essay doing the math on the -80C hoax of the IPCC global Marxist octopus. It’s as simple as that: Don’t let them complicate it. Just say no to -80C and the IPCC. -80C can’t melt a bucket of frozen pee.

    http://www.historyscoper.com/thebiglieaboutco2.html

  21. boomie789 says:

    @CD Marshall

    You might have made a good lawyer

    This is the vid I’m talking about

  22. boomie789 says:

    Well I geuss you could still be a lawyer if you wanted or are not one already lol.

  23. tom0mason says:

    Oceans and the ‘radiative disequilibrium’ …
    From http://21sci-tech.com/articles/ocean.html
    “The warming supports the contentions of global-climate modellers that the planetary radiative disequilibrium, for the period of 1979 to 1996, may be the result of “excess heat accumulating in the ocean.”
    And since then we’ve had an El Nino, and a Super El Nino that also lead to more sophistry about ‘radiative disequilibrium’ caused by heat coming out of hiding in the oceans.

    It is just not logical to have scientist saying there is an ‘Energy Balance’ when all the factors are not known and so poorly accounted for. I for one do not believe that the so called ‘Energy Balance’ operates as climatrophists believe.
    I would think that it is more likely that nature stores as much energy as is can during warm phases, and releases it over the cool phases. However the natural chaos of the climate system would mean both events are somewhat ‘lumpy’.

  24. CD Marshall says:

    LOL actually Boomie my skills were honed in psychology by dealing with mental illness in my family such as multiple personality disorder, paranoid schizophrenia, chronic depression and a host of other things. You learn to choose your words carefully.

    That video is a really good one!

  25. Here’s my take:

    Let’s concentrate on the unit of measurement of that incoming energy, which is Watts per square meter. We know that 1 Watt is 1 joule per second of energy.

    Yes, for sure, and you need to hold onto this definition and truly understand it, as you continue your line of thought. Based on what you yourself have just defined, a “watt” is a RATE of energy FLOW — it is energy flow through time, for a specified area. You cannot figure the actual quantity of energy, until you apply this RATE of energy FLOW to the AREA for which it is DEFINED, and until you specify the AMOUNT OF TIME that this RATE operates on the specified AREA for which the RATE is defined.

    In other words, to figure ENERGY QUANTITY, you have to multiply “watts” or “joules/sec per square meter times seconds , and then multiply this result by square meters, … or [(joules/sec)/m^2 x secs] x m^2 = (joules/m^2) x m^2 = joules.

    Again that’s [(W/m^2) x secs] x m^2 = or [(joules/sec)/m^2 x secs] x m^2 = (joules/m^2) x m^2 = joules.

    So the unit of measurement by definition tells us that energy is constantly arriving from the Sun. (My comment – Though as I understand, it arrives in packages – quanta) It is not a single finite fixed amount of energy that just hits us once.

    More specifically, the unit of measurement (Watts per square meter) tells us the CONSTANT RATE of energy arriving from the sun over a SPECIFIC AREA.

    Your comment about quanta shows that you are confusing concepts. Your prime focus has been on the macro-measurement of RATE of energy flow, and this does not really relate immediately to the micro-measurement of quanta. You need not consider the quantum level here — you are talking about the macro-level, so this thought need not be in the discussion at hand.

    The Sun is overwhelmingly our main source of energy, and it’s a massive amount of energy as I mentioned in my previous email. If none of the Sun’s energy ever escaped our atmosphere then the earth would have boiled millions of years ago.

    Yes, positively, the sun is overwhelming our main source of energy. And, yes, the Earth has had a valve of sorts for releasing the sun’s absorbed energy. What do you think this valve is? Does’ nitrogen easily emit to space? Does oxygen easily emit to space? These two primary atmospheric gases comprise over 90% of the entire atmospheric mass. Are nitrogen and oxygen highly infrared-reactive gases? Is over 90% of Earth’s atmospheric mass highly infrared-reactive? No. But carbon dioxide IS highly infrared-reactive — it absorbs AND EMITS radiation. This strongly suggests that carbon dioxide is partly responsible for cooling Earth, along with water.

    But for 12 thousand years that incoming and outgoing energy has been in astonishingly stable equilibrium, never causing more than 0.4 degrees Celsius of variation either side of the average.

    Yes, the stability does seem impressive.

    What the extra bit of CO2 is doing, even though it instinctively sounds like a tiny quantity, is altering that equilibrium just enough to create a surplus retention of energy of that 1.68 Watts per square meter I mentioned in my last email.

    Okay, now I would ask you to remember the details about the unit of measure you started off talking about — Watts per square meter or W/m^2/. You are now speaking of this RATE of energy FLOW as though it is a “retainable” quantity — it is NOT.
    By the mathematics and physics definition of a “watt/m^2”, you cannot RETAIN it — it is NOT a “retainable” quantity — it is a RATE of flow of a quantity through time for a specified surface area for which it is defined. Your statement, therefore, is meaningless.

    That’s not new energy.

    That’s not energy at all, because that does NOT define “energy”. You do not really comprehend what a “watt per square meter” is, and so you do not really comprehend how to properly talk about it.

    No energy has been created here and no thermodynamic law has been broken.

    No ENERGY, per se, is even being talked about. Rather, you are trying to talk about a RATE of energy flow for a specified area, as though this RATE is energy itself — again, it is not. You do not understand how to use the units that you are trying to talk about.

    That energy came from the Sun.

    Whatever that “that” is you refer to is NOT a quantity of energy, for which “retaining” can even be a consideration. You cannot “retain” a W/m^2 any more than you can “retain” a “miles per hour per Indy 500”. You’ve got to speak of energy correctly before you can speak of how it enters and exits the planet.

    It’s just that our atmosphere is no longer letting that 1.68 Watts per square meter back out into space like it used to, so the energy can therefore ONLY do one thing, and that is to make the atmospheric temperature go up.

    As you continue to think incorrectly about the very unit of measure that you started off talking about, you continue to create a chain of errors about your incorrect usage, which collapses, like dominoes, into a full-blown absurdity having no correct connection to actual physics, as I have come to understand it.

  26. CD Marshall says:

    Joseph this guy sounds like you as to the opposition arena, Blair D. Macdonald:
    https://www.researchgate.net/publication/328927828_Quantum_Mechanics_and_Raman_Spectroscopy_Refute_Greenhouse_Theory
    Read the preface on his pdf

    “It should be made clear from the outset, nobody-whether proponents or sceptics to the ensuing climate debate-agrees with what I have uncovered here.”

    “…nobody has told me where I am wrong…”

    “…This includes many professors and Phds from both sides, including Will Happer, Antony Watts…”

  27. I really appreciate item number 3 in historyscoper 2020/03/07 at 4:49 PM
    https://climateofsophistry.com/2020/03/07/the-nub-of-the-argument/#comment-62756

    To take that a step further, shouldn’t we be talking about energy DENSITY, as in joules per CUBIC meter of atmosphere, when we talk about energy in the atmosphere?

  28. geran says:

    Hans Schreuder (RIP) left us with some great thoughts:

    “Here is a short list of the pseudo-skeptics that I have personally had comms with and who steadfastly refused to admit they were wrong: GWPF, CFACT, CEI, Friends of Science (!), Singer, Lindzen, Spencer, Curry, Evans, Nova, Happer, and then some unmentionably moronic prats.

    “You are the enablers of the AGW scam by legitimizing the ‘greenhouse effect’ and ‘climate forcing’. You are more ignorant than an uneducated peasant.”

    From my own email exchanges, I can confirm the same from Lindzen and Spencer.

    https://ilovemycarbondioxide.com

    Also of note:

    No thanks to all those pseudo-sceptics who still accept that earth lives in a “greenhouse effect” due to “greenhouse gases”; long may they suffer for their ignorance and outright stupidity despite all that has been published on this site, Tech-Know-Group,, Principia Scientific, Climate of Sophistry, Climate Change Dispatch, Climatism and many other worthy sites around the world that know the truth about how the sun interacts with our atmosphere.

    Unfortunately, Hans didn’t leave us with any silly graphics for the kids….

  29. Then there is also the claim that CO2 has been trapping 1.6W/m2 of energy. The dumb ass acknowledges that a Watt is a Joule per second, but fails to comprehend just how many seconds have passed since the industrial revolution! That’s a lot of extra joules! 🤦‍♂️

  30. CD Marshall says:

    If this guy only had Joseph’s model he was so close…
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=57pU2F-bIQs

  31. boomie789 says:

    @Geran

    If we payed as much attention to the newer generation as the left/alarmist do, we wouldn’t be in this situation.

    Like I said, for every 1 person we reveal the truth to, 10 more are indoctrinated.

  32. boomie789 says:

    Also RIP to Hans he sounds like a cool guy.
    Respect.

  33. 52 mega joules of energy “TRAPPED” every square meter of the planet after just one year! 😱😱😱

    And this has been going on since the start of the industrial Revolution!! 😱😱😱😱😱

    That’s like Giga joules! All stuck at the surface! Catastrophically Warming us to like infinity or something!

  34. geran says:

    boomie: If we payed [sic] as much attention to the newer generation as the left/alarmist do, we wouldn’t be in this situation.

    That makes no sense, unless you are a Leftist.

    boomie: Like I said, for every 1 person we reveal the truth to, 10 more are indoctrinated.

    Where did you say that, and what “truth” have you revealed?

  35. boomie789 says:

    We have let the leftist take over academia, the media, and most of the west to be honest.

    The left starts early getting their paradigm ingrained into the heads of children.

    “For every person we reset the paradigm, 10 more are born into it.”
    3:39pm.

    It’s like immigration. For every 3 immigrants we let in, especially from the 3rd world, we get 2 left voters and 1 right voter. If we let In 1million per year that’s 330,000 plus left voters every year.

    Also the right is having less babies.

    So every day we let the left have control of the academia and media and anything else really, it’s an uphill battle.

    We have to outlaw the”Green House Effect”.

  36. geran says:

    If that’s really your thinking, then convey it. There’s no need for distracting, immature graphics. These are serious times.

  37. boomie789 says:

    Believe me, I know how serious this is.

    But one of the best things a soldier can have in times of war, is a good sense of humor.

  38. boomie789 says:

    And guns, guns help a lot too. We have plenty of those lol.

  39. CD Marshall says:

    geran, this was in honor of your ice cubes…

    Troll said, “wait… what?! “Climate change by CO2 is literally impossible”? For real? LOL! Can you please state you claim against the 700 scientists that signed the endorsement to cut down CO2? That would be a sight to remember… go away amateur…”

    I said,
    “Happy to, ice cubes can’t warm the surface up more, toss some on the ground and you’ll see. 15 micron photon has less energy than that.”

    Sometimes less is better than more.

  40. geran says:

    boomie, clowns provide the humor….

    More please.

  41. geran says:

    You just won, CD.

  42. boomie789 says:

    @geran

    Lol, jk. I’m pretty sure we are on the same side. 👍

  43. geran says:

    boomie, we’re NOT on the same side. I recognize evil when I see it. You are perverted.

  44. hahaha wtf geran!! lol…omg…thanks for the laugh that was great…

  45. boomie789 says:

    ? Lol?

    I’m confused. The clown picture or actually me?

  46. boomie789 says:

    Ah nvm. Leave it at that lol.

  47. geran says:

    boomie finally admits he’s confused.

    He still has a long way to go.

    (JP, I hope boomie’s perversion does not affect the monetarization of your site. But, you’re likely safe with Fabreze. That’s an air freshener, right?)

  48. boomie789 says:

  49. F that is so FN funny…….lol

    I can’t stop laughing…seriously…this has gotten hilarious…

  50. geran says:

    Joseph, if you think this is hilarious, you should spend some time monitoring the clowns on Spencer’s site. Boomer is small-time.

  51. Robert Kernodle says:
    [[I really appreciate item number 3 in historyscoper 2020/03/07 at 4:49 PM]]
    ”To take that a step further, shouldn’t we be talking about energy DENSITY, as in joules per CUBIC meter of atmosphere, when we talk about energy in the atmosphere?]]

    You still don’t ‘get’ it. A gas can’t emit Planck radiation. It’s just disconnected molecules banging together and equalizing their temperature. Only when they coalesce into a liquid or solid can conduction create a constant internal temperature object with surfaces that can support Planck radiation. The IPCC wants us to believe that CO2 molecules bouncing around alone emit 15 micron radiation that causes global warming, hence all CO2 emissions must be stopped so they can foist global Marxism on the ruins. This kind of radiation would be one quantum at a time, but the quantum world ceases to exist in the macro world. Even if it were +40C radiation the CO2 molecules aren’t solid dry ice and there is no power-wavelength distribution, just individual 15 micron photons that can’t melt an ice cube. Actual dry ice emits photons at all wavelengths, and 15 microns is just the peak power wavelength. In short, the IPCC hoaxers want to pretend there’s a greenhouse in the sky with a solid roof, when there’s nothing but thin air, a sick mental con game. When air can stop the wind, I’ll believe them 🙂

    A hoax is a HOAX. Don’t give them any respect or thought. Just say no to the IPCC and -80C!

    Only I have a complete New Real Climate Science Course that reduces the IPCC to the size of a peanut and provides the foundation for a CO2-free climate science. As is typical throughout history, the lone genius gets no funding, credit, or publicity, while the hoaxers are raking in billions to churn out mountains of fake science lit. that will have to be scrapped one day when my ship comes in and my real climate science gets the funding, probably long after I’m gone. Meanwhile roll up your sleeves and get serious and join my students. I give it away free, and all you can do is learn the truth. I’m not cracking a whip, but others are getting ahead of you so why keep stalling? You might end up as one of the lucky ones who breaks the IPCC’s back and starts getting funding to build on my foundation.

    http://www.historyscoper.com/newrealclimatesciencecourse.html

    T.L. Winslow (TLW), the Historyscoper ™

  52. boomie789 says:

    @historyscoper

    LOL, found this on your website. Good sense of humor.

    ty for you work.

  53. historyscoper wrote:

    You still don’t ‘get’ it. A gas can’t emit Planck radiation. It’s just disconnected molecules banging together and equalizing their temperature.

    I’m not sure what it is that you think I don’t get. I spoke of thinking in terms of energy per cubic meter. ENERGY. ……….. NOT FLUX, as the pseudoscience greenhouse advocates do. ……. ENERGY. …….. JOULES.
    I am saying nothing of Planck radiation. I am speaking of the most basic quantity that the alarmists misunderstand and misrepresent.

    A gas has volume. That volume has energy. There can be a measurement, therefore, to represent the energy in that volume — energy density. That’s all I was alluding to. I think we agree.

    I give climate alarmists nothing, trust me, except suggestions about how to distinguish ENERGY from FLUX.

    I DO get it.

  54. CD Marshall says:

    someone wants ‘proof’ an ice cube emits at around 10.7 micron, anyone?

  55. Kernodle: “Energy” is irrelevant when it comes to understanding Earth’s climate. Every handful of dirt has enough nuclear energy to blow up a city. All we need to understand is the flow of heat energy from the surface to space, and how CO2 does diddly.

    Marshall: [[someone wants ‘proof’ an ice cube emits at around 10.7 micron, anyone?]]
    It’s 10.6. Use the toy:
    https://www.omnicalculator.com/physics/wiens-law

  56. CD Marshall says:

    Thank you TL you just broke stupid in my head. Ice for gad’s sake, its ice it freezes at 273.15 Kelvin never thought of just running it through the WL that was just too simple.

  57. historyscoper

    I don’t know why you are trying to argue with me, when I agreed with a very important point that you made. What I totally disagree with is your last statement that “energy” is irrelevant. Really?
    And then you emphasize a point that has the word, “energy” in it?

    It’s ALL about ………… “energy”, and, more importantly, it’s all about the correct way of talking about ……………. “energy”.

    I’m not going to focus on words the way YOU want me too, emphasizing ONLY points that YOU want to make in the way that YOU want to organize them and phrase them. Look at the resonance of our shared words, see the pattern of agreement, and back off on the preaching demeanor. I get that you are on the same page as everybody here. Don’t get so caught up in your mission that you cannot see when somebody is on your side.

  58. boomie789 says:

  59. Boomie you have such a talent with the memes, it really is great. It’s impressive and fantastic!

  60. boomie789 says:

    I’ll take it. Ty. You’re intelligence is impressive as well.

    Leaving this here for others to look at.

    First, note that watts is energy over time (joules/second) so by changing latency of the energy, the watts change.

    Think of it like where the sun is a 10v 1amp battery, and the Earth is a capacitor that discharges energy proportional to the amount of stored coulombs. The battery flows in and the capacitor gets to a certain level of energy. Now reduce the amount of energy output on the capacitor, the number of coulombs rise. That number of coulombs is analogous to how temperature is experienced.

    On this post

  61. boomie789 says:

    Omg, your…not you’re.

  62. I want to return to the original statement that I made about historyscoper’s item #3 in a previous post of his, which I found to be in agreement with my own point of view — I’ll quote his passage exactly:

    Planck radiation isn’t emitted by gases in the first place, only solids and liquids that have a surface so that watts per square meter has a meaning. Gases are made of disconnected molecules bumping into each other, whereas solids and liquids have inter-molecular bonds. If gases emitted Planck radiation they would talk about watts per cubic meter, so let’s drop that dead end trail.

    Now he might have been joking, when he mentioned “watts per cubic meter”, but the joke, as I was later suggesting, is precisely that they are NOT talking about cubic meters. Even worse, they are NOT talking about ENERGY per CUBIC METER, when they should be.

    I am completely on board with the idea that gases are not producers of blackbody radiation. But they ARE subject to energy analsysis, via volume, energy-density considerations, rather than area, surface-flux considerations.

    Area, surface-flux consideration of the atmosphere is the fatal ERROR of the climate catastrophistas. They try to smash a volume of gas into a surface, then locate this fake surface over a flat Earth, and then try to force a physics concept developed for surfaces onto this now fake flat atmosphere over this fake flat Earth. Then they create a fake mathematical physics to manipulate their fake ideas resulting from their NOT really understanding the fundamental definitions of what they are talking about.

    Then when you try to point out basic errors in how they are using their words to create their fake mathemafizziks, they tell you “let’s not focus on the semantic difference between ‘heat’ and ‘energy'” or some other such sophistry to turn the discussion away from proper thermodynamic language that results in proper math and proper physics.

    They then, via their mathemafizziks, declare that they have violated no laws of thermodynamics. Their minds are so entrenched in their own errors that they have forgotten (or never learned) how to think straight. Crooked thinking gets developed into a proper-sounding language, transmitted to leaders who cannot think for themselves on certain subjects, and then we get abominations like the Green New Deal or Carbon taxation or zero-carbon energy — all delusions of compromised minds.

  63. Just another example of how CO2 hysteria is corrupting language:

    https://www.greenerpackage.com/certifications/domino_sugar_carbonfree-certified

    … distorting the whole context of the phrase, “carbon free”.

    … putting a label on SUGAR, making some claim about its being “carbon free”, via some distorted conception of a definition and contextual use, when one of the main constituents of sugar itself is CARBON !

    I can’t take it ! — Sugar, whose chemical formula is C12H22O11, is “carbon” free !

  64. This is all about the cognitive dissonance and associated reduction of consciousness embedded at the heart of the climate change program. They do this shit on purpose…they WANT us to not be able to communicate rationally or sensibly.

  65. They want to disconnect us from our reality…leading to our extinction. This us a perfect example calling sugar “carbon free”. Embedded in that also is the other layer of implying or assuming that carbon is bad in some way. You see the layers? All intended to disconnect us from reality at multiple levels.

  66. boomie789 says:

    @Robert

    Willie Soon always makes that joke at the beginning of his speeches. Lol, carbon free sugar.

    @1:05

  67. I’m not done yet [rave continuing]:

    … carbon-based life, whose life-giving breathing process depends on carbon … dioxide as a breathing regulator, can now eat their favorite desserts composed of carbon-infested sugar, yet rest assured that their desserts are made of certified “carbon free” sugar !!

    When head shaking isn’t enough, shake your whole body.

  68. boomie789 says:

    @Robert

    *carbon free sugar*

  69. boomie789 says:

  70. CD Marshall says:

    How would you write out Wien’s law for 15 micron/Kelvin problem. I already have the answer but I want to understand how to do the equation.
    They describe it as this: λ max= b / T,
    T= is an absolute temperature of a black body
    b=2.8977729 mm*K is the Wien’s displacement constant.

    As usual, thank you.

    Sometimes everyone needs a break and step back, take a breather, I just did. I’m making weekends more relaxed and hitting the studies in the weekday. I’m trying this new thing where I don’t respond to every idiot who replies (work in progress).

    I do find Boomie’s memes helpful to lighten the load, a little bit of humor helps like in all things, with some moderation 🙂 troll bashing is stressful and we are overwhelmed in numbers. That’s doesn’t matter for we are Sparta!

    Whatever that means.

  71. CD Marshall says:

    Well Potholer is either going to block me or we’re going to war. Line up the Army Men boys this is about to get serious.

    Full disclosure: I may have blown up a few army men in my childhood with firecrackers and fire…And I re-headed my sister’s barbie once or twice…usually with the Hulk or a G.I.Joe once with Ken, supporting the future transgender rights of Barbie loving children everywhere.

  72. Rudi K. says:

    It so sad to see the correspondent concerned by such thoughts as,

    “If none of the Sun’s energy ever escaped our atmosphere then the earth would have boiled millions of years ago.”

    “It’s just that our atmosphere is no longer letting that 1.68 Watts per square meter back out into space like it used to, so the energy can therefore ONLY do one thing, and that is to make the atmospheric temperature go up.”

    He is not alone amongst the climate alarmed. However, anyone who knows basic thermodynamics and quantum theory can put him straight. So it is clear that climate scientists do not understand much physics.

    1. The earth radiates away heat all the time. Earth’s outgoing IR flux is around 240 W/m2 averaged over its surface area. Some of this come from the surface at its average of 288K. Some comes from the cloud layer at around 255K, or from GHGs in the atmosphere at the same sorts of temperature.

    2. We can use the Planck black body spectrum to estimate the temperature increase required to radiate away an “extra 1.68 W/m2”. The calculation tells us that an increase in surface temperatures of 0.3C will do the trick, or an increase in cloud temperatures of 0.4K. So this gives an order of magnitude of the impact of 1.68 W/m2 in the range of just 0.3C to 0.4C.

    3. I expect his 1.68 W/m2 comes from an IPCC estimate of anthropogenic forcing. The natural variability in net solar influx due to variation in solar output and changes in cloud cover/albedo is greater than this amount.

    The “climate alarmed” should stop worrying about the weather.

    And the “climate alarmists” who claim to be “scientists” should stop peddling untruths to them about “heat being unable to escape to space” and the “Earth boiling dry”.

  73. As I am beginning to understand things, the energy flow is from … (NO2 and O2) … to CO2, … NOT the other way around.

    Alarmed people don’t think about the fact that CO2 molecules are embedded WITHIN the whole mass of the atmosphere, consisting mostly of N2 and O2. All those moving N2 and O2 molecules are colliding with the CO2 molecules, and the N2 and CO2 molecules are colliding with the CO2 molecules more frequently than the CO2 molecules are de-exciting from having been vibrated by 15 micron photons.

    The warmth of the greater atmospheric mass as a whole,thus, redistributes energy via CO2, where CO2 has more of a cooling effect and a convection-perpetuating effect than a heating effect, as I’m seeing it.

    As often pointed out by JP, the alarmists, thus, invert reality.

  74. Around 5% CO2 is normal blood CO2 in humans. CO2, thus, regulates the flow of air in our bodies.

    How poetic, if we also came to realize that CO2 regulates the flow of air on our planet.

    And yet CO2 is deemed a “pollutant”, while carbon (of our carbon-based biological existence), is viewed as a menace.

    Humans are walking pits of pollution. We are made of carbon sin, and so we are all born sinners. Carbon is Satan. See how it has shaped into a religion? — a sort of anti-Satanic religion? Worship by rejection of Satan, with salvation coming from ourselves the source of our born sins.

    It’s soooooooooo much like religion, with all its contradictions and hypocrisy.

  75. CD Marshall says:

    I know enough to know this is nowhere close to the claimed IR greenhouse gas I mean they are using 750nm-1750nm as the effective reflection of IR so that’s between 1,665-3,864 Kelvin. But more input would be appreciated.

    https://www.brikbase.org/sites/default/files/ies_053.pdf

  76. boomie789 says:

    It is another dsygenic cult.

    It’s communism rebranded.

    Population control, stifle human progress and innovation, create a prison planet two class system.

    Brought to you by the useful idiots.

  77. boomie789 says:

    This whole YouTube channel is a gold mine. I just finished watching a Tony Heller presentation. That is not at all what I thought he looked like lol. I always imagined long hair.

    This is a newer Willie Soon video. Whole bunch of our guys. DDPmeetings.

  78. CD Marshall says:

    So I’m been reading this https://www.brikbase.org/sites/default/files/ies_053.pdf
    Alleged proof of IR warming even though its not warming in this bulb.

    Found an excellent explanation from here from Joe, https://climateofsophistry.com/2013/10/26/greenhouse-fraud-20/

    So my brief conclusion,
    The simplest answer is if there’s no change in color temperature, then the filament has not gotten hotter. Your light bulb demonstrates what particle physics and thermodynamics already knew, energy can transfer in a system without a change in temperature. For there to be temperature increase energy must flow from hot to cold, one of the oldest equations in the book.

  79. CD Marshall says:

    I’m dealing with Pierre’s arch nemesis over at Potholer’s site, a Marco van de Weert, he’s a classic arrogant pretentious moron. Listen to this drivel:
    “Temperature increase since 1850 at least 1 degree (in other words, 20% of a glacial-to-interglacial transition), at least 75% anthropogenically forced – all according to the science.”

