No Peer Reviewed Evidence for Climate Science

Climate scientists love to reference and ask for peer-reviewed papers…which of course they control and disallow any alternative and rational science from being published within.

So from now on, YOU can demand that THEY produce a peer-reviewed paper demonstrating the basis of climate science, and you can also provide a reference demonstrating that experimental evidence was already collected in the 1700’s by Joseph Fourier, the “father” of modern thermodynamics, which empirically refutes modern climate science.

Please see this link to read the paper yourself and the historically-established finding of Joseph Fourier debunking modern climate science:

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

461 Responses to No Peer Reviewed Evidence for Climate Science

  1. CD Marshall says:

    Perfect response for Potholer!

  2. CD Marshall says:

    Denial runs deep in these morons, I’ll remind you of my e-exchange with a noted award winning Oxford (currently) PhD Professor…

    I asked him, “I am curious about a very real problem that I’ve noticed in climate research and in climate models. Mostly the need to average real solar input as an effective 255 Kelvin when that average is found at the middle of the Troposphere and not at the bottom which is well known to be a product of the lapse rate.

    Anyone who has studied climate physics, such as yourself, clearly knows that the average of 940 W/m^2 is consistent at the Equatorial Solar Zenith and around 82 W/m^2 at the Poles. You need that real thermal radiation to power our climate, not 255 Kelvin. Dividing by 4 for an input where it should be divided by 2 and is so obvious that even I can see it, troubles me. The Sun shines on only half the globe at a time, the average exhaust is the whole globe and should be averaged by 4 resulting in the 255 Kelvin but not the input.

    For example, one day in direct sunlight my gauge calculated 40C/545.3 W/m^2 at 9:35 AM at 41.08482° N. I don’t have to tell you that creates some thermal heat, not 255 Kelvin.”

    His reply back to me was,

    “All of the factors you describe are fully taken into account in climate models, but your factor of 2 is incorrect. In the limit of a horizontally uniform radiating temperature, the answer is clearly 4, which is just the ratio of surface area of a sphere to its cross section, and comes from the most elementary energy balance principles, as in Chapter 3 of my planetary climate book. General circulation models, of course, allow for geographical variations in temperature, and take into account the diurnal cycle.”

    I replied with, “The surface is part of the Troposphere and therefore the average temperature is the same as the exhaust, 255 Kelvin all well and good, but that average is the middle of the Troposphere not found at the surface. I’m not seeing how GHGs accounts for the extra heat but the lapse rate can. Richard Feynman was not a fan of GHG Theory and GHGs do have fundamental uses in the atmosphere, they are not however, heaters. Quite frankly a division by 2 or 4 or 8 doesn’t change the obvious point that real climate is created at the Equator with a powerful 940 (variable) W/m^2 all the energy needed to power the most influential climate engine on the planet, the Hadley Cell (well that and the obvious fact that line spectrum isn’t heating its source more than the original temperature). Without GHGs the surface would not be 255 Kelvin for the surface would never be 255 Kelvin when that average is sitting in the middle of the Troposphere. My point is even if the math is correct (and I know it is) using an average for real time creation of our climate is not.”

    No reply…

  3. CD Marshall says:

    My comment got taken into the ether.

  4. Joseph E Postma says:

    I’m getting the email notifications for comments but NUMEROUS comments are not showing up! Others are reporting the same for their comments.

    Sad, sad, freaks. Is it obvious now that we are in a war?

  5. CD Marshall says:

    Speaking of war I snagged another PhD A-hole he’s already attacking me. You might like him, he’s a rager lol.

    “The Greenhouse Gas Effect as perpetuated by consensus pop culture science simply doesn’t exist. Colder/warmer weather patterns are a product of the meridional weather patterns we have been in since 2005 not from a fictitious anthropocentric warming effect.

    CO2 is a passive radiator and the atmosphere is free to convect.

    That’s the absolute base explanation.”

    His reply:
    “Whoops, no, it isn’t. But that’s cute how you pretend to understand science better than scientists. Also, that has absolutely fucking nothing to do with this video, so maybe you should actually press play and learn something, ok champ?”

    Lol and of course he is a stickler for “peer review” as they all are.

  6. Joseph E Postma says:

    Send him my video 🙂 lol

  7. CD Marshall says:

    This was my reply…Can’t wait for him to go off on it lol.

    “maybe you should actually press play and learn something, ok champ?”

    I did watch the video I found it mildly amusing, thank you for your kind words.

    “Also, that has absolutely fucking nothing to do with this video…”

    Actually it did I was commenting on the part at 31:16

    “Our analysis indicates that even if cold events are likely to have been reduced due to greenhouse gases, trends cannot be attributed with high confidence to any anthropocentric signal alone.”

    Maybe you missed that part in your tirade?

    Now lets go over what you’re struggling with.

    Droughts have existed in Australia for over 500 years so blaming it on anthropocentric global warming is a bit far fetched…

    “Whoops, no, it isn’t. But that’s cute how you pretend to understand science better than scientists.”

    I was educated by scientists so thank you for noticing. Now, no it isn’t a meridional weather pattern we are in (since 2005) or no CO2 isn’t a passive radiator? You have learned quantum mechanics haven’t you?

    I’m going to call you Chip for that one on your shoulder, k champ?

    The GHGE is based on flat earth physics.

  8. CD Marshall says:

    I’m waiting for him to comment on the FEP so I can send the video.

  9. CD Marshall says:

    This PhD is a hoot! For a PhD he hasn’t said one thing in actual science. I’m getting disappointed. He sent a troll after me as well, also no science.

    If a PhD can’t talk the climate science wtf is going on in academics?

  10. Marshall Rosenthal says:


  11. CD Marshall says:

    So this is Professor Dave’s about section…
    Welcome to my channel! I have a knack for explaining science stuff and I want to share my knowledge with you.

    I received a BA in chemistry from Carleton College, and performed graduate studies in both synthetic organic chemistry and science education at Cal State Northridge, receiving an MA in the latter. Prior to this I taught for about a decade in various high school and undergraduate settings, specializing in organic chemistry but also teaching general chemistry, physics, and biology.

    This channel is certainly for students in science courses at both the high school and undergraduate level, but it is also for members of the general public that just want to know a little more about the world and how things work. My goal is to increase science literacy in our society so please share these tutorials with anyone that you think might enjoy them. Happy learning

  12. Did you see my replies to potholer CD?

  13. Rosco says:

    “NASA’s Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO), an unmanned mission to comprehensively map the entire moon, has returned its first data. One of the seven instruments aboard, the Diviner Lunar Radiometer Experiment, is making the first global survey of the temperature of the lunar surface while the spacecraft orbits some 31 miles above the moon.”

    “Noontime surface temperatures near the lunar equator are hotter than boiling water”

    As the Moon is presumed to have an albedo or ~0.12 a simple SB Eqn calculation reveals the maximum temperature induced by ~1361 W/m2 to be ~381 K or ~108°C which is “hotter than boiling water” !

    However divide by 4 and see the result is ridiculous – minus ~3°C.

    Climate science is junk science and is empirically proven so in actual publications!

    The Moon has no Greenhouse gases nor an atmosphere at all !

  14. It’s amazing how inconsistent and non-self reflective science is. Good to see you Rosco!!

  15. CD Marshall says:

    I didn’t get any notifications so I manually went there and saw them. Excellent reply. Can’t wait to see his weasel response, but I’m guessing he’ll send in the troll brigade.

    Maybe he’ll do a video on you like he did Heller?

    DEBATE YOU? never.

    Heller offered to debate him as well and he weaseled out of it and claimed Heller was the one who didn’t want to debate. Heller, who went before congress, yeah he didn’t want to debate. What a putz.

  16. They’re all slimy weasels.

    Anyway…ask them for peer review paper DEMONSTRATING the radiative ghe with measured conditions!

  17. CD Marshall says:

    I just read a paper on the effective temperature and I am just astounded.
    Absorbed radiation (1-alpha p) So pi a^2
    Emitted radiation sigma T^4 e

    From 2003.

  18. Peter BURNS says:

    How do I post up Screen shots??

  19. Save your image to an image service. Maybe even an online drive. Then link here in the comment.

  20. boomie789 says:

    Like here

    Upload the image there. Get the link. Post the link. Should end in .png or .jpg.

  21. Joseph E Postma says:

    These people…and their fn retardation:

    5 minutes ago
    Quick serious question:
    If the atmosphere has nothing to do with climate and it’s a simple matter of sun heats surface, then surface heats; why is the moon about 260 deg F where it get sun light, but immediately drops to about neg 260 deg F when that same surface goes dark?

    Climate of Sophistry
    1 second ago
    First of all, what a completely asinine statement: “If the atmosphere has nothing to do with climate”. Who in the f ever said that?! Secondly, given that the moon is the same distance from the Sun as the Earth, then why don’t you ask why the Earth doesn’t get as hot as the moon? Answer: because the atmosphere keeps the surface cooler in the day time. Lastly, obviously, the atmosphere radiates poorly, and there is a lot of it, and so it doesn’t cool instantaneously. Only the surface of the moon cools to that temperature, but if there were subsurface probes we would see that they too do not drop to -260F.

    Climate science says that THE SUN has nothing to do with the climate. NO ONE here has ever said that the atmosphere has nothing to do with the climate…you would have to be a climate scientist to say something that stupid.

  22. Joseph E Postma says:

    Getting this term “net heat” again from psycho climate trolls.

    There is no such thing as “net heat”. The phrase has NO meaning.

    There is net energy, which is heat. Heat is net energy.

    They try to use the phrase “net heat” because via that they imply that both energy flows are heat, with also the difference or net between then being heat too.

    So, add that to your arsenal. Stop them on “net heat”. No, it’s “net energy” which is heat…thus the term “net heat” is nonsensical.

  23. Joseph E Postma says:

    from mtntim via /r/climateskeptics
    “Please pick any calculation of the greenhouse effect you want, as simple or complex as needed, and show me where net heat is transferred from a colder body to hotter one. If you can’t do that then I don’t know what argument you’re trying to make.”

    fatal1dea 1 point a minute ago
    You keep using the term “net heat”. That’s not a meaningful phrase in physics and thermodynamics. I can see how it is confusing you.

    There is net energy, which is heat. That’s what heat is – net energy. Thus the term “net heat” is nonsensical. This confusion thus establishes a foundation upon which you, and climate science, misinterpret the physics of the climate, by for example thinking that a flat Earth is a good approximation to the Earth, and that sunshine can be treated as freezing cold, etc.

    Until you can demonstrate that you understand that heat is net energy, you won’t get anywhere. I’ll show you the equation again:

    Q = s*(Th4 – Tc4).

    The two terms on the right side are each individually just energy. The NET is what is heat, Q. Hence, saying “net heat” has no meaning. “net heat” is word salad.

    Yes, it is in the link you provided: the radiation from the atmosphere making the warmer surface even warmer by the influence of its (the atmosphere’s) radiation is heat flow from cold to hot. But you cannot understand this until you correct that mistaken term “net heat”.

    The biggest confusion that students have with thermodynamics is the distinction between energy, heat, and temperature. By using the term “net heat”, you demonstrate such confusion. Heat is net energy. The term “net heat” has no meaning.

  24. Joseph E Postma says:

    “the laws of physics do not depend on the geometry of a given problem”

    That was one response…lol. So there you have it…flat Earth theory is A-OK because geometry has no influence on the physics.

  25. Peter BURNS says:

    Wow….. Take a look at this deception…..I was explaining to a person that sunlight falls only on one hemisphere at any given time ….. His proof that I am wrong is this diagram….. How deceptive!!!

  26. CD Marshall says:

    Yet from the paper I read in 2003 they openly acknowledged sunshine strikes one side of the planet and explained that the 255K effective temperature is the exhaust emitting on the whole planet spinning, thus the /4. They used /2 for incoming solar irradiation exactly like Joseph. Yet they ‘pretended’ like they never heard this discussed before?

    So since 2003, 18 years, climate science has digressed to a high school level of physics?

  27. CD Marshall says:

    I mean “they” as in modern climate science, not ‘they’ who wrote the paper in 2003 🙂

  28. CD Marshall says:

    So Joseph you did the one thing (so far) that is a fete in itself, you shut Poholer’s pothole, he still hasn’t responded.

  29. Jopo says:

    You a link to the potholer putdown. would love to see.

  30. CD Marshall says:

    Jopo and all, under myself, CD Marshall.

  31. CD Marshall says:

    Invite this putz for a debate. Love to see the responses.

    If you aren’t already banned from his account lol.

  32. MP says:

    Some climate modelling, using Chicago University’s MODTRAN program.
    Looks like CO2 has no effect on ground temperature.

  33. Joseph E Postma says:

    Look at the phrase, too: “Upward IR heat flux”

    That goes directly to show that these people do not have thermodynamics training at all. Seriously, thermodynamics is an arcane course and only physics and astronomy majors take it…these models are written by computer science majors with perhaps a few courses in physics in undergrad, assisted by meteorologists who likewise have a course or two in undergrad physics.

    They’re treating all energy as heat…so they call all emission a “heat flux”. It’s not semantics. This isn’t a matter of semantics in language, it is a matter of semantics in meaning:

    noun (used with a singular verb)
    the study of meaning.
    the study of linguistic development by classifying and examining changes in meaning and form.
    Also called significs. the branch of semiotics dealing with the relations between signs and what they denote.
    the meaning, or an interpretation of the meaning, of a word, sign, sentence, etc.:

    When people say “let’s not argue about semantics”, it means that they don’t want to argue with reference to the meaning of the words being used! The term is a bit of a non-sequitur. What people mean when they use that phrase is that they do not wish to your your meaning of the terms and phrases being argued, and wish to substitute their own.

    That’s why they use that phrase “heat flux”, or worse still, “net heat”!!! It’s not “just semantics”, it is EVERYTHING to do with the meaning of the phrase and if it has meaning at all.

    Inigo Montoya: “You Keep Using That Word, I Do Not Think It Means What You Think It Means”

    It’s important what words mean…!

  34. Joseph E Postma says:

    there is no peer-reviewed evidence for climate science:

    with a link to the video…haha 🙂

  35. boomie789 says:


    Postma is thinking in memes now lol, good one.

