Meaningful Conjunctions

I looked out my back window tonight and I thought, “Hmm…that looks like it might be Jupiter and Saturn in conjunction.” Checked the Sky Map app…and indeed, it is, and in Sagittarius too (my birth sign)! Full moon too…how nice.

This is just a story. When I first had my life changed by some inexplicable mental event, when I was 17, I fell in love with astronomy. My father says that I was touched by an angel…whatever that means to him. But I experienced some mental event…some change where my life was transformed from being just some teenage bum from a broken family and a broken childhood with no direction, no care, no real interest in life at all beyond beer and cigarettes and guns and bow and arrows, still taking grade 9 courses in high school when I was supposed to be in grade 11, having still failed most of my grade 10 courses, having never experienced what it must be like to have parents, to a young man driven with a passion to understand what the words “solar system”, “planet”, “galaxy”, and “universe” meant. I was out for a walk down to the corner store to pick up a pack of cigarettes (I had my first smokes when I was 7…Players Light) when this thought, those words, and the personal questions about them entered my mind. Such a strange thing.

I went to the high school library the next day, or at least that week, the first time of course ever setting foot in that place of my own volition – it was always a place to be avoided, and if I could skip class when I knew we would be going there I always did – and I looked around for some books that looked like they were about space-things. On display was the entire collection of Time Life’s “Voyage Through the Universe” series. I started reading them. I remember distinctly, at some point thereafter, reading discussion about how the universe started: You could ask such questions!? And not only ask, but you could even try to answer such questions!?

So I started reading those books…and I didn’t stop reading. I read everything. I read the high school library right out…right out of everything it had on astronomy. I even ordered books by mail so that I could read some more. It became clear that if someone were to be an astronomer, given the history I read about, that one should likewise have an appreciation for the history and development of philosophical thought and likewise of the scientific method, and of reason, and of truth before face, truth before authority, and reason over dogma. I read, and read, and read…on everything that was important about how modern astronomy came to be and everything related to that. I crashed through The Origin of Species as a cliff-dive through a sheet of ice into a cold ocean of liberation from my quaint k-8 years in a private Christian Reformed school. Sagan was always there to encourage me to keep going.

And you know, I started doing better in school. I learned that I should be better at math because physics, the science we use to understand astronomy, is all math. So I began opting for more advanced math classes. I even took “adult-Ed” math classes outside of school just so that I could catch up to where I was supposed to be in high school. I took a high school physics class, and I was doing all these things simply because I developed or discovered this love for astronomy and for reason, but otherwise I had no plan about it and never thought that it would lead to anything. However, one day my high school physics teacher said to me: “You know, if you really like this, you can go to university for it.”

I responded: “I can?”

That was not a thought that had ever occurred to me before. What’s “university?” I guess…I could do that. Well…not like I had any other prospects. It took a few years but I caught up to everything I needed to have finished, and achieved the grades that I required, to get into university, with a small entrance scholarship.

During those years I spent so many nights studying the night sky, counting the stars with girls and telling them romantic things about the constellations – no, I was and still am largely quite a goofy person, so I really didn’t ever get any…well, maybe once or twice. My nickname in high school was literally “Goofy” though…! I’d rather be a Goofy genius than a dull normie!

But during those years, Jupiter and Saturn were coming into conjunction, and I always thought how nice it was to have both of them in that cool thickly-humid Southern Ontario night sky for me. I knew that they were Jupiter and Saturn because I knew what everything visible to the naked eye in the sky was, and I could read star charts and I knew the planetary ephemeri. By the time I was in university the two planets had moved into maximum conjunction, although at this point I didn’t have much time to watch the sky any longer. But one day, in my first year astronomy course, we learned after performing the necessary derivation that it was trivial to calculate the period of planetary conjunctions. The period of two planet’s conjunction is:

Tc = (T1-1 – T2-1)-1

It was natural for me to file this away as something really important to me personally, because I wanted to put to memory the period of conjunction for Jupiter and Saturn because always seeing them in the sky together formed such a big part of my sky-gazing during the years in which I was transformed into a university student studying this passion and love I had developed for astronomy.

And so for Jupiter’s orbital period about the Sun of 11.8 years and Saturn’s period about the Sun of 29.5 years, the period of their conjunction is thus about 20 years. Their last great conjunction was May 28, 2000, the end of the first year of my undergraduate degree in astronomy. The next great conjunction, and we’re just about there and we can observe it already as I did tonight, occurs on December 21, 2020…three days after my birthday, and seemingly directly on the Winter Solstice of this year.  That’s really great, really neat.