  80. Jopo says:

    Hi guys, So a bit of effort to try and really understand the SB law. Much stuff and much more even seems even contradictory. Brain is a little fuzzed. However I have put together as a starting point What the Earths surfaces Power output is based upon a known average surface input as defined by the WMO World Meteorological Organisation’s claim that the Earths surface temp is 15’C

    So using the Sb Law and the following inputs,
    Earths radius of 6,371,000 meters
    SB 5.670373×10^-8
    Emissitivity of 1 (I know)
    Earths avg temp being 15’C
    I got 390W m2 input. Very similar to the IPCC back radiation.

    I then asked what would be the output at the height of roughly 5 kilometers up at our average emissions height and global Average temp of -18’C using the surface 15’C

    Earths radius of 6,376,00 meters
    SB 5.670373×10^-8
    Emissitivity of 1

    The return result being shock horror obviously 240 W m2.

    So whilst I fully support the JP’s work I am now asking if anyone can see that the SB law negates the need for GHG’s if the AVERAGE surface input is 390W m2 and 5 Kms’s up it is only 240 W m2. Shock horro the Earths emissions.

    Q. Have I approached this correctly? I am still learning. So please advise where the logic is wrong.

  81. CD Marshall says:

    SO Van Weert replied.
    “The answer is “yes and no”. There is indeed a change in the color temperature if you do not lower the energy input*. In practice, however, you *do lower energy input (the current) to get the same ‘color temperature’ from the filament as without the IR coating and higher current. You use less external energy to create the *same temperature*. How does this work? Simple, the reflected radiation causes warming of the filament beyond that caused by the current itself, so you can reduce the current to get to the same temperature of the filament as before. You’ll find that this is also the mechanism by which the increased energy efficiency of the IRC bulbs is explained in the references I provided.

    And that mechanism descibed above for the effect of an IRC on a light bulb is the same as that of the greenhouse effect (apart from the efficiency – those coatings reflect almost all IR back to the filament, GHGs are not nearly as efficient, and apart from the fact that we can’t just reduce the energy input into the earth’s system).

    And no, it does not imply a runaway warming as you seem to hypothesize.

    So, once again, explain using your physics how an IR coating on the outside of the bulb can increase its energy efficiency. As soon at it involves the filament taking up the reflected IR radiation, thereby increasing its temperature, you’ve admitted that the greenhouse effect does not contradict physics/thermodynamics.”

    So now he’s twisting as per troll 101.

  82. CD Marshall says:

    Just did some fun calculations on Venus. You will never hear this from mainstream science. The surface of Venus is emitting only 20% of its main potential heat source: The core and as a “Reverse Earth”, a little solar energy.

  83. CD Marshall says:

    So in retrospect, Venus, even with a 92 bar atmosphere, a thin outer crust, over 1 million volcanoes, it is actually quite cool.

  84. boomie789 says:

    Awesome CD Marshall.

    Me and Naive Fool still going. Remember this guy builds sattalites.

    Naive Fool
    >Where do you think that 230W goes? It only has 2 options: be absorbed by the surface or bounce off it.

    If it’s absorbed, the surface heats up and emits more, because hotter things emit more.

    If it bounces off it’s going the same direction as the 460W, so the total emittance is both combined.

    You want it to disappear, which is not possible.

    [Take a look at a real model](https://blog.espci.fr/marcfermigier/files/2017/03/Radiative_HeatTransfer.pdf), instead of the strawman you’re using.

    Boomie
    > *“But can a cold atmosphere RADIATE toward a warm ground? Yes, it can!”*

    “Radiate toward a warm object”, yes. But absorbed by the warm object, NO.

    When you add ice to coffee, does the lower energy of the ice add to the coffee?

    300w/m^2 ice + 900w/m^2 coffee=1200w/m^2?

    That is literally what you are doing.

    You fundamentally misunderstand how thermodynamics actually works.

    That model is the same bull btw.

    Credit to geran for the qoute.

  85. Joseph E Postma says:

    “75% anthropogenically forced”

    That’s such BS most of the warming was well before we emitted any CO2 in sufficient quantities. But they just lie and doctor the data.

  86. Joseph E Postma says:

    “How does this work? Simple, the reflected radiation causes warming of the filament beyond that caused by the current itself, so you can reduce the current to get to the same temperature of the filament as before. You’ll find that this is also the mechanism by which the increased energy efficiency of the IRC bulbs is explained in the references I provided.

    And that mechanism descibed above for the effect of an IRC on a light bulb is the same as that of the greenhouse effect”

    That is a FN LIE! The coating is REFLECTING IR! This is not at all the same physics of the GHE where the GHE is a thermal process of heat flows. Reflection is *not* the same thing as thermal absorption followed by re-emission! In the latter case the situation and physics is about heat flow and energy frequencies and temperatures, etc., whereas in the former case (reflection) it has NOTHING to do with heat absorption or heat transfer or ANY temperatures at all.

    Do you see the sophistication and subtle degrees of obfuscation here?

    Because the filament situation is about *reflecting* IR energy, then what this is doing is effectively reducing the emissivity of the filament at IR wavelengths. In this case the argument follows as they usually describe it, because as I have stated many times, reducing emissivity for a given input thus requires a higher temperature. I had said that a surface’s emissivity cannot be tuned, and this is true. But in this case there is a quasi-tuning of emissivity going on because the reflective IR mirror around the filament effectively prevents the filament itself from emitting at IR wavelengths. It is a good optical engineering trick, indeed. But it is NOTHING to do with the way the GHE is derived in terms of heat flows and transfers and absorption, etc. GHG’s are *absorbing* IR energy, not reflecting it. And then after absorbing IR then GHG’s thermally re-emit in all directions, including out to space. The IR mirror for the filament does not emit IR outwards which it had thermally absorbed from the filament, whereas GHG’s do. Reflective surfaces have low thermal emissivity, and the low IR emissivity of the IR reflector around the filament essentially transfers its low emissivity at IR wavelengths to the filament.

    Now think of this: why is it a reflective IR mirror around the filament and not an absorptive IR blocking lens which just heats up and then returns energy that way, like the GHE does? This tells you that the situations are NOT at all the same between this filament engineering and the GHE. You cannot call reflection the same thing as a thermodynamic process following heat flows and energy absorption and thermal emissions, etc. How is reflection the same as thermal emission? They’re not, obviously. But this is the type of subtle obfuscation they want to pull over on you.

    You see: in this case with reflection, the exact same frequencies, the same original energy, from the source itself, is returned. Thus the low emissivity of the IR mirror is effectively transferred to the filament, because those very frequencies and energies are not leaving the filament.

    Whereas in the case with the GHE, the energy does leave the surface and does get absorbed into the atmosphere by GHG’s as heat transfer. The energy from the surface is thus gone. Now thermal energy can be emitted from the atmosphere, and emits in both directions AND it is *lower frequency*.

    Ponder on this carefully…because this is subtle but it is also completely fundamental.

    And so does thermally-emitted lower-frequency radiant energy have the effect of *effectively* lowering surface emissivity as the IR mirror does with the filament, but at the wavelengths which the cooler atmosphere emits at relative to the surface?

    The answer is no, because the energy emitted by the atmosphere is *not* the exact same energy emitted by the surface. With the IR mirror around the filament, the original energy from the filament is simply made to change directions, i.e. reverse, and with good engineering to mostly stay *contained at the filament*. It is the filament’s own original energy, its own frequencies, unchanged, effectively being prevented from leaving the filament, thus effectively lowering or “tuning” the emissivity of the filament at IR wavelengths. All that is great and fine.

    If you were to replace the IR mirror with instead an absorptive IR blocking filter, then the IR “mirror” would thermally absorb the IR and heat up. But now it re-emits it own thermal energy at its own respective, and lower, temperature, and thus at lower frequencies. It would be much easier to engineer this than an IR-selective mirror! But the IR *mirror* is used, not an IR *absorber*.

    Do you get this? Because this is about as subtle as it can get, and it has remained to give them an out. Please help collate and reduce and simplify this explanation of the physics, and the difference in the physics, etc.

    We have always said that there are no examples of the GHE being engineered for exploitation. The only they have come up with is with a light bulb filament? Why not engineer it at power-production scales!? The reason is this: Because this light bulb IR-reflective mirror around the filament is *NOT* the same thing as the GHE, because this engineering with *reflection* in close proximity to the filament is not the same thing as thermal absorption and re-emission, and this is why that light bulb was deigned to work via reflection, *NOT* IR absorption.

  87. Joseph E Postma says:

    *Reflection is not the same thing as thermal absorption.*

    Hello!?

  88. Joseph E Postma says:

    “When you add ice to coffee, does the lower energy of the ice add to the coffee?

    300w/m^2 ice + 900w/m^2 coffee=1200w/m^2?

    That is literally what you are doing.

    You fundamentally misunderstand how thermodynamics actually works. ”

    That is ALWAYS what they doing. And it is ALL that they are doing.

  89. CD Marshall says:

    Thanks Joe! Will be digesting this. This guy is a smug bastard. I’ve been going back and forth with him for days. He’s a freak’n moron and they are so utterly arrogant.

    Boomie you’ll never win the best you can hope for is they stop responding.

  90. CD Marshall says:

    More from this guy:

    Yeah, yeah, I know, you cranks believe that centuries of scientific understanding is all because of politics and all metaphysics.

    And all because your pseudophysics cannot even explain how an IR coating improves efficiency of a light bulb, and the supposed political pseudoscience can. {Even though I did explain it to him briefly}

    Throwing out irrelevant numbers about the lifetime of a photon {He calls less than a second in the atmosphere irrelevant} is just an attempt to divert from your inability to explain something that we, in the real world, can. It gets worse when you talk about single photons hitting some material. In the meantime we, in the real world, can measure the absorbing properties of greenhouse gases. Fewer photons reaching the detector on a satellite in those regions where greenhouse gases absorb. Less energy in that spectral window going out of the earth’s system. All things that your physics cannot explain.

  91. “Temperature increase since 1850 at least 1 degree (in other words, 20% of a glacial-to-interglacial transition), at least 75% anthropogenically forced – all according to the science.”

    I serrrrrrrrrrrrrriously doubt that we can even claim anywhere near a one-degree accuracy of temperature measurements that far back, accounting for the entire Earth. But if he wants to fantasize that we can, then let him keep deluding himself that this is possible (it isn’t). And even if it were possible, so what? — we are in an inter-glacial — nothing really spectacular about that, since this is how Earth seemingly has oscillated for millions of years (glacial, inter-glacial, glacial, etc.). We humans just happen to be living during one of those inter-glacials — the fact that we are living and experiencing it does not make it special.

    As for “75% anthropogenically forced”, I would like to see the “science” that proves this. In lieu of the fact that no such science exists, then I have to devolve my gentlemanly tone and call bull shit there — 100% pure.

  92. CD Marshall says:

    Another question when using the Spectral calculator to determine peak emissions how far do you spread the upper/lower limit?

  93. Joseph E Postma says:

    I just did explain it. Basic physics does explain it. THEY are wrong to think that reflection is the same thing as absorption…lol.

    “In the meantime we, in the real world, can measure the absorbing properties of greenhouse gases.”

    Yes…absorbing…not reflecting! Gave himself away. Does his pseudoscience distinguish between reflection and absorption? They’re pretty different processes!

    “Less energy in that spectral window going out of the earth’s system. All things that your physics cannot explain.”

    We have never stated any problem with spectral absorption. What is wrong is to say that this is identical to a reflective IR mirror. This is about thermal absorption, and whether thermal re-emission can add back to something warmer.

    They’ve created a new box for themselves. And in this box they have to plow over and hide subtleties and distinctions.

  94. “So whilst I fully support the JP’s work I am now asking if anyone can see that the SB law negates the need for GHG’s if the AVERAGE surface input is 390W m2 and 5 Kms’s up it is only 240 W m2. Shock horro the Earths emissions.”

    I think that this is precisely the point of JP’s work.

    And what you seem to have demonstrated is how radiative-greenhouse believers confuse, conflate, and alternate their meaning of “surface” to suit their needs.

    The “surface” for near-ground/near-water temperature measurements is at the very bottom of the atmosphere.

    The “surface” for Earth’s planetary emission necessarily INCLUDES much of the atmospheric mass, since we are talking about the whole mass of a planet, and since most of just the atmospheric portion of Earth’s entire mass is centered around the 5Km altitude, then this location is the best we can discern for a “surface” for the entire Earth/atmosphere system.

    Radiative-greenhouse fans erroneously collapse these two distinctive “surfaces” into one and the same, so that they can erroneously compare two entirely separate temperature metrics, and call the falsely determined 33-degree difference a “greenhouse effect”, for which, you are right, there is no need.

  95. “It gets worse when you talk about single photons hitting some material. In the meantime we, in the real world, can measure the absorbing properties of greenhouse gases. Fewer photons reaching the detector on a satellite in those regions where greenhouse gases absorb. Less energy in that spectral window going out of the earth’s system. All things that your physics cannot explain.”

    Let’s look at the assertion about, “fewer photons reaching the detector on a satellite in those regions where greenhouse gases absorb”. So, where are those photons? — after they are absorbed? ANSWER: Those photons are EMITTED very quickly, … in all directions, effectively interrupting their otherwise straight-line path to the detector — that’s why the detector does not register them — they have been dispersed in other directions away from it — that’s why the gap appears … “in those regions where greenhouse gases absorb” — that’s what an emission spectrum is — it’s a spectrum for GASES that absorb AND emit, and those places where they absorb, then quickly emit, dispersing the electrons, is where a detector “sees” gaps.

    It gets worse alright, but it’s this guy’s understanding that gets worse.

    And really, it’s worse than he might think, … even speaking of single photons, when really, as I understand it, at the most sophisticated level, we should be talking about FIELDS, where photons are just localities in those fields. But, okay, particles work for practical applications, as long as we know how to speak of them correctly. Photons don’t get trapped.

  96. CD Marshall says:

    I wish I knew the equation to determine in what directions photon scattering from a molecule would most likely take place and how they are broken down (or better yet just the stats). Does a 15 micron break off into 2 or 3 or 4?

    What determines the re-duplicate over dispersion? Chaos theory?

    A heated molecule cannot absorb another until it has reached a relaxed state. Once the molecules in a parcel of air is heated, all other photons are reflected. That means reflection is on the order of magnitude greater than absorption.

    Less than 1% of the atmosphere is greenhouse gases and not all of them can absorb IR. Reflection and straight ejection into space has to be staggering compared to absorption.
    Convection is certainly the means of heating the atmosphere and that does not require IR.
    So since convection creates agitated molecules and molecules collide transferring kinetic energy no absorption is possible in that mix is it?

    Can a kinetically agitated molecule still absorb? I thinking no.

  97. CD Marshall says:

    So the claim that 20% of IR is absorbed I’m finding hard to believe. 80% emits out the open window and of that 20% a “chance” of interception is possible. Do satellites even detect all photons exiting the planet or does it have to be directly in the path?

  98. boomie789 says:

    The 75% of warming attributed to humans is total garbage and lies. This is Tony Heller looking at the temperature record back to 1900 and almost half the data is fake. NOAA.

    @20:25 & lol @24:20

    Also, ty JP I understand absorbing/emitting and reflection better. I will ponder on that. I might even try and draw some pictures, lol.

  99. Jopo says:

    Thanks Robert Kernodle

    “Radiative-greenhouse fans erroneously collapse these two distinctive “surfaces” into one and the same, so that they can erroneously compare two entirely separate temperature metrics, and call the falsely determined 33-degree difference a “greenhouse effect”, for which, you are right, there is no need.”

    I figure that it is a given and not disputed that the Earths avg Surface temp is 15’C. Using this as an agreed starting point. It is shown mathematically without the need for greenhouse gases that we can calculate the temperature at a given height above the surface of the earth. That agrees with the alarmist.

    So how is it that they have been able to avoid something that is so straightforward then?

  100. boomie789 says:

    @21mins is a good one too.

  101. CD,

    As I’m understanding it (or trying to), focusing ONLY on CO2 excitation and de-excitation is a lopsided.

    Separating CO2 from the rest of atmospheric mass, like most arguments do, is NOT correct. It’s more complex than that, … involving N2, O2 and their energy modes, in relation to CO2, which relationship results in energy mostly flowing from N2 and O2 to CO2, whereby CO2 helps cool the bulk of atmospheric mass, rather than warm it.

  102. “So how is it that they have been able to avoid something that is so straightforward then?”

    The human mind has a great capacity for creatively synthesizing its various fragments of knowledge. Sometimes these fragments come together in ways that are separated from the first principles upon which they are ultimately based. People loose connection to those basic principles, and these people build new tapestries of thought that have every appearance of being legitimate, but which fail to maintain integrity with respect to the founding principles or deeper principles that these people have never understood.

    So, you might see supposed experts talking about quantum mechanics, who do not know the subject deeply enough to realize that their synthesis fails to go deeply enough. They know just enough to trick people into believing that they know what they are talking about, when really they might know only the first layer of many layers of complexity that they have not investigated.

    It’s all about selective pasting together of ideas — really very creative, however physically wrong it might be.

    Catastrophic human-caused climate change, thus, is a sort of art form, … an art of story telling.

  103. boomie789 says:

    Naive Fool
    >It’s literally not, because ice in coffee is conduction. But whatever.

    What happens to the 230W that is radiated toward the surface then? Does it just disappear magically?

    Boomie
    “Look at the equations:
    Conductive heat transfer Q = k* (Thot – Tcool)
    Huh look at that heat flow from hot to cool. Now we should find something remarkably different for radiation, as per their claims. Let’s see:
    Radiative heat transfer: Q = s*(Thot^4 – Tcool^4).
    Hmm… Heat transfer from hot to cool!
    ANYTHING that they say about backradiaiton with acknowledgement of the above radiative equation can thus equally be applied to backconduction. There are Tcool terms in both of those equations, which means that the energy of Tcool should be affecting Thot in both cases as per their argument.”
    -Joseph Postma

    You mean the energy that just came from the earth? I’m positive it doesn’t get back added to itself.
    It radiates away in all directions, it cools. Just like the ice.

  104. CD Marshall says:

    …and to many it is the New Gaia Religion where the point or focus is we are all guilty of carbon sin agaisnt the Mother Godess and we must pay in absolution. This is like a religion where the word of Gaia can only be understood by her prophets, the climatologists, and we have no authority to question the word of her chosen ones.

  105. CD Marshall says:

    RK,
    “Synthesis.” I like that word. Funny I spent my childhood learning the biggest words I could find to be a writer and then I found out plain speech reaches a wider audience. Synthesis, a comfortable word choice, kind of just rolls off the tongue.

    Not like science where the goal is to create the longest word you can. Just looked it up and it’s
    pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanoconiosis, [ noo-muh-noh-uhl-truh-mahy-kruh-skop-ik-sil-i-koh-vol-key-noh-koh-nee-oh-sis] I am not even going to try and sound it out.

    “a word that refers to a lung disease contracted from the inhalation of very fine silica particles, specifically from a volcano; medically, it is the same as silicosis.”

  106. I have a word for climate alarmists:

    yougottabekiddingmeifyoubelievethatcarbondioxidecancontrolearthclimate

    “a word that refers to a brain disease contracted from the incubation of fragmented parcels of knowledge, selectively and erroneously juxtaposed to create a false narrative of doom.”

    … unlike your example, easy to sound out. (^_^)

  107. CD Marshall says:

    Speaking of those suffering from yougottabekiddingmeifyoubelievethatcarbondioxidecancontrolearthclimate
    Here’s the latest drivel from Potholer54:
    “I agree completely! And that incorrect or exaggerated information is coming from people who inadvertantly or deliberately misrepresent the science. So while I applaud your sentiment that people should “question” the science, that should mean asking questions and checking the science, not believing whatever disinformation they read on the internet.
    When scientists tell me that vaccinating my kids will protect them from viruses it’s fine to “question” that by finding out what a virus is and how vaccination and immunization works. But I should not “question” it by believing blogs that tell me vaccination leads to autism, and then join a campaign promoting that belief. That is not questioning, it is “formulating an opinion… based on incorrect and exaggerated information.”

    And yet he does that everyday, pushing global warming and only the “science” that supports it.

  108. CD Marshall says:

    So I said,
    “”formulating an opinion… based on incorrect and exaggerated information.” Like the greenhouse gas effect via a CO2 mechanism, which has not been proven in over 200 years to create catastrophic climate change. I could not agree with you more. Well said, sir, well said!”

    Let’s see how that ruffles his pretentious feathers.

  109. Weird how these people are all super-pro vaccines. Vaccine immunization works, sure. That doesn’t translate to what they actually inject you with being safe, or that babies needs dozens of them, etc. These people seek our death and destruction.

  110. boomie789 says:

    @Robert Kernodle

  111. CD Marshall says:

    Joseph you should say hi to him, in kind fashion and see where it goes from there. I’m just curious if you’re cordial with him how he’ll react, present one of your videos and state the misconception in the diagrams. His trolls will nash at you but I am curious how he will play it. It will be like a Psychology 101 experiment in high school.

    Here’s the thread (one of two) I’ve been on:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t0x46-enxsA&lc=z23ozllohmzqujrutacdp435fxnrspimgatewupwaplw03c010c.1583878982776362

    Its 80+ comments under:
    Jon W
    3 days ago
    Are you planning to do a response to that Anti- Greta moron? Naomi Seibt

    This is where Vander and I have been going at it.

  112. boomie789 says:

    Naive fool
    >You mean the energy that just came from the earth?

    No, I don’t. I mean the MLI example we’ve been discussing:

    To see why it works, start with a concrete example – imagine a square meter of a surface in outer space, held at a fixed temperature of 300 K, with an emissivity of 1, facing away from the sun or other heat sources. From the Stefan–Boltzmann law, this surface will radiate 460 W. Now imagine placing a thin (but opaque) layer 1 cm away from the plate, also with an emissivity of 1. This new layer will cool until it is radiating 230 W from each side, at which point everything is in balance. The new layer receives 460 W from the original plate. 230 W is radiated back to the original plate, and 230 W to space.

    What. Happens. To. The. 230W. Radiated. Back. To. The. Original. Plate?

    Boomie
    >It does not heat up the original plate more.

    That. Is. Not. The. Greenhouse. Effect.

  113. Joseph E Postma says:

    Guys…we should never forget that I formally disproved the greenhouse effect using Willis Eschenbach’s “Steel Greenhouse”, in my book “In the Cold Light of Day.”
    The mathematics of the scenario demonstrates a formal mathematical contradiction…full stop…where the solution indicates that 1 = 2. Literally, that’s the literal end of the analysis, of the solution. 1 = 2.
    On the other hand when you solve the scenario using the mathematics of heat flow and the heat equation as per thermodynamics, rather than their mathematics of energy flow *indistinct of heat flow* and therefore indistinct of thermodynamics (recall the reviewer telling me not to talk of heat, but only of energy…thus to abandon thermodynamics), then of course you find a consistent solution.
    Tell these fuckers that it is RIGHT IN THE BOOK, and they can go through the math themselves.
    I solved it *exactly the way* they ask for it to be solved, concerning only flows of energy without reference to heat equations, and you get the solution of 1 = 2 upon a simple analysis of the boundary states. It’s a formal mathematical proof. When you get a solution like that, it tells you that something is wrong about the way you solved the physics. What is wrong, of course, is not utilizing the heat flow equations and instead only creating energy flow equations indistinct of heat.
    Send them the book reference and quote the above appropriately.
    BTW my new paper on a brand new mathematical algorithm for solving a long-standing problem in astronomy has passed final review, and should thus be automatically accepted for publication. This is in the journal “Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific”, one of if not THE highest ranked astronomy journals in the world. And the solution/mathematical algorithm I’m presenting to astronomy has never been thought of before, or solved this way, etc. It reduces the time required to create a solution of a common astronomical problem by 5 orders of magnitude from existing solutions, using an entirely new, different, and novel approach no one has ever devised. That’s a 100,000 times reduction in solution time. It also solves the solution in cases where existing schemes *cannot solve at all*. Not sure if I posted that paper draft here…I think I did on FB though.
    Anyway, the point is, I FN know what I’m doing with math… 🙂 They want my credentials? I publish my astronomy science papers in PASP, and my next paper presents the solution to a problem which has never been accomplished before.
    So tell them to read my FN book, and face the math! 🙂

  114. Joseph E Postma says:

    “Now imagine placing a thin (but opaque) layer 1 cm away from the plate, also with an emissivity of 1. This new layer will cool until it is radiating 230 W from each side, at which point everything is in balance. The new layer receives 460 W from the original plate. 230 W is radiated back to the original plate, and 230 W to space.”

    This is why they want to pretend that radiative heat transfer is fundamentally different from conductive, even though the equations are fundamentally structured exactly the same way, and even though what the equations are about is how frequency micro-states and entropy can be shared between objects.

    Because if that surface was just laid directly on top on the concrete, touching, then this is simply the new layer of the concrete, and the concrete wouldn’t be hotter simply by adding a bit more surface layer to it of identical emissivity. If we apply their argument, we could say that carefully removing a surface layer of the concrete and creating a gap of 1cm inside it will now make the interior concrete hotter. Imagine if it were that easy to make something hotter? Just split it in two but maintain a small gap at the split between the two pieces.

    It was in fact this very consideration and analysis which lead to discovering that Willis’s “steel greenhouse” demonstrated a solution where 1 = 2, when the two surfaces were put into contact with each other.

    For these problems, energy is conserved at steady-state by finding the solution where the heat flow is equal to zero, because it is only when heat flow equals zero when the temperatures stop changing. When the temperatures stop changing, which is when heat flow equals zero, is when you should find conservation of energy. And we do, as I demonstrated in my book.

    In this example (quote above), heat flow is zero when the layer 1cm has the same temperature as the concrete. There is then a radiation-temperature field of 300K or 460W inside the gap. The new layer has the same temperature, just as if it were laid directly upon the surface. The outside of the layer then emits the 460W.

  115. CD Marshall says:

    Congrats Joseph on the paper, I think my math and yours is pretty equal…if you were still in pre-school!

