Without even having to go into the pseudoscientific basis of it, climate alarm science politics would be defeated by reciprocity simply because it cannot satisfy the definitions. Of course, this is why the parasites want to con everybody into it well before anything like legal reciprocity ever becomes prevalent…they want us to believe that trading weather credits forms part of the equation of balancing reciprocity…but it’s really just a parasitical scheme to internally skim off of the productivity generated by reciprocity.
In fact, reciprocity would simply wipe out huge swathes of useless and irrelevant science, much to the benefit of humanity.
Climate of Sophistry 
Reciprocity. It’s like that word was lost and only recently rediscovered. I’ve heard Trump say it a few times.
When worldwide systems, including banking, collapse in the coming years, we will be forced to move back to reciprocity. It is the purest form of trade. Win-win. Mutual benefiting. When I don’t take the tracking chip, I will be forced out of commerce. Cash is being eliminated so everything can be done electronically through tracking. We are going back to barter and trade. Somewhere along the line we lost our way and chose one button Amazon orders.
Joseph, SJ did an attack on you…
https://theskepticjournal.wordpress.com/climate-change-denier-joseph-e-postma-hacks-accounts-of-commenters-who-expose-him/
If this is true, this kind of stuff doesn’t really help the cause of science, does it? Sure it makes you feel good, but in the long run it hurts the science.
Beverly before that happens I see social structure collapse and war. Bloodshed first, order second.
Sadly that’s how it usually goes.
CD, I agree completely with your comment. Unfortunate but true.
CD, you just made an excellent comment on Dr. Berry’s blog about Taylor Series usage. Well done!
NASA wasting 1B? Joseph what are your thoughts on this?
youtube.com/watch?v=hlZx0ddrIWY&t=348s
Those guys are quacks imo…word salad shysters.
Wouldn’t you love to toss out a third of your research if it didn’t agree wit your findings? Make science a lot easier wouldn’t?
I was just reading more of this guys comments over at Dr. Berry’s site…
“Do you understand what a Taylor series expansion about equilibrium is?” That is a word salad.
Taylor expansion is just a math equation it’s not a law or a theory. It’s like he didn’t even know what he was referring to.
That’s like saying, “do you know what the Prime Numbers of equilibrium equations are?”
Why yes I do, it’s absolutely nothing. Robert Kernodle could make some fun out of that phrase. Unless of course I am completely misunderstanding his premise whatever that would be?
It’s irrelevant minutia…they deny the sun and use flat earth…your Taylor series are irrelevant.
They don’t deny the Sun it’s shining brightly at approximately -18C. ROFLOL.
That reminds me of the conservation I had with PhD meteorologist…
I said, “Right now in direct sunlight my gauge calculated 40C/545.3 W/m^2 at 9:35 AM at 41.08482° N…No greenhouse gas needed.”
PhD:
“That’s why temperatures are measured in a Stevenson Screen, so that you’re measuring the air temperature without direct sunlight affecting the results.”
I replied,
” Not seeing the irony there at all? The fact that Direct Sunlight does influence the temperature, proving it is not effectively -18C? Not even a spark of realization going on in your brilliant head?”
That was 6 days ago, no reply…
Joseph,
Congratulations you are famous. First comment on Potholer’s new video:
“I’ve been encountering a growing number of folks who have taken up the belief that the greenhouse effect doesn’t exist. As nutty as it sounds, there are quite a few extensive writings on the topic. A frequently cited author of such writings is Joseph Postma. Tim Ball and a few other constitutes have published a book on the subject called “Slaying the Sky Dragon – Death of the Greenhouse Gas Theory”. An entire blog called Principia Scientific is dedicated to the discussion of the impossibility of “greenhouse theory”. There has also been a single peer reviewed publication that was published back in 2009 titled “FALSIFICATION OF THE ATMOSPHERIC CO2 GREENHOUSE EFFECTS WITHIN THE FRAME OF PHYSICS”. I am often referred to these articles when discussing anthropogenic global warming. The notion that our planet’s temperature is not influenced by a greenhouse effect is becoming more and more popular. The arguments that these folks make can be rather convincing to someone who is unfamiliar with the laws of thermodynamics and how the greenhouse effect actually works, so I would like to submit this as an idea for the topic of a future video.”
//www.youtube.com/watch?v=h6eswiI3KLc&t=118s
You do have a defender already who isn’t me, that is pretty good.
I take it back he wasn’t defending you. I’ve encountered him before though I don’t recall much about him at the moment.
Posted a link to my video under that comment.
Joseph…Nice.
Can someone explain what they are trying to do here? I admit I’m not smart enough to understand something this stupid.