You know, I think about my history, about my insane and ridiculous, abusive and traumatic, neglected and thrown-into-the-trash, non-parented by people who seemingly never even knew you existed childhood, and this strange mental event that transformed me as it did, and the sheer and absolute passion and love I’ve had generated within me for reason, for science, for philosophy, for truth, and then I think about these Mandarin academics and their ridiculous peer-review system, these tenured PhD’s in physics with zero ability to understand the most basic concepts of logic or of science, or of mathematics or empiricism, and their insane political belief in flat Earth theory…and, my heart swells with the purest hatred of them, and my mind bursts at murderous contempt of them, and my gut wrenches acid despise at them, and I want to destroy them and their pathetic, disgusting, Ignavi, pseudo-intellectual and sophistical existence. May they all die and rot in hell!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Gallery | This entry was posted in About the Author and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

35 Responses to Meaningful Conjunctions

  1. Philip Mulholland says:

    Joe,
    Your story is remarkable.
    Thanks for sharing.

  2. CD Marshall says:

    You have to find a way to beat them at their own game as the ole saying goes, united we stand, divided we fall. They are united the opposition is fragmented. A single message has a stronger delivery.

    The climate models are outdated that’s fact. Energy in and out is pretty balanced. These two facts destroys their narrative, the finer details of what the energy is doing in the system isn’t the same as the fact that the energy in and out and how it is shown in the models is in error.

    One thing I’ve noticed is the fact that they mash up internal work in the system with energy in and out of the system.

    These two should be shown as individual models. Conservation of Energy and work trying to achieve thermal equilibrium in the system isn’t the same thing.

  3. Thank you for sharing. I did not know the details behind your interest in astronomy. You told me once that astrology was the forerunner of astronomy and you may remember my opinion of astrology. I want to say I was totally wrong about astrology. I have been intensely studying it myself the past two months and am amazed at how the planets are interwoven into our lives and what an influence they have on us personally, related to our birth, and much more. Many secrets to our Earthly reality and who we are as individuals lie in the planetary system. It is a road map to everything we need to know. It is math in visual form. The universe chose you to be its caretaker and seer to explain it to us.

  4. M.J.(Moe) Lavigne says:

    I’m glad you had a “mental event” and became passionate about the truth. In some ways it reminds me of Eckart Tolle’s mental event which he describes in his first book.

  5. CD Marshall says:

    You know Joseph, one thing you said before is many in science are textbooks, good at math, poor in understanding behind that math, thus never knowing if the math is being used wrong, as long as the math says 2+2=4 what’s wrong with it?

    “Textbooks” are essential in science but the “thinkers” propagate the science forward.
    We need more thinkers in science and I am glad you are a thinker.

  6. CD Marshall says:

    Oh and take it from me, parents are overrated.

  7. boomie789 says:

    Thanks for letting us get to know you a little better.

    Reminded me I was voted class clown in highschool. I also skipped class a lot, lol. Also used to ask to use the restroom and go smoke in the parking lot.

    Me and the valedictorian scored the highest on the last test I ever took in highschool. It was an essay. Later I was told my essay was tied with the valedictorian for the best. I like telling people that.

    Godspeed

  8. boomie789 says:

    I got voted class president once too. My platform was “clean and tidy restrooms with functional doors and locks”

    It was a landslide. However the bathrooms were never fixed…

  9. Carl says:

    Those who created and continue to push the notion that human produced carbon dioxide is a “pollutant” that is causing catastrophic global warming are, in fact, experts in their field of science. It is just that their chosen field of science is not astrophysics or thermodynamics, it is the science of “perception management”–how to get a target audience to believe whatever they want them to believe–and they are, indeed, experts at it.

    While you were obsessed with learning all about astrophysics, they have been obsessively studying and perfecting the art of “perception management”: “Perception Management is a Propaganda technique that involves carefully altering the perceptions of a target audience to suit the objectives of the sponsor, and is an essential part of modern Information Warfare.” Obviously in this field of “science” empirical facts and data are only important to the degree that they can be manipulated to advance the narrative.
    In News its called “spin”
    In sales its called “advertising”
    In the military its called “psy-ops”
    In politics its called “propaganda”
    Grifters use the science of “perception management” all the time in order to pull a con-job on someone.