    Seriously it is dumbfounding the protection they go through for political climate science. That’s why you should do an astrophysical paper on Venus with just the math and so forth proving the causation of Venus w/o touching the GHGe directly but in “disproving it” by omission. Just a thought.

    If you can’t get in the front door…

  116. Joseph E Postma says:

    They instead solve these problems not by setting heat flow equal to zero, or by referring to heat transfer at all, but by conserving energy indistinct of the heat flow equations. In this case you get the back-radiation back-adding scheme. But this conserves radiant energy as if it follows fermion statistics, whereas it actually follows boson statistics. Thermodynamics is mathematically called “statistical mechanics” for a reason, because what it reduces to is an analysis of how numbers behave depending upon certain axioms of the relevant energy and material phenomena. For example: matter cannot overlap and follows the Pauli Exclusion Principle, whereas light/radiant quanta can overlap and do not follow the Exclusion Principle. This of course has a huge, fundamental effect upon the statistical behavior of matter vs. that of radiation.

    They treat photon quanta as if they are matter, where back-radiation is equivalent to a pressure valve on a hose. Of course with matter going through a valve, when it is stopped up then the matter pushes upon itself and builds pressure. But shine a laser into a cavity and see if you can feel the “back pressure”.

  117. boomie789 says:

    Wow. JP just came in with the bomb.

    Lol yea just say that everytime

  118. CD Marshall says:

    This is great stuff as soon as you hear “according to climatologists” you know its going to be a clown show.

  119. Jopo says:

    First of all I want to really thank JP for enlightening me. It embarrasses me to say this as it did take your persistence and repetitious clarity in your posts and use of examples until it hit the mark.

    So I just had a moment. It never occurred to me the significance that the SB constant is used in both the Ideal Gas law consisting of “R is the ideal, or universal, gas constant, equal to the product of the Boltzmann constant and the Avogadro constant” and also the well the Stefan Bolltzman law P= SB*e*A*T^4

    I know I did read this somewhere recently. I think a Robert Holmes video in comments not long ago. maybe here? But it did not click to just now!

    1. The Sb law explains the temperature gradient from Earths Surface to the average mass location of our atmosphere. About 5km up. No greenhouse gases required to explain the gradient!

    2. The Ideal Gas law confirms the correlation between mass pressure and temperature. Holmes has shown this on many occasions. No greenhouse gases required to explain the gradient!

    3. The hyposmetric formula gives us the height above the SURFACE of earth at which -18’C effective emissions height is. using the NOAA NCEP/NCAR IPCC approved data we can tie the above together.

    No where in any of the above points is Back Radiation factored into this. Surely you smart guys can put this altogether as one piece. I sure as hell have problems just expressing in English.

    Have I got this right. because I sure as hell want to ram it home with some others

  120. In my conversations with the Warmanistas, there is constant referral to this effective radiating level concept, essentially as i understand tit that as the optical thickness increases from the addition of CO2 IR must be radiated from high and thus colder altitudes which forces a compensatory warming so that OLR “balances, simply explained in this video

    or this from the Univ of Wisc.
    http://www.aos.wisc.edu/~aos121br/radn/radn/radn.ppt

    bullet points:

    Climate depends on radiation from sun
    uSurface and lower atmosphere cool by infrared radiation to space from upper troposphere (ERL= effective radiating level, such that total CO2 above is fixed)
    uIncreased concentration of atmospheric CO2 raises ERL, reducing outgoing IR, until troposphere has warmed to compensate
    uOcean heat storage in ocean takes decades to come to new balance
    uFor given CO2 concentration, low clouds cool , high clouds warm

    Greenhouse Warming:
    a simple model
    uHold absorption of incoming solar radiation radiation fixed
    uInfrared radiation leaves earth for space from upper troposphere (ERL). Amount increases with temperature at ERL (immediate). Height of ERL is such that total CO2 above it is constant.
    uAdditional carbon dioxide mixes rapidly in troposphere (weeks)
    –ERL rises to where temperature is lower, less outgoing radiation.,
    uEarth surface+ troposphere warms till outgoing radiation from ERL balances incoming (years to centuries)

    More technically explained here:

    Warmists also frequently reference https://scienceofdoom.com/roadmap/atmospheric-radiation-and-the-greenhouse-effect/

    Proof is also offered using MODRAN which shows what happens at various concentrations of CO2 to the “optical window”

    Hard to debunk for me without your physics, Joseph, but I’d like to know how. Potholer stuff is similar.

    Thanks Joseph. You are doing great work!

  121. boomie789 says:

    You guys feel like having a laugh?

    Banal. Lol.

  122. Joseph E Postma says:

    @minarchist

    The first thing to realize is that the radiative height argument has NOTHING to do with the GHE as derived in the textbook models via backradiation. Thus, what is the climate GHE? Is it caused by radiative height and the lapse rate? Or is it caused by backradiation? What exactly are we talking about? Why the inconsistency? It’s *their* theory, why do they explain it in ways which contradict each other and have nothing to do with each other? Radiative height, or backradiation?

    Think of how this important this is. The way to understand this, what is of course happening here, is how a physical war would be waged: you have fall back position and you have multiple defensive and multiple offensive strategies. You sow confusion, perform flanking maneuvers, pretend your forces are amassed in one area while they are actually staging in another, etc.

    That they have no consistent position on what exactly their GHE is is all of the evidence we require to reject them and any position they have, truly. We simply need to point it out, and demand consistency, and tell them to get themselves figured out before they attempt to make any further arguments.

    In rhetoric, as opposed to physical battle, the best defense is in having no identifyable, consistent, or rational position. Because then your enemy is always off his footing always attacking a changing battle field with no identifiable enemy.

    As it is, we have debunked both models, the backradiation greenhouse effect which violates basic thermodynamic theory, and the radiative height argument where Richard Lindzen showed from empirical data that there is *NO* warming in the upper troposphere, i.e., *NO* raising of the radiative height.

    Further, we now have multiple researches showing that the only thing you need to explain the atmosphere is the distance from the Sun, and the mass/pressure of atmosphere.

    *That they have multiple positions indicates that they have NO position.*

    Remember that, always. It’s quotable.

    *That they have multiple positions on how the GHE works indicates that they have NO position. And if there is no position on how the GHE works, then the GHE must not work.*

    ^That’s brilliant right there…lol.^

  123. Barry says:

    Thanks Joseph I just said that exact thing to someone yesterday. If you put forward a hypothesis supported by an argument,you can not keep changing the argument every time the last argument fails. As Einstein said it only takes one to prove me wrong.

  124. Joseph E Postma says:

    Exactly Barry. That is exactly what they do.

  125. boomie789 says:

    @Joseph E Postma

    “The art of war teaches us to rely not on the likelihood of the enemy’s not coming, but on our own readiness to receive him; not on the chance of his not attacking, but rather on the fact that we have made our position unassailable.”

    “Be extremely subtle, even to the point of formlessness. Be extremely mysterious, even to the point of soundlessness. Thereby you can be the director of the opponent’s fate.”

    “Now the reason the enlightened prince and the wise general conquer the enemy whenever they move and their achievements surpass those of ordinary men is foreknowledge.”

    -Sun Tzu

  126. Joseph E Postma says:

    Yes boomie, I’m happy that you saw the connection, and what I was referring to.

    It is the art of war in rhetoric, the art of war in debate, the art of war in propaganda, etc.

    Thus you see that it is in fact a war. And like all wars, there is an intended victor, and an intended victim. It is easy to solve what the victory and loss conditions are: What happens to a planet and species who vilifies the source of life, the molecule upon which all life is based? What happens when the species calls sugar “carbon free”? Extrapolate. What happens when they are convinced to believe in the term “carbon zero”? Extrapolate. What happens when they are convinced to sequester carbon out of the atmosphere? Extrapolate. What happens when they genetically engineer a bacteria to sequester all gaseous carbon dioxide (as Israeli “scientists” have done/are working on)? Extrapolate.

    Do this on a smaller scale. What if you convince a single person that fertilizer in their garden is a poison they should avoid for the sake of their garden? You see the analogy of course. If on the scale of a single person’s garden you result in destroying the garden and starving the person…then now scale this up to the entire planet, all countries, and a global operation, which is what it is. The same result, just at a much larger scale.

    Now from here one can begin to consider the nature of the enemy: If on the small scale this occurs, then perhaps it is a neighbor who hates his neighbor. Whatever the particular reason is, it is clear that it is something occurring on the individual scale. If you succeed in destroying your neighbors garden and starving him to death, then the property becomes available and you can do with it as you please. Now scale up: if someone is doing this to an entire species (humans), and to an entire planet…then what is the nature of such an enemy.

    The enemy might just be psychopathic control freaks all too human…but that they can clearly and easily be characterized as I have above (i.e. aliens?), then it puts an emphasis on how dangerous they are.

  127. Joseph E Postma says:

    What happens when they are tricked into adopting flat Earth theory as their best science for political action? What happens when they are tricked into believing that the Sun doesn’t create the weather or sustain the climate or heat the planet?

    Extrapolate.

  128. CD Marshall says:

    LOL I really pissed Vander Weert off what a putz! This response has made up the worthless time I spent on him. He totally ignored my comments to him and chose only a word or phrase to cling to.

    Me:
    Not exactly what I said, nice job clinging to one remark and ignoring the others. Typical.

    My points on various bulbs:

    >The bulb gets its power from the voltage applied to the circuit from an actual power source. IR light (trapped or returning) from the bulb doesn’t increase the voltage or the current so it is not a heating source or an increased heating source

    >”The power in a circuit with a resistor like a light-bulb filament is P = V2/R = I2*R. The energy is supplied from outside the circuit via the voltage which induces the current. Heat and light (light being the visible portion of the dissipated heat) is a dissapatory output of the circuit and can’t be used as further input.” the brief version From Joseph Postma, a physicist with a working and applied understanding of physics.

    >I believe an object can’t heat itself up above its source energy. That is thermodynamics physics, period and that rule applies to everything. Turn the bulb off and it will not increase in temperature. Thus the source is the energy heating the bulb not IR

    >Anyway, the convection stopping of the bulb should be obvious, it was described in the paper you sited. Material can prevent IR from escaping, thus allowing light to enter, allowing visible light to exit but preventing the infrared photons to exit
    Again >sigh You are making a very feeble attempt at comparing an enclosed environment, 2900 Kelvin emission with trapped IR photons as being the same as an open atmosphere, no trapped photons, no heat increase and a potential temperature of 193.15 Kelvin a difference of 2,707 Kelvin

    Now in conclusion (not your delusion).

    The GHG is not about reflection, it is about absorption followed by re-emission.

    Where the political science comes in is claiming that IR is returning to the surface and heating the surface up again which is not how particle physics works.

    Back to the bogus bulb theory, the filament is reflecting IR by lowering its emissivity at IR wavelengths. The reflective IR mirror around the filament effectively prevents the filament itself from emitting at IR wavelengths.The coating is reflecting IR.

    It is a marvelous feat of engineering but not the GHGE.

    CO2 (the poster molecule for political science) is absorbing IR energy not reflecting it as is the filament. GHGs absorb and emit in all directions, inducing directly to outer space.

    The energy emitted by the atmosphere is not the exact same energy emitted by the surface. With the IR mirror around the filament, the original energy from the filament is simply made to change directions, i.e. reverse, and with good engineering to mostly stay *contained at the filament*. It is the filament’s own original energy, its own frequencies, unchanged, effectively being prevented from leaving the filament, thus effectively lowering or adjusting the emissivity of the filament at IR wavelengths.

    If you were to replace the IR mirror with instead an absorptive IR blocking filter, then the IR “mirror” would thermally absorb the IR and heat up. But now it re-emits it own thermal energy at its own respective, and lower, temperature, and thus at lower frequencies. It would be much easier to engineer this than an IR-selective mirror! But the IR mirror is used, not an IR absorber

    Again. you are welcome and thank Joseph Postma when you see him next.

    Wart:
    “Are you seriously asking me to thank Joseph Postma for coming with a vastly inferior solution?
    An IR absorber may be easier to manufacture, but would send 50% of the radiation out in the wrong direction. Moreover, it would lose energy by convection (and some conduction) to the outside, and it would need to heat the filament inside the bulb by a mixture of radiation and convection. Worse is that its effect would be time-dependent (the absorber does not heat up right away), and unless you design the system extremely carefully, the outside of the bulb may heat up so much that either the glass melts, or there is so much dirt burning up on the surface that it blackens and makes the lamp break down. All in a few minutes. Lamp life? Let’s not even go there.

    And yes, you wrote a lot more, which all ignored the big elephant in the room:
    adding an IR reflective coating allows one to get the same color temperature of the bulb (obviously excluding the IR range, it’s blocked) with less energy input.

    But now you have found a new magical explanation: the filament stops emitting IR radiation, because the IR radiation it sent out comes back. Of course, in the real world the filament does not stop sending out IR photons, it continues to emit but now also absorbs the IR photons that are reflected by the coating – maybe you want to look up the definition of a blackbody. It thus gets more energy in than just the energy from the current, and thus heats up – or, alternatively, you could also say it does not emit as much energy as it gets in from the current – and thus has to heat up to emit extra energy at other wavelengths. But that would be a better description of what happens to the system (filament + bulb).

    But even in your fantasy world of magic photons, you still cannot make it contradict the GHE: we have IR photons emitted from the surface, absorbed by GHGs, and subsequently emitted with the same energy by those GHGs, including back to the emitting surface. So, even in your hilarious alternative world physics, the effect is the same: the surface emitting less IR photons means it must emit more photons in other regions – and for that it needs to warm up.”

    Oh, I know, you’ll get all huffy and puffy again that I don’t understand physics, and yet your guru proposed magical filaments that know when to stop emitting IR photons. Next you’ll tell me that the emitted and reflected IR photons extinguish each other…

  129. boomie789 says:

    The wolves, the sheep, and the sheep dogs.

    The sheep dogs work for the shepherd.

    And wolves are vile beast.

    Instead of putting on sheep’s clothing, the wolves are pretending to be the shepherd.

    And they hire other wolves as sheep dogs.

    1984 made real.

  130. Joseph E Postma says:

    To suggest that reflection and absorption are the same thing is both utter incompetence and blatant lying upon the definitions. What a quack. I mean OMG.

    Reflection is not a process involved in thermodynamics. Reflection does not transfer heat, or induce temperature change, etc. And reflection is NOT now the GHE works in physics. With reflection engineered as such in this filament example, you do effectively reduce the emissivity of the filament thus requiring the filament to move to a warmer color temperature. It is not that the IR photons are re-absorbed back per-se, but that they are effectively not emitting at all. This is not the GHE and to present it as such is gross incompetence and sophistry.

    As he explains himself(!) the GHE wouldn’t work, wouldn’t do what this filament IR reflector does! Thank you for the admission!

    He admits that with the GHE the other material emits in both directions, but with the reflector it doesn’t. Well…what exists in our atmosphere that also *does not* emit at all? It’s non GHG’s! Whereas then when we add the GHG’s, they emit in both directions, thus giving a vector by which the atmosphere can directly lose energy.

    He defeats himself! What a wonderful gift! Thank him for proving your point, and ask him to not be such a fraud. The Slayers will always identify them and expose them.

    But you see, and must understand, that we will always be talking at cross-purposes, with terms and concepts which are inconsistent to each other. Because they set it up that way…because they created their paradigmatic box for their pseudoscience. Thus they will never acknowledge a simple fact as just discussed…that non-GHG’s do not emit and thus have low emissivity and thus are warming gases, whereas GHG’s do emit and thus provide a vector for the atmosphere to cool. They will always ignore this. Or then they say that the emission of GHG’s is what creates the lapse rate…but then we explain that the lapse rate is in fact from gravity and adiabatic processes, and in fact the lapse rate should be different from what is calculated if there were indeed an additional effect from GHG radiant emission. They will just deflect and ignore.

    Go back to basic physics, and keep them there. Conflating reflection with absorption is just the type of sophistry they love. The underlying physics is not the same thing at all. One of the physics (reflection) isn’t even discussed in thermodynamics at all! Or if it is…it is in radiative thermodynamics and is related to reflective surfaces having low emissivity, and in this case the low emissivity of the reflective IR mirror transfers into a similar effect upon the filament. This is not about heat transfer processes and it is NOT how the GHE works, etc.

  131. CD Marshall says:

    You know if the GHGE were true our eyes would melt. Someone guessed around 1*10^14 photons pass through our eyes a second.

    If I made a mistake somewhere let me know or if I could improve (well that’s a given) and where.

  132. minarchist (@3GHtweets)

    If CO2 were emitting from a higher altitude, then it would be getting this energy to emit from a warmer source than the source from which it would be emitting, which would mean that the source below the new height (the old height) would now have to be warmer than before, but, as I understand it, the old height source is NOT warmer than before.

    I don’t think the height would even change. Emission happens from the entire volume of the atmosphere, and if that volume increases, then that means more volume is emitting. And I think this volume would distribute proportionately around the same altitude, meaning the height would NOT change.

    Even if you did consider only an abstract emission “surface”, then you’d realize that the area of emission increases. So, the temperature might be a bit lower, but the AREA of this lower-temp emission is GREATER, meaning more emission of lower temp from a greater surface area would seem to equal less emission of higher temp from a smaller surface area.

    So, I think that there are several ways to dismantle the emission-height argument. There are some faulty hidden assumptions in the emission-height defense, which I’m trying to clear up in my own thinking. I’m still working on it.

  133. boomie789 says:

    Naive Fool-
    It RETAINS the heat.

    That’s why your thermos keeps your coffee warm even though the outside of the thermos is colder than the coffee!

    What you’re doing here is looking at a thermos and say something like “The coffee cannot be made hotter by the thermos! Thermos’s can’t exist!” Yeah, no shit Sherlock. No one expects it to “heat up more” — we expect it to slow down the escape rate of the heat.

    Boomie-
    That is not the greenhouse effect.

    Naive Fool-
    It is! I can link you to literally dozens of videos describing the greenhouse effect. None of them involve doubling the heat or creating energy. That is a strawman that you’ve set up because you can’t argue with the actual science.

    Energy cannot be created or destroyed. That means that energy that radiates back toward Earth from the atmosphere cannot magically disappear!

    Boomie-
    Projection. You are the one straw manning. You are the one violating conservation of energy. You are creating energy.

    Who said it disappeared? Another strawman. Just because it doesn’t increase the plate’s temperature, doesn’t mean the energy “disappeared”. You calling strawman on me? ridiculous.

    What I set up is the introduction to climate science, where cold adds to hot. The “strawman” you refer to IS. THE. GREENHOUSE EFFECT.

    Do you get it? The greenhouse effect is adding cold to hot. You cannot deny it.

    There it is right there being taught in college. Do you deny that?

    Do you deny that that model is the same model you are calling a “strawman”

    This model

    A thermus does not add cold to hot

    a space blanket does not add cold to hot

    C02 does not add cold to hot.

    Nothing adds cold to hot.

  134. Also, a thermos works by having a dead-air space in a solid wall, surrounding the coffee, which prevents convection. Earth’s atmosphere is neither solid, nor does it have dead-air space. The thermos analogy, then, is completely wrong.

    Earth’s atmosphere is NOT like a thermos. A thermos is NOT the greenhouse effect. To argue such is a straw man. Three strikes — he’s out.

  135. A thermos stops convective cooling. NOT the GHE!

    Energy is not destroyed. It also cannot heat if it is not high enough frequency. This is why the two surfaces in the concrete example reach the same temperature.

    Good graphic reference. Exactly. Their entire fake physics with no empirical support is the mechanics of flat earth theory.

  136. boomie789 says:

    Naive Fool sent me this

    He doesn’t see how he is creating energy.

    My likely response
    The energy cannot exceed 240w/m^2 at any point. In the model the frozen sun is the only source of energy. The back radiation from the atmosphere does not get added ON TOP OF the same energy source. the model is 1=2.

  137. That’s also a very nice diagram which demonstrates the mechanics of flat earth theory! I mean hello!? Nice flat Earth there!

  138. Nice freezing cold sunshine that cannot create the climate or weather there!

  139. Nice mechanics to try to make flat earth theory work with flat earth theory’s cold sunshine there! lol

  140. boomie789 says:

    lol of course! made me think of this.

    “Did I mention the flat earth? The entire surface area at once? lol. With frozen sunshine spread all across it? And it’s 15C in there? does that sound right to you buddy?”

    This is absolutely nuts we have to argue this!

  141. boomie789 says:

    Naive Fool-
    Flat earth is just dumb. This is a basic model. Do you have a problem with this too? Does that mean Newton was wrong?

    I’m not sure what you mean by frozen sunshine. Again, this is just a basic model with a reasonable assumption for the incoming solar flux. Any real model is spherical and has many layers of the atmosphere and a full spectrum of solar flux.

    15C seems fine. The average Earth temp is 14C. So what’s the problem?

    So yeah, that all looks fine, buddy.

    Boomie-
    lol -18c is reasonable? O so this isn’t the real model now?

    The problem is you got that 15C with pseudoscience were the only input comes from a -18c sun.

    so no, its all garbage, pal.

  142. boomie789 says:


    he linked this. so relavant.

  143. Flat earth with -18C solar is a reasonable model!!!!????

    Bwahahahaha!!! There you have it! Nail him! Nailed him!

  144. That so FN retarded! Does that diagram work for orbital mechanics!!?? Hahaha

    You FN nailed him. Make him eat it.

  145. Joseph E Postma says:

    Wasn’t that example of sophistry straight from my first book!!!??? I’d only encountered it once but it was so good I put it in the book: how they claim that since they can use a flat Earth to calculate the trajectory of a ball then there is nothing wrong with flat Earth for the entire Earth in climate science and solar input.

    That diagram only works when the scale of the ground is *small* enough that the ground *ACTUALLY IS FLAT*. Such as a baseball diamond, etc.

    But could you use that diagram above to derive orbital mechanics and launch a rocket into orbit!? It could never be done. There is a fundamental mathematics and mathematical physics, and philosophical logical, limit to that above diagram which makes it 100% forever *impossible* to use to derive anything that reflects what possibilities exist with a spherical Earth, such as orbital motion. Don’t people just know this!? I know you guys do…but my GOD these academics and climate people are just FN braindead! It’s astonishing how braindead and nonintellectual they are!

    Likewise you cannot use flat Earth to derive anything relevant to the climate or energy exchanges in the climate, because these physically exist on a spherical Earth and follow the possibilities as such which only a spherical Earth can provide. Such as day & night, etc. You see this immediately when flat Earth says that solar input is freezing cold and cannot create the climate or weather or heat anything above -18C. You get the demonstration of the deep philosophy of mathematics IMMEDIATELY.

    But these morons just go right on past and call it “reasonable”!!!

  146. boomie789 says:

    Naive Fool-
    You do know the sun is really far away, right?

    Are you saying the solar flux at Earth should be the same as the surface of the sun, champ?

    Boomie-
    “OMG. Dude, how hot does a blacktop road in Phoenix Arizona in summer get? You think 240w/m2 is doing that?

    We get around 960w/m2 concentrated at the equator. 88C.

    960/4=240

    WOW.”

    It’s like this guy lives in the computer and can only deal with the data he’s been fed. Does he know sunlight is hot? lol jfc.

  147. What does the Sun being far away have to do with treating the Earth as flat!?

    Boomie…you’ve got this NPC glitching out! Its algorithm is now randomly spitting out text…lol!

    This is how dumb these people are. How is what you said having anything to do with the temperature of the surface of the Sun!?

    That’s how dumb these people are, how disconnected from reality they are. That when you present to them simple facts about physical reality…they GLITCH OUT and begin saying random things…lol.

  148. boomie789 says:

    lol

  149. CD Marshall says:

    I need my math checked, any takers?
    163–178 mW cm−2=6.9 to 7.05 micron, which is an effective bb temperature of 137.88-146.85 Celsius/280.2-296.3.

    Wasn’t sure how to approach mW cm-2 as I wasn’t even sure what it was, out of my element. But it appears that it’s just milawat/square centimeters, which is simply 1/10 W/m^2 so to convert you would just need to *10, so if I were to right out the equation t would be m/W^2*W/m^2 ??? Why does that feel wrong?

  150. CD Marshall says:

    @boomie789 Sounds like your guy is tweak’n.

  151. CD Marshall says:

    Sorry write out, not right out, right on man! Tired.

  152. CD Marshall says:

    This isn’t making any sense at all:163-178 mW cm-2 is nothing in temperature is I am doing the math right our normal range of site has higher temperatures?

    Abstract:
    “Cataracts occur frequently among workers who deal with hot material such as molten glass or steel, as a result of exposure to intense infra-red radiation (i.r.) emitted from it. To investigate this hazard, a theoretical model of the human eye being exposed to i.r. was developed, and the temperature distributions within it were calculated. It is suggested that i.r. cataracts in the workplace result from the generation of heat by absorption of i.r. in the cornea and heat conduction to the lens. The threshold i.r. irradiances for cataract formation were determined from the relationship between the incident irradiance and the lens temperature, and were in the range 163-178 mW cm-2 for long-term exposures (greater than about 5 min) under normal conditions. However, these values may be reduced by 50% for workers who perform heavy work at a high ambient temperature. It may be possible to set i.r. exposure limits in the workplace based on these threshold data.”

  153. Isn’t there something even more obviously wrong with the following image, or any image like it?:

    Isn’t it wrong to divide fluxes, in such a way that they can be added together again? Don’t those numbers have meaning, associated with a surface area for which flux is defined?

    So, not only does the above diagram create an extra amount of flux out of nowhere (or adding part of flux back to itself), but also, even more basically, it mistakenly treats flux as if it can be divided into parts that it cannot be divided into. It’s wrong to divide fluxes like this, and then this wrong is not even handled consistently with its own erroneous origination.

    Is this correct?