  36. Joseph E Postma says:
  37. CD Marshall says:

    A Professor who tells the truth!?!

  38. CD Marshall says:

    A professor who tells the truth?

  39. CD go check out the response from pothole and my reply.

  40. boomie789 says:

    Check this out.

  41. CD Marshall says:

    I think he blocked you buddy, that’s how he wins debates.

  42. boomie789 says:

    No that’s Postma’s account. Doesn’t do that for Mann’s.

  43. Joseph E Postma says:

    Haha!! WOW! So they really have this fraud Mann protected! Basically he runs Twitter then?!

    OK…just tried to login…it wanted a captcha challenge for me to prove I’m not a robot. Then it let me in. I should be public again.

  44. CD Marshall says:

    Joe you showed up finally. Excellent I’m surprised he hasn’t sent in the trolls.

  45. Joseph E Postma says:

    Yah bunch of responses there. Mostly trolls and religious freaks. I responded to a few…including Mann.

  46. CD Marshall says:

    I meant Potholer.

  47. Joseph E Postma says:

    AAAaannnnd he just now blocked me…lol

  48. Joseph E Postma says:

    Do my replies to pothole show up? I couldn’t see one after posting…so I replied a couple more times with variations…and other account.

  49. Do my replies to pothole show up? I couldn’t see one after posting…so I replied a couple more times with variations…and other account.

  50. CD Marshall says:

    Yup it showed up. I commented on Mann as well under an account I made for Trump in 2016 and has been pretty much shadow banned since. I guess now they are letting me comment since Trump is gone.

  51. I commented 3 times. I see 2 up. From each acct

  52. Jopo says:

    If the comments are under CD M post then you have about 6 comments in there Joe. Last of yours was about 35 minutes.

    Joe Postma
    35 minutes ago
    @potholer54 Of course, Fourier did not write “I debunk climate science”, because that wasn’t a thing back then. ………..

  53. CD Marshall says:

    I told Mann, “How very consensus science of you. Would you be willing to debate him live?”

    His reply?
    You’re blocked

  54. boomie789 says:

    I think I found a strong correlation. People who wear mask in their profile pictures and climate alarmist.

    What’s that phrase…it’s something signaling .
    Vulture Signaling?

  55. How retarded like a programmed robot do you have to be to take a photo of yourself in a mask for your profile pic?!

  56. CD Marshall says:

    Heat islands are urbanized areas that experience higher temperatures than outlying areas. Structures such as buildings, roads, and other infrastructure absorb and re-emit the sun’s heat more than natural landscapes such as forests and water bodies. Urban areas, where these structures are highly concentrated and greenery is limited, become “islands” of higher temperatures relative to outlying areas. Daytime temperatures in urban areas are about 1–7°F higher than temperatures in outlying areas and nighttime temperatures are about 2-5°F higher.,as%20forests%20and%20water%20bodies.

    True or False?

    Reduced Natural Landscapes in Urban Areas.
    “Hard, dry surfaces in urban areas – such as roofs, sidewalks, roads, buildings, and parking lots.”

    Urban Material Properties.
    “such as pavements or roofing tend to reflect less solar energy, and absorb and emit more of the sun’s heat.”

    Urban Geometry.
    “The dimensions and spacing of buildings within a city influence wind flow and urban materials’ ability to absorb and release solar energy.”

    Weather and Geography.
    “Calm and clear weather conditions result in more severe heat islands by maximizing the amount of solar energy reaching urban surfaces” (True.)

    “and minimizing the amount of heat that can be carried away.” (False.) It’s not trapping heat it’s just hotter from a change in surface emissivity.

    “Conversely, strong winds and cloud cover suppress heat island formation. Geographic features can also impact the heat island effect. For example, nearby mountains can block wind from reaching a city, or create wind patterns that pass through a city.” ?

    This is possibly the radiative inversion effect?

    Heat Generated from Human Activities.
    “Vehicles, air-conditioning units, buildings, and industrial facilities all emit heat into the urban environment. These sources of human-generated, or anthropogenic, waste heat can contribute to heat island effects.” (False.)

  57. CD Marshall says:

    If anyone is looking for a Polar bear comprehensive assessment that is 80 pages long, look no further.

    Click to access State-of-Polar-Bears18.pdf

  58. Jopo says:

    Hi Guys,
    Help me out in designing a experiment that refutes Back Radiation.
    I have at my disposal.
    A Bosch hot Air gun and
    A thermal imagary camera FLUKE TI55

    I have a bitumen road in front of my house. I even have brass balls.
    Surely creative thinking can show that thermal back radiation is not going to further heat the asphalt up hotter than what the Sun is?

  59. Jopo says:

    I should say “another” experiment

  60. Back in the Slayer days we did an experiment like that:

    Click to access Absence_Measureable_Greenhouse_Effect.pdf

    Results are in there. But it can be done again. What we do is, via astrophysics, I can calculate precisely the solar insolation at your latitude and longitude at the time of the measurement. You measure the temperature at peak solar insolation, which I can tell you when that is…or just make repeated measurements every 10 minutes from an hour before solar noon to an hour or two after. Should be done on a clear blue sky day. If the RGHE is in effect the asphalt should get way hotter than the solar insolation can explain. If you have a glass pane or two you can mount that over the surface too to see if there an immediate amplification of temperature.

    The brass balls will be needed later if we try to publish the results in a journal. Should though.

    Actually I think we had a solarimeter in our test…meaning we measured the actual solar insolation input, thus accounting for local atmospheric extinction. Also, it would help to control convection by getting the temperature from inside a glass-topped box with black surface inside. Got to control those variables!

  61. Actually I bought some glass panels on Amazon last year, and also have a Styrofoam cooler which I was going to paint black inside. I have a fluke temperature probe. So I would mount the glass pane on the top of the cooler, and stick the temperature probe through to inside the cooler. I think I can also get a solarimeter cheaply enough. As I discussed…even a single glass pane should make it get up to 180C vs the 100C the sun would provide.

  62. Pricey actually:

  63. CD Marshall says:

    To any Chemists in the house:

    What did they get wrong if anything?

  64. CD Marshall says:

    Here is a helpful template to use with the video from Pierre with some edits from myself (few).

    CO2 reacts with water (H2O) to form carbonic acid (H2CO3).

    Underwater volcanoes eject calcium silicate (CaSiO3) on the ocean floor and that is the buffer that controls the pH of the oceans. The ocean floor is littered with this product. Carbonic acid reacts with calcium silicate to give insoluble calcium carbonate (CaCO3). Carbonic acid then reacts with this calcium carbonate to give aqueous calcium bicarbonate (Ca(HCO3)2). Aqueous calcium bicarbonate has a natural pH of about 8.2 but runs from 8.1-8.3, slightly alkaline. The more carbonic acid you have, the more calcium silicate will react to neutralize it.

    CaSiO3 + H2CO3 = CaCO3 + H2O + SiO2 (sand)
    CaCO3 + H2CO3 = Ca(HCO3)2

    Aqueous calcium bicarbonate has a natural pH of about 8.2 but runs from 8.1-8.3, slightly alkaline. The more carbonic acid you have, the more calcium silicate will react to neutralize it.

  65. boomie789 says:

    I’ve tried showing how the CO2 concentration was much higher 50+million years ago.

    I think the response I got was “but CO2 is increasing in concentration now faster than it could naturally”.

    Then I just pointed at a big spike in the graph. Didn’t really get anywhere.

  66. We change CO2 in greenhouse MANY orders of magnitude times faster than the outside rate is changing…millions of times faster rate change pumping it in…and the effect is to make plants grow better and has no effect on temperature…so…lol

  67. CD Marshall says:

    Boomie these people are brain dead drones. Reminds me of the X-Files “Hiding in the Light”.

  68. CD Marshall says:

    For some reason was my favorite X-Files.

  69. Joseph E Postma says:

    Good comment and reply from YT:

    Vasily Kravtsov
    8 hours ago (edited)
    Thanks, your videos are really interesting. So I agree with your energy budget, however if we say that the atmosphere is essentially an insulating “blanket” around the earth, and if we assume that somehow it can let more energy in than it can let out, the question now is can really Co2 or any other gas insulate the planet a bit better, thus slightly raising the temperature. I mean if we somehow would totally eliminate clouds over the sunny hemisphere and fully covered the dark hemisphere with clouds that would actually raise the average temperature. That’s not possible ofc, but can changing the atmospheric composition change the average temperature? It probably can. But the amount of ghg we put out shouldn’t be enough to significantly affect the temps, is that correct?

    Regarding the adiabatic lapse rate and temperature. If the avg temps were like 5c (and more) higher in the past, how was that possible if the atmospheric height and pressure were the same and perhaps the atmospheric composition was almost the same. I guess the albedo was lower so we had more solar energy being absorbed by the earth, but still the pressure and atmospheric composition were basically the same, so how come temps were so much higher?

    So the question I guess is. Can an increase in ghg gases in the atmosphere lead to an increased temperatures? I mean wouldn’t they (ghg gases) just reflect more heat from the sun in the first place since this atmospheric “blanket” should be equally transparent to IR radiation in both directions. Is that correct? if the atmosphere is equally IR transparent in both directions than it should be absolutely irrelevant how much ghg gases there is since with an increased amount of ghg gases more incoming solar energy would be reflected in the first place, thus compensating for more energy reflected on its way out. If that makes sense. If the atmosphere though can be more transparent for incoming ir radiation than outgoing ir radiation than it could potentially be a problem since there’s an imbalance.

    Climate of Sophistry
    17 seconds ago
    Thanks for watching! Good question too. So, we must be careful about the meaning of our words and what we imply. We can say that the atmosphere “blankets” the ground, however, the action or mechanism of an actual cloth blanket is opposite to that of the atmosphere, and in fact stops the atmosphere. That is, a cloth blanket STOPS atmospheric convection of free air which is a cooling process. The open air will always automatically convect and wick heat away from warmer objects. If you stand in the open cool air, the air is cooling, not warming. If you put on a cold blanket, the blanket feels cold…but then because of its small mass you warm it up and create a warmer local environment for you skin – this can’t happen in the open air atmosphere because the air constantly wicks heat away. So, can the open atmosphere act like a blanket? No…blankets are created to STOP the open air atmosphere.

    So you see that there’s fundamental problems with this analogy. This analogy only comes from the thinking of the flat Earth model of climate science…where they think that we need to amplify temperature because sunshine is too feeble. In fact, sunshine is very hot and the atmosphere actually keeps the surface COOLER than if there were no atmosphere: the moon under the sun gets to +121C!! The Earth’s surface never gets this hot under the Sun because the atmosphere is cooling the surface.

    The basic mechanism is this: the hot sunshine comes in and heats the surface and generates the climate; heat flows down temperature gradients and creates the climate; energy leaves Earth. There can be NO back-recycling of heat. The open atmosphere is always convecting and hence always cooling. You cannot stand in the cool air and feel hotter…a contradiction in terms. And finally, real blankets STOP the atmosphere, and so we cannot call the atmosphere a blanket in terms of function…although we can say that the atmosphere “blankets” the surface.

  70. CD Marshall says:

    That is an excellent observation and one that really has been bothering me, the blanket metaphor. The atmosphere is not a blanket, so we should redirect that anytime it is claimed.

    No the atmosphere is not a blanket.

    So what is it then? How do you explain such a complex process in a short paragraph for the typical attention spans?

    A lead or a hook if you will, which would drive those who want to know more to ask for more information.

    It would be a good medium to know troll from a honest person. A troll will immediately rebut the definition based on the Deny-Deflect-Discredit process they use.

    An honest person will want to understand more.

    Yes the atmosphere is free to convect, the troposphere functions like a Carnot cycle, six basic processes move thermal energy from the surface to the atmosphere and around the atmosphere.

    Those are still a little complex for the average person.

  71. CD Marshall says:

    The basic mechanism is this: the hot sunshine comes in and heats the surface and generates the climate; heat flows down temperature gradients and creates the climate; energy leaves Earth. There can be NO back-recycling of heat. The open atmosphere is always convecting and hence always cooling. You cannot stand in the cool air and feel hotter…a contradiction in terms. And finally, real blankets STOP the atmosphere, and so we cannot call the atmosphere a blanket in terms of function…although we can say that the atmosphere “blankets” the surface.”

    That does sum it up doesn’t it?

    So the ‘lead’ would be, “The basic mechanism is this: the hot sunshine comes in and heats the surface and generates the climate; heat flows down temperature gradients and creates the climate; energy leaves Earth.”

  72. And standing in something cold, cold air, doesn’t make you hotter.

  73. Joseph Postma says:

    These people are so incredibly VILE:

    Vernon Brechin
    Channels, such as this, typically appeal to those who don’t bother to do their own peer reviewed paper research, can’t understand those papers if they do look them up and who don’t bother looking into the academic technical background of the presenter. I made that effort. In Joseph E. Postma’s website ‘About’ page page he goes into a lengthy diatribe that ends explaining how traumatized he was by his parents. He says nothing about the academic fields he has expertise in. Apparently, astronomy is his major field of expertise with some experience in software development. My guess is that he also does much searching for various research papers to aid other researchers. I also guess that he has had no formal academic training in the key fields of climate science and in the biological science fields. He shows a knack for playing the victim card. Whenever a paper of his is rejected from publication, he finds an external reason for that rejection rather than blaming himself. The U.S. just had a President who found it impossible to blame himself for his scores of faults. There are a great number of people in the world who are like that. University of Calgary Department of Physics and Astronomy Joseph Postma – UVIT Research Analyst

    I removed the comment…no need to respond. Just foul and vile.

  74. WP seems to be censoring my own comments now?

    A bunch of yours CD were in the trash for some reason too.

  75. CD Marshall says:

    Funny he doesn’t mention more is required to get a degree in astrophysics than in climate science.

    Getting a degree in atmopsheric physics or thermodynamics, would be pretty easy for you to do. Not sure if the courses are the exact same just different titles for different academic institutions.

    But, Atmospheric Thermodynamics would be a bonus to your current filed of study.

    Not that it matters but it would really set them off wouldn’t it?