    “The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country. …We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of. This is a logical result of the way in which our democratic society is organized. Vast numbers of human beings must cooperate in this manner if they are to live together as a smoothly functioning society. …In almost every act of our daily lives, whether in the sphere of politics or business, in our social conduct or our ethical thinking, we are dominated by the relatively small number of persons…who understand the mental processes and social patterns of the masses. It is they who pull the wires which control the public mind.”
    ― Edward Bernays, Propaganda

  10. I agree with CD Marshall. I don’t know anyone who had an idyllic childhood. Most were dysfunctional with one or more shitty parents, step-parent, pedophile, abuser, or other reprobate. Looking back on my life, I should have been taken from my parents and put into foster care. The dysfunction was obscene on so many levels. We learn from it and move on. Let it go. It’s what made you strong. It was a gift. That is my theory.

  11. That’s an excellent comment Carl…perception management…in other words sophistry, and the destruction of reason, and the destruction of humanity, and the creation of a corporate slave state where Brawndo(TM), Facebook, and your smart-dumb phone manages every thought and emotion of a sea of NPC’s so that they can predict exactly when you’ll make your next purchase.

  12. CD Marshall says:

    “a smoothly functioning society”

    Exactly for the alternative which government strives to keep the populace blind from is that they are not actually in control, if en masse decides not to follow the mandates of the so called leaders, they could nothing about it not even an army could stop world wide rebellion.

    Governments have been overthrown many times, often by a sincere mass and a few who slipped into the rebellion for their own gain which is why often the faces change but the motives of those in power remain the same.

    Look at America, “for the people” yet we now own nothing and in the beginning “we the people” owned slaves. Even after breaking free of English tyranny many Americans were fine having slaves, never seeing the irony or the hypocrisy.

  13. Reminds me of this:

  14. CD Marshall says:

    This was someone’s reply to me apparently they hate you as well character assination is part of the 3-Ds of opposition…
    Deny what is being said is true.
    Deflect what is shown to be wrong about it.
    Discredit the source showing the errors.

    “Joseph Postma published an article criticizing a very simple model that nonetheless produces useful results. He made several very simple errors along the way, none of which are very technical in nature. More sophisticated models are obviously designed to handle the uneven distribution of solar heating (which is why we have weather!); nonetheless, the educational tools are useful for their purpose, and in no way does Postma undermine the existence or necessity of the greenhouse effect. Without a greenhouse effect, multiple studies have shown that the Earth collapses into a frozen iceball (Pierrehumbert et al., 2007; Voigt and Marotzke 2009, Lacis et al 2010) and indeed, after an ice-albedo feedback, plummets below the modern effective temperature of 255 K. This work makes extraordinary claims and yet no effort was made to put it in a real climate science journal, since it was never intended to educate climate scientists or improve the field; it is a sham, intended only to confuse casual readers and provide a citation on blogs.”

  15. Carl says:

    “Without a greenhouse effect, multiple studies have shown that the Earth collapses into a frozen iceball.”

    Keep in mind that these “multiple studies” were not scientific “studies” at all. Rather the papers cited are theoretical dissertations written under the assumption that the “greenhouse effect” hypothesis is true. Pierrehumbert et al., 2007 for example relied on the fact that most climate computer “models” treat water vapor feedback as being positive when it reality water vapor feedback is negative. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y2K1uHvfaek

    Voigt and Marotzke 2009 is also a dissertation based on a climate computer model. How many times must it be said, computer models are not “scientific evidence”; they simply regurgitate the assumptions that are programmed into the model.

    Lacis et al 2010 perpetuates the myth that CO2 is the Earth’s “Temperature Control Knob” and the “evidence” that they offer that a “greenhouse effect” even exists is the simple fact that the air temperature near the ground is ~33 K warmer than the “Earth’s effective radiating temperature.”

    From the paper, “The difference between the nominal global mean surface temperature (TS = 288 K) and the global mean effective temperature (TE = 255 K) is a common measure of the terrestrial greenhouse effect (GT = TS – TE = 33 K).”

    Why arbitrarily pick the “surface” temperature as a baseline for determining whether or not the atmosphere is retaining excess thermal energy? Why not arbitrarily pick the global mean temperature at the Tropopause, which is ~218 K? (GT = 218 – 255 = -37 K) Better yet, why is the “Mean Global Temperature” not the average of temperature of the entire Troposphere top to bottom, which happens to be quite close to the “Earth’s effective radiating temperature?”

    None of these authors, of course, will entertain such questions because the “greenhouse effect” hypothesis has achieved the status of being an “axiomatic” truth in many circles.