  154. Yes good diagram.

  155. Joseph, do you agree that Feynman’s statistical mechanics supports our view that the thermal effect of the atmosphere is determined by mass and gravity ie. not radiative. Seems it does. https://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/I_40.html

  156. So, my question has always been HOW are those partial fluxes in “energy budget” diagrams arrived at? — what surface area are each of those fluxes referring to?

  157. boomie789 says:

    @Robert Kernodle

    The actual emmitance of earth is 240w/m^2.
    After the 960w/m^2 is absorbed by the earth and reemitted.

    They took the actual emittance of earth and added it on top of itself. By having the
    atmosphere also emit 240w/m^2 and adding it to earth’s emittance, raising earth’s surface temperature.

    Sooo..all the surface area, at once, it really makes no sense at all. Lol.

    Is that what you are asking for?

  158. Thanks, boomie789, I already get that.

    What I am asking is how the individual W/m^2 quantities in energy-budget diagrams are derived:

    Every. Single. One. … of those numbers in the above chart requires a surface area reference for which the respective W/m^2 is physically, mathematically defined. So, how do “scientists” figure ALL of those quantities? What is the procedure used to divide up solar flux into those individual quantities? THAT’s my query.

  159. CD Marshall says:

    Along those lines of their stats why is the open window for IR 80% when ghgs are only 1% spread so thin it can’t act as a net. I’m guessing clouds and particles?, so how much IR is actually bounced off of clouds/particles to ghgs or the surface as opposed to non cloud “gas molecule” actually absorbing. We are talking one photon for one molecule, right? Can CO2/CH4/? even absorb a packet of photons?

    So say (I’m just guessing) a trillion IR photons pass through a 2500 molecule area, only 0.04% are candidates for absorption but once that portion of the atmosphere is heated no absorption is available, just KE transferring. If IR is constantly emitting, how much relaxation time does the molecules in the atmosphere have to absorb? Seems 80% is too low off the cuff of my head unless it is just cloud scattering, something that would exist without other IR responsive gases.

  160. Apparently, adding CO2 to the atmosphere is like making the hole in a bucket smaller:

    “If you have a bucket with water flowing in at the top and out through a hole at the bottom and make the hole smaller (aka provide resistance to the outflow), the water level in the bucket will rise until the pressure pushes the same flux through the smaller hole.”

    From blankets to buckets. lol

  161. Joseph E Postma says:

    Light does not behave like matter. Demonstrate this principle by shining a laser into a bucket if they think so…lol.

  162. boomie789 says:

    Naive fool-
    “My god, man. It’s a back-of-the-envelope calculation. Just something used in education to get the concepts across.

    [Here is a real model](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/262951748_An_Overview_of_BCC_Climate_System_Model_Development_and_Application_for_Climate_Change_Studies). Do you want to discuss that?”

    Boomie-
    “Once again. That model has no basis in reality. Heat only flows one way.

    That model is a de-learning tool that RUINED your ability to understand thermodynamics and radiative heat transfer.

    O and this model isn’t the real one again? So is the model real or not?”

    That “real model” he linked, the authors are all chinese! I thought the Chinese weren’t worried about C02 emissions. They sure don’t act like it at least.

    We’re being played like a fiddle.

    He hasn’t responded in hours now, maybe he stopped.

  163. boomie789 says:

    Naive Fool-
    > Dude, how hot does a blacktop road in Phoenix Arizona in summer get?

    [Like this](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kkJxHpZIQ0s).

    > We get around 960w/m2 concentrated at the equator. 88C.

    The 88C is meaningless. Do you think the sun is colder than boiling water at 100C???

    The sun radiates at several million degrees — we’re just far enough away that we only get a portion of it.

    The average solar flux on the planet is going to be somewhere between 0 (at the poles) and 960 (at the equator). You can’t take the maximum as the average. A simple approximation is to take the energy received at a cross-section and distribute it over the entire sphere.

    But you can do it with 960 if you want — you’ll just get a different factor for “f”. Go ahead and try. All you need to do is balance the numbers so that the Earth is at 15C.

    If you understand the equations, it should take like 2 minutes.

    Boomie-
    “Guy, where on earth is -18C? You gotta go to Canada for those types of temperatures!

    You really just dont get it.

    What does the surface of the sun have to do with anything?

    You cant take the maximum, the 960w/m^2 actually felt at the equator? So you take a solar flux only experienced near the poles?

    You dont know that these numbers actually mean and how it actually works.

    The average sunshine spread over the entire surface at once is USELESS.

    I am talking to a guy who thinks the earth generates it’s own climate independent of the sun. Jfc.”

    The exchange before the last I think, and that’s it.

  164. CD Marshall says:

    This other guy on Potholer’s site is either mental or well, mental. He keeps commenting and arguing points he has made claiming I said it and keeps bringing up his comments and arguing them like I’m the one who said it.

    I haven’t even responded to him for a while and he keeps adding his own obfuscation to a conversation I’m not even in at the moment.

    So this is by far his most entertaining comment(s):

    @​vidfreak5
    The work of the sun warms it initially. From thermal physics a warmed body also emits radiation. Convection is only ONE means by which heat transfers. Radiation is another. Which is what the surface emits towards the sky. LOL this is what causes arming.

    Your first law of thermodynamics is thus a strawman.

    “I absolutely never said energy doesn’t flow both ways. ”

    Semantics. Call it what you want. Energy. Heat. Heat energy flows in the form of radiation from a cold body to a hot body. YOu’re a dumbfuck.

    Yes thermal equilibrium is what causes the system to not go on forever.

    You are entirely misguided and youre beliefs are wrong. Such is the nature of the denialist
    Reflected back because of absorbtion and remission. Whatever semantic games you want to play isn’t really my problem.

    Slow cooling is what keeps the surface warmer. LOL opaqueness? REALLY? Is that all you have? Oh you’re a fucking genius! A regular Fucking MCEXPERT! You read a wiki post about it and you’re a genius.

    Look up what is called “False authority syndrome”.

    Co2 isn’t just reflecting. Its absorbing and reemitting.

    Energy is disperssed in all directions. Including back to earth. Which slows cooling.

    Everyone does know this but you. Well… every real scientist anyways. LOL. You’re as deluded as they come.
    @​vidfreak56 This is getting too easy at this point. Ive owned you

    @​vidfreak56
    Heat is energy, and can flow both ways. You said a cold object can’t heat up a warm object. Which, according to physics, is wrong. Adding energy in either direction “heats” the object. Even if that heat merely slows down cooling. You’re merely getting into semantic games here in order to attempt to confuse the topic at hand.

    @​vidfreak56
    The topic here is that LWR gets partially reemitted and some of that goes back to earth and depending on the semantic games you want to play”

    So I finally replied:
    You are literally talking to yourself, making claims I’ve never said, contorting them in your head, and arguing with yourself as if I said it, at this point you are just my amusement. Please see a doctor and take ll (another commenter) with you. I’ve enjoyed reading your argument with yourself, and I am sure you “own yourself” a lot. As someone who is also familiar with physiology, you’d be a gold mine research project. I’m almost tempted to write a paper on you…Almost. Maybe give me some more material first, please continue arguing yourself. Who am I talking to now? vid5 or freak6?

  165. boomie789 says:

    the stuff under @​vidfreak56 is vidfreak, right?

    Are you using the @ symbol right or am I wrong? Makes me think those are statements AT ​vidfreak56.

    @=AT

    Besides that he’s mean. I bet he doesn’t call people dumbf#cks to their face. Especially a grown man.

  166. CD Marshall says:

    @boomie789

    “So I finally replied:” is from myself, the rest above my final statement at the bottom and initial at the top is me. He even mentioned Spencer which really gave me a laugh.

    @​vidfreak56 it does mean “at” but on YouTube it is also a tag and is commonly used as such to refer to identity or an identifier. Which is why we use it here like I did above. It’s used to reduce confusion as to who you are addressing and to who you are quoting.

    For example, since this is Joseph’s site it’s really not needed, you just say, [Joseph,] as the header.
    However someone might comment on here who is also a Joseph and that would become confusing unless they added Joseph12 or something, then you would use the “name tag” @Joseph12.

    Is that clearer? (I hope)

  167. boomie789 says:

    “So I finally replied:” is from myself, the rest above my final statement at the bottom and initial at the top is me.”

    “Is that clearer? (I hope)”

  168. TEWS_Pilot says:

    Joseph, Heads up on another Roy Spencer defense of the consensus “GlowBULL Warming” Greenhouse effect in rebuttal of Comments on Dr. Ollila’s Claims that Greenhouse Effect Calculations Violate Energy Conservation
    http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/03/comments-on-dr-ollilas-claims-that-greenhouse-effect-calculations-violate-energy-conservation/

  169. CD Marshall says:

    @boomie789

    I’ve been married over 20 years and that’s my response to the question, “are you any closer to understanding women?”

  170. CD Marshall says:

    Oh and sorry the above statement “As someone who is also familiar with physiology” should have been psychology lol darn typos and auto correct, been doing that and I don’t see the wrong word choice ’till after I click it. Although physiology is kind of funny.

  171. Rudi K. says:

    @Robert K

    Regarding the Radiative Model diagram…

    1. As I understand it, all the fluxes presented in diagrams of this type are averaged over the whole surface of the Earth, so the “W per m^2” is just a scaling. You could say that the chart effectively summarises power fluxes in Watts according to type. The actual temperature of a region of the surface relates via the SB Law (flux proportional to temp^4), to the actual W/m^2 flux absorbed/emitted (making simplifying assumptions about emissivity, black body spectral profiles, etc.). Thus, averaging fluxes is not the same as averaging temperatures, and it is not generally valid to work back from the fluxes shown to temperatures.

    2. As noted elsewhere, treating the back radiation as a heat flow violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

    3. Worse than this, the “back radiation” in the diagram also violates Newton’s Third Law – Conservation of Momentum, which states that: action and reaction are equal and opposite. The momentum from the surface IR flux absorbed by the atmosphere layer is radiated out of the top of the atmosphere, at the same frequencies and same momentum, so there is no problem there. But where is the equal and opposite reaction to the “back radiation” photons? In the model shown, the reaction to the “back radiation” would cause the atmosphere layer to accelerate away into space. This is perhaps why such “back radiation” does not appear elsewhere in physics.

    Of course, the radiative model is simply wrong. It is incomplete and is missing important physics. The atmosphere does not float away because of gravity. And gravity not only keeps the atmosphere in place, but also causes atmospheric pressure, the adiabatic temperature gradient, and enables the convection that actually does the job of moving much of the heat around the atmosphere.(Helped by diurnal, meridional and seasonal variations in surface insolation, etc.).

    One of the first steps in understanding atmospheric physics is to cross out the “back radiation”.

  172. http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/03/comments-on-dr-ollilas-claims-that-greenhouse-effect-calculations-violate-energy-conservation/

    Spencer says:

    But this is where the problem with ambiguous wording comes in. The atmosphere is not, strictly speaking, adding more energy to the surface. It is merely returning a portion of the atmosphere-absorbed solar, infrared, and convective transport energy back to the surface in the form of infrared energy.

    I say:

    So, he says the atmosphere is not adding more energy, and yet the atmosphere is “merely returning a portion of atmosphere-absorbed solar, infrared, and convective transport energy back …” ? The atmosphere re-contains energy that is already there and adds that energy back to itself to add MORE energy. The atmosphere is re-using its own energy, which is even worse than just plain “adding” energy. This is exactly what ADDING MORE ENERGY MEANS. The added energy is the same energy recycled.

    Spencer thinks that, by using different words, and adding more words describing the components of his “not-added-yet-recycled” energy, he is not “adding more energy”. Changing the way you describe a basic concept does NOT negate the basic concept you are describing.

    Spencer is trying to talk around the very fact that he is only illustrating more precisely.

  173. Joseph E Postma says:

    Exactly Robert.

  174. Spence claims, “IR emission is very temperature-dependent, while absorption is not.”
    Is that true? I think not.

  175. Joseph E Postma says:

    Well note that it doesn’t even matter, and he’s presenting that idea in such a way as to imply something false: the ability for something to adsorb does not equate to a cold thing being able to warm a warmer thing, etc.

  176. “A body can absorb radiation from another body which is at a higher temperature but it can only emit radiation at or below its own temperature. Thus the temperature of outgoing radiation can only be less than or equal to the temperature of incoming radiation. This means that energy cannot flow from a cooler to a warmer body simply because any radiation from the cooler body incident upon the warmer body will experience a temperature already higher than that radiation’s temperature, thus that radiation will be reflected, not absorbed. Since gasses cannot really reflect radiation, for a gas the radiation would be scattered.” https://www.iceagenow.info/debunking-the-catastrophic-anthropogenic-global-warming-hypothesis/

  177. minarchist (@3GHtweets),

    I recognize that long quote you highlighted — it’s from a person who has the handle LOL@Klimate Katastrophe Kooks, who chooses to remain anonymous.

    I searched for all his/her posts on the internet, copied and pasted them into a document with links to the specific websites where they appear, for my own use, since he seems to really know his stuff — it came out to about 90 pages.

    The particular quote you gave, I’m suspecting might cause him/her some grief from those looking to demolish him/her, because the wording could probably be improved a bit, even though intelligent people know what he/she means.

    Here would be my rewording:

    A body can absorb radiation from another body which is at a higher temperature but it can only emit radiation at the same energy or at an energy below its own temperature. Thus the energy of outgoing radiation can only be less than or equal to the energy of incoming radiation. This means that energy cannot flow from a cooler to a warmer body simply because any radiation from the cooler body incident upon the warmer body will experience an energy already higher than that radiation’s energy, thus that radiation will be reflected, not absorbed. Since gasses cannot really reflect radiation, for a gas the radiation would be scattered.

  178. That’s a great quote for sure!

  179. Looking at the Spencer quote that I highlighted earlier, I just realized something about the following sentence from that quote:

    It [the atmosphere] is merely returning a portion of the atmosphere-absorbed solar, infrared, and convective transport energy back to the surface in the form of infrared energy.

    Not only is he saying that the atmosphere is returning a portion of infrared, but also he is saying that the atmosphere is returning a portion of solar AND a portion of “convective transport energy”.

    Do you realize what he is saying there?! — BACK CONVECTION !!! We have joked about this before, but there it is … in a serious presentation.

    BACK CONVECTION !!! [mandatory three exclamation points upon each typing]

    So, we can now add Spencer’s belief in … BACK CONVECTION !!! … to the American Meteorological Society’s denial that the sun produces the climate.

    Of course, Spencer would complain that he said nothing about “back convection”, but rather that he explained “convective transport energy back to the surface”. See? — all those other words in there somehow make him immune from the fallacy of the basic concept that he is verbalizing in more words.

    What he also does is divorce himself further from the standard incarnation of the “greenhouse effect”, which purely focuses on radiation. His “greenhouse effect” is now something substantially different, including back radiation AND back convection. He looks even more ridiculous trying to pedal this latest …. “defense”.

  180. Barry says:

    You have to admit they are one stubborn bunch,at this point they seem to be arguing for the sake of argument. I have noticed that they now are all going in different directions spouting the flavour of the day as the last argument is overcome. I suppose should be no problem with back convection if we are now cooking with ice.

  181. Dr. Spencer’s latest defense surely seems to support JP’s rants on how the greenhouse narrative intentionally sustains paradox as the norm.

    Dr. Spencer seems to hold that it’s so complex that it’s impossible to explain in words, but the words flow out anyway, in contradictory fashion, disguised (in their sheer quantity) as a novel revelation, but which, in fact, present a more detailed explication of the paradox being sustained in the obscurity of the new verbose complexity.

    In short, lots of words to cover up the blatant flaw. … adults who refuse to give up believing in Santa. … simple models that are okay in their “incompleteness” (the new word for what we used to call “flat-out wrong”), endorsed by deferring to more sophisticated models that are so complex that only the wizards who built them can have any hope of understanding them, and, even so, are a whole ‘nother plateau of “incompleteness” that require aborting debate on the “simple model”, in order to talk about THOSE higher-level flaws.

    It’s like you are being bounced from an elementary faux pas to a grandiose faux pas, and the grandiose faux pas is supposed to be the basis for forgiving the elementary faux pas.

    Sick and disturbing, isn’t it?

  182. boomie789 says:

    @Robert Kernodle

    You are a blessing.

    Sounds like that document could make a good post of some kind, maybe.

  183. Philip Mulholland says:

    Ignore the arrows look at the values instead.
    The diagram starts with a solar input of 340 W/m2.
    This is divide by 4 sophistry in action.

  184. George says:

    I need help here. I’m in a conversation with someone who claims that a warmer object does absorb photons from a cooler object. I claim no that can’t happen. He asks where in the three laws of thermodynamics does it say that can’t happen. I looked up that question “can a warmer object absorb a photon from a cooler object”. This is one of the responses, from Dan Holmgren, PhD Experimental Physics, University Illinois-Urbana:

    Can photons from a cooler surface heat a warmer surface?”

    Yes, photons emitted from a cooler object can transfer energy (heat) a warmer surface. Don’t confuse temperature (average kinetic energy) with heat content. A cooler object cannot raise the temperature of a warmer object through any sort of heat transfer (conduction, convection, radiation) unless additional work is supplied.

    Someone please explain that to me!

  185. George,
    I think an important qualification is missing from the doc’s answer:
    A cooler object cannot raise the temperature of a warmer object through any sort of heat transfer (conduction, convection, radiation) unless additional work is supplied.

    Also, see this:

    https://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2015/08/why-pauli-exclusion-principle-of.html

    NOTE THIS COMMENT there:

    Yes the colder body can reduce the rate of cooling by the hotter body, by replacing a low-energy photon emitted from the hot body of the same energy. Reducing the rate of cooling does not equal warming.
    GHGs only delay IR photons on their way from surface to space by a few milliseconds, and any such slight “heat trapping” of a few millisecond delay is reversed at night.

  186. boomie789 says:

    “Yes, photons emitted from a cooler object can transfer energy (heat) a warmer surface.”
    No, the warmer surface does not absorb the lower energy.
    “Don’t confuse temperature (average kinetic energy) with heat content. A cooler object cannot raise the temperature of a warmer object through any sort of heat transfer (conduction, convection, radiation) unless additional work is supplied.”
    Then he tells you not to do what he just did.
    They go in-between adding lower energy’s to higher energy’s
    Then saying you can’t do that it’s really slowed cooling.
    Then go back to adding lower energy’s to higher energy’s right in front of your face.
    https://climateofsophistry.files.wordpress.com/2020/02/foundation-of-climate-science.jpg
    I’m not a doctor or scientist though.
    here are relevant Postma Qoutes
    They instead solve these problems not by setting heat flow equal to zero, or by referring to heat transfer at all, but by conserving energy indistinct of the heat flow equations. In this case you get the back-radiation back-adding scheme. But this conserves radiant energy as if it follows fermion statistics, whereas it actually follows boson statistics. Thermodynamics is mathematically called “statistical mechanics” for a reason, because what it reduces to is an analysis of how numbers behave depending upon certain axioms of the relevant energy and material phenomena. For example: matter cannot overlap and follows the Pauli Exclusion Principle, whereas light/radiant quanta can overlap and do not follow the Exclusion Principle. This of course has a huge, fundamental effect upon the statistical behavior of matter vs. that of radiation. They treat photon quanta as if they are matter, where back-radiation is equivalent to a pressure valve on a hose. Of course with matter going through a valve, when it is stopped up then the matter pushes upon itself and builds pressure. But shine a laser into a cavity and see if you can feel the “back pressure”.
    -Joseph Postma

    Look at the equations:
    Conductive heat transfer Q = k* (Thot – Tcool)
    Huh look at that heat flow from hot to cool. Now we should find something remarkably different for radiation, as per their claims. Let’s see:
    Radiative heat transfer: Q = s*(Thot^4 – Tcool^4).
    Hmm… Heat transfer from hot to cool!
    ANYTHING that they say about backradiaiton with acknowledgement of the above radiative equation can thus equally be applied to backconduction. There are Tcool terms in both of those equations, which means that the energy of Tcool should be affecting Thot in both cases as per their argument.”
    -Joseph Postma

    Guys…we should never forget that I formally disproved the greenhouse effect using Willis Eschenbach’s “Steel Greenhouse”, in my book “In the Cold Light of Day.” The mathematics of the scenario demonstrates a formal mathematical contradiction…full stop…where the solution indicates that 1 = 2. Literally, that’s the literal end of the analysis, of the solution. 1 = 2. On the other hand when you solve the scenario using the mathematics of heat flow and the heat equation as per thermodynamics, rather than their mathematics of energy flow indistinct of heat flow and therefore indistinct of thermodynamics (recall the reviewer telling me not to talk of heat, but only of energy…thus to abandon thermodynamics), then of course you find a consistent solution. Tell these fuckers that it is RIGHT IN THE BOOK, and they can go through the math themselves. I solved it exactly the way they ask for it to be solved, concerning only flows of energy without reference to heat equations, and you get the solution of 1 = 2 upon a simple analysis of the boundary states. It’s a formal mathematical proof. When you get a solution like that, it tells you that something is wrong about the way you solved the physics. What is wrong, of course, is not utilizing the heat flow equations and instead only creating energy flow equations indistinct of heat. Send them the book reference and quote the above appropriately. BTW my new paper on a brand new mathematical algorithm for solving a long-standing problem in astronomy has passed final review, and should thus be automatically accepted for publication. This is in the journal “Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific”, one of if not THE highest ranked astronomy journals in the world. And the solution/mathematical algorithm I’m presenting to astronomy has never been thought of before, or solved this way, etc. It reduces the time required to create a solution of a common astronomical problem by 5 orders of magnitude from existing solutions, using an entirely new, different, and novel approach no one has ever devised. That’s a 100,000 times reduction in solution time. It also solves the solution in cases where existing schemes cannot solve at all. Not sure if I posted that paper draft here…I think I did on FB though. Anyway, the point is, I FN know what I’m doing with math…  They want my credentials? I publish my astronomy science papers in PASP, and my next paper presents the solution to a problem which has never been accomplished before. So tell them to read my FN book, and face the math! 

  187. immortal600 says:

    Robert,

    Thank you for the reply. So i take it I’m wrong about a warmer body absorbing the photon from a cooler body. It just doesn’t increase the heat content. I stand corrected. I must admit to the other poster I’m wrong.

  188. George says:

    Should have sent it as ‘George’. I don’t care for wordpress.

  189. Read carefully the info I linked you to, George.

    What were you originally claiming again?

  190. George says:

    I was saying that a photon from a cooler object cannot be absorbed by a warmer one due to being at a lower frequency (less energy). Your link indicates that it does happen , if I’m reading it correctly.

  191. boomie789 says:


    from reddit lol.

  192. George,

    As I understand it, External work has to be applied, in order for the “cool” photon to move into the warm object, like with a heat pump. Generally, though, when CO2mageddonistas make the claim, they do NOT have this qualification in mind, and, generally, this special circumstance is not implied, let alone stated outright — they think photons from cool sources can enter warm sources to do something magical that the laws of thermodynamics forbid. So, in my opinion, given the generally understood context of the assertion, you are right and do not need to admit a wrong.

  193. George says:

    Robert,

    Thank you for your responses. I appreciate it. The AGW/GHE crowd try hard to convince people that energy is moving from hot to cold (cooler atmosphere to warmer surface). It is also disappointing to see people like Dr. Roy Spencer supporting that garbage. The PhD that I cited seems to believe that as well. No wonder our fight to overcome this CO2 scam is a tough one!

  194. immortal600 says:

    I meant to say cold to hot!

  195. Joseph E Postma says:

    https://climateofsophistry.com/2019/01/14/flat-earth-in-modern-physics/#comment-62966

    Frank Mlinar says:
    2020/03/14 at 6:06 PM (Edit)

    “Flat Earth theory.”
    I think you assign too much importance to a simplified drawing of the earth’s energy budget. Simplified diagrams are handy to use and easy to understand. Simplified diagrams are a snapshot in time. Your spherical diagram is a step up in complexity, and I find it relatively easy to understand (except the greenhouse assertions. There we part ways).
    Your spherical drawing is what climate scientists use, although they take it a step further and integrate over the sphere. This means the input energy, output energy, latent heat, albedo, etc will be different for each square meter. Convection will be different. Cloud cover will be different. Temperature will be different.
    Some comments on your spherical earth diagram.
    1. The power flux from the sun is actually 1360.8 W/m^2. This is the latest measurement, and is a minor point.
    2. On the sunward side of your sphere, the input power flux is 480 W/m^2. On the other side, the power flux is zero. The average is 240 W/m^2 which is equal to the power flux out.
    3. Latent heat does not describe the temperature of the earth’s surface, and does not set the average adiabatic temperature. I would like to see links supporting your assertion.
    4. You state, “Heat flows down temperature gradients from warm to cool…” More accurately, net heat flows from warm to cool. All bodies radiate energy regardless of the temperature of other bodies. The net flow is what is what you are talking about. Convection is not constrained as tightly to temperature gradients. There, air masses are moved around and a cool air mass can be forced to mix with a warm air mass. Hadley cells. Thunderstorms.
    Otherwise, your model is reasonable accurate.
    Flat earth theory does not need to be defended because it doesn’t exist. All there is is a simplified diagram…and that’s it.

    Joseph E Postma says:
    2020/03/14 at 6:21 PM (Edit)

    I assign the importance to those diagrams which they engender of themselves: the basis of climate science, as taught at universities around the world, as used to derive the climate “greenhouse effect”, as the basis for how climate scientists think of earth’s energy budget.

    As such, what they generate for “understanding” is that of the mechanics for flat Earth theory, for how flat Earth theory would have to work and to be developed into a science, because they are a flat line representing the entire surface of the Earth which is thus flat Earth theory. As such, the logical and scientific flaw of flat Earth theory when developed into physics is that it postulates that the Sun does not heat the Earth or create the Earth’s weather, which is what these diagrams show. They then show an ad-hoc scheme to correct for this mistake of feeble sunshine which they label with a misnomer as “the greenhouse effect”, which has no empirical or theoretical support in the real world.