  76. Joseph Postma says:

    If I had freedom and time I could get a degree in climate science no problem…PhD.

  77. CD Marshall says:

    Oh and even more amusing, he actually didn’t refute the point of oyur video. Lol he went straight for the “Discredit” portions of the handbook.

  78. CD Marshall says:

    You could get a degree in climatology in your sleep. No offense to you guys with one.

  79. CD Marshall says:

    Personally I think Meteorology is a tougher than climatology.

  80. CD Marshall says:

    Potholer replied back to you by the way.

  81. Joseph E Postma says:

    At least meteorologists ostensibly actually try to produce something useful and which the public can gauge the utility of – the weather.

    Climatology is purely a fluff field…equivalent to gender studies.

  82. I keep on NOT being able to see my own comments when I post without logging in…..

  83. CD Marshall says:

    Never mind your replies showed up.

  84. I don’t see them! I keep on NOT being able to see my own comments when I post without logging in…..

    At least meteorologists ostensibly actually try to produce something useful and which the public can gauge the utility of – the weather.

    Climatology is purely a fluff field…equivalent to gender studies.

  85. I mean on here…not YT.

  86. CD Marshall says:

    I know you’re Canadian, and I have few friends that are French-Canadian who naturally speak French, but do you speak French?

    The One thing I disagreed with in the USA was not mandatory teaching of other languages. Personally, I felt Spanish and French should have been taught in school since they were our neighbor languages.

    I took both in high school but was cut from both because I had taken too many electives.

  87. Joseph E Postma says:

    No we hate learning French and it is considered a class to totally F around in in school…we only have to because the French province threatens to destroy Canada if they don’t get to force the rest of us to have to learn their stupid language…lol

  88. CD Marshall says:

    It is weird you have a French province come to think of it. It would be like us having a single Spanish speaking state, granted Southern California is well on its way.

  89. Barry says:

    I think a better term will update be loose fill insulation where it is not containing energy flow only slowing it. Obviously it works both in and out and the make up of it really doesn’t matter,you could call it a blanket but it would have to be a blanket full of holes stopping some direct sunlight and leaving converting air to move freely.

  90. Barry says:

    Would be not update not sure about spell check sometimes. Sorry that was to be posted above about the y/t comment.

  91. Barry says:

    Got me again that would be convecting air. Lol

  92. boomie789 says:

    I heard the reason the Quebecois mandated French in their law, was because they saw what happened to the Cajuns. This was early 1900s or something. Forced English into the schools. It’s pretty much extinct now, if not highly endangered.

  93. CD Marshall says:

    Well the French-Canadians I know get frustrated over learning English, if they had learned it growing up and French was secondary language, they wouldn’t fell like an outsider in their own country.

    However, I’ve spoken to several Norwegian folks who speak better English than I do. The one girl I talked to speaks Norwegian, Swedish, Finnish and English.

    While the US use to have one the greater education systems in the world now we teach flat earth and gender studies.

  94. CD Marshall says:

    See? Typos everywhere.

  95. CD Marshall says:

    Interesting paper:

    Click to access ns_2020031013452917.pdf

    “…the results derived from the historical data suggest no change in the globally averaged near-surface temperature over the past 100years.”

  96. Joseph E Postma says:

    Wow. Well…expect a complete ignoring of the details and personal attacks on the authors and anyone who would dare read them instead……

  97. CD Marshall says:

    Yup careers trashed for telling the truth.

  98. boomie789 says:

    I’m still a little confused how qoutes work to be honest.

  99. CD Marshall says:

    So Academia has created a generation of statistical scientists, who never question the source.

  100. CD Marshall says:

    Potholer is feeling manly again and responded to you.

  101. Supper…hang on lol

  102. CD Marshall says:

    Anyone got a reply to this claim?

    “Observations from the last fifty years have shown that the nights have been warming much faster than the days. Analysis of the causes of this more rapid warming at night shows that this is likely to continue in the coming decades.”

    Hype sites:

    The actual paper:

    The claim is CO2 at night is causing more warming at night.

  103. CD Marshall says:

    Great reply to PH.

  104. CD Marshall says:

    Enjoy the rest of your evening.

  105. S.K.Dodsland says:

    Here is experimental evidence supporting convection radiation as the driver of temperature not lw radiation.

    Click to access Experiment_on_Greenhouse_Effect.pdf

  106. CD Marshall says:

    “…although we can say that the atmosphere “blankets” the surface.”
    This is like using greenhouse gasses to describe molecules with a dipole moment, correct but used too much as a troll tactic.

    What would be an actual scientific identification of the atmosphere around a planet? Atmosphere is gravity based and sometimes the magnetosphere (is the body has one) helps.

    Not all planets have a magnetosphere so that leaves atmopsheric development directly as a gravity maintained function.

    Gravity maintains an atmosphere close to the center of mass around a planet.

    Gravity blankets an atmosphere around a planet.

    I hate using greenhouse gases but IR active gases doesn’t really seem cut it.

  107. CD Marshall says:

    Then again, do we allow consensus to maintain and control out terminology?

  108. That is an excellent experiment and totally demonstrates everything necessary!

  109. CD Marshall says:

    I was looking at weather related courses and realized most were just an insult to a physicist. No, only a degree Atmospheric Physics would be worth your time.

  110. Check it out guys…my software got listed on the NASA office for Astronomical (FITS) image support:

    Also the CCDLAB listing:

    Also under WCS Software:

    They all link to my github.

  111. J Cuttance says:

    I’m having a run in with a guy here in the comments. Hope I’m not letting the side down. Does anyone know anything about the AERI study he talks about?

  112. Seems there are a lot of comments there. Link to comments relevant?

  113. Ah found it. I’ll comment there in a bit.

  114. Good job though standing up to the abuse and misrepresenting they’re doing of what you presented!!

  115. Joseph E Postma says:

    I replied a couple of time J Cuttance.

  116. CD Marshall says:

    This is funny if you simplify the science you get accused of “high school physics” if you use physics you get accused of “hiding behind equations no one can understand”.

  117. J Cuttance says:

    wow thanks Joseph. It gets lonely out there sometimes 🙂

  118. Cheers! Thanks for putting yourself out there…everyone! These people are vile and it ain’t pleasant with them.

  119. CD Marshall says:

    “It’s not T or δT but δT⋅δt⁻¹ which is an unprecedented 200x where the natural forces would have driven temperature. The unnatural forcing from human use of fossil fuels, cement manufacture, land disturbance, and flaring is a minimum of 35x that of the mean of the last four natural warming periods exiting the preceding glacial periods where δT⋅δt⁻¹ ≈ 0.004°C⋅decade⁻¹. Current δT⋅δt⁻¹ ≈ 0.13⋅-⋅0.19°C⋅decade⁻¹.” -2 years ago by that Scientia Praecepta.

    Complete nonsense. Claiming forcing with no evidence to prove such forcing. Then when asked to prove said forcing,

    “That is very basic climate science. Middle school level. An educated scientist from any discipline at tertiary level would not struggle as you do. I have not seen temperature and time units used for any other science notation, so you are are just F0S. The source is the published temperature data bases/sets.”

    So it’s in the models?
    Fine but where in the models?
    Yes yes, but where in the models does it prove the forcing?

    δT⋅δt⁻¹ = Doesn’t that just equal zero?

  120. Joseph E Postma says:

    They just make up the data and manipulate it anyway.

    We force greenhouses at millions of times the outdoor rate, and…nothing, just better plant growth, not any warmer, at 5x outdoor concentration.

  121. Joseph E Postma says:

    That Praecepta troll shows up everywhere. A real psycho. The second term is time…they’re saying inverse time…or an inverse increase with time? So they’re fitting to a noise blip and getting all alarmed. That’s all.

  122. Joseph E Postma says:

    Wow good video here:

    “This the third in my Climate Science series debunking the so-called ‘greenhouse effect’.
    Climate Science 1 revealed that our atmosphere is not like a greenhouse; instead it’s the exact opposite – it’s capable of expansion and convection.
    Climate Science 2 explored the science and the climate cycles which the IPCC forgot to mention, and how they are totally controlling all current climate change.
    We find that there actually is no ‘extra’ warming that we need to invoke a supposed ‘greenhouse effect’ from CO2 or other ‘greenhouse gases’ to fill.
    Climate Science 3 looks into the claim that Venus is hot because of the ‘greenhouse effect’ of carbon dioxide.”

  123. J Cuttance says:

    Re. Sensory Order’s empirical evidence
    Though i will go over the methodology if allowed, I’d put money on them detecting the downward flux with a -80C detector array and basing their results on that. My left arse cheek could heat a cryogenic detector. And why hasn’t this experiment been taken all over the world, measuring the heat clearly coming down from various CO2 concentrations? Something is just not right there.

  124. CD Marshall says:

    J Cuttance: This is my 10 cents on that article.

    “Much of this emission is downwards…”

    Emissions are multi-directional and only 20% is from greenhouse gases, of that 20% CO2 takes a very little slice. Once CO2 is heated, it emits in all directions if the atmosphere is also heated.

    .” …making the surface of the Earth warmer than if it had no atmosphere.”

    *The first misdirection and flat out lie. The Earth would still have an atmosphere and still would be heated. As long as we had water vapor the temperatures w/o CO2 would be insignificant. With no greenhouse gases we’d still have an atmosphere, much hotter during the day and cooler at night. We would never ‘be like the Moon’ for we have a real atmosphere.

    “that infrared emissions from carbon dioxide have increased during that time in agreement with theoretical predictions for man-made climate change.”

    Complete conjecture with no evidence here to back it up. They may as well as said, “we made up the difference to fit the models.”

    “Although the role of carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas has been well established by lab experiments.”

    Flat out lie no evidence has ever been proven in a lab.

    “to measure how much infrared light”

    The crux of the whole article. They measured light, so what? For Infrared electromagnetic radiation to increase temperatures it must meet the appropriate requirements (Thot^4-Tcold^4). Put that on a molecular level it’s the same as saying longer wave radiation cannot increase the temperature of a shorter wave radiation emitting source. A photon is just that, a photon, one or a million at the same wavelength/frequency still carries only the ‘power’ to set that level of temperature that photonic energy transfers when absorbed into a compatible object.

    Radiation is quantized into photons whose energy is proportional to frequency: E=hv. Photon Energy=Delta E =hf, E=Energy of the photon, h=Plank’s constant (6.63×10^-34 Js), f=frequency of the EM radiation.

    “how much infrared light is returned to the surface of the Earth from carbon dioxide alone.”

    I don’t see how they can claim to measure that, again sounds like conjecture. IR radiation has no “specific earmarks” once the atmosphere is heated, it emits in many wavelengths. CO2 doesn’t even emit in the 15 micron range once heated.

    “Feldman and colleagues examined a total of 8300 measurements made in Oklahoma and 3300 made in northern Alaska between 2000 and 2010. They found that radiative forcing by carbon dioxide has increased in both locations at a rate of about 0.2 W m–2 per decade. To put that into perspective, scientists have calculated that the total forcing today caused by human-related carbon-dioxide emissions since the start of the Industrial Revolution is about 1.82 W m–2.”

    The above paragraph puts the nail in the entire dead greenhouse theory article.

    “They found that radiative forcing by carbon dioxide has increased in both locations at a rate of about 0.2 W m–2 per decade.”

    *First they jut said they have only been monitoring this for, “period of 11 years” now claim, “has increased in both locations at a rate of about 0.2 W m–2 per decade.” Absolute conjecture based on no observed evidence.

    0.2 W/m^2 is in the bias of error or just noise, and is about enough energy to equal -229.8 Celsius. They think this “adds” to increase temperature and it does no such thing.
    If enough energy bombarded this planet at the equivalent f/wl of this it would turn our planet into an ice ball.

    Conservation of energy is not heat. Entropy is energy, not heat.

    “scientists have calculated that the total forcing today caused by human-related carbon-dioxide emissions since the start of the Industrial Revolution is about 1.82 W m–2.”

    As someone said before, I’d love to see those steam powered IR detectors they had in the Industrial Revolution to verify this claim. Complete conjecture based on a “desired bias outcome”.

    “Radiative forcing” is a climate science misrepresentation of the laws of thermodynamics used only in their fantasy field of climate study and verified nowhere else in applied physics. Forcing to increase temperature needs a medium, hot to cold, higher to a lower temperature. All enregy does not equal heat or an increase in temperature.

  125. Barry says:

    Thanks cd great summation. Don’t you love when they come up with how much forcing there has been based on a bad theory of co2 heating the earth. If you start out with a wrong assumption everything you try to measure after that is wrong. And this passes for academia today,unbelievable.
    Have a good day

  126. MP says:

    @ Joseph

    Here is the same calculation for Titan, which is another body with >1bar of surface pressure;

    Planet – Measured Temp 1atm – Solar Insolation – 4th Root – Calculated Temp
    Earth ~288 Kelvin 1.00 1.000 288 Kelvin

    Venus ~340 Kelvin 1.91 1.176 289 Kelvin

    Titan ~90 Kelvin 0.01089 0.316 93 Kelvin

    The temperature of a planetary body in space varies with the fourth-root of the power incident upon it, meaning that the temperature of Venus at 1atm (Tv) should be the fourth-root of 1.91 times the temperature on Earth at 1atm (Te). Venus receives 1.91 times the solar insolation of Earth.

    For Titan, the temperature of a planetary body in space varies with the fourth-root of the power incident upon it, meaning that the temperature of Titan at 1atm (Tt) should be the fourth-root of 0.01089 times the temperature on Earth at 1atm (Te). Titan receives 0.01089 times the solar insolation of Earth.

    Venus Tv=∜1.91 x Te

     Tv = 1.176 x 288
     Tv = 339 Kelvin

    Titan Tt=∜0.01089 x Te

     Tt = 0.323 x 288
     Tt = 93 Kelvin
  127. So it works perfectly. Should do a video on this.

  128. MP says:

    @ joseph

    Right. That would be a huge slayer vid

    Made 1 typo mistake in the series

    Planet – Measured Temp 1atm – Solar Insolation – 4th Root – Calculated Temp

    Calculated Tv = 339 Kelvin for Venus, not 289 Kelvin

    Calculation at the bottom is correct.