Someone asked this question?
“What volume, at an average pressure, would one million parts of the atmosphere look like? Is it a one meter cube? Much bigger? Much smaller?”
This math horror was the reply…
“To give an example calculation to illustrate the point:
298K is a typical temperature (25 degrees Celsius, 77 degrees Fahrenheit). So we can plug that into the equation, while removing units for the sake of simplicity:
(1)(V) = (1.661 * 10^-18)(0.0821)(298)
V = 4.06 * 10^-17 liters
So orders of magnitude smaller than one meter cubed. We can also figure out what temperature we would need to get a volume of one meter cubed, since one meter cubed is 1000L. We can plug that in as follows:
(1)(1000) = (1.661 * 10^-18)(0.0821)(T)
T = 7.333 * 10^21 K = 7.333 * 10^21 degrees Celsius”
What on Earth???
Here’ the other part of the rely I missed…
“”Parts per million” can be defined in terms of mass or in terms of number of particles (in moles). So 1 ppm could be either 1 gram per million grams, or 1 mole per million moles. That isn’t applicable to a pure vacuum, since it lacks mass and particles. I’ll also ignoring dust, liquid droplets, etc. in the atmosphere, for the sake of simplicity. I’ll instead focus on atmospheric gas, which allows us to apply the ideal gas law, which isn’t perfect, but should be usable here:
PV = nRT
P = pressure = 1 atm [the average pressure you talked about]
V = volume
n = moles of gas
R = ideal gas constant = (0.0821 L * atm) / (mol * K)
T = temperature
Since we’re focus on gas, we can translate your “one million parts of the atmosphere”, to ‘1 million particles of gas’. That gives us:
n = (1 * 10^6 particles) / (6.022 * 10^23 particles/mole) = 1.661 * 10^-18 moles
So we can plug into the ideal gas law; I’ll leave out units to simplify:
(1)(V) = (1.661 * 10^-18)(0.0821)(T)”
SO the Ideal Gas Law is actually PV=nRT=NkT
So he missed part of the equation? Pressure/Volume = # of moles, universal gas constant ( 8.3145 J/mol K) Temperature = # of molecules, Avogadro’s # (6.0221×10^23/mol ) Temperature.
One mole at an ideal gas of standard temperature and pressure is 22.4 liters.
1ppm is obviously 1/million.
However his question is meaningless isn’t it? The volume varies from altitude and you can not use the ideal gas law to convert mass to volume like he is wanting. Which is why the math he did makes no sense at all.
Is this right?
This guy sounds so confident I wonder if he’d debate you?
https://scienceofdoom.com/2014/06/26/the-greenhouse-effect-explained-in-simple-terms/
He claims he can dismiss a physicists claims that the GHG is not viable.
This is his full overview…
https://scienceofdoom.com/roadmap/atmospheric-radiation-and-the-greenhouse-effect/
Notable quotes just on the first page…
1.Oxygen and nitrogen absorb such a tiny amount of terrestrial radiation that even though they constitute an overwhelming proportion of the atmosphere their radiative influence is insignificant (note 1).
How do we know all this? It’s basic spectroscopy, as detailed in exciting journals like the Journal of Quantitative Spectroscopy and Radiative Transfer over many decades. Shine radiation of a specific wavelength through a gas and measure the absorption. Simple stuff and irrefutable.
The overall energy in the climate system is determined by the absorbed solar radiation and the emitted radiation from the climate system. The absorbed solar radiation – globally annually averaged – is approximately 240 W/m² (note 4). Unsurprisingly, the emitted radiation from the climate system is also (globally annually averaged) approximately 240 W/m². Any change in this and the climate is cooling or warming
3.Most of the emission of radiation to space by the climate system is from the atmosphere, not from the surface of the earth. This is a key element of the “greenhouse” effect. The intensity of emission depends on the local atmosphere. So the temperature of the atmosphere from which the emission originates determines the amount of radiation
4.If we add more radiatively-active gases (like water vapor and CO2) then the atmosphere becomes more “opaque” to terrestrial radiation and the consequence is the emission to space from the atmosphere moves higher up (on average). Higher up is colder. See note 6.
So this reduces the intensity of emission of radiation, which reduces the outgoing radiation, which therefore adds energy into the climate system. And so the climate system warms
5.See The Three Body Problem – a simple example with three bodies to demonstrate how a “with atmosphere” earth vs a “without atmosphere earth” will generate different equilibrium temperatures. Please review the entropy calculations and explain (you will be the first) where they are wrong or perhaps, or perhaps explain why entropy doesn’t matter (and revolutionize the field)
6.Real calculations, using the equations of radiative transfer, don’t use an “average” surface temperature and don’t rely on a 33K “greenhouse” effect. Would the temperature decrease 33K if all of the GHGs were removed from the atmosphere? Almost certainly not. Because of feedbacks. We don’t know the effect of all of the feedbacks. But would the climate be colder? Definitely.