  16. Thanks for that Carl, excellent.

  17. Philip Mulholland says:

    Carl,
    The science of thermal radiative global warming by back-radiation from greenhouse gases is very much like the Aristotelian model of the solar system where the sun orbits the earth. Aristotle’s model is internally self-consistence and cannot be disproved by arguments that start from its basic premise. Thermal radiative climate science is internally self-consistent but in-order to see the false nature of this science, the primary assumption that insolation power is divided by 4 on input must be discarded. The sun does not orbit the earth, the tail does not wag the dog.

  18. CD Marshall says:

    How would you respond to such a stupid question as this? I’m finding hard to talk to people who don’t have any science background. What they say sound like nonsense to me now. Wait, did I sound like that 1.7 years ago (or a month ago)? How embarrassing.

    “You’re standing in your garden. Its 32°c and you’re feeling uncomfortably warm. You ask your wife to go to the bedroom, which is a constant 21°c, to bring you a sweater. You put on the 21°c sweater. Does it cool you down?”

  19. @CD

    You’re standing in your garden. Its 32°c and you’re feeling uncomfortably warm. You ask your wife to go to the bedroom, which is a constant 21°c, to bring you a sweater. You put on the 21°c sweater. Does it cool you down?

    ANSWER:
    When I put on the 21C sweater, the sweater becomes heated fairly rapidly by BOTH my body heat AND the ambient heat of the air that’s making me feel “uncomfortably warm”. So, the sweater alone cannot cool me significantly, because the sweater itself becomes warm, partly because of ME.

    After that, the sweater then acts as a WARM INSULATOR, further restricting convection of heat away from my body ,thereby making me feel not only “comfortably warm”, but also hot’r ‘n hell.

    As I sweat bullets now, I am also uncomfortable in another way, namely because someone asked me such a stupid question, thinking that they were anywhere near positing a proper analogy to illustrate their moronically flawed conception of a greenhouse effect (I assume).

    Also, as I sweat bullets, I wonder why I was so stupid to ask my wife to go get me a sweater, in the first place, knowing what a dumb request it was. And I wonder why, instead, I did not go into the bedroom with my wife and work up those bullets of sweat in another way, if you know what I mean.

  20. The sweater feels cooler at first but it stops convective cooling of your skin by the air. That’s how real greenhouses work…by stopping convection. Real greenhouses could warm even further than this function with the alternative climate alarm radiative greenhouse effect, but they don’t, proving that the climate alarm greenhouse effect doesn’t exist.

  21. CD Marshall says:

    Both excellent replies to such an ignorant question. These are arguments from Potholer’s tribe against my hot to cold, shorter wave/frequency to longer/wave frequency example. I’m picking out the best comments such as…

    “You’re missing the point. The atmosphere is not warmer than the surface temperature. Rather, the rate of heat loss from the surface to space is reduced with greenhouse gases. That is to say, the warmer the atmosphere, always being less or equal to the surface temp, reduces the rate of heat loss from the surface to space. As the rate of loss of IR radiation reduces because of greenhouse gases, while the rate of incoming UV radiation remains the same, the surface temperature can increase. The more greenhouse gas, the warmer the atmosphere, without exceeding surface temps, in turn allowing the surface temperature to maintain greater amount of heat as the incoming UV radiation remains the same. At no point does heat flow from a colder region to a hotter region.”

  22. The “rate of heat loss from the surface to space” isn’t a conserved value. This all just made up word salad. And THEY are missing the point of the very definition and diagrams of the climate alarmist radiative greenhouse effect which quite clearly indicates a process of heat recycling because of their position that the sun doesn’t heat the earth due to flat earth theory. Reference the K&T energy budget which shows climate science peer review stating precisely that! It’s peer reviewed literature…lol.

  23. Here’s a schematic diagram from the K&T paper

    This is peer reviewed literature in climate alarm science: the sun doesn’t heat the earth, due to their belief in flat earth theory. Documented fact.

    They want peer review references? Lol. There it is.

    See Kiel and Trenberth “Earth’s Global Energy Budget” peer reviewed paper from the American Meteorological Society which quite clearly establishes climate science’s position that the Sun doesn’t heat the earth due to their belief in flat earth theory. It’s peer reviewed literature! The climate change alarm literature quite clearly establishes their position that the sun doesn’t heat the earth due to their belief in flat earth theory. This is standard, basic climate alarm 101. They deny the heat of the sun, and believe in flat earth theory. This is documented fact, climate alarm science 101.