  129. Joseph E Postma says:

    That’s exactly right J C – they just misinterpret the measurements and think that they mean what they entirely do not. Just because you can remotely detect a temperature, does not mean that the thing you are detecting is heating you.

  130. MP says:

    Funny thing is that not a single positive or negative feedback seems to have effect on the long term equilibrim state at 1 bar. (just some fluctuation around the equilibrium state)

    It seems that the equilibrium state at 1 bar is solar insulation dictated.

    Maybe because of negative and positive feedbacks canceling each other out over time Or by another mechanism proposed by Dr. Ronan Connolly & Dr. Michael Connolly at 42 minutes in linked vid.

    “Through mass mechanical energy, what they call pervection”. What balances out the whole system over time to the equilibrium state what is dictated by solar insulation.

  131. CD Marshall says:

    A JP quote is fitting here,
    “See they’ve created an entire false reality and way of thinking about the thermodynamics of the planet. The “planet” does not “warm or cool” when there is an imbalance given by I = (S/4)(1-a) – oeT^4.

    The “planet” warms and cools at every moment with the real-time in-situ heat flow. Every 12 hours or so the temperature swings tens of degrees. Not with the S/4 heating potential of only -18C, but with the full S heating of +121C.”

  132. That’s just it…it’s fake physics. What they’ve created simply has nothing to do with reality.

  133. CD Marshall says:

    Your Potholer reply, the quote got scruffed, “the official position of climate science is that the sun does not {hear} the earth, because we believe in flat earth theory”

    They are coming in though, at least I can see them.

  134. MP says:

    @ MP

    To clarrify why i think that the equilibrium strate at 1 bar is only solar insulation dictated.

    Can calculate the temperature at planets with at least 1 bar pressure, at the 1 bar level by just adjusting for the difference in solar insulation, by the fourth-root of the power incident upon it

    No clouds, or albedo, or atmospheric gasses mix has effect on that.

    Sure, it has effect on where the 1 bar level is. But on earth we don’t have an average increased pressure at ground level (and higher up 1 bar) problem.

  135. CD Marshall says:

    This guy can’t even hide his arrogance…

  136. MP says:

    @ CD M

    I stopped watching after hearing the pimping how great China is for stopping polution with the great made paris climate deal.

  137. CD Marshall says:

    Yeah his voice could induce an aneurysm. I think he’s more arrogant than PH.

  138. tom0mason says:

    Ref CD Marshall says:
    2021/01/31 at 9:30 AM
    To any Chemists in the house:

    This ‘academic’ appears to think that all the oceans are isolated from the rest of the planet and nature. Points to note —
    1. He never mentions the ocean floor and the HUGE amount of readily reactable rock (volcanic features exude a dense, dark, iron and magnesium rich (mafic) volcanic magma Basalt, limestone, etc.) that is down there. See
    2. He ignores the vast amount of limestone there’s by the shores (limestone cliffs, etc.) and in the seas and oceans of the world.
    3. Also ignored is all the minerals that are eroded from the rocks and soils on the land, and when caught in the rivers will eventually find there way into the seas.

  139. CD Marshall says:

    Thanks tom0mason, good read.

    “that use sulfur instead of oxygen for their respiratory functions.” I had no clue that was even possible.

  140. MP says:

    MAGA Fights Back – REEEeeeee Stream


  141. CD Marshall says:

    So Joseph, I think this guy is Russian but what is he trying to say?

    “You still don’t get it? Even when you have it right in front of you and are actually explaining it nearly correctly? Imagine you have a photon of 10000 ångstrøm, do you agree that that photon has a specific energy? Do we agree that the hotter object emits a higher quantity of these specific photons per second? And that the colder object also emits a few, as per the Planc-curves? Can we agree that a photon of 10000 ångstrøm is a photon of 10000 ångstrøm, no matter the source? That they all look the same? Do you now understand radiative heat transfer?”

    His statement is confusing, but If I were to dig to the bedrock it sounds like he is delusional in claiming “heat” moves both ways in a system, a classic ignorance (perhaps by choice) of not understanding proper energy flow.

    You just did the video on heat transfer and he ask you if you understand it?

    I’ve seen this misdirection in climate science before. They have claimed the only difference between temperatures are the amount of photons being emitted, not the level of the photons which is blatantly absurd.

    COE laws seem to be forbidden in climate science.

  142. Joseph E Postma says:

    Where is that from?

    Yes, I think he’s just repeating the retardation that “all energy is heat”, and “how can a photon know?”.

    That’s why they came up with that “net heat” phrase. So that both energy from the hot and cool source are heat, and heat is also the difference between them…which is of course entirely nonsensical. Heat is net energy…meaning the difference between energy. Not all energy is heat.

    So they they demand “BUT HOW DOES A PHOTON KNOW THIS!?”

    How the f does ANYTHING know to do ANYTHING? How does my chair know to resist my butt?! These fn people, and their retardation.

    The math of statistical mechanics knows…that’s what knows…is math, which is logic, which is that a lower-frequency spectrum doesn’t have the higher frequencies of agitation to give to a higher-frequency spectrum to make the higher-frequency spectrum higher still. Only the higher-frequency spectrum has something to give to the lower frequency spectrum.

    There are REASONS…understandable, reasonable, reasons. Does the tortoise pass the hare? No. Why? Because the tortoise is slower. Do you fn understand the difference between slow and fast? DO YOU!? These people are vile, and foul.

  143. CD Marshall says:

    His reply is here @Per Gunnar Søvik

    That other flake nut job, Kloko Loko replied to him. He is another idiot who refuses to reason. Science deflects from his head and is replaced with, “But why this but why that” even though it’s been explained to him ten different ways he still asks the same question or makes the same point but twists his replies differently.

  144. CD Marshall says:

    If you blocked “EF M” unblock him and deal with his idiotic stupidity and lack of actual physics understanding. Then again being an Engineer, he is probably lying on purpose for I can’t see an engineer not knowing the laws of thermodynamics or their applied applications.

    EF M:
    “I’ve seen both videos before. They’re incorrect. The first video talks about physics and then switches to the flat Earth theory.
    In the second video, he also switches to flat Earth theory. Clearly, this man knows he is lying.”

    In response to your heat videos one and two.

  145. CD Marshall says:

    His comment is on Andy’s videos.

    Under his user name, EM F

  146. CD Marshall says:

    “It is believed that night surface temperatures can’t go below dew point temperature. As long as there is humidity in the air, and the fact that water can hold a lot more energy than air (per unit weight), as air cools, water condenses and will heat back up the air as the cooler air descends down the column of air and increases in temperature through auto compression.”

    I don’t know who said this but I like it, for we do have more clouds increasing and more water vapor.

    This would also justify the effects of low level surface inversion, known as radiative inversion which I’m sure climate clown kids think that implies to CO2 warming.

    However, since each parcel of air can be considered an individual system, this is not a global atmopsheric process, but a regional process. I don’t see how all the atmosphere can have nights warming faster than days all over the globe, that is an atmopsheric physics impossibility.

    To claim that would claim that at night the entire atmosphere is in isothermal equilibrium. Which is an absolute impossibility, the entire surface of the Earth emits at specific local emission rates of temperature.

    Whoever claimed all nights are warming faster than days, which I have found no evidence in any real time temps, was not being honest and completely forthcoming.

    It is evident in some parts with humidity, nocturnal temps are reduced to a stable temp or a degree change each hour, which would be latent heat in action.

  147. CD Marshall says:

    I’m going to let you handle EM F latest statement, its so cockeyed it would take a physicist to unravel his nonsense.

    He’s trying to use deep oceans freezing as a direct disproof of auto compression and gravity???

    “You need to give up your gravo-thermal theory. Again, that’s a load of crap. Compression only happens once and then it doesn’t do anything. The heat simply radiates into outer space. That’s the second law of thermodynamics in play. If it did, think of the temperature the oceans would have to be and they are running near-freezing temperatures. The only reason the Earth is the temperature it is is due directly to the secondary greenhouse gases. Again, without them, this planet would be an ice ball. This has already happened at least twice before.”

    He just mixed up many different functions and processes. EM Radiation which is light, heat via kinetic energy, the Ideal gas law and a few other things I didn’t quite catch.

    You just commented on the ice ball metaphor not too long ago. It has nothing to do with gases and everything to do with the Sun.

  148. CD Marshall says:

    Joseph, your daughter should enjoy this, might be too complex for climate PhDs. The Sun creates our climate.

  149. Jopo says:

    Yep CD I do read a lot of peeps talking of Gravity is not WORK.
    Their logic is that no work is required to lift a object against gravity. I.e with no work is required to the Atmosphere (mass) in place around our planet. Freakin dickheads

  150. Jopo says:

    I hope that comment doesnt bite me in the arse

  151. Jopo says:

    OK going out on a limb here. A tad confused. A poster earlier where JP showed interest in his comment

    This also got me thinking? His comment of incoming infrared solar energy (which is about 46% of total incoming I believe) and the introduction of Co2 should see a equal absorption and reflection of Infrared energy away from Earth as that as is supposedly re-absorbed and deflected back at Earth.

    I never paid to much attention to the absorption bands of wavelength in the past but now I have done a bit of work lately on that. It is here I am seeking confirmation of my assumptions on this.

    When I look at the TOA spectrum of outgoing energy that their is a section where Co2 has been absorbed in the Near infrared range of about 1500 micrometers

    So then if the GHE exist is it then thus fair to say that a major portion of INCOMING infrared energy is absorbed by Co2 and also emitted by Co2.

    Thus if any extra Co2 finds it way into the atmosphere then there is a equal absorption and reflection of incoming SOLAR infrared radiation..
    If the logic is correct or close to I would greatly appreciate anyone’s assistance in tidy up my comments.

    I feel like they are using incoming Solar Infrared radiation and claiming it is Back radiation.

  152. CD Marshall says:

    Funny stuff, Zoe wrote a program to monitor YT on Biden and proved YT manipulates likes and dislikes. Someone did a video on it.

  153. CD Marshall says:

    Sorry that was SUPPOSE to go to YT. Delete that if you want.

  154. CD Marshall says:

    So if you get big and they don’t like, they knock you down.

  155. CD Marshall says:

    This moron right here,
    Has a diagram showing a greenhouse next to the greenhouse effect with he same exact equations on both, I kid you not, and both in flat earth.

    Both show the Sun as solar radiation and both show arrows going up an down and trapped both in the greenhouse and in the atmosphere.

    So I guess it would be flat earth greenhouse physics now?

  156. CD Marshall says:

    The diagram can be found here…page 2 next to the K&T energy budget

    Click to access SIO217a-F14Ch01.pdf

  157. Joseph E Postma says:

    People driving their cars and heating their homes? “WE HAVE TO BREAK THEIR WILL.”

    Massachusetts Climate Tsar Caught Exposing The Plan (41 seconds)

  158. Joseph E Postma says:

    They have to break our will…to what??? To have fn heating in our house? It’s -30C in Calgary today…can’t even go out to shovel snow you’ll freeze your face.

    Break our will to…what? Drive to get fn groceries? They think we just drive our cars around in circles?

    These people are the enemy of humanity.

  159. CD Marshall says:

    Freaks of nature and as always, complete hypocrites.

  160. MP says:

    Break our will and a police state to enforce it.

    This is recently in Canada – Ontario. Kid was just sitting on his skatebpard behind a police car, cops did’t like it.

  161. Retards need to drop dead. Jacked up fn retards with authority.

  162. MP says:

    Corretion, he went through a red light while skateboarding, here is another angle

  163. Still jacked up idiots.

  164. CD Marshall says:

    I met a friendly over at “Friends of Science” he said he works in “Optical Physics, my specialty is high power lasers and large telescopes, atmospheric distortion compensation…”

  165. CD Marshall says:

    “MrMSBranham” he gave it to a troll pretty good.

  166. tom0mason says:

    A rather neat e-book called The Rational Climate e-Book: Cooler is Riskier. The Sorry State of Climate Science and Policies. by an independent researcher Patrice Poyet.
    I’ve not competed reading all the way through it but it does appear to be better than most.
    Amusingly under the chapter 7 title “The Greenhouse Mess” is this little gem …

    The «greenhouse» concept is probably the only one in physics for which we have several different definitions, none of them matching the others!
    It ranges from stories of window or of stack of windows [78] (forgetting the role of the convection in the analogy), to the idea that infra Red Absoption Gases (IRAGs) would absorb and further re-emit e.g.
    IPCC-GIEC AR3 (2001), to computations of the difference of what is emitted by the surface minus what is emitted by the TOA towards the cosmos, i.e. OLR as per Ramanathan et al. (1987) or others, to a radiative flux from the air that would warm the surface which does not make a lot of sense [79], to models and computations based on Stefan-Boltzmann Law (SBL) (in σT 4 ) [80] to obtain a (pre)determined value (e.g. 3,7 W/m 2 ) or mimic the radiative processes of the solar photosphere! (whereby the nuclear fusion creates the energy that radiates outwards – see p. 135, whereas the Earth atmosphere receives its SW energy from outwards), to that of an Earth without an atmosphere that would have a temperature of -18°C (justifying the «greenhouse effect») – what a strange hypothesis!

  167. tom0mason says:

    IMO another site worth looking at is , particularly the The Most Misquoted tab on the left. In this chapter the geologist lays out the history of mistakes that have been made about Fourier to modern times.