    Indeed, the energy flows are all local and must all be treated as such, which is what my diagram shows, and which is what the basis of climate science flat Earth diagrams do not show.

    Yes, the average is 240 W/m^2 output…and this cannot be used as a physical input since it is not the physical input. My diagram demonstrates this.

    I did not assert “latent heat describes the temperature of the Earth’s surface and sets the adiabatic temperature.” The sentence is non-nonsensical and thus you’ve created a straw man.

    Heat is the difference between energy emissions. Energy emission itself is not heat. Heat is only the net difference between energy emissions, which means that energy emission is itself not heat.

    Yes, of course cold air can move to warm air regions due to wind. This is not about the thermodynamic restrictions and definitions of heat flow.

    A flat line representing the entire Earth IS FLAT EARTH THEORY.

    Flat Earth theory is the basis of climate science.

  196. Frank M:
    “Flat Earth theory.”
    I think you assign too much importance to a simplified drawing of the earth’s energy budget.

    Robert K:
    I think Frank assigns TOO LITTLE importance to the initial impact of simplified drawings on newly unshaped minds.

    Frank M:
    Simplified diagrams are handy to use and easy to understand. Simplified diagrams are a snapshot in time.

    If “simplified diagrams” are simply wrong in representing the very basics of reality, then they simply fail at the outset. When simple diagrams simply fail, they are simply useless in conveying needed basic foundations for later, mature, advanced thought. They simply create a false foundation. So much for simplicity, then.

    Frank M:
    Your spherical diagram is a step up in complexity, and I find it relatively easy to understand (except the greenhouse assertions. There we part ways).

    Robert K:
    If you consider the basic layer of that complexity as the shape of a sphere, as opposed to the shape of a flat plane to represent Earth, then this first layer of complexity is the first requirement of a basic model. Students just have to model up (i.e., as in “man up”, “soldier up”, etc.) and spend the relatively minimal amount of time studying it repetitively to understand why a sphere is the absolute essential first step in representing the Earth/atmosphere system.

    Frank M:
    Your spherical drawing is what climate scientists use, although they take it a step further and integrate over the sphere. This means the input energy, output energy, latent heat, albedo, etc will be different for each square meter. Convection will be different. Cloud cover will be different. Temperature will be different.

    Robert K:
    Climate modelers, I assume, are who you refer to as “climate scientists” here. And yes, no doubt, they use a spherical model, as they should, and take things a step further with gridding, as they should, and figure in lots of details for each grid, as they should. This is NOT, however, Joe’s spherical drawing. Rather, Joe’s spherical drawing would be the most logical first step for those students wishing to progress to complex climate models later — these students would have the basic foundation in a real-world representation of the Earth/atmosphere system, not a dissonant transition from a flat-Earth “simple model” that failed, from the start of their education, to acknowledge the Earth as a sphere with sunshine entering on a hemisphere at a time.

    Discussing those advanced models, in all their intricacy, is a whole other discussion, which is not what I see as the focus here. Even those higher-level models have problems, partially engendered by refusal to give up the basic flat-Earth model. Those higher models, in fact, have been proven to emulate the flat-Earth basic model. Look at the work of Pat Frank, for example, who has convincingly demonstrated that those model outputs can be arrived at with a simple greenhouse-effect formula that the flat-Earth “simple model” clearly advocates.

    Frank M:
    Some comments on your spherical earth diagram.
    1. The power flux from the sun is actually 1360.8 W/m^2. This is the latest measurement, and is a minor point.

    Robert K:
    Yes, such a minor point that it suggests that the only reason you brought it up was to brandish your knowledge of this particular figure, which makes you look less bright than if you had said nothing about it, since the brunt of the discussion is about the overall integrity of the diagram.

    Frank M:
    2. On the sunward side of your sphere, the input power flux is 480 W/m^2. On the other side, the power flux is zero. The average is 240 W/m^2 which is equal to the power flux out.

    Robert K:
    What “average” are you referring to? In the context of the above statement, it seems that you are taking the average of 480 input on the lit hemisphere and 0 input on the unlit hemisphere, to call this an average input, which is the very thing that is wrong to imply. There is NOT an average flux INPUT over the whole sphere. The 240 is the OUTPUT, and THIS average makes sense, because it occurs as a result of energy transformation throughout the whole sphere that results in an output over the whole sphere.

    Frank M:
    3. Latent heat does not describe the temperature of the earth’s surface, and does not set the average adiabatic temperature. I would like to see links supporting your assertion.

    Robert K:
    I do not see any indication whatsoever that this is being asserted in the diagram.

    Frank M:
    4. You state, “Heat flows down temperature gradients from warm to cool…” More accurately, net heat flows from warm to cool. All bodies radiate energy regardless of the temperature of other bodies. The net flow is what is what you are talking about.

    Robert K:
    “Net heat”? — my understanding is that “net heat” is an unreal idea, if you define “heat” properly. … There is no “net heat” — there is simply heat.

    All bodies radiate ENERGY, yes. But NOT heat. All energy is NOT heat. The net flow of energy is heat, ONLY if it transitions from a warmer body to a cooler body. Failing to make this critical distinction condemns otherwise well-thinking minds to the abyss of falsehoods.

    Frank M:
    Convection is not constrained as tightly to temperature gradients. There, air masses are moved around and a cool air mass can be forced to mix with a warm air mass. Hadley cells. Thunderstorms.

    Robert K:
    Again, I do not see any indication whatsoever that the diagram suggests constraining convection alone to temperature gradients. Rather, convection is part of the system of processes that contributes to organizing and sustaining a temperature gradient.

    Frank M:
    Otherwise, your model is reasonable accurate.

    Robert K:
    “Otherwise”? — Otherwise, given that some of your misunderstandings might have been cleared up, his model is a reasonable alternative to what clearly is a flat-Earth representation of the Earth-atmosphere system of “basic-model” climate “science”.

    Frank M:
    Flat earth theory does not need to be defended because it doesn’t exist. All there is is a simplified diagram…and that’s it.

    Robert K:
    Flat Earth climate theory most assuredly exists and most assuredly is being defended to this day:

    As I stated early, the … “simplified diagram” … is simply wrong, because it is simply unreal and, therefore, simply unfit for purpose in the field of climate science.

  197. Christopher Marshall says:

    I have noticed an increase in troll traffic trying to mix the simple thermodynamics of hot to cold with macro and micro, claiming “that only means on a macro level not a micro level where heat-energy goes both ways.”

    I’ve come across something like that several times.

  198. geran says:

    George, the clowns continually try the “photons emitted from a cooler object can transfer energy to a warmer surface.” They will try that over and over. They must, to support their bogus GHE nonsense.

    If a 1000 marbles were released on top of a hill, they would all roll downhill. Some might hit an object and bounce a little back uphill, before starting to roll downhill again. Clowns would use such an example to claim marbles roll uphill! That’s what you are fighting–people that will attempt any trick, ruse, corruption to advance their agenda.

    Whenever you encounter such fanaticism, challenge them to bake a turkey with ice cubes.

  199. boomie789 says:

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2020/03/14/the-11-gaslighting-characteristics-of-the-climate-debate/

    Good read about techniques alarmist for gaslighting.

    Good for recognizing any gaslighter though

  200. Christopher Marshall says:

    So Van Weert has pulled out the “seat of authority” card so how dare I question him. Now this is after I tried to point out the error in the NASA Giss Spectrum graph.
    https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/schmidt_05/

    So this was his reply:
    “Oh, and hilariously your “three strikes” against that measured emission spectrum merely reinforce that you suffer from a confirmation bias, meaning anything that does not fit your narrative must be wrong.

    Let me first remind you that the one graph you link to is just one of several, and I repeat, MEASURED emission spectra.

    So, to go through your three strikes:
    1. Whether you plot the emission spectrum with the wavelength or the wavenumber on the x-axis DOES NOT MATTER for the fact that the CO2 absorption window is right around the main emission expected from a 294 K emitter. Many physicists actually prefer this way of showing the data, as it is all about energy of the radiation, and that’s highly nonlinear in the wavelength scale. Oh, and if you like MODTRAN so much…it uses the same scale as starting point. Changing it to wavelength doesn’t change anything

    2. There you go again, making stuff up. The peak emission of a blackbody emitter at 294 K is at ca. 580 cm-1. If the peak emission would be at ca. 666 cm-1, it would be 340 K. 666 cm-1 is where CO2 absorbs (15 micron). Stop doing this stupid calculation of a temperature of a photon!

    3. This is actually the same problem you have as point 1 – not realizing that the wavelength scale is VERY nonlinear compared to energy.

    Your complaint is thus all based on your inability to understand the difference between an energy scale and a wavelength scale. You will be unable to give an objective argument that one is better than the other. If Peter would look at it, he would run into the same problem: there is no objective reason to use one or the other scale.

    Oh, and before you go tell me again I don’t know what I am talking about: I have quite some expertise in spectroscopic methods, and thus juggle almost on a daily basis with wavelength scales (primary UV-VIS absorbance and fluorescence) and wavenumber scales (infrared spectroscopy). I’ve advocated the use of energy scales also for UV-VIS and fluorescence, primarily because the absorbance and emission bands, respectively, are expected to be near-Guassian or Lorentzian in an energy scale. It thus is much easier to see whether a band is really one band, or actually multiple bands.

  201. boomie789 says:

    Naive Fool-
    > In the diagram, the -18C is in space, not on Earth. And that’s something Postma added. It doesn’t make sense. He’s treating the solar flux as a blackbody, which is stupid.

    I said -18C doesn’t make sense. You just didn’t understand the explanation. Probably because you don’t know what a blackbody is.

    But keep fighting that strawman. You’re doing great!

    Boomie-
    “Lol no, over 1300w/m^2 is in space. How do you think the sunny side of the moon is 127C?

    I thought you knew what you were talking about?”

    The last two days he has just been badgering me for not answering his thermodynamics questions.

    I’ve just been repeating in different ways that he adds cold to hot and is cooking with ice.

    I’ve never argued with someone for so long lol.

  202. Joseph, back to the FLIR and back radiation for a second.

    The argument is made that the detection of IR by a FLIR is proof that heat is being transferred from a colder object, whether an ice cube or the atmosphere, to the warmer camera. If the detector is not absorbing IR then how can that colder IR be detected? If IR is absorbed does that not heat the detector? Or does absorption not necessarily mean heating?

  203. Detection of IR does not mean it is by heat transfer. They just interpret it this way but it is a total lie. In some cases the detection is done by the photoelectric effect, in others it’s by balance where the detector measures its own heat loss to the cooler objects. Any statement that heat flows cold to hot is an utter lie…simply call them out as liars and make fun of them. Use the quotes about heat I’ve provided etc.

  204. MP says:

    2015 Bill Gates presentation about viruses. Listen very carefully…

  205. Boomie avoid getting into too much minutia – just show them they’re flat earthers and there is no possible way to justify it. His -18C in space comment is ridiculous! Lol

  206. CM,

    Van Weert needs Rosco-izing. (^_^)

    Buy, in lieu of that, here would be my go at it:

    VW
    1. Whether you plot the emission spectrum with the wavelength or the wavenumber on the x-axis DOES NOT MATTER for the fact that the CO2 absorption window is right around the main emission expected from a 294 K emitter.

    RK
    Let’s take another look, shall we?

    Now, while the CO2 absorption window is right around the main emission expected from a 294 K emitter, it is NOT related to the peak emission of much of the rest of the atmosphere, which is what the wave-number-x-axis graph leads viewers to believe CO2 takes a bite out of. This choice of graphing is often presented as proof that CO2 is removing something that should otherwise be there.

    VW
    Many physicists actually prefer this way of showing the data, as it is all about energy of the radiation, and that’s highly nonlinear in the wavelength scale.

    RK
    So, a person must ask, “Why do so many popular presentations of this data choose the method NOT preferred by many physicits?” — The reason, I suspect, is because the the physicist-preferred method does NOT give the illusion of a big bite being taken out.

    VW
    Oh, and if you like MODTRAN so much…it uses the same scale as starting point. Changing it to wavelength doesn’t change anything.

    RK
    Changing to wavelength removes the illusion of the big bite, which would change an important talking point of the CO2-alarmist narrative. That’s a big change.

    VW
    You will be unable to give an objective argument that one is better than the other. If Peter would look at it, he would run into the same problem: there is no objective reason to use one or the other scale.

    RK
    In principle, I agree — there is no objective argument, from the standpoint of science, but the objective of alarmism has drifted far from scientific objectives. Consequently, alarmism chooses what elicits non-objective responses, which, in this case, would be an emotional reaction to the visual impression of a bite being taken out of Earth’s total emissions. And so there IS a political objective to use the wave-number-x-axis scale.

    VW
    Oh, and before you go tell me again I don’t know what I am talking about: I have quite some expertise in spectroscopic methods, and thus juggle almost on a daily basis with wavelength scales (primary UV-VIS absorbance and fluorescence) and wavenumber scales (infrared spectroscopy). …

    RK
    You might well know what you are talking about, but do you understand what the alarmist argument claims the scales mean? My understanding is that those scales do NOT mean that energy is being taken out of some band or trapped out of some band. Rather, my understanding is that energy is being scattered in those bands, so that a detector is seeing a scatter, NOT a removal.

  207. MP says:

    @ Joseph E Postma

    He talks about a possible fast spreading virus in the future because of the possibility to spread while people are not sick yet. …Like covid-19

    And he talks about desired virus wargames worldwide, to prepare for very deadly and fast spreading viruses

    After the virus war game Bill Gates wants a transfer of the WHO from an advice organisation to a central power organisation, with mandated vaccinations and control over armies/geneals in countries if there is an health risk.

    ….Bill Gates is in the committee of 300, what effectively controls the WHO, UN, etc.

  208. Anything these freaks can do to consolidate power. Gates is a big climate freak too. What pathetic “people.”

  209. CD Marshall says:

    Thanks Robert that’s helpful I’m going to prepare a reply to him eventually but my pc crashed and died Friday so I had to start over from scratch after tearing my pc up and test my HDs to make sure they weren’t dead. Then after 3 more crashes I found out my internet adapter was causing the crash. So finally I got windows back up and had to do a clean install.

    I have mixed feelings about Windows 10 it crashes for no known reason often after a huge update. This is the 3rd time it crashed on me. Since I don’t have the W10 disk I have to start from W7 and build back up to W10.

  210. geran says:

    Equilibrium temperature for a blackbody plate, one square meter each side, receiving 960 W/m^2 from one side, is 303.3 K

    Divide the plate into 4 equal sections and divide the flux by 4 (240 to each plate section) gives an equilibrium temperature of 214.5 K, for each of the 4 plates.

    Notice the 89 K difference in temperature, proving that dividing by 4 causes “global warming”!

    The comedy continues.

  211. Jopo says:

    Got this response from flat earther after continuously staying on song and not diverting

    “I guess architects are all idiots too, ‘cos they assume the ground is flat when they start building a house, right?”

    Where do we start with such an invitation. Too many to think of

  212. Amazing morons. Good on you to get that out of them! The ground IS flat on the scale of a house. It is not for the entire earth. Amazing frauds to not be able to acknowledge even this basic fact!

  213. Jopo says:

    mmm Geran slightly to the left of where you were going. 303.5 / 214.5 = 1.414 or sqrt of 2. Significance of this. I dont know but what a coincidence.

  214. Jopo says:

    JP I was more of the lines

    “You have just tried to build a house on a slightly sloping convex shaped hill.
    You start of assuming crap you will get crap”

  215. Yes exactly, good one!

  216. I don’t know that architects assume that the ground is flat. Rather, they assume that they will have to make the ground level, and they do so. That’s what the foundation establishes — a level starting surface.

    This, by the way, has Jack shit to do with flat-Earth physics, but idiots think that any flat comparison is a valid comparison, just as they think any small-quantity comparison is a valid comparison.

    … a definite display of an intelligence-challenged individual there, Jopo.

  217. geran says:

    “Significance of this. I dont know but what a coincidence.”

    JoPo, it’s not coincidence, it’s algebra.

    x^.25/(x/4)^.25 = 4^.25 = 1.414

  218. boomie789 says:

    The house of climate science, built on a foundation of lies.

  219. jopo says:

    Cheers geran. clearly some work for me yet.

  220. Jopo says:

    Oh Boomie that is GOLD
    I am pinching that LOL

  221. Rosco says:

    I haven’t visited for a while and I haven’t followed the discussion but hasn’t anyone noticed the claim of

    “What the extra bit of CO2 is doing, even though it instinctively sounds like a tiny quantity, is altering that equilibrium just enough to create a surplus retention of energy of that 1.68 Watts per square meter I mentioned in my last email. That’s not new energy. No energy has been created here and no thermodynamic law has been broken. That energy came from the Sun. It’s just that our atmosphere is no longer letting that 1.68 Watts per square meter back out into space like it used to, so the energy can therefore ONLY do one thing, and that is to make the atmospheric temperature go up.”

    This is even more absurd than Trenberth’s extra 0.9 W/m2 from their 2009 Energy Budget.

    John Christie debunked this “energy trapping” way back in 2007/08.

    Here’s my take on it using 1.68 W/m2 as an input and Q=mass x C_p x δT

    https://www.dropbox.com/s/5fpauafx4f2g7z5/Calculating%20temperature%20change%20based%20on%20radiation%20anomalies.docx?dl=0

    1.68 W/m2 equates to a temperature change of ~5.235°C per annum – RIDICULOUS !!!

    Here’s the other take on energy trapping – there isn’t any according to the Nimbus satellites :-

  222. Rosco says:

    Boomie789 these people are stupid beyond belief !

    Look at this bullshit about the International Space Station:-

    https://www.scienceabc.com/nature/universe/is-it-hot-or-cold-at-the-international-space-station.html

    “Orbiting the planet at an altitude of 330-435 kilometers above the surface of Earth, the International Space Station experiences a wide range of temperatures. Since it continuously revolves around the planet, sometimes it’s on the sunlit side of the Earth, while at other times, it’s on the dark side.

    When the ISS faces the sun, the (external) temperature it experiences is around 250 degrees Fahrenheit (121 Degrees Celsius). On the other hand, when it’s on the side when our planet completely blocks out the sun, the thermometers plummet to minus 250 degrees Fahrenheit (-157 degrees Celsius).”

    They got the basics from NASA at https://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2001/ast21mar_1

    But it is entirely nonsense – the ISS orbits Earth every ninety two minutes and supposedly changes from + 121°C to minus 157°C in that time.

    The metal fatigue from such stressing every ninety two minutes would have seen it disintegrate long ago.

    Besides at an average height of 408 km above Earth’s surfaces using the inverse square law and emissions of ~239 W/m2 says the temperature of the space in Earth’s shadow at 408 km is about minus 25°C and not minus 157°C.

    This places the temperature in the ranges experienced by aircraft and well known engineering parameters – not the unbelievable bullshit sprouted by idiots !!

    https://www.dropbox.com/s/2zhxtibqspzo9zj/The%20inverse%20square%20law%20and%20the%20ISS%20temperatures.docx?dl=0

  223. CD Marshall says:

    Rosco,
    Isn’t the ISS in the Thermosphere? Which means temps are more irrelevant up there, wider molecule spacing, less kinetic energy?

    Checking…
    “Although the exosphere is technically part of Earth’s atmosphere, in many ways it is part of outer space. Many satellites, including the International Space Station (ISS), orbit within the exosphere or below. For example, the average altitude of the ISS is about 330 km (205 miles), placing it in the thermosphere below the exosphere! Although the atmosphere is very, very thin in the thermosphere and exosphere, there is still enough air to cause a slight amount of drag force on satellites that orbit within these layers. This drag force gradually slows the spacecraft in their orbits, so that they eventually would fall out of orbit and burn up as they re-entered the atmosphere unless something is done to boost them back upwards. The ISS loses about 2 km (1.2 miles) in altitude each month to such “orbital decay”, and must periodically be given an upward boost by rocket engines to keep it in orbit…”

    “Temperatures climb sharply in the lower thermosphere (below 200 to 300 km altitude), then level off and hold fairly steady with increasing altitude above that height. Solar activity strongly influences temperature in the thermosphere. The thermosphere is typically about 200° C (360° F) hotter in the daytime than at night, and roughly 500° C (900° F) hotter when the Sun is very active than at other times. Temperatures in the upper thermosphere can range from about 500° C (932° F) to 2,000° C (3,632° F) or higher.” -NASA

    Fact checking NASA with NASA seems kind of pointless. However the biggest problem with the ISS is heat dispersion, because heat can’t radiate effectively at that level and which is why I also have issues with movies portraying death in outer space. I haven’t seen one that was accurate. Death in space would be the most excruciating death imaginable,

    https://www.realclearscience.com/blog/2012/08/how-would-you-die-in-outer-space.html

    “First off, the gas in your lungs and digestive tract would rapidly expand, inducing swelling. If you choose this inopportune chance to hold your breath, your lungs would likely burst and you’d be a goner.

    Any water directly exposed to the environment, such as the liquid on your eyes or tongue would boil off in a matter of seconds. About ten seconds into the ordeal, you would lose vision. Moments later, you would likely lose consciousness, a result of gas exchange working in reverse and oxygen being dumped from your blood. Your skin would discolor to a pallid shade of blue. After about one minute, circulation would stop altogether. After another minute, you’d be dead by asphyxiation. ”

    Reality sucks!

  224. Mark S. says:

    CD
    “Since I don’t have the W10 disk I have to start from W7 and build back up to W10.”

    Please forgive me, if you already know this.

    In W10 or W7, if you go to “Backup and Restore” from Control Panel (type control in the search box), you can make a disk image of your “C” drive and a boot CD. Wait till the PC is stable though. Choose as the target a second disk drive (int or ext) that can hold at least 2 images (never destroy a backup making a backup).

  225. CD Marshall says:

    Mark S,
    I did better, I put in a drive this time as a clone backup, hopefully that’ll fix it once and for all. Unless the unfortunate odds happen that both drives die. I might do yours as a backup to my backup. In the past “backups” have not worked worth crap for me which is why I gave up on them. Plus I have a second drive where all my vital files are kept off the main drive but they are so many I don’t have a second drive to clone them (yet).

    Thanks for the tip 🙂

  226. eilert says:

    Anyone wants to know were this sudden pandemic panic originated:
    It was already mapped out in October 2019 in the “Event 201” meeting of the globalists
    Sponsored by Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.
    Bill stepped down from Microsoft within a couple of hours of POTUS saying “we all know where this came from” in last Fridays presser:

  227. Joseph E Postma says:

    Watching now…forgot that one came up on my notifications. She’s really great.

    I swear that these people aren’t human. Gates is also a big climate change alarmist, who has talked about depopulation extensively.

    They want us to hate the life molecule. They are obsessed with viral outbreaks, etc.

  228. Joseph E Postma says:

    Oh of course they want more “social distancing”. We’ve already all been distanced socially from each other due to these people’s technologies! We’re all atomized, staring at screens and not each other, living in multi-cultural low-trust societies of no social cohesion, going to the screen for sex instead of finding partners, etc. So this now makes perfect sense. Of course they want to use this virus to now make us afraid to even be in each other’s presence. Completely anomic and atomized.

    Do you not see how this is a war? It is a war to divide and then destroy…when the enemy forces come, we’ll all be staring at our screens, too afraid to even be in each other’s presence let alone form closely together to present a united front to defend ourselves. Every man for himself, and every man with zero allies against a united enemy.

  229. CD Marshall says:

    Heads up my wife is getting supplies for a couple of weeks, she works for outreaches world wide, and something must have come down the grapevine. Different approcahces for different nations but it sounds like people are going to panic and that means no supplies, stores shut down, gas shut down and looters. Better to be prepared than found wanting. The left might even pay looters for all we know never let a good crisis go to waste. Think of it as a 3 week storm and you’ll be shut in.

    Keep enough supplies for at least 3 weeks (her words).

    This is just a worse case scenario. 63 dead in the US which is bad yes, but that’s not time to panic, I means its not 63,000 then yes I’d be concerned. Any life lost is tragic but most of these viruses are usually being made in a lab.

    Population reduction? Who knows.

  230. Found this post with quote below which explains how quantum mechanics supports the 2nd law as it applies to back radiation. https://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/search?q=planck%27s+quantum

    Why the Pauli Exclusion Principle of quantum mechanics forbids CO2 photons from warming the Earth surface…exerpt:

    “If a lower-quantum-energy photon is “absorbed” by the completely saturated low-energy microstates (eg vibrational, translational, rotational, chemical bonds) & molecular or atomic orbitals of a higher-energy body, the hot body must simultaneously eject a photon of the exact same wavelength/frequency/energy as that absorbed, due to the Pauli Exclusion Principle of fundamental quantum theory. Thus there is no change whatsoever in the energy content/temperature of the hotter body due to “absorbing” a low-energy photon from the colder source with simultaneous emission of an identical photon of the exact same wavelength/frequency/energy (some instead refer to this as “reflection” of the lower-energy photon). This explains the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics on a quantum basis, thus why low frequency/energy photons from a cold emitter cannot warm a warmer blackbody at a higher frequency/temperature/energy.

    Since the emitting temperature of ~15um photons from atmospheric CO2 is -80C by Wein’s & Planck’s Laws (also explained in the reference below), these photons cannot possibly be thermalized/increase the energy or temperature of the much warmer Earth surface at +15C.”

  231. Oh wow that’s really good. Yes of course the PEP applies to matter and it is the PEP which has set up all populated microstates. So to try to insert an already-populated state means that the existing state has to “pop out” to make a hole for its own replacement, and this pop out is energy emitted as a photon. This is why two parallel plates reach the same temperature between their gap, etc.

  232. CD Marshall says:

    That totally destroys their claim thermodynamics is only applicable on a macro level. Which made no sense anyway, what is micro but an extension of the macro?

