Lukewarmer & shill for the climate gestapo, fake climate-skeptic and pretend-scientist Roy Spencer, has refused to engage in a live debate with me to discuss the merits of the foundation of climate alarmism, which he defends despite pretending to be a skeptical scientist.
I was drawn to the attention of a Facebook post by Roy Spencer in which he defended the basis of climate alarmism, a post which was also carried by Anthony Watts at “Watts Up With That”. I posted a few comments at the Facebook post pointing out the basic scientific flaws of the basis of climate alarmism, and asked Roy if he would like to have a public/live debate on these flaws which he defends.
To immediate block me on Facebook. Thus, I emailed him:
In light of your recent article, how would you like to have a quick little video discussion/debate about the geometry of the Earth and how sunlight interacts with it, and the greenhouse effect? I think that a lot of people would be interested! It could even be performed live, if you like.
Let me know, if you’re interested.
Roy’s only reply by email:
“If you argue with a madman, it is extremely probable that you will get the worst of it; for in many ways his mind moves all the quicker for not being delayed by the things that go with good judgment.”
-G. K. Chesterton
That’s cute. You see, I want to ask Roy if sunlight falls over the entire surface of the Earth as an input, as if the Earth is a flat plane. He knows that that’s what I want to discuss with him. He responds by pretending that this is a mad question to debate.
Indeed…it is mad. It is mad for someone to pretend to be a scientist, and to pretend to be a climate skeptic, who defends the concept that sunlight falls as an input over the entire surface area of the Earth at once, as if the Earth is a flat plane. That is quite mad indeed!
And we all know what Roy’s response is, paraphrasing:
Roy Spencer: “I find it incredible that someone with a degree in astrophysics does not understand that the time-averaged input over 24 hours on a rotating planet requires dividing a disk area by that of a sphere area.”
But see…Roy…you have not proven that I do not understand this. I do understand this. The area of a disk (the cross-section intercept by the Earth of sunlight) is πR2, while the area of a sphere is 4πR2. That’s not the issue. The issue is weather the time-averaged value of flux, which is the exhaust or output flux of the Earth, can be used to explain the physics of the climate system?
We all saw what happened when I submitted that question via a paper to the American Meteorological Society: their response was to double-down and outright state that their position is that the Sun does not heat the Earth and does not create and sustain Earth’s weather and climate. That’s Roy Spencer’s position too…along with the other shills such as Anthony Watts, Christopher Moncton, etc.
And on that topic I would like to point out something so obvious: the supposed “energy budget” such as the one below, which is the basis of climate alarmism and which lukewarmer & fake scientists like Roy Spencer defend, is not actually even an energy budget proper: it is a flux budget.
Does that make a difference…energy vs. energy flux density? Yes…it makes all the difference in the world! Energy is a conserved value, but flux is not. The physics induced by radiation and radiative heat-flow, in real time, is a function of the local energy flux density of the radiation. Energy flux density is equivalent to force, and the way that objects and substances respond to force is a real-time in-the-moment event as and where the force is applied, not as a function of that force averaged over some time period including when and where the force is not acting.
And thus to label these diagrams as “energy budgets” is a non-sequitur…what is being labeled is not what is being displayed. But the climate-incompetents then go on to develop physics based on this confusion, establishing their position that the Sun cannot heat the Earth or create the climate due to their improper treatment of flux vs. that of energy, and resulting in their postulate that the climate creates itself out of nothing via heat-recycling, in blatant contradiction to the laws of thermodynamics.
We saw what the AMS did when I pointed this out to them. It’s no wonder that a peon like Spencer wouldn’t dare debate it publicly with me!
If any readers have the care, why don’t you head on over to Roy and ask him why he’s afraid to debate some basic physics questions with an astrophysicist. Is he too afraid? Too argumentatively-weak?