    According to Weart (2003), Flannery (2005) and Archer (2009), the “Greenhouse Effect” originates with Fourier. However, the point of republishing Fourier (1824) and Fourier (1827) is so that you can see for yourself, that the cornerstone of the “Greenhouse Effect”, namely the backradiation mechanism speculated by Pouillet, is not even alluded to by Fourier, who maintained that closed spaces such as hotboxes (and by extension greenhouses) retained their heat by cutting off circulation with the cooler atmosphere. I am not the first author to discover this by reading Fourier’s work for myself (Fleming, 1999; Gerlich & Tscheuschner, 2007; Gerlich & Tscheuschner, 2009), and one may be tempted to ask why authors continue to propagate the misinformation that Fourier fathered the “Greenhouse Effect” when it is clear from his own pen that he did not. Perhaps it has something to do with the fact that Fourier is historically misquoted and misrepresented with respect to the “Greenhouse Effect”. Citing Fourier (1827), Arrhenius claimed:
    “Fourier maintained that the atmosphere acts like the glass of a hothouse, because it lets through the light rays of the sun but retains the dark rays from the ground.”
    Arrhenius (1896, p. 237)

    Fourier is misquoted by Tyndall who made the following claim:
    “Hence the differential action, as regards the heat coming from the sun to the earth and that radiated from the earth into space, is vastly augmented by the aqueous vapour of the atmosphere. De Saussure, Fourier, M. Pouillet, and Mr. Hopkins regard this interception of terrestrial rays as exercising the most important influence on climate.
    Tyndall (1861, pp. 276-277)

  168. CD Marshall says:

    Joseph, you should slap that on Potholer. Not for him. he’s obviously funded somehow to propogate misinformation, but for those readers on his site that are fighting his misinformation. Good job tom0mason and a great find.

  169. CD Marshall says:

    Might even be worth a follow up video.

  170. tom0mason says:

    Oops, I missed the link to e-book called ‘The Rational Climate e-Book: Cooler is Riskier. The Sorry State of Climate Science and Policies’. It’s at —

  171. CD Marshall says:

    A physics question, does the interference of waves apply to Bosons and if so, would it change the waves at all?

    Interference sounds more like a Fermion based phenomenon and as I understand it involves superposition.

    My initial response would be no, the Bose-Eisenstein statistic basically states photons do not follow this method.

    What happens if two exact photons collide?
    “Two photons moving in opposite directions (“head-on”) can collide and move off in different directions (still opposite if the photons have equal energies), If they have enough energy, the photons might produce an electron-positron pair. At even higher energies, other final states are allowed by conservation of energy. The cross-sections (or probabilities) for various final states in photon-photon scattering can be calculated with high accuracy in quantum electrodynamics.”

    Is this correct or not quite?

    Now as I see it, the energy can increase but the frequency of the wavelength would still remain the same.

    Or does this create an entire new species?If so, how would this (if at all). I’m guessing this falls under Electrodynamics.

    More study…

    So this says, “Therefore a photon pair production in free space cannot occur.”

    This usually involves much higher energy than IR anyway like Gamma or X-rays.

    Case closed?

  172. boomie789 says:

    1000frolly PhD says you do great work.

  173. boomie789 says:

    it’s in my comment thread

  174. Leon says:

    What are your responses to the arguments that Frolly1000 is inverting cause and effect with the IGL? That he is only arriving at his conclusions because it’s the temperature that is creating the parameters of density and molar mass? That he only managed to work his way backwards and prove something that is already self-evident?

    And a follow up question. Where does insolation fall into the equation of IGL? Frolly has said it’s “baked” into the formula but doesn’t elaborate. Is it in the constant R? or is it in roe?

  175. MP says:

    @ Leon

    the second formala seals the deal.

    The 1 bar temperature is not the same on other planets. Solar insulation dictates what the 1 bar temperature is on planets with a thick atmosphere

    Radiative feedbacks, including albedo have no effect on the temperature at 1 bar

    Here is clearly solar insulation the cause and temperature at a certain pressure level the effect, can’t reverse that.

    The temperature of a planetary body in space varies with the fourth-root of the power incident upon it, meaning that the temperature of Venus at 1atm (Tv) should be the fourth-root of 1.91 times the temperature on Earth at 1atm (Te). Venus receives 1.91 times the solar insolation of Earth.

    For Titan, the temperature of a planetary body in space varies with the fourth-root of the power incident upon it, meaning that the temperature of Titan at 1atm (Tt) should be the fourth-root of 0.01089 times the temperature on Earth at 1atm (Te). Titan receives 0.01089 times the solar insolation of Earth.

    Venus Tv=∜1.91 x Te

    Tv = 1.176 x 288

    Tv = 339 Kelvin

    Titan Tt=∜0.01089 x Te

    Tt = 0.323 x 288

    Tt = 93 Kelvin


    Planet – Measured Temp 1atm – Solar Insolation – 4th Root – Calculated Temp

    Earth ~288 Kelvin 1.00 1.000 288 Kelvin

    Venus ~340 Kelvin 1.91 1.176 339 Kelvin

    Titan ~90 Kelvin 0.01089 0.316 93 Kelvin

  176. CD Marshall says:

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

    Core:Venus> 2,226C /2499K

    Which is about half the Earth but with less outer crust insulation. The Earth, without the thick insulation would be (If I recall the estimates correctly) 60-120 Celsius?

  177. CD Marshall says:

    Plus Venus has so many other factors involved, slow rotator, isothermal, atmospheric content and so forth. Even with a 1 bar atmosphere Venus would be hotter than Earth.

    Some have said they believe Venus is a much younger planet which is why it is still in the state it is in but with the rotation and all it wouldn’t really cool off anyway. That’s an astrophysicist domain so I don’t know if that is true or not.

    Yes the 92 bar atmosphere is the key climate consensus science refuses to accept.

  178. CD Marshall says:

    This is his short reply…

    @1000frolly PhD
    CO2 is 96.5% on Venus.

    There cannot possibly be a ‘Greenhouse Effect’ on Venus of the type claimed by the IPCC, because the SW insolation is less than 20W/M2 at surface, and yet the down-welling radiation from the atmosphere is 15,000W/m2.

    It is impossible for <20W/m2 if insolation to be captured as upwelling LW and then converted by CO2 to 15,000W/m2 of down-welling LW.

    I explain why Venus is hot, and why there cannot be a GHE on Venus here;

  179. CD Marshall says:

    I don’t know who wrote this but the correlation is pretty obvious…

    “Few people realize that top of atmosphere solar insulation at zenith varies by 85W/sq.m annually – for 2019 from 1319W/sq.m to 1402W/sq.m. That variation, combined with the axis obligatory and location of surface water, cause the atmospheric water vapour to cycle over a significant range each year. In 2018 the global average water column ranged from 17mm in January to 22mm in July. Over the same period globally averaged outgoing long wave radiation increased from 236.8W/sq.m to 243.9W/sq.m. They both then cycled down. In 2018, each added mm of water vapor increased OLR by 1.6W/sq.m and each mm reduction in water vapor reduced OLR by 1.6W/sq.m.
    This is the actual monthly data from NASA Earth Observations for 2018:
    Mnth-TPW- OLR

    Jan 17.04 236.8
    Feb 17.29 236.5
    Mar 17.73 237.9
    Apr 18.19 238.7
    May 20.40 240.6
    Jun 20.92 243
    Jul 21.89 243.9
    Aug 21.04 243.4
    Sep 20.54 242.2
    Oct 19.68 239.5
    Nov 18.93 237.1
    Dec 18.91 236.5
    This data is highly POSITIVELY correlated:!Aq1iAj8Yo7jNg1ITK3Yk3q3yhL3_
    A similar cycle occurs each year.
    This data clearly demonstrates the “greenhouse” gas fairy tale is simply that. Increasing water vapor is associated with increased surface cooling.”

  180. J Cuttance says:

    CD… I’d hesitate to even call that high pressure heat down-welling, since, in terms of particle motion, the high-temperature causing mass of particles come from all sides. P.S. thanks for you take on the Aeri study, it was invaluable.

  181. MP says:

    @ MP says:
    2021/02/07 at 10:16 AM

    To simplify what i just said.

    The internal state of a certain pressure temperature (like 1 bar) only variates by inputting heat (the sun)

    No need to adjust the formula for extra heat generated by so called “greenhoiuse gasses” While it should if greeenhouse gasses generate extra heat (directly or indiretly)

    It directly debunks the greenhouse gas effect theory, how it exactly does work remain hypothesises.

  182. CD Marshall says:

    Jopo says:
    “Yep CD I do read a lot of peeps talking of Gravity is not WORK.
    Their logic is that no work is required to lift a object against gravity.”

    When they lift objects it requires work, proof of gravity is the weight of the object and the strength required to lift it for the object is experiencing resistance. The Moon is proof that gravity on Earth is greater than the gravity on the Moon for the same human strength can perform more on the Moon.

  183. J Cuttance says:

    …CD… also, I think we’re making a big assumption about the high albedo of Venus ‘reflecting’ TOA insolation when the depth of the reflecting cloud is tens of kilometres thick. The photons are likely to have interacted with so many particles that the atmosphere would have absorbed their energy. Perhaps the albedo is a result of UV light losing energy this way and brightening Venus in the visible spectrum on the way out as a kind of florescence. I’m saying this because Nikolov and Zeller made a strong association between the TOA and surface temperatures such that the solar energy cannot have been simply reflected.

  184. MP says:

    MP says:
    2021/02/07 at 5:19 PM

    Damnit, screwed up the fist sentence.

    It should be

    The temperature of a certain pressure level (like 1 bar) only depends on solar insulation and heat input

    And therfore it proof that so called greenhouse gasses are not a player in that game. It provides both no heat and no insulation.

  185. J Cuttance says:

    CD, upon reflection (pun) the argument against the UV florescence model is; why did the mechanism stop just below the apparent 1.0 albedo and not go above it? I suppose I’m gravitating toward the idea that the atm temperature/pressure calculation euchre-ing the GHE theory by itself. The alternative is a lot of other factors mysteriously cancelling each other out.

  186. CD Marshall says:

    I’ve seen so many variations of Venus it makes my head dizzy. The 92 bar atmosphere is the key point.

    The effective bb as seen from space is less than Earth.

    The whole greenhouse ploy came from Madman Hansen whose career was made on Venus and the runaway greenhouse effect.

    In fact my first question on this site was about that very thing, the Venus greenhouse effect which JP stated it doesn’t exist and explained the 92 bar atmosphere.

  187. CD Marshall says:

    I knew I wasn’t crazy I was reading old comments from sites and they were saying CO2 was 0.04 of the 1% trace gases, not the atmosphere.

    I remember a decade ago that was commonly said. So how did 0.04% of 1% become 0.04% of the entire atmosphere? Someone was confused.

  188. CD Marshall says:

    That would make 4 in 2500 molecules CO2 if that were true. Or did someone pull a fast one on the count? Like when soot from fossil fuels in the 70s was pollution and then they switched it to CO2 in the 80s.

  189. CD Marshall says:

    E. Musk refuses to take the Vaccine don’t think Gates took it either?

  190. MP says:

    New Explanation for Modern Climate Change – Ned Nikolov

  191. boomie789 says:

    I would bet the true motivation behind the vaccine is a population control one. Besides all the money from selling millions of vaccines.

  192. boomie789 says:

    Want to see what it’s like when the FBI visits you and your 16 year old son because of memes he posted on Instagram?
    It does have a pretty cool ending.
    “You’re here fishing, looking for him to incriminate himself”
    start at around 6:00mins if you don’t want to watch the whole thing.

    Curt Doolittle was visited by the FBI again recently too. I feel like I’ve been hearing this a lot lately.

  193. boomie789 says:

    Language warning btw sorry. Headphones if kids are around.

  194. Zoe Phin says:

    I think you may have been right.
    I think starting off with an albedo is a mistake.
    I think there’s serious neglect of solar thermal inertia.
    The albedo rises because the surface was already warmed and it hasn’t cooled after rotation.

    The real input is 1361/2. Then albedo comes into the picture.

    I think I’ve made mistakes, and you didn’t do a good enough job explaining.

    I am confused. Have to think some more.

    Are you the type to hold a grudge, or what?

    No hard feelings :)? -Z

  195. CD Marshall says:

    Joseph never holds grudges as long as you keep your shit together and that includes all of us. But like any good Pappa he’s not afraid of giving us a “time out” if we need it.

  196. Zoe Phin says:

    Just to be clear, I’m not completely on board just yet. I just have really high standards for scrutiny. I need to be pursuaded not rejected.

    I came here to admit that I may need to knock down my geothermal theory by 100 W/m^2.

    I can see how the sun can warm a hemisphere by a 1361/2 W/m^2 for 12 hours and then cool for 12 hours.

    I can see the sun creating 5 degrees C.

    That’s it, though. Maybe I’m incredibly stupid, I don’t know.

    I will not comment here about my geothermal ideas. I just need more evidence that the sun does it all.

    If no one engages, I will not persist.

    Thank you, Joe et al.

  197. J Cuttance says:

    JP I’ve just gone through your maths in The Cold Light of Day. It’s sound, but I had a lingering doubt that this was what they were really trying to put to us. Now I see Professor David Archer coming to your 1=2 conclusion. What an intellectual atrocity.

  198. CD Marshall says:

    That wasn’t the issue. Differences of opinion is bound to happen sometimes. How you act out those opinions is where the problems come in.

    I don’t see any reason for those in pursuit of science and not inflated egos to have a difference of opinion and remain cordial to each other.

    I think its childish.

    Trolls are different, they have no integrity or any pursuit of truth.

    The science consensus is strong because they don’t backstab each other and circle the wagons no matter how outlandish the claims.

    At least we can remain respectful to each other can’t we?

    I’m not singling you out this a broad stroke of the pen intended for everyone, including myself. We must move forward to fight climate lies and together we stand more of a chance.

  199. Joseph E Postma says:

    This is a program I wrote which at one point was much more highly developed than what you see here – it had much nicer plot graphs and additional options for simulating the moon’s surface with depth, etc. I lost a bunch of development with a computer crash and had forgotten to back up in a long time, so had to revert way back to an earlier version. In any case, it still shows the basics. This is a numerical simulation using the, THE ONLY ONES THAT EXIST, heat flow partial differential equation as a function of time and space, where the temperature is computed in time and at a range of 10 meters below the surface to 10 meters above.

    It DOES NOT incorporate the convection terms which is what I had been working on before losing the work and having to revert. And so, what it shows it how hot things would get on the surface without convection. At the latitude specified, +360K or 87C, at noon, and at night down to some ridiculously low temperature. So basically we can infer from that what we already know anyway: the sun is strong enough to generate very high temperatures, but those temperatures do not actually manifest due to convection and damping from the atmosphere.

  200. Holy f. Twitter makes me captcha “so that I and others can browse safely”.

    That’s fn brain cancer…that’s mind aids. Yes because browsing the internet is so dangerous. Leftist safety culture is the worst last man disease…it’s mental evacuation, it’s literally worm infested rotting brain.