    Holy macro, I say.

  233. boomie789 says:

    Guys did you know the spanish figured out how to generate solar energy at night?

    You wouldn’t believe how they did it. When the sun sets, you turn on the flood lights powered by diesel generators pointed at the panels! Brilliant!

    Lol had to share that laugh!

    “We wonder how Spain went broke.”lol.

    Here at 13:20, the entire presentation is very interesting though.

  234. minarchist (@3GHtweets),

    I also recognize that quote. It’s from here:

    https://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2015/08/why-pauli-exclusion-principle-of.html

  235. I just rand out of gas to power the generators that power the flood lights that power my solar panels.

    I have a great solution for wind turbines, when the wind does not blow: Just power up some generators to power some big fans that power the windless turbines. Brilliant, isn’t it?

    I just saved fifty dollars by not spending fifty dollars. That means I now have $100, right?

  236. CD Marshall says:

    Robert, don’t forget the +33 dollars the atmosphere made for you. Wind turbines are good for one thing, homes for stray cats and a daily supply of fresh food.

  237. CD Marshall says:

    Get to the stores and get supplies ya might need them. You never know when you might get a chance again. If this goes viral they can declare ML…and you just never know how many days or hours you have left until that could happen, even minutes. Maybe even midnight as such…you never know what is being planned and if known not allowed to be spoken. Times like this rumors fly but sometimes those rumors can be true.

    Always good to be safe in these uncertain times and be prepared.

    National Guard could be rolling down the streets and doing a street to street ban. Wouldn’t that be something to wake up to?

    You know as baseless rumors fly that is.

  238. geran says:

    Photon absorption is based on wavelength compatibility. It’s that simple. The Pauli Exclusion Principle does not apply to photons, since photons have integer spin (bosons)

    Or, in a way everyone can easily understand, “You can’t bake a turkey with ice cubes”

  239. CD Marshall says:

    You know warmists are now quoting Spencer about cold moving to hot.

    So in the US the CDC is wanting a two week shutdown and Trump is urging for calmer measures, the fact that this shutdown would “just” happen to coincide with elections I’m sure has nothing to with it.

  240. boomie789 says:

    Lol @ Robert and CD

    I think we could work something out with sterling engines and refrigerators.

    Lol.

    Good luck with the kung flu guys!

  241. In my mind, the year 2020 will be the year that isopropyl alcohol disappeared from existence, either in stores or online. WTF

    … nowhere to be found. I’m not wanting to hoard it or stock up on it. I just-the-hell want to buy my usual bottle or so to continue in my usual habits. It’s a friggin’ alcoholmageddon !

    So, the hoarding fu@#s are gonna wait for a viral outbreak to start practicing good habits?!!

    Oh, an Earth-killing comet is about to strike — guess I’ll start believing in the power of Jesus now.

    Oh, they’re predicting more flooding near the lake where I live — guess I’ll learn to swim now.

    Oh, I’ve got lung cancer — guess I’ll stop smoking now, after twenty years of three-packs-a-day-Camel-unfilterered.

    Sometimes, I’m not proud to be an American, I hate to say, with mass hysteria like this going on.

  242. Rosco says:

    CD Marshall asked
    “Rosco,
    Isn’t the ISS in the Thermosphere? Which means temps are more irrelevant up there, wider molecule spacing, less kinetic energy?”

    The ISS is in an almost vacuum and the concept of an ambient temperature is such an environment is meaningless except for the radiation levels passing through such a volume.

    On the sunny side of Earth this is the solar radiation but you wouldn’t say there was a hot temperature in the volume – only that an object absorbing significant quantities of the radiation would become hot.

    Similarly in Earth’s shadow the only significant radiation would be Earth’s emissions plus the amount of the solar radiation refracted by Earth’s atmosphere as the wave front passed Earth.

    Alarmists and luke warmers continually say near Earth orbit space is cold but this is stupid beyond belief.

    Every bit of the huge “sphere” mapped by Earth’s orbital radius is irradiated by ~1368 W/m2 and any object absorbing that will not be cold !

    The only place to avoid this is in the shadow of a planet but this volume is so trivial.

    And you’re right about death in space being horrible.

    The lack of air pressure means that our body temperature is sufficient to boil the water in our mucous membranes without any input from the Solar radiation.

    However, most astronauts agree that Dave could have survived the exposure to a vacuum for the time it took him to get back in after HAL locked him out of the airlock – perhaps more than a minute – of course that was in deep space remote from a star.

    The thing I find really funny is the alarmists belief that body temperature urine would freeze in near Earth orbit pace whilst I firmly believe that urine with it absorption properties would instantly boil and dissipate.

  243. Rosco,

    Urine would boil, … not because of the sun, but rather because of back urination, which would cause it to be hotter than it otherwise would be.

    Seriously, though, on a slightly different path, the next time somebody says that the gap in the emission spectrum proves heat “trapping”, point out that absorption and the resultant, virtually-instantaneous emission is NOT” trapping”. Nothing is trapped. Nothing is subtracted.

    Instead, the energy of that particular wavelength is the energy that pushes the molecule to the next higher energy level, and so that particular part looks “empty”. As the molecule falls back to its lower energy level, it emits in all directions, which sort of acts to disperse or destructively interfere with the light at that wavelength, as I have come to understand it. [I think I sort of got this right.]

  244. CD Marshall says:

    Robert,

    You are exactly right. Someone on here explained that a while ago…which one I don’t recall. It makes perfect sense, like a stream interrupted by a a large rock, it splits the energy flow around it into smaller currents but the same energy is still flowing. However warmists would claim the rock is “trapping” the water current and until water forcing builds up enough it can’t go around the rock and then when it does “back rock pressure” adds +33% more water to the front of the rock than would have been if the rock wasn’t there in the first place.

  245. boomie789 says:

    You guys want to hear something interesting about youtube censorship?

    YouTube is claiming because of the kung flu, they don’t have enough bodies to manually review videos.

    Think about that, that make sense to you?

    Seems pretty obvious to me that manually reviewing videos is easily done from home, right? Of course.

    But you know what’s even weirder? THE MANUAL REVIEWERS ALREADY WORK FROM HOME.

    They are making up an excuse to ramp up censorship before the election. They can blame videos being removed on their algorithms. It’ll just be another “mistake” like when the last youtube purge happened.

    “Never let a good crisis go to waste”

    A world of lies and I’m so sick of it.

  246. There’s nothing like fear for establishing a good foundation for false trust.

    Now that you are all scared as hell, I’ll make you unafraid, if you elect me president.

  247. CD Marshall says:

    My brother went to several gun shops this week looking for ammo and the places are nearly cleared out of everything. People aren’t FN around with looters this time.

    My arsenal isn’t “horde certified” but my brother could keep them at bay, if need be. Nothing is more horde ready than an Auto 12 gauge magnum with flechette rounds, if you got one or a good AR/30 round mag.

    Tear gas would work too.

    Seriously, if it ever came down to total anarchy cities and towns are death zones. In those times the “Doomsday Prepper” will become god.

    Nothing like a secret bunker and 10 year supplies to wear out a good holocaust.

    End rant.

  248. boomie789 says:

    I was wondering if anyone would ever bring up their arsenal.

    Lol

  249. This:

    is … NOT CO2 “trapping” or “blocking” or “slowing”.

    Rather, it is CO2 absorbing and emitting in all directions, over a fraction of a second:

  250. CD Marshall says:

    boomie789,
    I’m not as keen as my bro but if I had to guess from top to bottom,
    > .223 Carbine Rifle
    >.308 single shot bolt action
    >12 gauge 3 1/2″
    >.22 LR 50 round mag 25/25 double stacked
    >20 gauge single shot 2 3/4″
    > Both 9mm pistols 15R staggered and 7 round single.

    So how did I do?
    That round at the bottom is throwing me off, it looks like a .38 but the rim looks wider from the picture angle, at first I thought it was a 9mm but it looks too long. Is it a rifle round, one of those odd out ones which would make the last rifle NOT a 20 gauge.

    So how did I do?

  251. CD Marshall says:

    RK,

    15 Micron gets broken down usually to 10 and 7 (So I’ve heard???) 10 goes right out the open window and 7? Don’t know.

  252. boomie789 says:

    @CD Marshal

    5.56x45mm Colt Ar-15A3 HBAR Carbine. (You can shoot .223 in it) .223 isn’t really the same as 5.56. You can shoot .223 in a 5.56 barrel, but you shouldn’t shoot 5.56 in a .223 barrel. It will break the gun, generally.

    .35 whelen crack barrel single shot pro hunter, this is the most expensive gun in the picture by a lot. You’ve probably heard of a 30-06, this is the same cartridge but instead of a .30 cal bullet it’s a .35. I’ve killed a 9 point buck with that rifle. Not really much of a deer hunter though.

    Remington 870 Wingmaster, 12 gauge 3in magnum. Squirrel gun, but with buckshot it is devastating. This thing is a squirrel slayer.

    Ruger 10/22 .22lr. Thats a 25 round mag. I have a scope for it but I took it off. I prefer iron sights.

    That was my first real gun. .22lr single shot Crack barrell, made in Brazil, Braztech…. Had it since I was around 12. Great little rifle really, what I learned to shoot with.

    Sig Sauer M11-A1 9mm 15rd. Most recent acquisition. Haven’t shot it much.

    Sig Sauer P238 .380 ACP I carry this everyday, my personal favorite. I shoot this pistol better than any other pistol.

    That is either a .380 or a 9mm I took out of the chamber of one of the pistols. I think it’s a 9mm.

    I’m low on .380 ACP Hollowpoints but plenty for everything else, especially 5.56.

  253. CD Marshall says:

    Ah the .35mm threw me off, not familiar with that one.

    My wife carries a .38 S&W Airweight with Hornandy +P rounds, I have a S&W 9mm M&P Shield with Hornandy +p rounds, and we have an old one shot 3″ 20 gauge. My brother has a literal arsenal of weapons that he is constantly buying and selling, hard to keep up with what he has. He modifies/customs guns and sells them.

  254. boomie789 says:

    @CD Marshall

    Sounds like my kind of people. I also prefer Hornady Ammunition, for my self defense rounds at least.

    Let me correct myself and say the Thompson encore pro hunter(.35 whelen) is the most expensive WITH the scope. That is Zeiss scope and it cost more than the rifle.

    S&W is always a solid choice.

  255. CD Marshall says:

    My brother actually bought it for me, lol, wanted his little brother to have the best protection (the ammo) actually he bought the gun too come to think of it.

    He’s more into Glocks these days as his carry.

    Anyway, back to science. At least with the virus the trolls have been quiet. I wonder who is kicking themselves that they let out this came from China and not permafrost melting from global warming.

  256. boomie789 says:

    You know what they call Bats?

    The chicken of the cave.

  257. CD Marshall says:

    So I ran 15 micron through a spectral calculator at 294 Kelvin with a lower 14.5/upper 15.5 (I converted it to CM-1)
    and this is what I got…https://www.spectralcalc.com/blackbody_calculator/blackbody.php

    Blackbody Properties:

    Radiant emittance:
    423.655 W/m2

    Radiance:
    134.854 W/m2/sr

    Peak spectral radiance:
    0.144452 W/m2/sr/cm-1

    Wavenumber of peak:
    576.537 cm-1

    Spectral Radiance:
    0.140514 W/m2/sr/cm-1

    Anyone want to walk me through this against this:
    https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/schmidt_05/

    and in regards to this…
    https://principia-scientific.org/nasas-great-peak-fake-swindle/

    and this…

    https://principia-scientific.org/nasas-great-peak-fake-swindle-part-2/

  258. CDM,

    In my opinion, nobody needs to walk you, but rather everybody needs to RUN away from that “big-bite” graph, screaming, Absorbing AND emitting in a micro-fraction of a second is NOT trapping, no matter how you draw it!!

    That graph just shows a molecule reacting. Whatever is absorbed is emitted. Simple as that. Absorb. Emit. Absorb. Emit. It’s just an action/reaction sort of thing at a particular wavelength.

    The greenhouse catastrophistas just leave out the “emit” part, and pretend like only the absorb part is the only thing going on, or they think that the quantity of emissions from the quantity of absorptions causes a radiation back up that “slows cooling”. But there is NO SUCH BACK UP.
    There is NO SUCH SLOWING. At most, even with all the emissions, there is a mere micro-second of delay for ALL CO2 EMISSIONS TOGETHER.

    And it seems to be more involved than that, because nitrogen is also energizing CO2 in a way that green brains do not comprehend. I’m still in the process of trying to understand this aspect of it.

  259. CD Marshall says:

    “A new idea is accepted only temporarily in the scientific method, in the form of a hypothesis. It is then subjected to rigorous testing, in carefully controlled experiments. A hypothesis is elevated to a scientific law only after it has survived many such tests. A scientific law must be predictive, in addition to being explanatory; failure to accurately predict the results of a new experiment is sufficient to invalidate a scientific law. Concepts or ideas that have earned the status of scientific laws by direct and repeated testing then can be applied with confidence in new environments.”

    That does not sound like the Greenhouse Gas Effect at all.

  260. CD Marshall says:

    Is no one on here because we can’t be in groups anymore? Hope everyone is doing well. I’ve heard some disturbing things through my brother of some nations taking advantage of this outbreak for political gain.

    If anyone is not in their bunker, does anyone know how trustworthy the HADCRUT4 data temps are?

  261. No, it does NOT sound like the Greenhouse Gas Effect, which would be characterized as follows:

    A sacred idea is accepted permanently in the pseudo-scientific method, in the form of a narrative. It is then never subjected to rigorous testing, in carefully controlled experiments. A sacred idea is elevated to a religious doctrine only after it has survived all attempts at rational displacement. A sacred idea must never be questioned, in addition to never being subjected to sound logic; failure to accurately predict the results of a new experiment has nothing to do with validating a religious doctrine. Beliefs or fears that have earned the status of religious doctrines by faith and repeated errors then can be applied with confidence in new environments.

  262. We are practicing, … (wait for it) … social distancing.

    This is actually not a bad idea, when stupid has reached pandemic levels, as it seems to have done.

    Fewer stupid babies will be conceived with “social distancing” designed to discourage birthing the sorts of people who propagate climate alarm

  263. CD Marshall says:

    Robert,
    Excellent interpretation. Let’s call it the Gaia Greenhouse Gas Mythos, or something more suited to its actual meta physical idealogy or maybe Idology?

  264. boomie789 says:

    “Heat content within an ice sheet raises the temperature, and therefore lowers viscosity” of the ice at the base of the glacier, said Erik Ivins, a senior research scientist at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, California.

    The result: lubrication of the glacier’s movement.

    “It’s capable of expelling ice mass through faster flow,” Ivins said.

    A dramatic example is found in Greenland, where a long “thermal track” was recently revealed beneath the miles-thick ice sheet that covers the giant island.
    u/mylankovic

    ^Neat stuff

  265. Rosco says:

    Now for some bad news – it appears the COP26 in Glasgow in November is likely to be postponed.

    I think we all should petition them to keep the meeting going at all costs.

    Just imagine 30,000 of ’em indoors in Scotland in winter with COVID 19 as the host !!

  266. boomie789 says:

    Climate Change news is at a crawl. Everyone to distracted by the kung flu.
    Gun Sales have broken records people say will never be broken again.

    There is something about greenland melting, but no one really cares.

    The scam continues though. The hobgoblins that profit from the fear of human caused climate change, can easily switch lanes to “helping” us with the Kung Flu.

    Give us money so we can test our drugs on you. Like we do Africans and the New York Homless population. They need money so they can develop the program to track vaccinated people, like cattle.

    This lady is great. Thx Postma.

  267. CD Marshall says:

    Rosco says, “On the sunny side of Earth this is the solar radiation but you wouldn’t say there was a hot temperature in the volume – only that an object absorbing significant quantities of the radiation would become hot”

    Another stupid question, conduction is contact with a heated object, what is the exact term in physics for the heating of an object? The sun heats the surface of the Earth or the ISS, heating seems to simple of a term.

    I’m dealing with a guy who is stealing my IQ, (I feel dumber each time I read his comments). For example, “Coffee has both heat “in it” (potential and kinetic energy), and temperature…”

    After a hundred comments of (myself) directly quoting thermodynamic manuals, he gives me this and claims he has an understanding of thermodynamics.

    Sunlight (photons) has potential energy (if I’m thinking right) but until work is being done, (striking an object that can transfer that potential energy to work) it has no heat or kinetic energy.

    Does a photon carry kinetic energy? I’m just curious for myself on this one. I’m thinking no right? No mass no KE. So it does carry Potential Energy?

    A cup of coffee has internal energy and kinetic energy it does not have potential energy.

  268. CD Marshall says:

    ANYONE

    Does anyone have input on this paper https://www.worldscientific.com/doi/abs/10.1142/S021797921005555X

    which was used to refute this paper https://arxiv.org/abs/0707.1161

  269. Joseph E Postma says:

    From the abstract: “They claim that radiative heat transfer from a colder atmosphere to a warmer surface is forbidden, ignoring the larger transfer in the other direction which makes the complete process allowed.”

    This is where they’re saying that heat flows in both directions, but the flow from hotter to cooler is larger, and therefore there is allowed in thermodynamics. They entirely invented a new definition of heat flow, where it flows both ways, and the only thing which is important about it is that more flows from hot to cold. This is where they gloss over the distinction between energy (which is two way) and heat (which is actually one-way in reality).

  270. Joseph E Postma says:

    It’s a complete lie and they know it of course. Nowhere is heat defined as a two-way process in ANY of its modes. This definition or description doesn’t exist anywhere…aside from climate science. In thermodynamics textbooks it doesn’t exist. And I’ve shown you all numerous quotation examples of that. They have no example, no quotations, from source material outside of their own field. Their own field is of course separate from thermodynamics, because they’ve invented new pseudo-thermodynamics.

    So they just invented this idea that heat is two way.

  271. Rosco says:

    CD the guy who said this -“For example, “Coffee has both heat “in it” (potential and kinetic energy), and temperature…” is basically clueless:-

    “Heat” is strictly defined as a natural transfer of energy from hot objects to cooler objects – anyone who says anything contains “heat” is clueless !

    Only applied work can change the natural tendency for heat transfer such as in the refrigeration cycle.

    Radiation is capable of increasing the energy of objects capable of absorbing it. The solar radiation is entirely different to any IR generated by objects on Earth – it carries the “signature” of the emission temperature and is attenuated by the inverse square law.

    However the solar radiation can be “concentrated” to restore some of the temperature potential of the original emission – solar collectors, solar ovens and magnifying glasses attest to this. If we had the technology to do this effectively our energy needs would be solved permanently – unfortunately we don’t.

    The IR emitted by ambient Earth temperatures could only ever recreate their emission temperature if this was possible to do so which is why the greenhouse effect model is stupid beyond belief.

    2 objects at differing temperatures radiating against each other in the absence of all other energy is most decidedly NOT a 2 way transfer of heat – such an absurd claim defies the scientific definition of heat and is easily provable as totally false by considering Planck’s law.

    Only climate science uses such absurd claims !

  272. CD Marshall says:

    Yes you are exactly right and you explained it perfectly.

  273. CD Marshall says:

    Er, both of you.
    Thanks Joe and Rosco.

  274. geran says:

    From your source, CD: From the abstract: “They claim that radiative heat transfer from a colder atmosphere to a warmer surface is forbidden, ignoring the larger transfer in the other direction which makes the complete process allowed.”

    Their deception comes in two stages. Stage 1 is to get you to accept that it is okay for a warmer object to absorb photons from a colder object because the warmer object is emitting more. Once you swallow that, Stage 2 is to then claim that since the warmer object has absorbed energy, it must increase in temperature.

    Stage 1 is wrong, as Joseph and Rosco have explained.

    And Stage 2 is wrong due to the fact that if the hotter object were somehow able to absorb the “colder” photons, its temperature would decrease, as the average energy of the “cold” photons would be less than the “hot” photons.

    And the fact that you can’t bake a turkey with ice cubes debunks both Stages.

  275. CD Marshall says:

    That second was subtle, wasn’t it? I didn’t catch that.

  276. CD Marshall says:

    So does hot coffee have potential energy? My understanding is no, unless work is being done?

  277. CD,

    Gerlich & Tscheuschner answered those critics quite decisively here:

    http://www.skyfall.fr/wp-content/gerlich-reply-to-halpern.pdf

    So, in my judgment, they refuted their critics convincingly.

    Also, coffee does NOT … “have heat in it”. Heat is not something that is containable — it is a transition at a boundary, where energy moves from hot to cold. That energy in transition is “heat”.
    No transition, no heat. Heat is NOT a static quantity — it does not just sit there — it would not be “heat”, if it did.

  278. CD Marshall says:

    Robert,
    Thanks for the link. I agree totally about the heat. The potential energy however, say if you stick your finger in hot coffee heat transfers to your finger, so would PE come to play anywhere in that?
    My thoughts on PE is something that is work, like air descending down a column of the atmosphere. Energy is created by auto compression and the work is gravity. Is that right?

  279. That’s just heat. Potential energy doesn’t really relate.

  280. Coffee has higher energy than your finger.

    Your finger has lower energy than the coffee.

    Stick lower-energy finger in higher-energy coffee, and higher energy flows to source with lower energy. That amount of energy flow is heat.

    Can you contain running? Can you contain seeing? Can you contain thinking?

    You cannot contain work or heat.

  281. CD Marshall says:

    Potholer’s Potrollers are the dumbest things I have ever encountered in my life. Well over 200 comments over there to gain absolutely nothing but liars who are so stuck in their lies they can’t truth themselves out of it if they wanted to.

    Climate Science is modern day Astrology. I’ll call it Climatolgy.

    Climatology is a pseudoscience that claims that cold can make warmer hotter still by use of divining science into paradigms of a faith belief cult where humans must atone for their sins to Gaia. This Idology is based on CO2 manipulating terrestrial events and those who study these movements of the magic gas, CO2 (who some prophets of this faith claim they can see CO2 in visions) and relating the placement of this magical substance in the celestial body, they can predict backbody radiation, a diving power used by the prophets to make cold +33 degrees warmer.

    The enemy of this cult, known in mythologies as the Great Evil, the Devourer, is Big Oil whose transgression was to make life for humanity a little better, this could not be tolerated by the prophets of Gaia who declared a holy war upon the Big Oil and would not rest until the power of Big Oil, the magic CO2, was driven deep into the ground from where it came, ideally killing most life on Earth in the process.

    To the Death Cult of Gaia, the loss of life was a price they were willing for others to pay, for to them the sacrifice of others should always outweigh the sacrifice of the prophets, thus let it be peer reviewed and thus let it be done!

  282. CD Marshall says:

    This guy needs a KO.

  283. CD Marshall says:

    PH54 I mean.

  284. boomie789 says:


    @1hr40m

    Remember when you debated this guy?

    Truth relativist, moral relativist, you can’t reason with these type of people. Nothing is true or real to them. If you wanted to have control/influence over people this is the best state of mind to have them in. Nihilism/Solipsism.

    Ill save you a bunch of time, don’t bother with the first 1hr30min of the debate, it’s brutal. The Video should skip to the end were it gets to the good part. I think Molyneux excellently brings the contractions to the surface. Only need to watch for about 10mins, if you want to see JF squirm.

  285. boomie789 says:

    Particularly around 1hr46m.

    I propose JF is intellectually dishonest.

  286. Yah he seems controlled.

  287. CD Marshall says:

    LOL, Remember this guy, ““Coffee has both heat “in it” (potential and kinetic energy), and temperature…”

    Well I actually gave him links to Hyperphsics explaining potential and internal energy and this is his reply…

    “Internal energy means potential energy and kinetic energy. You have no idea what you’re talking about here and are in dire need of a lesson in how physics works. “Thermal potential energy is the potential energy at the atomic and molecular levels that has the potential of becoming thermal kinetic energy or related forms of energy. … Common types of thermal potential energy are chemical bonds, electrostatic or intermolecular forces, and nuclear bonds”

  288. Not even saying anything relevant.

  289. CD Marshall says:

    Yeah and then he told me to talk to a physicist. LOL. I just did, again. That was the only good advice he gave me.

    JF has that “weasel” way about him, he’s shifty. You can tell just by looking at him. He has evasive posturing.

  290. JF isn’t a real intellectual…he’s an academic at best.

  291. CD Marshall says:

    Stefan is pretty brilliant. Don’t know or care on his beliefs, I like his way of handling the subject matter and forcing him back on the point.

  292. CD Marshall says:

    He literally just copied that from a search engine…Remember this subject was a hot cup of coffee, not energy in and out of a system.

    “Internal energy of a system is the sum of potential energy and kinetic energy of that system. Potential energy is the stored energy and kinetic energy is the energy generated due to the motion of molecules. The internal energy is given by the symbol U and the change in the internal energy is given as ∆U.”

    “Thermal potential energy is potential energy at the atomic and molecular levels, where it has the potential of becoming kinetic energy or related forms of energy. Common types of thermal potential energy are chemical bonds, electrostatic or intermolecular forces, and nuclear bonds.”

  293. These people are sick.

  294. boomie789 says:

    If some one actually admits to you they are a nihilist or solipsist, run. They are mentally ill and a destructive force. Narcissism, hedonism, and sociopathy.

    One of the key test to diagnosing a sociopath is if they recognize a universal right or wrong.

    I think Molyneux is correct in his accusation that JF is trying to intellectually justify his hedonism.

    He’s too Darwinistic, I hate when people think of us as no more than animals. If you think we are mere beast, we will become beast. We are something more than animals, now.

  295. CD Marshall says:

    The choice that we can become more than animals by it’s very concept makes us more than just an animal. However, the animal nature is an excuse many use to justify actions that they have no excuse for.

    We have choices something an animal does not, ultimately driven by instinct just to survive. A human should not only survive, we should grow and become more as we grow individually and as a species. These “animals” trying to control everything is why we fight this crap everyday and why as a species we are not growing as we should be.