Seriously that’s all pointless maths…not doing anything important at all.
As for the SoD link…he’s never met me…lol. Would destroy them.
Yes the #4 is one of the variations of the explanation of GHE theory…remember, it is never consistent. The #4 is of course 100% inconsistent and contradictory to the explanation given in the common flat Earth models where back-radiation causes further heating, etc. And #4 is not how a real greenhouse functions either of course.
Considering #4 on its own, you would still have to say that a non-radiatively active atmosphere would have lower emissivity and therefore have higher temperature already. In #4’s scheme the opacity of atmosphere would promote convection and thus cooling. And you still have the Sun heating the surface to high temperature and the fact that the average temperature of the column of atmosphere must be in the middle and not found at the bottom layer of the atmosphere. So #4 still falls short of being “THE” correct explanation of things, etc.
Joseph,
Are you going to invite him to a live debate on his site? We would all love to see that, since Potholer might do a video on you soon you can invite him as well.
More from this guy who conveniently skips the most important part of this example… That energy must be greater than the radiative emissions of the frequency/wavelength of the object receiving it to increase the temperature.
“The claim that radiation from a colder source is not absorbed by a warmer surface has no physical basis. People who claim it don’t understand one or all of these facts of basic physics:
a) Radiation incident on a surface has to be absorbed, reflected or transmitted through the surface. This last (transmitted) is not possible with a surface like the earth (it is relevant for something like a thin piece of glass or a body of gas), therefore radiation is either absorbed or reflected.
b) The material property of a surface which determines the proportion of radiation absorbed or reflected is called the absorptivity, and it is a function of wavelength of the incident photons. (See note 2)
c) The energy of any given photon is only dependent on its wavelength, not on the temperature of the source that emitted it.
d) Radiation emitted by the atmosphere has a spectrum of wavelengths and the difference between a -10°C emitter and a +10°C emitter (for example) is not very significant (total energy varies significantly, but not the proportion of energy between any two wavelengths). See note 3.
The only way that radiation from a colder source could not be absorbed by a warmer surface is for one of these basic principles to be wrong.
These have all been established for at least 100 years. But no one has really checked them out that thoroughly. Remember, it’s highly unlikely that you have just misunderstood the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
Note 3 – For those fascinated by actual numbers – the energy from a blackbody source at -10°C = 272 W/m² compared with that from a +10°C source = 364 W/m² – the colder source providing only 75% of the total energy of the warmer source. But take a look at the proportion of total energy in various wavelength ranges:
BTW the peak WL of 10C is 10.234 micron and -10C 11.012 micron and that frequency/WL certainly does matter he’s a shifty little snake, isn’t he?
Here’s what it’s all about…
If I drop water on the floor that water will evaporate. Thermodynamics tells me it will do so instantaneously. Kinetics tells me it’s going to take some time. What do I observe ? Water evaporating slowly. Not instantaneously like thermodynamics says, slowly like both thermodynamics and kinetics say.
How about the Earth’s temperatures ? The Sun heats the Earth instantaneously, on one hemisphere at a time. The energetic Sun’s rays penetrate the atmosphere and reach the Earth’s surface at the speed of light. Heat is created and some of it is sent back to space instantaneously in the form of infrared. It’s not impeded because air (N2 and O2) are transparent to IR. But some of that heat is captured by N2 and O2 by conduction with contact with the surface. Those molecules cannot release that heat by IR radiation for the same reason as it can not capture it. So, it has to let it go by conduction and convection… Your kinetic component. It’s gonna take some time.
So… Until, and only until, climate models take into account that the Sun shines on only one hemisphere at a time with it’s full power and they add a kinetic component (mechanism) to explain the slow heat loss, their climate model is pure s**t.
Heat comes in at the speed of light but goes out at the speed of snails. Roy… are you getting this ?
I’d love to know who’s actually in on the sophistry and who’s just a zombie.
The guys who know they’re lying but “for the greater good” population control scheme. (anti-humanist, satanist)
Then the corporations and politicians who want tax money.(democrats, rhinos)
Our enemies who want to handicap our industry and make us noncompetitive. (east, commies)
So many enemies.
Our time to shine, then. Skull piles…a blessing to have so many enemies to make skull piles out of.
Reminds me of Dan Carlin’s Hardcore history of the mongols.