  201. CD Marshall says:

    Is it suppose to not have sound?

  202. No just a quick demo

  203. Zoe Phin says:

    If you cared enough, you would’ve read this article a long time ago and pointed out the error.

    Anything wrong besides the div/4 and using full albedo?

  204. CD Marshall says:

    Check this reply out these guys are on YT like roaches…

    “Your interpretation of the physics involved is deeply flawed.

    The idea that the ground absorbing radiation from the atmosphere violates the laws of thermodynamics is patently ridiculous.

    Molecules in the atmosphere radiate energy as a function of their temperature. When this energy radiates down towards the ground, the ground absorbs it, and this process keeps the Earth and the lower atmosphere warmer than they would otherwise be.

    The role of back-radiation is consistent with the laws of thermodynamics as long as the NET flux of energy is from higher to lower temperature. A glance at the video’s thumbnail clearly shows more energy radiating up than radiating down.”

    Which his response was nowhere near what my posts stated.

    Now keep in mind who he is: “I am a broadly trained scientist with experience in biology, ecology, oceanography, earth science, microbiology, genetics, and molecular biology – the content I cover at SciencePrimer reflects my interest and knowledge in these areas.”

    You can read the whole thing here under my name.

  205. Joseph E Postma says:

    Retards and their “net” flux. At least it didn’t say “net heat”, although that’s what it still tries to imply. The net energy is the heat, heat is what is required to increase temperature, therefore the atmosphere sends no heat to the surface via radiation therefore the atmosphere doesn’t increase the surface’s temperature.

  206. CD Marshall says:

    I never thought I’d see the day when “scientists” were high school level educated.

  207. CD Marshall says:

    I was going to put your videos there but I feared he would delete them he seems the type.

  208. Joseph E Postma says:

    Just posted several comments.

  209. CD Marshall says:

    Well…lol that’s going to set him off but rightly so. I was trying to be nice and feel him out but last few comments pretty much told me all I needed to know. I didn’t know he was even a scientist until I read the bio.

    Yeah the KE heat thing threw me off I didn’t catch it until after I already posted. Then I realized he had stated heat was pretty much internal energy. I thought I was helping to educate someone who didn’t know any better. Sadly he knows better!

    That’s why I stated, “Technically, KE can me measured with by temperature,
    but heat is not internal energy. Heat is only the transient property of energy in the boundary layer increasing temperature of another body if those bodies are not in equilibrium, from a hotter body to a colder body.”

    I couldn’t word it quite right though.

  210. Zoe Phin says:

    Joe, how does shortwave get converted to longwave?

    There are scientists designing special materials that can “down convert”, but why are they doing this if water, dirt, and rocks already do it?

    I can understand how special surface geometries of material can perform the down conversion, but I don’t understand how the Earth supposedly converts SW to LW.

  211. Not sure why your comment went to moderation J C : 2021/02/08 at 9:30 pm

    JP I’ve just gone through your maths in The Cold Light of Day. It’s sound, but I had a lingering doubt that this was what they were really trying to put to us. Now I see Professor David Archer coming to your 1=2 conclusion. What an intellectual atrocity.

    Thanks for confirming that math!!

    Yep…and they don’t check their work, and they just don’t care! They don’t care that they get a result where 1 = 2! Braindead!! Have a video to do on this 1 = 2 thing soon!

  212. @Zoe: Short wave transfers as heat to material. Material re-radiates at its own frequencies.

  213. CD Marshall says:

    “Short wave transfers as heat to material. Material re-radiates at its own frequencies.”

    That is the most concise precise explanation I have eve read. I’m saving that 🙂

  214. Barry says:

    If one equals two from light going both ways we should be able to produce endless energy with mirrors, need more energy just add more mirrors

  215. Zoe Phin says:

    OK. But this process requires some thickness? A very thin solid would not do a good job. An infinitely thin plate definitely not. Is that correct?

  216. CD Marshall says:

    Most of the solar energy hits the tropics and most of that is the ocean which creates the water cycle and warms the ocean surface. That’s where the bulk of the thermal energy goes. All ‘surface’ emissivity is limited by comparison. The ZEB confirms this e-exhange globally by the Coriolis wind patterns creating the 5 major gyre currents, redistributing that thermal energy globally.

    Nothing you don’t already know more or less.

  217. CD Marshall says:

    Straight out of the Canadian version of, “Meteorology Today.”

    Chapter One page 4, 2nd paragraph.

    “Earth without an atmosphere…It would be unimaginable cold at night and unbearably hot during the day. Everything on Earth would be at the mercy of an intense sun beating down on a parched planet.”

    Next paragraph, “{air/atmosphere} protects us from the sun’s scorching rays and provides us with a mixture of gases that allows life to flourish…”

  218. They really just don’t put it all together…

  219. CD Marshall says:

    This is gold,
    On down…
    CO2 traps heat and is increasing the surface temperature. They contradict their own science! LOL.

    ‘According to the climate models the surface could increase 3 degrees by the end of this century!’

    Every single climate, atmopsheric or even chemical book I’ve read starts with actual science and then goes directly to politcal climate insanity.

  220. It’s so stupid…

  221. Barry says:

    That’s too funny cd first we have a scorching hot sun that only heats the planet to -18. I think they just throw stuff out to confuse the masses I mean they can’t even keep their own literature straight.

  222. CD Marshall says:

    Barry so far all the “climate” resources I’ve read spend half to one third on actual science and the rest is propaganda.

    These people can’t even function with logic anymore.

    “The stratosphere is cooling because CO2 is trapping more heat at the surface”

    Really? Then why is the warming of the Stratosphere always inverse to the surface?

    “You just don’t understand the science. You, you climate denier. Foul! Unclean!”

    Nuts, totally nuts.

  223. Jopo says:

    Guy’s i do need help here. I am assuming from the following charts that solar incoming infrared radiation towards earth is being absorbed on the way to the surface of earth.

    It was mentioned by someone Joe had referenced that why would not extra CO2 then reflect / negate the incoming infrared energy by an equal amount that is that is supposedly back radiating to the surface

    Solar incoming infrared energy is about 50% of incoming energy.

    TOA emission spectrum shows CO2 greatest absorption is around 600 to 700 cm-1

  224. Jopo says:

    sorry that is not TOA incoming. I meant for this to go up.

    Why isnt the incoming 600-700 nanometre range range showing up at the surface spectrum

  225. MP says:

    Leon says:
    2021/02/07 at 7:49 AM

    What are your responses to the arguments that Frolly1000 is inverting cause and effect with the IGL? That he is only arriving at his conclusions because it’s the temperature that is creating the parameters of density and molar mass? That he only managed to work his way backwards and prove something that is already self-evident?

    And a follow up question. Where does insolation fall into the equation of IGL? Frolly has said it’s “baked” into the formula but doesn’t elaborate. Is it in the constant R? or is it in roe?

    The R is a gas constant since dividing 2 seperate measurement things (density in kg/m3 and molar mass). The roe is the near surface density in kg/m3

    It is correct to say that the molar mass version of the ideal gas law cannot be used to determine what causes a warming (what is baked in)!
    However, it CAN be used to determine what is NOT causing a warming.

    This is where the first invalidation of the ‘GHE’ comes in – both through a terminal conflict (due to problems with the IPCC’s so-called ‘equilibration time’), and through the above; that is the non-appearance of a large anomalous change to gas pressure and/or density. This MUST happen if there is such a thing as a separate class of “Greenhouse gases” which cause anomalous warming

    and yet it doesn’t – and actually it can’t, unless the IGL is wrong.

    To provide more detail;

    Different concentrations of gases at the same or at different times can provide the same temperature or different temperatures;
    BUT – the same concentrations of gases cannot provide different temperatures at different times. The formula T = P M / R ρ forbids it.
    This fact disproves the greenhouse gas hypothesis, as it is presented by the IPCC*.

    *Because there is said to exist a time delay to reach ‘equilibration’, due to the (ECS) climate sensitivity to CO2 being in the range of 1.5C – 4.5C.

    The IPCC reports state that if there was a sudden doubling in the atmospheric greenhouse gas CO2, the greenhouse effect from this would operate slowly, causing an eventual ~3c of warming over centuries to millennia.
    Therefore the claim is that the temperature would rise significantly over time, with the same prevailing atmospheric gas concentrations, and there would be no rapid equilibration, as the Ideal Gas Law demands.

    This represents a terminal conflict between the IPCC’s greenhouse effect and the molar mass version of the ideal gas law.
    Therefore the climate sensitivity to, for example, a doubling of atmospheric CO2, must be close to zero.
    This means that essentially, there is no GHE.

    Second invalidation formula of the GHE comes from atmospheric measurements at 1 bar – showing that different atmospheric percentages of ‘GHG’ do not affect temperature – only insolation does. So can’t equate energy from the sun and the atmosphere. Since the GHG theory treats it as the same (directly or indirectly) the theory is incorrect.

  226. Joseph E Postma says:

    “I am assuming from the following charts that solar incoming infrared radiation towards earth is being absorbed on the way to the surface of earth.”

    Yes presumably that does happen. And I have seen that it reflects radiation too, etc.

  227. Joseph E Postma says:

    MP: “What are your responses to the arguments that Frolly1000 is inverting cause and effect with the IGL? That he is only arriving at his conclusions because it’s the temperature that is creating the parameters of density and molar mass? That he only managed to work his way backwards and prove something that is already self-evident?”

    Rule number One: they lie about and invert everything. So temperature from radiation is the only driving factor, and the other things don’t matter? These are the ideal gas laws and ALL factors work together…it is why we have an adiabatic gradient, which of course is what they want to ignore.

    Look…the adiabatic gradient is a RESULT of the ideal gas laws. The IGL is why the bottom of the atmosphere is warmest, and the top the coolest. If the IGL’s were not important and not effectual and the only thing that mattered was radiation, then there wouldn’t be this wonderful result where all planets at 1 bar have the same temperature…that would be impossible because the different radiation characteristic would make that so. Of course, they love to leave out what physics they simply don’t like. They try to claim that the temperature differential with altitude is due to radiation and the radiative greenhouse effect, not the IGL. BUT THE ADIABATIC GRADIENT IS DUE TO THE IGL, not radiation!

    It just comes down to that. Why is there a temperature differential with altitude, the temperature gradient? It is due to the adiabatic effect, which is IGL stuff. It is called the adiabatic gradient, NOT the radiation gradient, NOT the greenhouse gradient, etc. It is the adiabatic gradient which means that it is the IGL gradient. You could just as well say the “IGL gradient” in place of the adiabatic gradient and it would mean the same thing. But you could not call it the radiation gradient, because that is not what it is from, because radiation doesn’t determine how pressure changes with altitude, it doesn’t determine how much work gravity performs with altitude, it doesn’t determine how much potential energy there is with altitude, etc. That is ALL IGL stuff.

    Your other comments are good.

  228. Zoe Phin says:

    I can get a maximum of ~22C (as a day average) with the sun alone at the equator, but not the 27C that it is. I’m only using radiation on a high Tau value, no conduction or convection. I can obviously get higher peaks during the day, but it doesn’t give me observed 27C daily average.

    I’m using all 1360.8 W/m^2.

  229. MP says:

    @ JP 2021/02/10 at 9:55 AM

    That is indeed a very strong point. The atmospheric adiabetic lapse rate follows the IGL where all parameters are in play to effect the other parameters (not just radiation as input and pressure/density as a nothing doing end result)

    This is provable with a simple champagne bottle experiment.

    During fermentation, dissolved bubbles of carbon dioxide gas form in the liquid. These dissolved gas bubbles are kept in the liquid by pressurized carbon dioxide gas in the neck of the champagne bottle. When the cork pops, all that gas is released.

    The amount of pressure inside the bottle depends on the temperature at which the bottle is kept. Liger-Belair and his team found that if a bottle of champagne is stored at 68 degrees Fahrenheit, the pressure within builds to 7.5 bars. If the bottle reaches temperatures of roughly 86 degrees Fahrenheit, the pressure within the bottle can increase to 10.2 bars.

    When pressure is released, the temperature of carbon dioxide expelled from the bottle (and nearby water vapor) drops, and the gases condense into a fog. This occurs due to a phenomenon called adiabatic cooling. As the volume of a gas increases, its temperature drops. How far temperatures drop changes the color of this fog.

    In the study, freezing gases released from the bottles stored at 68 degrees Fahrenheit dropped to temperatures of nearly -130 degrees Fahrenheit and briefly produced a blue fog. The tiny dry ice particles that formed mostly reflected short wavelengths of blue light. Bottles stored at 86 degrees Fahrenheit released gases so cold (approximately -140 degrees fahrenheit) that they turned nearby water vapor to fog.

    So the temperature of the gas and surrounding gasses drops so much instantly because volume goes up, and a big drop in pressure, And the density is related to volume so that is also effected, since increasing the volume of a quantity while keeping its mass fixed decreases its density (d = m/v)

  230. MP says:

    ahh. Now i understand why why Dr Rober Holmes (1000frolly) dropped volume. Since that is not relevant to examine atmospheric layers

    Just like it is not relevant that the presure is released at the champagne bottle at speeds up to Mach 2in all possible directions for examining what the remaining gasses the examined volume.

    It is handy in formulas but volume changes of initial compressed gasses doesn’t say much about the change at the examined volume (like layers of atmosphere, or the atmosphere after popping a champagne bottle

    He also dropped mass compered to volume since when comparing vertical atmosphere slices the averege molar mass is important, and that average is quite constant at a vertical slice.


    The input heat,
    The gravity (how much atmosphere mass did the input heat push up to how far)
    And the pressure and density properties aof the gasses relted to the input heat and the gravity forced upon

    Are the main forcings of climate

    Just rambling here. Correct me if, and if so where i am wrong

  231. MP says:

    Oeps. Where i said vertical slices i meant horizontal slices. Horizontal slices are examined, those properties are important.