    I came in late for work one day and it was rare, I never came in late.
    My boss said, “K lets hear your excuse.” As he had heard them all.
    At first I was going to give him one for I really did feel ashamed I was late, I hated being late for anything. Then I shrugged and said, “You know what I don’t have an excuse, I screwed up and was late for it. It was stupid and irresponsible and I’ll try not to do it again and I’ll pay the price for it.”

    He was so thrown back by my choice of being honest he didn’t even ding me.

    We all have choices, some are much harder than others and some have to go through more to make the right choices. We should all want to choose to be a better version of ourselves. Heck many animals have more love for their children than humans so in a sense, some are less than an animal and some far less than an animal.

  296. boomie789 says:

    @CD Marshall

    Does sasquatch get human rights? I say sure, why not.

    Lol. We would atleast treat them like panda bears, I geuss it depends on the context.

  297. boomie789 says:

    At least* atleast isn’t a word at all.

  298. CD Marshall says:

    Some people don’t deserve human rights so why not? You know someone argued to congress I think a few years back (maybe quite a few years back) that she wanted the name of Fish to be changed, because we weren’t treating them as individuals, and by calling them “fish” we have taken their personal identity.

    Yes, that happened.

  299. CD Marshall says:

    So anyone want to tell me what this word salad, “Thermal potential energy” is suppose to be? I never heard it in any thermodynamics text books that I recall. Is it made up?

  300. Totally made up. Totally.

  301. I think all energy could be classified as .. “thermal potential energy”.

    Thus, it is a word of no distinction — a non-concept.

    I used potential expertise in the crafting of this response..

  302. CD Marshall says:

    Well besides the “School for Champions” where he got it from. “Intermolecular potential energy
    Molecules in a liquid or solid are held together by electrostatic or intermolecular forces. Heating the substance—or transferring thermal energy—can overcome those forces, allowing the material to change its phase or state (liquid to gas or solid to liquid). and thus creating thermal kinetic energy. Intermolecular potential energy can also be considered latent potential energy.”

  303. All steak is potentially cooked.

    All people are potentially dead.

    All seeds are potentially plants.

    All days are potentially nights.

    All ground is potentially wet.

    The use of the word, “potential”, is potentially stupid.

  304. CD Marshall says:

    Ron Kurtis
    http://www.ronkurtus.com/ron.htm

    It sounds like he is mixing Thermodynamic Potentials and Enthalpy into a giant bowl of nonsense, “He then worked as an Electro-Optical engineer at McDonnell Aircraft in St. Louis, MO, where he was involved in the early space program. Later Ron worked at Ford Aerospace in Newport Beach, CA and at the Santa Barbara Research Center, where he assisted in developing the infrared radiometer used in the Mariner Mars space probe.”

  305. CD Marshall says:

    So hot coffee does not have potential energy but the mug holding the coffee does and that has nothing to do with the contents.

  306. boomie789 says:

    @CD Marshall & Robert Kernodle

    You’re hilarious Robert

  307. Rosco says:

    This illustrates black body radiation between 2 objects – 1 at 255 K and the other at 303 K.

    The shaded area – P(net) is the one way heat exchange between the two objects due to radiation transfer – one way from the 303 K object to the 255 K object !

    It is obviously impossible for the emissions from the 255 K object to cause an increase in temperature of the 303 k object – anyone who believes this is stupid beyond belief !

    In the absence of other influences both would come to a temperature between the two temperatures and their Planck curves would be the same – remember this is blackbody.

  308. CD Marshall says:

    Rosco,
    How is the warmer emissions on top? Is that from TOA and solar radiation from the actual Sun? The TOA never made much sense to me (little does) they are reading IR which has to be coming from the Earth not the Sun (I’m assuming) so how is the top warmer than the bottom IF it is all coming from the Earth. The only other logical explanation that I can think of is some of that warming has nothing to do with the Earth’s radiation.

  309. CDM,

    The y-axis, of course, represents the quantity of power, and, as you probably know, the convention in graphs, is to have the values of the y-axis progress from smaller values to larger values, going from bottom to top. The progression of increasing values has nothing to do with the direction from which the radiation comes. The graph just represents the values, not directions, and I think you know this, but are caught in some sort of brain twist. (^_^)

    Greater power values are going to be higher up (towards the top) on the y axis. Lower power values are going to be lower down (towards the bottom) of the y axis.

    Roughly and simply, sun energy comes in from the top of the atmosphere (energy moves from top to bottom). This heats Earth’s surface. Earth’s surface then heats the atmosphere (energy moves from bottom to top).

    Remember the basic conventions of the Cartesian coordinate system. Graphs on the Cartesian coordinate system just represent quantities, no matter where those quantities happen or how they happen.

  310. boomie789 says:

    The the effect of earth’s emittance is seen at the poles, the most removed from sunlight.

    Any temperature hotter than the poles, is all due to the sun. Does the south pole’s below freezing temperatures make Australia hotter?

    So you’re right, earth’s radiation has virtually nothing to do with the climate.

    My way of putting it in layman terms.
    Ridiculous having to argue the climate is due to the sun.

  311. … earth’s radiation has virtually nothing to do with the climate.

    You mean Earth’s ATMOSPHERIC radiation, right? And even then, I think the statement is wrong.

    Are you implying that the sun heats the atmosphere entirely, DIRECTLY? Am I misunderstanding what you are saying?

  312. boomie789 says:

    The 240w/m^2 total earth emmitance/radiation, has nothing to do with the climate.

    Water vapor in the air would be absorbing the sunlight directly, yes. Why wouldn’t the sun heat the atmosphere directly?

    The nighttime side gets the indirect stuff.

  313. boomie789 says:

    feel free to correct me, I can take it.

  314. boomie789 says:

    The daytime hemisphere water vapor/atmosphere is directly heated by the sun. The heat propagates to the nighttime side largely through water vapor, indirectly heated by the sun.

    The 240w/m^2 emmitance/radiation is still less than the indirect heat on the night side, having no effect.

    Which the 240w is itself indirect heat from the sun.

    That make sense?

  315. CD Marshall says:

    Actually, Robert, I didn’t know how “climate science” was portraying these graphs, I wasn’t aware they were following real Algebra rules. I mean, really, never occurred to me they were being honest.
    However, they may have been doing it for just the reason I had, to manipulate data visually, which as you have pointed out many times, is a popular their trick. Manipulation of statistics and visuals.

  316. CD Marshall says:

    …is a popular trick.

  317. CD Marshall says:

    Does anyone know if the
    “The Schwarzschild Equation and Radiative Transfer” is valid or junk. Not going to waste my time studying it if its junk.

    Yeah never mind its junk science. Red flags: Radiative forcing, trapping.
    It is amazing how they put in real valid science and then “slip” the junk science in it.

    Junk Science:
    “For instance, if the estimate of t = 235/390 = 0.603 [from the K/T budget], using the above figures gives:Tsurface = 291.9 K

    If a forcing of 3.7 W m-2 is caused by a doubling of CO2 concentration then t = 231.3/390 = 0.593 and this gives Tsurface = 293.2 K, an increase of 1.3 K.”

    Tabsorption is the temperature of the slab where absorption occurs and Temission is the temperature where emission from the slab occurs. The different densities at the two altitudes are also indicated. To get an accurate answer requires more mathematics and computation, but that can be done and is done by programmes such as MODTRAN and in much more detail in General Circulation Models.

    At some frequencies the absorption of radiation by some of the greenhouse gases is so great to allow the absorption to be ‘saturated’. This means that any further addition of the gas will not change the amount of absorption and will not contribute further to warming of the atmosphere. For real saturation to occur the product kpz has to be large enough to make the factor exp(-kpz) equal to zero. In absolute terms this can only be achieved if kpz has the value of infinity. So, saturation can never be achieved, but for practical purposes may be regarded as being achieved if the factor exp(-kpz) has a value of ~0.999, i.e., only a tenth of a percent of the terrestrial radiation escapes to space…”

  318. CD Marshall says:

    boomie789
    Water vapor in all of its forms is to reduce temperature, never to increase temperature. The trick is water vapor “maintains a reduced temperature longer” which is why humid areas remain warmer at night over arid regions.

    “Atmospheric water vapor reflects sunlight and as far as I understand it, that’s about all it does with direct sunlight…

    The cooling effect of water vapor, of course, is not limited to just the fact that its presence decreases the amount of sunlight that reaches the surface during daylight hours. When water is present within a climate system all of the following happen:
    1) the surface is cooled by evaporation when water vapor is formed
    2) water vapor increases the net, up-going, intra-atmospheric radiation heat loss rate, which moves thermal energy up the atmospheric column
    3) latent heat transfer also moves thermal energy up the atmospheric column
    4) when the humidity is very high the conditions for “moist convection” exist which creates powerful updrafts, which also moves thermal energy up the atmospheric column
    5) when water vapor condenses into clouds it increases the atmospheres albedo and shades the ground
    6) when these clouds form water droplets and it starts to rain, snow or hail, this precipitation is nearly always cooler than surface temperatures, which cools the surface even further.
    When you combine all of these effects, one observes within weather balloon soundings the predictable, well documented decrease in the troposphere’s temperature lapse rate and this in turn drops ground level air temperatures.”
    -JP

  319. Rosco says:

    CD
    “Rosco,
    How is the warmer emissions on top? ”

    The graph is simply a plot of Planck’s law for black body emission for temperature.

    Both of the plots are for IR emission from 303 K (~30°C) and 255 K (~minus 18°C).

    Now if you want to see a graph of the Sun’s radiation versus IR at Earth’s ambient temperatures look at this :-

    In this graph I used Planck’s law to plot the radiative emissions from the Sun at 5776 K. I then scaled the graph by the inverse square law such that the TOA plot represented 1361 W/m2 as quoted by NASA.

    I then scaled the graph such that the plot represents the Sun’s radiation as 239.7 W/m2 as quoted in the ridiculous “greenhouse effect” model.

    The Sun’s radiation is the red line. The blue line represents emissions from minus 18°C – 255 K at 239.7 W/m2 and the green line represents emissions from 30°C – 303 K at 479.4 W/m2.

    This illustrates 2 important things :-

    1. Even though the red curve and the blue curve represent emissions of the same total power the red curve is obviously significantly more energetic and to compare Earth’s IR emissions to the solar radiation is stupid beyond belief – and yet climate PhD’s do this all the time !

    2. The sun’s radiation is ~50% infra red and this is far more energetic than Earth’s emissions and again to compare Earth’s IR emissions to the solar radiation is stupid beyond belief – and yet climate PhD’s do this all the time !

    Here is a link to Planck’s equation https://www.dropbox.com/s/t8br2tth4mubxgk/Planck.pdf?dl=0 with the same graph in better resolution.

    The area under any Planck curve multiplied by Pi gives the Stefan Boltzmann equation for total emissive power for a blackbody – P = sigma x T^4.

    However the Stefan Boltzmann equation gives zero clue to the nature of the emissions and as is clearly shown in the graph assigns the same value to 2 completely different types of emissions and stupidly calls them equal !

  320. CD Marshall says:

    Sorry messed that up somehow. Most of that is JP some is mine which I;m pretty sire I gleaned from JP anyway.

  321. CD Marshall says:

    I cannot type today at all!!!

  322. Rosco’s uploaded graph got the right side cut off, because it’s too big to fit in the dialogue box. I copied and shrunk it down a bit to fit, … to show the very important margin, where the descriptions of the colored lines appear right there on the chart, which is very important to seal understanding of what he shows, which is very important.

  323. boomie789 says:

  324. The red curve shows that the energy there is concentrated, in greater quantities, at shorter (higher-energy) wavelengths than in the blue curve.

    … “more bigger” vs more spread-out over smaller but more (lower-energy) wavelengths.

    HOW the power is DISTRIBUTED is what SB does NOT reveal. And the “how” makes all the difference in the effect.

  325. boomie789 says:

    @CD Marshall

    So water vapor does not get energized directly by the sun, but it is still largely water that propagates heat to the night side of earth. Through the water cycle.

    Water vapor is largely responsible for narrowing the temperature spectrum on earth.

    Right?

  326. Joseph E Postma says:

    Yes that is a good point Rosco makes that the SB Law doesn’t tell you how the energy is distributed, and that is because it is an integration of the Planck curve. The SB Law though does relate directly to temperature though and temperature is what determines the distribution in the Planck curve, and so of course the distribution is embedded in the SB Law as the Planck curve’s integration.

    But the distribution is what is really important, because the distribution shows you what frequency micro-states are activated. It is actually a measure of the information-content of the curve. The higher temperature curve has more information than the lower temperature curve. The lower temperature curve has no information to give to the higher temperature curve, i.e., it has no higher-frequency microstates activated that the higher temperature distribution doesn’t already have. In order to be able to increase temperature, you have to be able to provide an object some higher frequency states that it doesn’t already have. You can do this with an even higher temperature object which then shares those higher-frequency states via heat, which is the transfer of those states or that information from the object that has those states to the one which doesn’t (hotter to cooler). Obviously it makes no sense to even speak of this occurring in reverse, since the object without the states to share obviously cannot thus share the states it does not have. And then of course you can do it by work too.

  327. Rosco says:

    What Joe has written above is verified by Einstein’s work on the photoelectric effect.

    Einstein showed that the continuous transfer of energy in the wave theory of light failed all experimental data and therefore must be wrong in some aspects.

    “Einstein made the radical postulate that a beam of light consists of small packages of energy called photons or quanta. This postulate was an extension of an idea developed five years earlier by Max Planck to explain the properties of blackbody radiation,…”

    “In Einstein’s picture, an individual photon arriving at the surface in Fig. 38.1a or 38.2 is absorbed by a single electron. This energy transfer is an all-or-nothing process, in contrast to the continuous transfer of energy in the wave theory of light; the electron gets all of the photon’s energy or none at all. ”

    “Einstein’s postulate therefore explains why the photoelectric effect occurs only for frequencies greater than a minimum threshold frequency. This postulate is also consistent with the observation that greater intensity causes a greater photocurrent (Fig. 38.4). Greater intensity at a particular frequency means a greater number of photons per second absorbed, and thus a greater number of electrons emitted per second and a greater photocurrent…”

    The key here is the “frequencies greater than a minimum threshold frequency” – it doesn’t matter how many photons are incident if they are below the minimum threshold frequency – there is no photoelectric effect.

    Clearly in the graph above the 255 K curve never approaches the minimum threshold frequency capable of inducing an increase in temperature of the 303 K object. Higher frequency corresponds to shorter wavelength and at ~3 micron the red curve is emitting energy while the green curve is emitting basically zero – all the energy from the green curve is not energetic enough to exceed the minimum threshold frequency and therefore is incapable of inducing a higher temperature – only a Planck curve and Einstein can demonstrate why the greenhouse effect is ludicrous.

    That is my best explanation – if the minimum threshold frequency is significant in the photoelectric effect and widely accepted as correct why wouldn’t similar properties hold in other electromagnetic radiation ? That is merely offering an explanation for something every realistic scientist knows already anyway – the radiation from a cold object does not have the energy signature necessary to cause a hotter object to increase in temperature.

    I choose Einstein over Spencer, Mann, Trenberth or any of the others anyone cares to name.

  328. Christopher Marshall says:

    Boomie,
    Don’t forget oceans, the largest solar batteries on Earth and excellent transporters of energy day and night. Oceans (fueled by solar power) in turn feed the atmospheric cells worldwide that create climate. Latent heat from water vapor is only one means of influencing regional temperatures, conduction & convection leads to advection (moving warm air laterally in the atmosphere even to the night side), jet streams, polar vortex, all of these things move cold or warm air around our planet. IR radiating from the surface (even at night) also warms especially if water vapor is present.

    The Equator moves warm air to the Poles and cold air moves from the Poles to the Equator.

    Its more complex than even that, but that is a start. Anymore than this and my brain starts hurting.

  329. geran says:

    Rosco says: “I choose Einstein over Spencer, Mann, Trenberth or any of the others anyone cares to name.”

    Exactly, if you’re talking about science, Spencer, Mann, Trenberth, et al., are at the bottom of the list. But, it you’re wanting climate clowns, Spencer, Mann, Trenberth, et al., are near the TOP of the list!

    And just so there is no confusion, the “photoelectric effect” is not the same as “absorption”. The photoelectric effect refers to the phenomena of free electrons being ejected from a surface by high energy photons. There is energy transfer, but no heat involved. The photons must have a minimum energy, well above infrared. Infrared photons do not produce the photoelectric effect.

    This is another mistake the clowns make. They believe that all energy is the same. As Joseph mentioned, it’s the “information” in the energy. An ice cube cannot bake a turkey. Even adding a billion ice cubes, the turkey will not bake. The photons from ice do not have the correct “information”. Low energy photons from CO2 cannot raise the temperature of Earth’s surface. Adding more CO2 still cannot raise the temperature of the surface.

  330. CD Marshall says:

    More from Vidfreak who is starting to act more sane(er):

    ” A hot cup of coffee by virtue of its temperature does have potential energy to put off heat. This is the same idea that a ball by virtue of its height you throw it has the same. You have a fundamental misunderstanding of how physics works because you’re playing semantic games here.

    “Potential energy is energy which results from position or configuration”

    This definition IN NO WAY disproves that. By virtue of the position of the particles vibrations we can calculate the potential of the mug to put off heat.

    Any system that has energy has potential.

    You’ve been schooled. YOu need to go talk to a physicist as i said.

    Cutnell & Johnson Physics Fifth edition

    “WE have seen that kinetic energy can be converted into gravitational potential energy and vice versa. In general, energy of all types can be converted from one form to another. Part of the chemical energy stored in food is transformed into the kinetic energy of walking and into the thermal energy needed to keep our bodies at a temperature near 98.6. Similarly, in a moving car the chemical energy of gasoline is converted into kinetic energy, as well as electrical energy, and heat.”
    *****
    Now I’m not seeing anything wrong in that statement per se, but again like Robert mentioned, it is generalizing physics with a very broad stroke of the brush.

    “WE have seen that kinetic energy can be converted into gravitational potential energy…” Obviously its called bouncing a ball, or putting something up and knocking it back down as in bowling pins and so on. However all of those involve work which is the essential element to converting PE to KE if I am following this correctly.

    The body does the work converting the food from PE to KE. The food,by itself, possesses none of these characteristics “internally.”

    I see no argument in the statement other than they are trying to connect two different energy processes together that are irrelevant.

  331. Joseph E Postma says:

    You see how these people work!? This is just sophistry to create obfuscation. We don’t call thermal energy “potential energy with regards to being able to heat something”. We just call it warmer or cooler, and we call it heat transfer when it can happen. HE is playing semantic games. Never forget…they always project what they themselves are doing.

  332. Text below the link is a very slight re-wording/re-organization/emphasis of the original wording, to improve clarity:

    https://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2015/08/why-pauli-exclusion-principle-of.html

    If a lower-quantum-energy photon is “absorbed” by the completely saturated low-energy micro-states and molecular or atomic orbitals of a higher-energy body, then the hot body MUST simultaneously eject a photon of the exact same wavelength/frequency/energy as that absorbed, due to the Pauli Exclusion Principle of fundamental quantum theory.

    Consequently, there is no change whatsoever in the energy content/temperature of the hotter body due to “absorbing” a low-energy photon from the colder source, with simultaneous emission of an IDENTICAL photon of the EXACT SAME wavelength/frequency/energy by the hotter source.

    This “absorption”, with simultaneous emission of an identical photon by the hot body, is sometimes called “reflection”, or, more properly, as I have come to understand it, “scattering”.

    This explains the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics on a quantum basis, thus why low-frequency/low-energy photons from a cold emitter cannot warm a warmer body at a higher frequency/temperature/energy.

    Yes, the colder body can reduce the rate of cooling by the hotter body, by replacing a low-energy photon emitted from the hot body by a photon of the same energy.

    Reducing the rate of cooling does not equal warming.

    “Green House Gases” only delay IR photons on their way from surface to space by a FEW MILLISECONDS, and any such slight “heat trapping” of a few millisecond delay is REVERSED AT NIGHT.

  333. And maybe I lack perspective of the entire exchange between CD and VidFreak (^_^), but I don’t see what all the talk about potential energy has to do with this.

  334. CD Marshall says:

    Robert, the original argument was over a hot cup of coffee having PE. However, he is also trying to claim cold can warm hot in Spencer fashion. So I am guessing he’s trying to use PE as an example of how energy can warm the surface. How? I’m still curious to see that part.

  335. geran says:

    Robert, I addressed this upthread: “Photon absorption is based on wavelength compatibility. It’s that simple. The Pauli Exclusion Principle does not apply to photons, since photons have integer spin (bosons).”

    I appreciate that your source is trying to attack the GHE nonsense, but we don’t have to alter science to defeat pseudoscience. Let science defeat pseudoscience.

    The Pauli Exclusion Principle has NOTHING to do with photons. It has to do with electron configuration, and the associated quantum mechanics. Your source has apparently found something that he believes fits, but it doesn’t. Following such nonsense will lead you astray, as in your statement: ”Yes, the colder body can reduce the rate of cooling by the hotter body, by replacing a low-energy photon emitted from the hot body by a photon of the same energy.”

    Ice cubes will not bake a turkey, and they will NOT “reduce the rate of cooling” of a baked turkey.

  336. geran,

    I did not take it that the reference was referring to photons directly, in reference to the Pauli Exclusion Principle, but rather to the energy of atoms caused by photons.

    If an atom has an electron configuration associated with a given energy, then a photon that bumps another electron up to that energy level cannot enable the electron to occupy the same orbital that might already be at its quota, right, and so an exact same photon has to be emitted to keep the electron within the bounds dictated by the Pauli Exclusion Principle.

    Also, read exactly all that I wrote. You stopped your quotation of me short of the most important point, namely, Green House Gases” only delay IR photons on their way from surface to space by a FEW MILLISECONDS, and any such slight “heat trapping” of a few millisecond delay is REVERSED AT NIGHT.

    Admit the … “slowing”, … but qualify it by saying that it is so insignificant as to be irrelevant.

    A FEW MILLISECONDS !

    REVERSED AT NIGHT !

  337. geran says:

    Robert, if you cling to “slowing” by admitting it is “so insignificant as to be irrelevant”, then why even cling to it? Ice cubes can not “slow the cooling” of a freshly baked turkey. Period. That’s the reality.

    I’ve seen people claim Earth is warming the Sun, but it’s “so insignificant as to be irrelevant”. Their mission was to further the pseudoscience that “cold” can warm “hot”. I don’t think that is your mission so that’s why I’m alerting you. `

    The science is on our side. We don’t have to negotiate with the clowns. We don’t have to accept any of their nonsense. All pseudoscience belongs in the trash bin.

  338. “Slowing cooling” is NOT warming. [NOTE: Read exactly as written]

    Saying that Earth is warming the sun is NOT the same as saying that CO2 “slows cooling” by a FEW MILLISECONDS, made up for at night.

    Admit the truth, but admit the irrelevance of the DEGREE of truth. It’s an important exercise in teaching critical thinking skills.

    I cut my face, yes, but a micro-cut with a razor, in the ordinary task of shaving, which I cannot even detect.

    Truth has levels. It is the LEVEL of truth that counts.

    The level of truth here is that a FEW MILLISECONDS of “slowing”, made up for at night, is NOT an absolute slowing, but a TINY slowing that, then, is made up for, which, in effect, eliminates the effect of even the MILLISECONDS.

    Alarmists, blow up truth out of all proportion. That’s why they use a y axis with an inch per tenth of a degree, where the x axis is an inch per 365 days.

    I could draw an x axis with an inch representing a millisecond. I do not deny the millisecond — I merely point how how badly it is misrepresented in the scheme of reality that matters within the realm of human experience.

  339. geran says:

    “Truth has levels.”

    Now you’re trying to intellectualize. That’s what Monckton does. He can spin “wrong” into “right” before most people can type their names. “Truth” doesn’t have “levels”. Something is true or it’s not.

    An intellectual can write pages and pages touting how “cold” can warm “hot”, or how “cold” can “slow the cooling”, but an old, uneducated, hillbilly grampa just says “You cain’t bake no turkey with ‘em ice cubes, sonny!”

    I’ll take truth over intellectualism any day.

  340. Rosco says:

    Just to clear up a point.

    The photoelectric effect IS exactly the same as “absorption” – it is people’s understanding of “absorption” that is flawed.

    To again quote Einstein – “This energy transfer is an all-or-nothing process, in contrast to the continuous transfer of energy in the wave theory of light; the electron gets all of the photon’s energy or none at all. ”

    The photoelectric effect is only possible when high frequency “photons” are “absorbed” by an object capable of having an electric current result from the “absorption” of the photons energy by the electrons of the object. Below the threshold frequency it doesn’t matter how many photons impact there is zero photoelectric effect. Above the threshold frequency a stronger effect requires more incident photons.

    The statement – “There is energy transfer, but no heat involved.” – is nonsense.

    Firstly, any incident radiation capable of inducing the ejection of electrons from any chemical bond – covalent or ionic – is indisputably full spectrum radiation and by nature of the knowledge we have of radiation includes near infra red of far higher energy states than the radiation emitted at Earth’s ambient temperature so there will inevitably be all sorts of thermodynamic effects as well as the photoelectric effects.

    It is pointless to argue that the photoelectric effect isn’t thermodynamic.

    Secondly, ANY energy transfer from higher intensity electromagnetic radiation (the emission and characteristics of which is associated with higher temperatures in a natural situation – not created by a machine) IS the VERY DEFINITION of HEAT.

    “Heat, energy that is transferred from one body to another as the result of a difference in temperature.

    The effect of this transfer of energy usually, but not always, is an increase in the temperature of the colder body and a decrease in the temperature of the hotter body.”

    The fact that climate scientists always argue that an increase in temperature is inevitable is why they are basically clueless – phase changes and viscosity are just a few examples of where significant amounts of heat are transferred with no change in temperature.