They would slaughter whole Chinese cities, up to 1 million people at ONCE.
If you didn’t immediately surrender to the horde that was your fate. Need to make an example for the next siege.
They would pile the skulls. Apparently there was so much death that the earth around the slaughter was covered in some kind of grease.
The roads would have a greasy film on them. That had to be one of the worst time and places to ever be alive.
The terror of being besieged by the mongol horde is the stuff of legend. You cant believe how brutal they were.
Could you imagine?
JP,
This Potholer commentor, a fine skull goblet…
“fortunately in science we don’t settle arguments based off subjective notions of authority. Postma has a M.S. in…..something, but he’s done zero formal scientific research that I can find. There are a wide variety of flaws in his writings. This is why I think it’d make for a fantastic subject to cover in a video…”
MFr’s. Obviously this person doesn’t even know the most basic method of finding author publication…and the only time I use MSc is when I follow it with “Astrophysics”. The person is baiting. Which is great, really…lol. They’re doing a service by bringing them to me!
And yes you nailed it. That is precisely how these people double-think. That’s why whoever is writing that comment is actually brilliant…the rest won’t be able to avoid that bait at all!!!
LOL. All they do is make arguments from authority and consensus.
I’d bet all the money in the world he will argue cold adds to hot. That will be Postma’s “flaw”.
“Postma is confusing conduction and radiative heat flow. In conduction heat always flows from hot to cold, but radiation does not.”
“bla bla not a closed system…realtime…24hr average…consensus…how come you have no peer reviewed papers”
“it’s not a heat budget its an ENERGY BUDGET”
“Postma is confusing conduction and radiative heat flow. In conduction heat always flows from hot to cold, but radiation does not.”
An IR photon (EM energy) carries potential energy whether that energy can increase temperature is based completely on the radiating temperature of the source absorbing it.
So yes, even in radiation, for energy to increase the radiating source, that incoming energy must be greater than the temperature gradient of the source and emitting photons of a higher wavelength/frequency of that radiating source. In other words, hot to cold.
Thus more energy at a lower potential temperature can decrease a warmer temperature gradient or more energy at a higher frequency/wavelength can increase the source temperature. Energy can flow both ways, Joseph has never denied this, a temperature increase can only flow from hot to cold.
Higher energy radiation emits higher energy photons.
Joseph said, “The person is baiting.”
Matt Elder stated he attends weather and climate conferences so he must know you quite well from the “denier list”.
Yep that glasses scene from “They Live”, Pierre.
It really does seem to be that we’re facing some strange enemy.
“You still posting the same debunked nonsense even after I routed you on the previous potholer video? Shame on you…”
How did you miss being debunked by such a genius, Joseph? These guys are something aren’t they?
Seems relevant today:
So back to this…
Between 8-10 μm 10.7% (-10°C) 12.2% (10°C)
Between 10-12 μm 11.9% (-10°C) 12.7% (10°C)
Between 12-14 μm 11.2% (-10°C) 12.4% (10°C)
Between 14-16 μm 9.8% (-10°C) 9.5% (10°C)
The peak WL of 10C is 10.234 micron and -10C 11.012 micron So this line {Between 8-10 μm} does
does not emit from a source radiating at -10C by itself. No line spectrum of 8-11 microns will emit from this source even though a 10C source can have lower wavelengths its peak will be 10.234 micron. What a source doesn’t produce it simply doesn’t produce. That source can intercept higher energy photons but that is not emitting from that source and if those photons have enough energy to increase the temperature the source of radiation will no longer be -10C.
Is this correct?
This was Science of Doom’s reply to this comment, “The planet can only radiate out the energy received [if sun and the earth otherwise unchanged] hence it has to, repeat has to radiate what comes in sooner or later no matter how much GHG there is..” A correct statement in general.
SOD’s reply: (arrogant twit)
Your second statement is almost correct. Energy in = energy out in the absence of warming or cooling.
But your overall comment shows that you don’t really understand how heat transfer works.
It is very simple. Try and grasp it before writing anything else.
More GHGs reduce the amount of radiation leaving the planet. What happens next?
Energy in is greater than energy out.
Therefore, the planet stores energy and the temperature goes up (the first law of thermodynamics)
As the temperature increases more radiation is emitted.
Eventually energy out is equal to energy in.
At this point a new steady state is reached, the planet is now at a higher temperature.
This concept is so simple that I wonder at people who can’t understand it
They lack imagination. Thats not how it works lol. Of course we know to start with dense high energy sunlight on one hemisphere. Conservation of energy considered that energy is re-emitted from earth at a lower energy density(flux?).