  232. MP says:

    Zoe Phin says:
    2021/02/10 at 11:26 AM

    Quote “I can get a maximum of ~22C (as a day average) with the sun alone at the equator, but not the 27C that it is. I’m only using radiation on a high Tau value, no conduction or convection. I can obviously get higher peaks during the day, but it doesn’t give me observed 27C daily average.

    I’m using all 1360.8 W/m^2.”


    How can you solve your equation just by just incorporating radiative properties. (like assumming that is the only driver in alll in high compressed systems?

    Only initial thing to figure out is can the sun create the climate. Can it on day time evaporate things and create create clouds at the distannce it s from the sun

    After that (more than 0.1 bar) other metrics kick in. Metrics that follow the IGL

  233. Zoe Phin says:

    So far I’ve been able to radiatively heat a chunk of mass (aka the surface). I haven’t created the observed daily average of 27C PLUS latent heat of vaporization.

    That’s with 1361 at the equator. With 1361/2 hemisphere I can get 5C still without evaporation.

    That’s why I need Joe’s help.

    I’ve read Joe’s paper “On the absence of …” , and I see he can get adequate temperature spikes, but I need more than spikes, I need the whole curve to match observations.

    I criticize every point of view until only the best remains. That’s how I understand science works.

  234. MP says:

    @ Zoe Phin says:

    What you calculated is enough to go from a hypothetical rozen planet to a planet with an above 0.1 bar state.

    After that gravity also plays a role, and the sensativity of a gas mixture to gravity and heat input in terms of pressure and density.

    The process doesn’t produce anything. Since convections rearanges a distribution between layers.

    It brings pressurised air to higher levels, with smaller but the same reslult as popping a champagne bottle, like as exeample refered above.

  235. Zoe Phin says:

    Atmospheric pressure runs in the opposite direction of gravity. You need energy to “defeat” gravity. Where does it come from?

    Yeah you will find same temperature at same Atmospheric pressure. The temperature created it.

    A thermally dead planet will not get warm if you dump a bunch of gas on it. The gases will settle down and become solid. They still have mass. They still exert pressure on the surface, but there is no atmosphere and no atmo pressure.

  236. MP says:

    @ Zoe

    Quote: You need energy to “defeat” gravity. Where does it come from?

    Why you think that?

    Try to do the same anology on a champaign bottle gas fumes near the bottle that was unpopped and instantly went from a very high pressure to low pressure.

    Despite no extra energy or heat input there is an inmediate expelsion of pressure from the parcel around the bottle end, and drop in pressure resulting in freezing temperatures, proved by the fumes.

    Why? A high presure 3d parcel is brought into a low presure 3d parcel

    Same process as convection does (also reversed)

  237. MP says:

    I should have said . Why you think that in an above 0.1 bar system.

    Ofcource heat in relation to what can be be heated into gas is the only initil thing that can bring it to that minimal 0.1 bar state state.

    After that other metrics come into the play, and presumably another equilibrium system.

  238. I’m just going to put that new post back into a comment instead:

    A comment from a previous post inspired me to write about the relevance of Earth’s rotation to the climate:

    “A thermally dead planet will not get warm if you dump a bunch of gas on it.”

    The planet wouldn’t warm much from gas falling on it, but the gas itself would warm quite a bit when its potential energy gets converted to internal kinetic thermal energy when it strikes the surface.

    The atmosphere is pumped by convection driven by sunlight and further by latent heat release from the two latent regions between the three phases of H2O.

    But then there is also Coriolis…the fact of a rotating planet. Instead of geothermal, you might like to calculate how much internal kinetic energy the air has due to rotation from the planet. Equatorial rotation is about 1666 km/hour, or 463 m/s. But the air is basically mechanically still, relative to that kind of velocity. And so if the air is on average mechanically static relative to the surface, then that means that the rotational kinetic energy of the surface has transferred into internal thermal kinetic energy of the gas.

    If the root mean square of the internal gas speed was due to the Earth’s rotation being transferred into internal kinetic energy (temperature), then from the Maxwell Boltzmann equations and the idea gas law we have

    Vrms = sqrt(3RT/M)

    Vrms = 463 m/s

    R = 8.31446261815324 J⋅K−1⋅mol−1 (the gas constant)

    T is the temperature (solve for)

    M is the molar mass, which for air is 0.0289647 kg/mol

    T = Vrms^2 * M / (3R)

    T = 249K.

    So, given the rotational velocity of the Earth, there is a base energy input sustaining 249K, given that the air is basically mechanically still with respect to the surface. The rotational inertia of the Earth is basically infinite compared to the retarding friction from the atmosphere…i.e. the atmosphere is quite thin and rates extremely little mass compared to the Earth underneath.

    Of course that calculation was for the equatorial velocity, and so the thermal supply would diminish would latitude. Nonetheless, the Earth’s rotation is an independent source of energy sustaining a base temperature support for the atmosphere, and the support is constant. At 45 degrees latitude, the cosine is still 70%.

    Given how taken climate alarmists are with exaggerating the effects of cold gases, and even reversing heat flow and doubling energy supplies, it is not surprising that they ignore this result since it would diminish their political and destructive power. Why don’t they add the temperature induced due to rotation with the temperature of greenhouse gases?! They love adding temperatures together after all!! I’ve just given them another 249K to add in…

  239. boomie789 says:


    If they ever figure out a way to tax people to slow down the earth’s rotation or something they probably would try.

  240. Zoe Phin says:

    Those gases can only fall once to generate KE from PE.

    For Earth that would be 1.29/2×11000/2×9.8 =~ 35,000 J/m^2

    Or about 100 seconds of 350 W/m^2. Or any combination you like. Even 3500 W/m^2 for 10 seconds. I don’t know how it would work. Joe …

    Interesting about rotation, but I would think that sticky gases would not be considered thermal. How does such motion increase random molecular motion in the gas?

    “But the air is basically mechanically still, relative to that kind of velocity. And so if the air is on average mechanically static relative to the surface, then that means that the rotational kinetic energy of the surface has transferred into internal thermal kinetic energy of the gas.”

    I would think lack of stickiness and friction from different levels of velocities would be thermal.

    Don’t know. Maybe I’m wrong.

  241. CD Marshall says:

    I just read this somewheres,

    “Imagine two bodies separated by a large distance. In this case, the gravitational pull is small and the gravitational potential is low. Their relative velocities are just about zero. For all intents and purposes, our energy accounting is zeroed out. KE=0 GE=0 (kinetic and gravitational).

    This isn’t a bad description of the cloud of gases from which our solar system formed. True, the atoms which will later make up the planets and sun were mixed and dispersed, but the above statements about kinetic and gravitational energy still roughly applied.

    The energy needed to start an orbit then came from putting gravitational potential into the negatives. This is why gravitational potential is GE=-G m1 m2 / r. We had zero energy to start with, and we end with gravitational potential energy being -2 units.

    Why 2? Because closing of the distance between the bodies liberated energy which went equally into 2 different places. One is kinetic, which is currently manifested as such in the orbit, the other is frictional losses. This went to heat things up, and then was radiated into space. I’ll call this thermal energy liberated from the gravitational change TE.

    Beginning state:

    Final State:

    Total energy is constant, satisfying conservation of energy.”

  242. Zoe Phin says:


    Why doesn’t more gas escape the ocean?

    Why doesn’t more gas escape from my pot of water?

    There’s no extra energy to do it.

    I turned my stove on. Now there is water evaporating and causing an increase in atmo pressure.

    Now you can claim that atmo pressure added energy and temperature to evaporate my water. Cool trick.

  243. CD Marshall says:

    About the energy created by the Coriolis force, consider the amount needed to move the oceans and those currents circle from equator to the poles and back to the equator, constantly getting heated by solar energy at the equator an bringing that energy back to the poles.

    Those larger gyres (ocean currents) move around the land mass borders, distributing some of that energy to the land. That’s what makes up your land surface temperatures, it is still partially from ocean currents/winds.

    The tropics redistribute the water up in the various water cycles and that is dropped off in transit, warm air up and dry cooler air comes down at the Horse latitudes.

    Winds, oceans, water cycles and atmospheric cells powered by solar and KE create the maelstrom Carnot cycle from land, ocean and the troposphere.

    The Coriolis effect by itself creates the winds, that is a tremendous amount of energy not allocated to solar ‘thermal’ energy but ironically is still solar ’caused’ energy and thus other than geothermal, all other energy is from the Sun.

    Now back to the energy of the tropics and the ZEB (zero energy balance).

    The tropics are energy generators mainly from both solar sources wind and thermal. That’s a lot of energy being incubated at the tropics thermal, kinetic and potential.

    Perhaps the calculations need to add the KE/PE on top of the solar thermal energy contribution?

    I don’t think solar reflection/absorption in the upper layers of the atmosphere make any difference to land temps or below the tropopause.

    Unless any absorbed energy is contributing to the kinetic/potential energy of the winds?

    I don’t do the maths, I’ll leave that to the real experts.

    That does make me think the w/o greenhouse gases surface temperatures need to include the Coriolis effect in the calculations.

    No ocean currents but we still have wind influence: The ITCZ, Trade Winds, Prevailing Westerlies and Polar Easterlies.

  244. MP says:

    @ Zoe Phin says: 2021/02/10 at 10:45 PM

    If you do the water from your pot in a closed thermocan, bring it to the top of an high mountain and poor it there into your pot.

    Then inmediately a certain amount of disolved gasses will escape, without adding heat. (And less heat is needed to make the water boil, and the boiling point will be at a lower temperature).

    As per the solubity ratio and Henry’s law.

    Solubility Ratio

    Solubility of air in water can be expressed as a solubility ratio:

    Sa = ma / mw (1)

    Sa = solubility ratio
    ma = mass of air (lbm, kg)
    mw = mass of water (lbm, kg)

    Henry’s Law

    Solubility of air in water follows Henry’s Law – “the amount of air dissolved in a fluid is proportional to the pressure in the system” – and can be expressed as:

    c = pg / kH (2)

    c= solubility of dissolved gas
    kH= proportionality constant depending on the nature of the gas and the solvent
    pg= partial pressure of gas (Pa, psi)
  245. Zoe Phin says:

    So if I expand the energy to go high up, I will need less energy? 👌

  246. Zoe Phin says:

    Edit: expend

  247. Zoe Phin says:

    Even if I did that, the same amount of gas will get pressurized and liquified at the surface, since there is no extra energy for it to support a heavier column above it.

  248. CD Marshall says:

    Great comment,
    “And there are so many conspiracies, too — at least 489 of them starting every second, on average. Most people define “conspiracy” as “fantasy,” when it actually means, “conversation between 2 or more people for the purpose of doing something unethical or illegal.” It’s group selfishness. And how many people on this planet have “self interests?” So, “madness of crowds” includes “conspiracies” by definition.”

    That about sums it up. Hiding in plain sight, or hiding in the light. Still reminds me of one of my favorite X-Files,”Folie à Deux”.

    “Folie à deux, also known as shared psychosis or shared delusional disorder, is a psychiatric syndrome in which symptoms of a delusional belief, and sometimes hallucinations, are transmitted from one individual to another. The same syndrome shared by more than two people may be called folie à… trois or quatre; and further, folie en famille or even folie à plusieurs.”

  249. There is no vaccine for CO2….lol

  250. Joe,
    1000Frolly is one of the good guys.
    His multiple academic accreditations and professional engineering experience dealing with deep mining air ventilation cooling make him a serious heavyweight class warrior for the truth about mass motion fluid dynamics and the adiabatic auto-compression of gases.
    He is, like you are, one of my trusted technical sources.

  251. MP says:

    @ Zoe Phin 2021/02/11 at 10:02 AM

    The heat of the sun does 2 things during the day.

    giving objects an higher temperature
    lifting the atmosphere up, creating potential energy

    Al large part of the outgoing radiation is from the equilibrium between net gain in potential energy during the day and net loss (conversion to kinetic energy) of potential energy at night.

    So can’t solve the metrics of a system by just looking at the radiation balance and temperature in a system with a thick atmosphere, other metrics are in play

  252. Philip Mulholland says:

    Spot on. There are two processes at play that govern the flow of energy through the solar illuminated atmosphere of a terrestrial planet.

    The first is the diabatic process of radiant forcing that involves the equipartition of energy flux at the interface of the system boundary (typically but not exclusively the ground). This process can occur in both high pressure environments (the troposphere) and also in low pressure environments (the stratosphere, and also the low-pressure surface of Mars).

    The second is the adiabatic process that can only occur in high pressure environments, this pressure requirement for an adiabatic process to occur explains why there is no greenhouse effect at the surface of Mars. In an adiabatic process the flux partition at the illuminated system boundary is biased in favour of the mobile compressible fluid (aka the air). On moving away from the heated surface by convection an air parcel rises in the planet’s gravity field and gains potential energy (PE) and thereby cools because the only source of this energy for an adiabatic process is the internal kinetic energy (KE) of the rising air.

    Potential energy is a form of Latent Heat, it is in effect a battery of energy stored in mass by virtue of its position in a gravity field and it cannot be radiated away. The only way PE can be lost is when the body falls back in the gravity field and PE is converted back to KE (think of falling shooting stars as an extreme example).

    The complete failure of climate science to realise that these two meteorological processes of diabatic radiative forcing and adiabatic mass motion dynamic fluid system response, counter balance each other. This is the point at which they invented the junk science of diabatic energy amplification via radiative feedback.

    The climate is a counterbalanced system, in which any diabatic radiative forcing induces a counter balancing adiabatic mass motion system response, and crucially this interaction also applies in the opposite direction. Warm descending air can and does deliver energy to the colder ground surface below, particularly at night and in winter under favourable conditions of clear sky direct surface to space radiative cooling through the atmospheric by-pass window. The best example of this process is the formation in winter of massive surface air temperature inversion on the Antarctic icecap, with the descending air of the polar vortex above delivering energy to the icecap below via adiabatic auto-compression.

  253. Zoe Phin says:

    It’s not a day and night thing.
    Hot molecules ascend as cold molecules descend. That’s just gravity doing its work of density sorting.

    There is no NET temperature increase at the surface because of this.

    Oh sure there is transport from equator to poles, but that’s cooling + warming. No extra energy.

  254. CD Marshall says:

    1000Frolly was fired from his University for publishing science that went against the consensus.