  24. The AMS would not accept that the sun heats the earth and that the earth is round because this is inconsistent with climate alarm science. Documented facts.

  25. @ the “tribe”:

    You’re missing the point. The atmosphere is not warmer than the surface temperature.

    Nobody that I know of ever makes the claim that the atmosphere is warmer than the surface temperature. Consequently, the point that you think I am missing is not even there.

    Rather, the rate of heat loss from the surface to space is reduced with greenhouse gases.

    The word, “rather”, is a nice transitional word connecting sentences, when used with points that are actually in question, which your point never was. Rather, you start with a straw man, right out of the blocks.

    That is to say, the warmer the atmosphere, always being less or equal to the surface temp, reduces the rate of heat loss from the surface to space.

    “That is to say” — looks intelligent — another connective transitional phrase, again, used in a false chain of attributions to a point that was never in question. That is to say, you are making shit up, and then dressing it up in language that flows nicely, but whose logical basis is nonexistent.

    As the rate of loss of IR radiation reduces because of greenhouse gases, while the rate of incoming UV radiation remains the same, the surface temperature can increase.

    So, you are talking about a RATE of loss of energy, which has units of “joules per second per meter squared”. About what surface area are you speaking? About what time interval are you speaking? Likewise, you are talking about a RATE of incoming UV — again over what surface area and over what time interval? Take me through your cliam in these terms, to arrive at the energies you are talking about.

    The more greenhouse gas, the warmer the atmosphere, without exceeding surface temps, in turn allowing the surface temperature to maintain greater amount of heat as the incoming UV radiation remains the same.

    You are just using more words to describe the very thing that I would ask you to demonstrate, via my previous response, denoting surface areas and time intervals over which you are making your claims.

    At no point does heat flow from a colder region to a hotter region.

    Yes, the heat flows from a warmer surface to a cooler atmosphere to an even cooler space on the dark side, at a rate that keeps the DARK side warm enough until sunlight infuses it with more energy, while the heat flows from a warmer surface to a cooler atmosphere that keeps the surface cooler on the SUNLIT side.

  26. Screwed up my quotations. Damn, I hate not having a way to edit.

  27. Carl says:

    “The atmosphere is not warmer than the surface temperature. Rather, the rate of heat loss from the surface to space is reduced with greenhouse gases. . .”

    Relative to “space” the atmosphere “is” the “surface” of the planet Earth and the “Mean Global Temperature” is an “air” temperature. An increase in “greenhouse gases” makes this “surface” more emissive. Ergo, the rate of heat loss from the “surface” (the atmosphere) to space is increased by an increase in “greenhouse gases.” Stated another way, the presence of “greenhouse gases” increases the ability of the “surface” of the Earth (the atmosphere) to cool more efficiently by emitting IR radiation out into space.

  28. CD Marshall says:

    Again guys love your feedback on this, Robert hilarious.

    My musings on the @ the Tribe (still formulating)…

    This is an excellent comment to underline the confusions being taught in climate science.

    “The atmosphere is not warmer than the surface temperature.”

    This part is true. Go figure.

    “ Rather, the rate of heat loss from the surface to space is reduced with greenhouse gases.”

    Cloud insulation and water vapor coupled with the adiabatic lapse rate maintains a reduced temperature longer.

    You are confusing water vapor with IR emissions. A cloudless desert heats up quickly during the day and convects that temperature quickly at night. Water vapor acts as a slight coolant, while it can maintain a temperature longer through the night, that temperature is less than the day temperature. How water vapor benefits the climate takes on many forms from evaporation, latent heat, humidity, condensation to finally end full circle with precipitation.

    80% of IR emits from the Earth’s surface through an open window to space. CO2 absorbs a small spectrum of that 20% radiation emission which by the way, is not the 20%.

    CO2 does not increase the energy coming from the surface and does not increase the energy available to it for absorption.

    Again the surface is a radiating source; the atmospheric gases absorb and radiate line spectrum, (specific levels of radiation) not a wide variation spectrum such a source emits.

    “ That is to say, the warmer the atmosphere, always being less or equal to the surface temp, reduces the rate of heat loss from the surface to space. “

    All gas in the atmosphere gets heated by the conduction/convection/advection process. Climate politics claim that IR radiation is the only form of heat exchange and in the troposphere it has very little impact . On top of that, climate science likes to focus on the 15 micron range when IR has such broader ranges than that, mostly all covered by water vapor.