    Having said this why is it inconceivable to believe the concept of threshold energy is universally applicable across all of radiative thermodynamics – ie cold cannot heat hot because it cannot exceed the threshold ?

    Surely the evidence of the absorption spectrum of the Devil’s gas (strong absorption at wavenumber 666) supports Einstein’s hypothesis “the electron gets all of the photon’s energy or none at all. ”

    Look – this absorption spectrum IS absolutely frequency dependent.

  341. geran says:

    We agree Rosco, it is people’s understanding of “absorption” that is flawed.

    Your Einstein quote, with my emphasis: “This energy transfer is an all-or-nothing process, in contrast to the continuous transfer of energy in the wave theory of light; the electron gets all of the photon’s energy or none at all.”

    As I indicated, the photoelectric effect “is energy transfer, but no heat involved”. All of the photon energy is transferred to the ejected electron, with nothing left over, i.e., zero thermalization.

  342. CD Marshall says:

    CO2 delays photon emission to space by a few microseconds if absorbed and re-emitted by CO2 or any other “IR Responsive” (yes my word) gas.

    It takes (JPs math) roughly 66-67 microseconds for a photon to emit from surface to space unmolested. CO2 interception simply increases that by around 3 microseconds.

    I extrapolated (with my very poor math skills),that a photon can be re-emitted, absorbed and re-emitted, in one second this can happen 14,285.71 times. Which I just see that a photon will be long gone in just a second either out to space or absorbed by something else.

    “…milliseconds, compared to 10 days of trapped solar energy in latent heat in the atmosphere, compared to 121 years of trapped solar energy in latent heat in the oceans.” -JP

  343. Sorry, geran, I disagree — you are trying to absolutize truth, and this is not the case. You know this, I think. Admitting “slowed cooling”, and qualifying the limits of this description is intellectually mature and rationally sound.
    I give the alarmists nothing but good form in doing this. I show them to be the shallow incompetents that they are.
    I do nothing like Monckton. (^_^) He is very creative, for sure, but he operates on non-truths, in doing so. I try not to do that, I assure you.

  344. CD Marshall says:

    Which I admit I thought “latent heat” was only around 3 days for some reason?

  345. boomie789 says:

    So it would take 10 days for the surface at the equator to completely freeze.
    If the sun turned off.

    I live pretty close to the equator at sea level so I would get most of those 10 days. You Canada boys will be icicles by day 2.

    10 days isn’t enough lead time though, we’d probably still be goners. Maybe I could find some hot springs and try and get something going.

  346. For those who might not know, a microsecond is a millionTH of a second.

  347. geran says:

    Robert, I’m not the one “absolutizing truth”. Nature does that for us. The laws of physics and thermodynamics are the truth we must live with.

    But you certainly have a right to disagree.

  348. CD Marshall says:

    “Let’s be really generous here, and say that some of the photons of the right wavelength get scattered by CO2 one-hundred times on their way out. It will then take them, rounding, about 7 milliseconds to escape from the surface to outer space. So, for just a fraction of the entire actual spectrum of outgoing infrared light, some of the light waves are trapped inside the atmosphere for 7 milliseconds…” -JP

    A microsecond is an SI unit of time equal to one millionth (0.000001 or 10⁻⁶ or ¹⁄1,000,000) of a second. Its symbol is μs, sometimes simplified to us when Unicode is not available. A microsecond is equal to 1000 nanoseconds or ¹⁄1,000 of a millisecond. Because the next SI prefix is 1000 times larger, measurements of 10⁻⁵ and 10⁻⁴ seconds are typically expressed as tens or hundreds of microseconds. Symbol=us

    A millisecond (from milli- and second; symbol: ms) is a thousandth (0.001 or 10⁻³ or ¹/₁₀₀₀) of a second. A unit of 10 milliseconds may be called a centisecond, and one of 100 milliseconds a decisecond, but these names are rarely used.=Symbol ms

  349. Nature does not absolutize truth — that operation is a totally human endeavor. (^_^)

    It’s good to know where one stands between the poles that tug at our reality.

    Alarmists might see themselves standing near one pole exclusively, without any regard for the other pole, whereas rationalists know that there is always a range of intervals between truth and falsehood.

    It is true that the Earth warms and cools. But it is uncertain as to whether humans cause Earth to warm and cool.

    It is true that smoking most likely will kill you. But it is uncertain whether smoking will always kill you.

    The standard model of particle physics appears to be true. But it is uncertain whether it is the only model that will work, or work the best.

    The standard model of the sun appears to be true. Yadah, yadah, yadah …

    “Slowed cooling” is true, and it seems certain that this truth is NOT of a magnitude that it makes one iota of real difference, as far as climate change goes.

    Properly qualified truth is the real truth, in other words.

  350. TEWS_Pilot says:

    Anyone, how would your reply to this nonsense claiming that AGW proponents are not using a Flat Earth model?

    “You have half of the globe losing energy, while the other half is gaining energy, for a yearly average that is fairly constant.

    The Earth is not being treated as a flat disc. It is being treated as a spinning sphere intersecting a plane of the same diameter. The surface area of the sphere is four times that of a circle of the same diameter.”

  351. Rosco says:

    AGW proponents begin by using the energy intercepted by the disk and equating that to the sphere as the energy loss required for thermal equilibrium. They factor in albedo and arrive at ~239.7 W/m2 as the output required to balance the input and calculate the temperature – I’m sure everyone reading this knows that.

    But the input is clearly NOT an average of 239.7 W/m2 over the whole surface area of the sphere – that is the output !

    The input is an average of double that over half the area all the time and that significantly higher energy input is capable of creating much higher temperatures.

    This reality alone reduces their model to gibberish and they are most certainly using a flat earth model.

    Look at the gibberish from the email quoted :-

    “But for 12 thousand years that incoming and outgoing energy has been in astonishingly stable equilibrium, never causing more than 0.4 degrees Celsius of variation either side of the average. What the extra bit of CO2 is doing, even though it instinctively sounds like a tiny quantity, is altering that equilibrium just enough to create a surplus retention of energy of that 1.68 Watts per square meter I mentioned in my last email.”

    So there has been never been more than 0.4°C in 12,000 years ? Sure, in cloud cuckoo land !

    There is “a surplus retention of energy of that 1.68 Watts per square meter” ?

    This just shows how ridiculous the whole thing is – 1.67 W/m2 anomaly would cause several degrees C warming every year.

    My favourite is that 239.7 W/m2 for ten hours (in the absence of anything else) results in 2,390 Watt hours with a resulting temperature of ~minus 18°C.

    The same 2,390 watt hours delivered in one hour results in a temperature of ~180°C.

    Only an idiot or AGW proponent would try to argue these are the same thing.

  352. geran says:

    TEWS, Rosco beat me to it, but here’s an additional thought:

    The “flat earth” comes from the fact that they spread solar flux over the entire surface. (Think of a world map, spread out on a table.)

    You can’t divide flux because it greatly reduces the temperature. The temperature is proportional to the fourth root of the flux. So if you divide the flux by 4, you end up with a temperature 71% of what it should be. Their purpose is to make it appear solar is unable to warm Earth to it’s average temperature.

  353. geran says:

    Robert, let’s try a real-world example on you.

    Let’s say that a baked turkey, just out of the oven, has a surface temperature of 300 ºF. Let’s say it normally takes 30 minutes for the surface to cool to 100 ºF.

    Instead of letting the turkey cool by itself, suppose you had positioned a large block of ice on either side of the 300º turkey. The hot turkey is being irradiated from both sides by 300 W/m^2.

    So, how much will the extra “warming” from the ice “slow the cooling” of the turkey? How much longer will the turkey need to get to 100 ºF?

    Just rough numbers are fine—seconds, minutes, days, weeks?

    Or is this where you will resort to “a range of intervals between truth and falsehood”?

  354. boomie789 says:

  355. Joseph E Postma says:

    “You have half of the globe losing energy, while the other half is gaining energy, for a yearly average that is fairly constant.

    The Earth is not being treated as a flat disc. It is being treated as a spinning sphere intersecting a plane of the same diameter. The surface area of the sphere is four times that of a circle of the same diameter.”

    This reply says nothing. We know that it is a disk-intercept. But it is what is being done with that intercept. That intercept is being spread over the entire surface area of the Earth at once, which is impossible, and which can only work in flat Earth theory, and this is WHY their diagrams are of a flat Earth.

    A diagram of a flat Earth (which is impossible) with sunlight falling over the entire flat surface at once (which is also impossible with the real Earth) *is* flat Earth theory.

    The two impossible things go together: the only way to have the intercepted sunlight spread over the entire surface at once as an input – *instantaneous, average, or otherwise* – is if the Earth was flat.

    Climate alarm is flat Earth theory. QED.

  356. TEWS_Pilot says:

    Thank you all for your clear explanations. One of the commenters I have been exchanging comments with at CFACT.org who genuinely seems interested but who has bought the AGW junk science hook, line, and sinker may be salvageable. The other one has the commenting style and arrogance and condescending approach of “Grant Foster,” aka, “Tamino,” using one of his many profiles…in this case, he is calling himself “waxliberty.” Exchanging any further comments with him is a complete exercise in futility and a fool’s errand.

  357. geran,

    I don’t know why you are being so dense about this.

    What I have said has nothing to do with believing that ice cubes can cook a turkey or slow the rate at which the turkey cooks. Ice cubes, OF COURSE, have zero effect on the cooking time of the turkey.

    You seem so repulsed by the idea of admitting a simple truth at an insignificant level that you cannot see how insignificant any slowing argument is. Acknowledge the argument, and then point out how utterly insignificant the argument is, because of the tiny, tiny, tiny, tiny scale of the truth being put forth by alarmists in an irrational way.

    We are on the same page, I assure you. If you can acknowledge the truth, and then reduce it to its true value of insignificance, then you have totally defeated the “slowing cooling argument” at the most fundamental level.

    EXAMPLE: Water can kill you, so we should never drink water.

    How stupid is this? ANSWER: It conflates the gradation of truth into one absolute pole — the negative. It ignores the positive pole in the gradation from negative to positive. … Water CAN kill you, but this statement has to be further qualified, by quantity and circumstance. Water is essential to life too — that’s the other pole in the gradation from life to death truth, as it relates to water.

    Similarly, CO2 slows cooling, so we should never emit CO2 into the atmosphere. Stupid, right?

    Why? — Conflation into one pole — the negative, where the implication is that “slowed cooling” is of a significant quantity, or all slowed cooling is of a significant quantity (it is NOT). … In the context of warming the atmosphere or maintaining the warmth of the atmosphere, the so called “slowed cooling”, while true, is so minutely, almost-non-existently, insignificant that it is indistinguishable from zero — it requires a purely conceptual argument at an abstract level to even conjure up the amount — it is not even measurable — so, practically, not even provable, using instrumentation — only via calculation can we put a number on it, whereas the alarmists do not calculate, but merely postulate based on qualitative, mistaken thinking that has no theoretical foundation.

    When we get down to this level of conceptualization, I think we start to run into difficulties with the standard model of particle physics itself. We try to talk about photons — things with no mass, but energy — things that exist, but do not exist — things that are particles, but wait, no, waves, no, fields, in no time, in no space, no, wait, all time, all space … things that probably different people understand and misunderstand how to talk about at different levels [I surely don’t understand them, really].

    You think there’s misunderstanding and disagreement about “energy”, “heat”, “temperature”, … well, I dare say there’s misunderstanding and disagreement about massless, timeless, spaceless particles/waves/fields/?

    Practically speaking, then, there is no “slowed cooling”. Let’s agree on that, … practically.

  358. TEWS P,

    You have half of the globe losing energy, while the other half is gaining energy, for a yearly average that is fairly constant.

    That’s not my understanding. Rather, the WHOLE globe is loosing energy all the time. The night side looses it faster than the day side.

    What does “yearly average” really mean here? Yearly average of energy? Average of what?

    The Earth is not being treated as a flat disc. It is being treated as a spinning sphere intersecting a plane of the same diameter.

    Clearly, it is NOT. Where’s the sphere? Where’s the spin? ANSWER: Non-existent in the “simple model”. There is no “intersection”. The sphere, even conceptually, does NOT intersect a flat plane. The sphere rotates beneath the PROJECTION of a flat plane.

    The simple model, then, equates ROTATING a sphere beneath the PROJECTION of a flat plane as though that rotating motion traces out a thinning flux over the whole globe, which is the equivalent of flattening out the globe and diluting sunshine over the entire area at once to one-fourth power. The simple model is static — it stops the Earth from rotating, after the sunshine has been sprayed onto that sphere, thus flattening it.

    Look at the diagram — that’s what the diagram visually, physically represents!

    The surface area of the sphere is four times that of a circle of the same diameter.

    And using this fact incorrectly to spread sunshine over the whole Earth at once at one-fourth power is a blatant misuse of this fact.

  359. geran says:

    You’re moving in the right direction, Robert. The 300 W/m^2 can NOT “slow the cooling” of the hot turkey.

    Sorry to have to use such an un-intellectual example to make my point, but often that’s all us “being-dense” folks know….

  360. CD Marshall says:

    Also a reminder Potholer said he is coming out with a “debunk” video on the top 10 arguments against climate change (that should be fun). He has not, as of yet, openly addressed you Joe but his trolls have been trashing you with the same ole rhetoric, nothing new you haven’t heard before. Questing if you are an actual physicist, never wrote anything in climate science, are not qualified and the same old crap. PH has not mentioned you and I have tried many times. PH has trashed other astrophysicists but has not said anything against you personally. PH trashed Ball & Heller but so far not you.

    Before I respond again to this Bozo I am still pointlessly talking to (on Potholer’s site) I think Joe mentioned on this thread something about insulation so I’ll be looking for it again. Comment as you like in the meantime. Thank you.

    He made this reply to the constant argument that cold cannot warm up hot. He just keeps twisting and twisting the definitions to fit his desired version of science.

    “But clearly it can. AS radiated energy can change the temperature if the bodies are radiating close together.

    KEYWORD: RADIATED ENGERY!

    Every example you use is conduction and convection.

    Can transfer w/o change in temperature doesnt mean IT DOES ALWAYS.

    Cold does not heat up hot? Semantics. Cold doesn’t heat up hot, but it can prevent hot from cooling by insulating it. Is that better? Does that help your feeble mind comprehend this?

    Bathtubs dont gain heat primarily through radiation. Were talking about radiation here
    “Radiation is different from convection and conduction. When you put two radiating bodies next to eachother, the less warm (colder) body prevents the warmer (hotter) body from cooling. It acts like an insulator.”

  361. Again analogizing to insulation. WHY!? We know what the ghe is…in my diagram a few comments back. It is about heat transfer from cold to hot. Don’t let them change goal posts.

  362. Jopo says:

    Are they saying an already chilled beer bottle in a Esky / Ice cooler without ice will cool faster than one in an esky full of radiating energy (ice)?

    This is just gets all twisted.

  363. Cold does not heat up hot? Semantics. Cold doesn’t heat up hot, but it can prevent hot from cooling by insulating it. Is that better? Does that help your feeble mind comprehend this?

    Okay, to prove this, let’s do an experiment: Strip naked and stand inside of a shed built out of blocks of ice. Toasty in there?

    NO. Why, because your body-heat is moving towards the ice, eventually making the ice melt faster, NOT the ice making your body cool more slowly. My feeble mind, thus, tells me NOT to get my naked self trapped in an ice-block shed. Congratulations, if you’ve figured out how to reverse the laws of heat flow, to make ice keep your ass warmer. I will look for your name on the Nobel Prize list any day now.

  364. boomie789 says:

    I think igloo’s only make sense if have to get out of freezing cold wind, and all there is, is snow.

    But of course insulation does not add cold to hot. Insulation is not the GHE.

  365. boomie789 says:

    Don’t let your children see my grammar lol.

  366. Now if I built a fire inside an ice-block shed, naked, then I’d probably stay a bit warmer, because, yeah, the air near me would be warm from the fire, and the ice-block enclosure would prevent that warm air from convecting away.

    But here we are talking about AIR, … MOLECULES, … AIR MOVEMENT.

    The ice-block enclosure does NOT slow the radiation of my body or the fire. The fire still radiates to the AIR inside the ice-block enclosure.

    Greenhouse fans constantly confuse warm air for radiation. They confuse MOLECULAR dynamics for atomic dynamics. Air is not photons. Air is MOLECULAR. Photons are SUB-ATOMIC.

  367. TEWS_Pilot says:

    I am dealing with a total hard head AGW Alarmist who refuses to accept reality and is completely indoctrinated in the conventional Flat Earth junk science. His position is this:

    “Energy in equals energy out. It is a simple balance equation. The input and output are the same, or the planetary energy balance is changing.”

    How do I explain his error of using the output as the input and not seeing how ridiculous that is?

  368. geran says:

    TEWS, you can’t explain physics to clowns that have no interest in learning. Most of them believe they “know it all”. You can see examples even here of folks that believe in “slowing the cooling”.

    Ask your fish to produce the “simple balance equation”.

    They don’t like facts…

  369. Joseph E Postma says:

    You have to do energy in = energy out in the correct way, or else nothing makes sense at all. And of course, they do it in a way that doesn’t make any sense at all. See my previous post:

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

    and the diagrams therein.

  370. “Energy in equals energy out. It is a simple balance equation. The input and output are the same, or the planetary energy balance is changing.”

    ENERGY, yes. NOT flux.

    Energy comes in by way of flux. Energy is joules. A watt is a joule per second. Energy, thus, comes IN over a surface area that is half a sphere, at a rate of joules per second. Flux is, thus, joules per second per meter squared.

    Energy goes OUT over a surface area that is the whole sphere.

    Energy coming in at a greater intensity over a smaller surface area (half sphere) equals energy going out at a less intensity over a larger surface area (whole sphere).

    BIG-joules/sec x half-sphere-area = SMALLER-joules/sec x whole-sphere-area

    Dividing the intensity of the INCOMING flux by four, then, is the wrong move. It is mathematically wrong, conceptually wrong, physically wrong. The correct move is to assign the proper BIG intensity flux to its defined surface area (the half sphere), and assign the proper SMALLER-intensity flux to ITS defined surface area (the whole sphere). Otherwise, you are equating the output FLUX to the INPUT FLUX, which is mathematically, conceptually, physically WRONG.

  371. CD Marshall says:

    I think I gave Vidfreak 3 months worth of free physics lessons and he learned not one thing. I went over and read my comments again and all he did was attack the same subject in different ways over and over again. Filthy, disgusting, dishonest troll.

  372. boomie789 says:

    Ain’t nobody got time for Global Warming.

  373. Well then, boomie789, let’s talk about “back infection” or “slowed recovery”.

  374. boomie789 says:

    No pseudo science needed here. Just good old fashioned scare tactics. Although the whole open borders thing became a much harder sell. Immigration from the 3rd world to the 1st is counter intuitive to lowering carbon emissions as well, so nothing new I guess.

    At least there actually is a mildly dangerous virus about. As opposed to the Non-threat of C02.

  375. Someone critique this simpleton statement of the GHE: “During day the .. SUN .. is supplying .. ALL .. the radiant energy! If a little more is absorbed from GHE then T must go up for radiation out to = total radiation in.” It’s really the hole in the bucket thing again. My head is spinning.

  376. geran says:

    “During day the .. SUN .. is supplying .. ALL .. the radiant energy! If a little more is absorbed from GHE then T must go up for radiation out to = total radiation in.”

    The sun is a thermodynamic energy source. CO2 is NOT a thermodynamic energy source.

    The sun can raise system temperature. CO2 can NOT raise system temperature.

  377. Joseph E Postma says:

    Well that’s a good example of how the GHE means anything they want it to. Hold them to fact: their GHE is where the Sun cannot create the weather or climate, because the sun DOES NOT supply the radiant power necessary to create the climate. They’re just making something else up entirely.

    The only energy in is from the Sun, and it creates the climate directly. The only way to stop energy out would be by lowering emissivity…but the greenhouse effect is NOT about lowering emissivity.

    Make fun of them for being so scientifically incompetent. That’s the only language they know.

  378. “During day the .. SUN .. is supplying .. ALL .. the radiant energy!

    Really tune into what you say here — you say “ALL radiant energy”.

    If a little more is absorbed from GHE then T must go up for radiation out to = total radiation in.”

    A little more what? — energy? You just said that the sun supplies ALL energy, and so where is the MORE (than the sun provides) coming from, if the sun provides ALL. You contradict yourself by implying that there is another source BESIDES the sun that you just said provides ALL energy.

    The sun cannot provide ALL, and GHE provides more. More in addition to all is absurd. More from where? You said the sun provides ALL, and so there is nowhere else that MORE could come from.

  379. Exactly. Self contradiction embedded in the very statement.

  380. Lukewarmist claim: A space blanket will keep you warmer than a clear sheet of mylar because of back radiation. This is no different than the claim that a lightbulb will get brighter in front of a mirror.

    My answer: All blankets work as barriers to convection.

  381. Also, space blankets are highly REFLECTIVE. Gases do NOT reflect radiation, and so I’d ask, “What the heck does a space blanket have to do with Earth’s atmosphere?” Is he now proposing the “Space Blanket Effect” in place of the “Greenhouse Effect”?

  382. boomie789 says:

    Just in case Postma doesn’t know. I’m just starting to watch it.

    This should be good.

  383. CD Marshall says:

    I’m getting bored of YT they aren’t challenging me much anymore. I think I need to move on. Any suggestions? I mean if you’re going to lie to me at least use science I don’t understand yet. Claiming cold can warm up hot and saying it a thousand different ways doesn’t change the laws that it can’t.

    Seriously you have any idea how much nuclear power plants would love if that were true? Replace all plants with CO2 power and have +33% more power out than in. CO2 engines, CO2 heaters, CO2 motors. The list of nearly free energy would be unlimited.

  384. CD Marshall says:

    “N2 and the entire atmosphere absorbs IR radiation directly from the Sun and other matter. With these findings, greenhouse theory as it stands is misconceived…”

    https://principia-scientific.org/publications/PROM/PROM-Macdonald-Quantum-Raman-Atmosphere.pdf

    What IR is absorbed directly in the atmosphere from the Sun? Wouldn’t this be a contradiction of scattering theory? The fact that the IR would be so much hotter than the gases “absorbing” wouldn’t it most likely send that IR directly back into space?

  385. CDM,

    I’ve encountered that publication before (invoking Raman spectroscopy), and I’m torn, because my former understanding about N2 is that it’s molecular configuration forbids it from “absorbing” IR or interacting with IR in the way that we describe it as “absorbed”.

    I’m not sure whether IR can excite N2 or not. Maybe a different range of wavelengths, though? [Again, not sure]

  386. CD Marshall says:

    Yeah or the terms for “agitated” and “absorbed” need more distinction in climate science. In reading more unless I missed something it stated in test results N2 was agitated or manipulated into emitting some IR. Which is not abnormal, once agitated a molecule emits EM. However no dipole means no dipole, it can’t absorb in the proper terms (as I understand it) but it can be agitated into emitting.

    The distinctive “climate science” is it cannot be directly agitated by IR but needs a catalyst such as collision or agitation but what if that part isn’t true?

    Meaning in my limited scattering theory conception, a molecule can be agitated in direct IR w/o absorbing, a dipole molecule absorbs and then re-radiates even if the IR is gone it still “absorbed” no matter how quickly from absorption to re-emission, what if a non dipole molecule “acts” almost the same in a direct constant contact (with compatible spectrum emissions) but immediately stops when the contact is broken.

    What if it’s not “absorption” or “reflection” in the truest sense but maybe a little of both?

    In studying a real energy budget it’s obvious not all solar energy is converted to instant thermal heat, maybe only half of it at best even a third , that “other” needs to go somewhere: Oceans, surface, plant life, partial absorption/reflection and of course just scattering.

    So would it be Relay Scattering?

  387. The distinction that I have been guided to make is the distinction between the terms, “excited” and “absorbed”.

    “Agitated” = “excited”, as you use it, I suppose.

    I’m definitely not up to speed on this.

  388. geran says:

    You don’t need to understand Raman spectroscopy to understand why the GHE is nonsense.

    In simple terms, the important concepts to know about photon absorption are:

    1) Photon absorption is based on wavelength compatibility.
    2) You can’t bake a turkey with ice cubes.

    If you understand both concepts, then you understand more than the PhD clowns that dominate the GHE pseudoscience with their persistent sophistry. And, that includes organizations such as the AMS, where the clowns don’t even understand that solar flux can NOT be averaged as if Earth were a flat surface (Joseph’s descriptive “Flat Earth”). Or, as if Sun were twice as far away as it actually is (Joseph’s descriptive “Cold Sun”).

  389. CD Marshall says:

    So I found an error. A 15 micron photon cannot be absorbed and re-radiated in lower frequencies (which would be hotter) it would have to be in higher (weaker) frequencies.

    This statement:
    “Co2 absorbs a narrow wavelength range (around 15μ/ micron) and re-emits a wider wavelength range (7-10-15) , including emitting some in the wavelength range that can’t be absorbed by GHG’s (around 10μ/microns).”

    Is incorrect.
    Wein’s Law:
    15 Micron = -79.97C
    10 Micron= 16.627C
    7 Micron= 140.82C

    So when CO2 absorbs and re-emits in all directions, what is it emitting as?

    Does the law of increasing energy apply in reverse in regards to radiating above its spectrum?
    Obviously no. Energy can split and decrease, never split and increase (law of conversation).

    So what spectrum of photons is re-emitted by a 15 micron aborbed photon from CO2?

    Its not as simple as splitting eV up?

    So is the Bohr Model able to determine this or am I way off course here?
    “When the final energy level is smaller than the initial energy level, the energy difference ΔE > 0 and thus electron will emit the electromagnetic wave. Otherwise, when ΔE < 0 electron needs to absorb the electromagnetic wave. Remember that energy levels of the electrons bounded to the atom are negative!"

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