They have this fantasy idea of how the physics work. Extra 2nd hand energy accumulation. Perpetual motion machine stuff. I wrote an explanation I came up with. Basically an imagination aid to Postma’s model.
“Take the temperature of the sea floor of the side of the earth facing the sun, and the temperature on the sea floor on the opposite night side. Same distance underwater of course. These two temperatures will be quite close together.
Now remove all the ocean and do the same temperature measurements again, the temperatures will be on completely opposite sides of the spectrum.
The atmosphere has substance, mainly water vapor. It retains and transfers heat from the sunny side, to the night side.
The same thing happens in places with very little water. I’m sure you’ve heard how deserts can be below freezing at night, and blisteringly hot during the day. Because there is little substance(water) to propagate heat flow.”
These people don’t think.
“Imagine if the earth had a at least 100ft deep ocean across it’s whole surface, and no atmosphere.”
Forgot that part.
Sometimes in the heaping, steaming and stinking piles of repetitious climate crap you can find a tiny gold nugget…
In response to this question:
William Hoffman
, Ph.D. Chemist/Professor/Chemistry Consultant (1974-present)
Answered April 21, 2020
·
The answer, of course, is that it can’t.
Fourier looked into it and said it wouldn’t do.
Arrhenius looked into it and gave an incorrect feedback idea to the world. Tyndall looked into it and worked out that in a closed system it could account for 14% of the energy absorbed with 86% due to water vapor. Both scientists relied on radiation measurements and ignored the convection process that dominates the energy handling.
The results of the radiation idea has led to the notion that satellite measurements of radiative loss suffice to support ghg’s as the cause of gw, whereas what they show is the filtering effect of carbon dioxide and water vapor, analogous to measuring the color of the Earth through a tinted filter.
When I first read the explanation of gw from the US Standard Atmosphere and found that on fundamental physics, the primary basis for it was the transformation of water to water vapor and the convective distribution of heat to the atmosphere, I kept a little of the old ghg idea and misunderstood that while CO2 could be dismissed by its tiny level and corresponding tiny heat effect, still wv was a significant ghg. But in doing so I held on incorrectly, and have now come around to an understanding closer to that presented by Nikolov and Zeller
https://www.omicsonline.org/open-access/New-Insights-on-the-Physical-Nature-of-the-Atmospheric-Greenhouse-Effect-Deduced-from-an-Empirical-Planetary-Temperature-Model.pdf,
who show that gw is a function almost exclusively of total atmospheric pressure, and that composition of gases plays no significant part. The “greenhouse effect”, long known to be a poor analogy is now to be thoroughly discarded.
It is possible to envision a concordance between USSA and N-Z in my opinion, by accepting that N-Z hypothesis, constructed using only gravity and presence of an atmosphere is a top-down (a “big picture” or overview/model), while USSA provides a mechanistic or bottom-up view or model.
N-Z shows gw for multiple planets correctly, using their pressure model, and has predictions that need to be followed up with data not yet in hand, but it’s worth noting that their model (“Model 12” on p8, Fig 2) shows excellent results for Venus, Earth, Moon, Mars, Triton, Titan Eq 10 of their paper yield temperatures for Mercury, Callisto, Europa, Pluto also in good agreement with data.
The USSA mechanism depends on gravity and pressure, and the idea of ghg’s is not borne out in detail as I now realize, so that CO2 might account for just 0.017 K, but including water vapor in the same way, only might make about 0.3 K. The energy distribution mechanism is much more a result of evaporation and subsequent expansion.
Between the two, then, the general idea of greenhouse gases having a greenhouse effect is falsified.
Plus the fundamental points of CoE:
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.
In the real world anyway.
Joseph,
I gave an invite to SOD odds are he’ll slink out of it but hay maybe not. Then again, I wasn’t nice about it either ‘casue we both know arrogant trolls like this don’t come out in the sunlight (especially from a flat earth)He might be RS for all we know.
My invite…
“You have some misguided and some arrogant misconceptions of physics. I wonder, would you be willing to backup these claims in a live debate with an actual physicist?
I can arrange that.”
He already responded…
“Thanks for your kind words.
No.
“Actual physicists” can explain the flaws in my articles right here. They don’t even need to provide their “actual physicist” credentials, just make arguments from theory and experiment.
I look forward to it.”
Sorry the more I study this the more dumbfounded I become…
Between 8-10 μm 10.7% (-10°C) 12.2% (10°C)
8 micrometers=89.07C
9 micrometers=48.82C
10= 16.627C
Where did he pull this out of?
No CD that account-skepticjournal is some freak stalking degenerate I think from my work even who deserves no respect F them