    If the energy isn’t being increased from the surface to the atmosphere (and it’s not) absorption will not increase in the atmosphere with slight modifications of its molecular distribution other than the slight increase in molar mass.

    “As the rate of loss of IR radiation reduces because of greenhouse gases, while the rate of incoming UV radiation remains the same, the surface temperature can increase.”

    As I have stated repeatedly, energy moving back and forth in a system does not change temperature. Low energy bosons can stack indefinitely, nature’s way of maintaining the energy balance. For a temperature to increase the wavelength/frequency MUST be greater than the energy source receiving it.

    Solar irradiance isn’t increasing to the surface so no, the temperature doesn’t increase, regardless of how much the atmosphere retains a lesser temperature longer not how Conservation of Energy works.

    The hotter the surface gets the greater the Troposphere expands to compensate and the emissions to space increases by the fourth power of the absolute temperature of the radiating body to appropriate the Conservation of Energy Law, under that law the change in internal energy of a system is equal to the heat added to the system minus the work done by the system. Delta U=Q-W.
    The Troposphere contracts at night, because convection has allowed it to cool. Thus if it is cooler, the surface is not HOTTER.

    “The more greenhouse gas, the warmer the atmosphere, without exceeding surface temps, in turn allowing the surface temperature to maintain greater amount of heat as the incoming UV radiation remains the same.”

    Again, the main course of the climate misdirection is claiming IR is the main source of energy transfer from the surface to the atmosphere and it is not. If we had no IR active molecules in the atmosphere 100% of IR emitting from the surface would go to space unhindered BUT the bulk of the heat-energy created via conduction/convection/advection would remain heated much longer and that energy would not be converted over to IR active gases and emitted to space. So the only means to cool off the atmosphere would be the natural adiabatic lapse rate and auto-compression. As the heated air rises it would cool naturally and then drop, pushing warmer air higher and cooling.

    Homonuclear diatomic molecules can transfer some of their energy to Greenhouse Gases (that are IR absorbent) via physical transference and that energy once absorbed by a magnetic dipole molecule is almost immediately re-radiated in all directions or as a cloned photon all happening at the speed of light.

    “At no point does heat flow from a colder region to a hotter region.”

    Correct and the only way the surface average temperatures can increase is if the Earth’s overall albedo decreased and/or the solar input increases.

    Top of the atmosphere solar irradiance is only one part of the equation, how much solar irradiance actually reaches the surface is the other part.

  29. Mack says:

    Thanks Joe,….very sad to read about your childhood,….but you’ve certainly come out of that with flying colours. I also came from a dysfunctional parental upbringing, but just got on and worked hard at school. Unfortunately was not destined to be able to cope with maths….they started talking about imaginary numbers, and I thought….fuck this…..so not overly intelligent. Let’s just say brain-fag.
    There’s no need to get upset with the climate clowns…. here’s a little bit where common sense prevails….
    https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/2020/05/following-arrhenius-on-global-warming/comment-page-1/#comment-1568235
    Keep up the good work.

  30. Mark S. says:

    Hi everyone, great comments.
    “perception management” or you can call it Persuasion. I have been following Dilbert for a long time and Dilbert’s creator Scott Adams since 2016 when he started blogging about how Trump was a Master of Persuasion and would win. Obviously Persuasion can be either good or bad as we are seeing. Scott Adams is good at persuasion and also trying to be a good guy. But don’t check out his girlfriend, she will make you hate him (jealousy is an ugly thing).
    Everyone can use better persuasion skills, especially if you want to change minds for the good.
    If interested, I suggest you google “scott adams persuasion list” where you will find Scotts “Persuasion Reading List”.

  31. CD Marshall says:

    “The effective temperature is determined solely by the solar input and absorptivity of the Earth. That’s it.
    Average physical temperature isn’t actually a meaningful concept in physics. But the temperature at the surface, yes, is influenced by gravity, thickness of atmosphere, latent heat from H2O, H2O content, etc.” -JP

    Energy put into the system and how that energy is used in the system are two completely different things. Maybe you should write a paper on that?

    “Effective Temperature versus Physical Temperatures.”

  32. CD Marshall says:

    Is science doomed in the common man?

    I explained Climate Thermodynamics and this was my response

    “ita a topic about climate change not engines …you dumb fuck…”

    Lol he actually thought a heat engine was a real engine!!! We are doomed as a species gentlemen, doomed.

  33. CD Marshall says:

    …and ladies sorry, forget we have a few of the ladies around here, somewhere?

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