  255. Joseph E Postma says:

    These people are so vile and foul.

    Glad we have/will/are defeated them!!! 🙂

  256. CD Marshall says:

    Cancel Culture got Gina Carano fired from the Madalorian and her own spin off because of a few tweets where she told the truth.

    Disney sucks. Lucas Films suck. Mann sucks.

  257. Zoe Phin says:

    Please read my recent article. You will enjoy it, I think.

    I stumbled across a data gold mine.

  258. CD Marshall says:

    Interesting stuff Zoe, good read.

    I may or may not have mentioned this before but the ‘warming’ of the Poles is very deceptive. I read a study that states it takes no more than 10 days out of the entire year to melt a huge amount of ice at the poles, just 10 days caused by a warm front moving in from the tropics due to a change in the jet stream or other conditions.

    Generally it is too cold to snow and if it can’t snow, it can’t replenish the ice that exists. If it warms up enough to snow for a few days it can also melt, so the balance of melting and snow determines the +/- gains.

    Somehow that is interpreted as “poles are warming” and more geothermal evidence at both Poles is appearing all the time, they found volcanoes chains near Greenland not too long ago and a lot of geothermal activity at Antarctica.

    The most amusing thing I read is that volcanoes do not have to be active to contribute to geothermal. Less than 3% are active in the ocean, they don’t define how many contribute warming.

  259. Philip Mulholland says:

    “There is no NET temperature increase at the surface because of this.”
    An experiment for you.
    Put a pot of cold water on the hob in your kitchen and light the gas flame.
    Watch what happens to the water as it is heated at the base of the pot by the temperature of the flame below.

    Because of the excess temperature at the base of the water column, and critically because of gravity a convection cell will be set up in the pot of water on your hob.
    Because of specific heat the water will capture and store energy.
    As long as the rate of cooling from the lid and sides of the pot is lower than the rate of energy delivery at its base the water will circulate and gain thermal energy as it warms to boiling.

    No one here is saying that the water will warm to a temperature that is higher than that of the flame. But the energy storage system of a fluid’s heat capacity, and in the larger case of gas circulation in an atmospheric convection cell, the energy stored in a column of air will rise during daytime heating and fall during night time cooling. During the night, because of thermal radiant cooling of the surface, the convection cell runs in reverse and delivers energy back to the now cooler ground.

    Atmospheric convection cells are giant gravity-forced solar energy collection batteries that collect store and deliver energy under conditions of surface solar radiant forcing and surface radiant cooling.

    Now here is the interesting bit:
    If the opacity of the air is so great that the atmospheric thermal radiant by-pass window is blocked so that the surface to space cooling is not possible, under these conditions a troposphere will continue to store energy and its temperature will rise at its base.

    Ah, you will say, I said that the air temperature cannot rise to above that of the solar flame. True, but in a gravity field the air, being a compressible fluid has a vertical temperature lapse rate that is governed by the planet’s gravity strength and the specific heat capacity of the air. So, under conditions of extreme surface temperature rise, as the convection cell battery continues to gain energy, the locus of energy capture in the convection cell will break away from the surface, and in the case of a high thermal opacity atmosphere, eventually climb up all the way to the tropopause.

    This happens because in a gravitational bound atmosphere with its induced thermal lapse rate the air temperature aloft will still be lower than the temperature of the down-welling solar illuminating flame. Remember that adiabatic auto-compression is a pressure sensitive phenomenon, and that its role and place of action is limited to the troposphere.

    It is by this means that the air temperature at the planet’s surface, that is now below the locus of energy capture in the convection cell above it, will increase to a value that is higher than the temperature of the solar flame. This will happen as the convection cell battery continues to store energy and delivers this captured solar energy to the ground below by full troposphere extent mass-motion circulation.

    Critical to this story is the role of Hadley cell circulation on a rotating planet. Because of conservation of angular momentum, a polar vortex will exist on all rotating globes that experience solar forced atmospheric circulation. This vortex, when not disrupted by summer seasonal high elevation solar illumination, will deliver topside heated air and drive it back to the surface by forced air descent, thereby heating the surface by adiabatic auto-compression.

    There you have in essence the Venus atmosphere story. Notice that the only role of atmospheric opacity in this dynamic system of energy storage by specific heat capacity of a compressible gas, was to impede the rate of atmospheric cooling (a diabatic process), and NOT to increase the temperature of the air. It is the dynamic process of atmospheric heating by high-pressure adiabatic auto compression that performs this role. This is the process that climate science forgot.

    P.S. I sometimes wonder how those who ignore the role of the adiabatic process and focus solely on the diabatic radiant process explain how it is possible to create liquid air.

  260. CD Marshall says:

    I’ve had an addled engineer argue with me for days that water vapor is only present because of the other trace greenhouse gases enabling it in the first place.

  261. CD Marshall says:

    Spelled your name wrong again! One l just one l. Sorry, Philip.

  262. Philip Mulholland says:

    He needs to be schooled by 1000Frolly.
    Ask him why a low molecular weight liquid is not volatile at 1013.25 hPa?
    If he doesn’t get that ask him if he has ever seen the surface of liquid mercury illuminated by ultra-violet light?
    It is when I saw the UV experiment that I stopped playing with mercury.

    (no worries about the double ll )

  263. Philip Mulholland says:

    Oh, and just to round it off. Ask him why water boils at a lower temperature at the top of a mountain?

  264. Zoe Phin says:

    Lapse is lapse. It’s not called gain. Lapse means falling, dropping, or decreasing.

    Transporting mass in circles is not the same as increasing Temperature at the input point. Helping moderate temperatures globe wide is also not increasing the overall temperature.

    Nah, my explanation for Venus is way better, I think

    I’m sorry, but gravitational pressure will never create its opposite force: atmospheric pressure. That notion is silly. Temperature will do it.

  265. 1000Frolly says:

    Tens of thousands of papers on climate have been published.
    Yet there is not one paper in the literature, which quantifies a warming in the troposphere, and then attributes all, or even some of that warming to our CO2 emissions.
    Dr Robert Ian Holmes (1000Frolly)

  266. MP says:

    Welcome Dr. Robert Holmes

    Great that you found your way to this discussion blog.

  267. Philip Mulholland says:

    And in the stratosphere the lapse rate Γ is negative.

  268. Philip Mulholland says:

    “Transporting mass in circles is not the same as increasing Temperature at the input point.”
    I have to assume from this statement that you are not familiar with how a domestic heated water circulation central heating system works.
    The process of circulating water from the boiler to the radiator absolutely requires that the return flow to the hot plate carries warm water back to the boiler, If this did not happen then the system would never achieve a satisfactory delivery temperature to the radiators in your home.

  269. Philip Mulholland says:

    “gravitational pressure will never create its opposite force: atmospheric pressure. That notion is silly.”
    “For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction”
    Newton’s 3rd Law of Action and Reaction.

  270. CD Marshall says:

    A reverse lapse rate is increased kinetic energy as it moves closer to the surface/center of mass.

    Reversible isothermal expansion
    Reversible adiabatic expansion
    Reversible isothermal compression
    Reversible adiabatic compression

    They are reversible for a reason.

    For this very reason our atmopsheric processes are not static. Thus a general rule of thumb may apply but it does not apply to all things at all times, each parcel of air is treated as an individual system for a reason (so you don’t assume the entire atmosphere applies to one rule).

    Even the Ideal Gas Law is more of a “virtual estimate” for most of the atmosphere.

    The atmopsher is not an absolution, it is a variable of absolution, enough so as to give me a headache from time to time.

  271. Leon says:


    Nice to see you here. I’m wondering if you can elaborate on a question I asked on this page regarding the IGL and what you tell those who claim you’ve only inverted cause and effect? Also, in one of your YT comments you mention the insolation is baked in the formula but don’t elaborate. MP was kind enough to suggest it’s in ∜ but that’s a different formula. At one point I attempted to plug in the numbers myself right off the NASA fact sheet, and even doubled the co2 to see there was an insignificant change but to the die hard alarmists, this does not phase them. To them, it’s still T that’s causing all the variables in the parameters, not the other way around.
    What do you say?

  272. Barry says:

    Well put CD,the idea that the atmosphere is ever static is rediculous overall we can draw some conclusions but you can’t get a snapshot at one moment in time in one place and say that solves everything. It’s like the agw crowd calling co2 the control knob in a system as chaotic as our atmosphere as if nothing else could possibly affect the wx patterns. If we are ever to truly understand our climate we first have to admit how complex it is.
    Have a good day

  273. And it functions in real time…not as 24 hrs averages…just as with all physics. Rockets aren’t modeled over 24hr averages!

  274. MP says:

    @ Leon.

    I suggested the second formula since it is easier to establish that the GHE theory is incorrect. Since a GHE believer would say that solar insulation and back radiation is baked in, in the first formula.

    The second formula shows that the temperature at 1 bar is proportional to the distance off the sun on all planets with a thick atmosphere.

    No need to correct for the so called “greenhouse gasses” . That proves that radiation from the sun isn’t the same as radiation from the atmosphere. Can’t treat it the same (directly or indirectly) Since the GHE theory treats it as the same the theory is incorrect.

    Once it is established that the GHE is incorrect the only thing that can be baked in as input heat in the first formula is solar insolation.


  275. Barry says:

    Ya Joseph there was someone on psi saying that we can’t use the s/b laws because the earth is spinning at 1660 something. This is how bad it’s got I guess radiation from the sun can’t keep up. Rediculous

  276. CD Marshall says:

    “we can’t use the s/b laws because the earth is spinning”
    Yet on a clear day you can feel the Sun on your face, they bathe in it at the beaches on warm days and you can measure it with a temperature gauge. I did one day, hit around 37 Celsius and I’m just south of Canada.

    Not to mention greenhouses and cars, oops just did.

    Isn’t the whole point of the SB Law to measure radiation?

  277. Barry says:

    Ya CD it was a reply on NASA energy budget and like I said before I am uneducated so had to let it go was wishing someone with more knowledge could have replied to it. I don’t pretend to have the same grasp of all the science that you guys here do but I know bs when I see it. I live on van island in a marine environment but it was -6 this am wish I could get some of that co2 warming.

  278. CD Marshall says:

    I don’t have the same grasp of science these guys have either, believe me they have a lot of science knowledge especially Joe (obviously).

    I just try and learn the nuggets they toss me 🙂

  279. CD Marshall says:

    Sources are getting more confused. Now sources can’t even define the solar constant, some said it is the total surface irradiance but lists the TOA as the rate. Even that changes from source to source.

    “The Sun’s illumination is the ultimate energy source for the Earth’s biosphere, and the ultimate driving force for atmospheric, and oceanic circulations. The Sun is a variable star as one can see from sunspots recorded back to Galileo’s time in the early 1600s. Satellite observations over the past three decades show that the sunspot activity is associated with changes in solar output energy. The total solar irradiance (TSI), improperly called “solar constant” until a few years ago, has been found to change about 0.1% in an 11-year solar sunspot activity. The current most accurate TSI values from the Total Irradiance Monitor (TIM) on NASA’s Solar Radiation and Climate Experiment ( SORCE ) is 1360.8 ± 0.5 W/m2 during the 2008 solar minimum as compared to previous estimates of 1365.4 ± 1.3 W/m2 established in the 1990s.”

    Others vary.

    I thought the effective bb of the Earth was basically its emissions to space. Even that is now as confused as the solar constant, I’ve read from as low as -23C is the effective bb of the Earth.

    What is the black body temperature of Earth?
    The black body temperature of the Earth is -23°C, but the actual surface temperature is about 15°C. The difference (38°C) is the amount by which the planet is warmed by the absorption of radiation within its atmosphere, by the natural greenhouse effect.

  280. CD Marshall says:

    So the solar constant is the average amount of total solar irradiance the Earth receives and that is the TOA not surface TSI.

    The effective blackbody is the Earth’s radiant temperature as seen from space? More or less. It just happens to coincide with the emissions average?

  281. The solar constant is the TOA flux which is 1360. The earth effective bb temperature is 255K which is -18C. The average temperature of the atmosphere is -18C, found at 5km. The near surface air is 15C due to the adiabatic gradient and atmosphere depth.

  282. MP says:

    Many don’t understand the significance of a 1 bar system directly related to the sun input/workings

    We live in a 1 bar system. the only thing we need to do is making sure that we won’t raise the pressure where we live.

    As per the ideal gas law adding some co2 won’t make a difference

  283. Especially in the context of a fixed heat input!

  284. CD Marshall says:

    NASA now has it as 254 Kelvin is that accurate?

    Mass (1024 kg) 5.9724
    Volume (1010 km3) 108.321
    Equatorial radius (km) 6378.137
    Polar radius (km) 6356.752
    Volumetric mean radius (km) 6371.000
    Core radius (km) 3485
    Ellipticity (Flattening) 0.003353
    Mean density (kg/m3) 5514
    Surface gravity (m/s2) 9.798
    Surface acceleration (m/s2) 9.780
    Escape velocity (km/s) 11.186
    GM (x 106 km3/s2) 0.39860
    Bond albedo 0.306
    Geometric albedo 0.434
    V-band magnitude V(1,0) -3.99
    Solar irradiance (W/m2) 1361.0
    Black-body temperature (K) 254.0
    Topographic range (km) 20.4
    Moment of inertia (I/MR2) 0.3308
    J2 (x 10-6) 1082.63
    Number of natural satellites 1
    Planetary ring system No

  285. CD Marshall says:

    I’m quoting that reply from you by the way, have a feeling I’ll be using in the near future. If you like to add more be my guest of honors. Although it is good as is, I like it when we catch you in a stream of consciousness moments.

    Was pretty neat seeing 1000Frolly pop by and agree with you.

  286. CD Marshall says:

    I’m curious has anyone worked out (just for fun) the amount of atmosphere leaking to space verses the amount of so called CO2 being added each year?

    I read somewhere that the oxygen balance on Earth has been maintained for billions of years so that would include CO2 levels well over 1K PPM.

    I really need to get into atmospheric chemistry some but its constantly “pollution” this and “pollution” that and little actual chemistry.

  287. CD Marshall says:

    I do stumble across the some things.

    “SWAN/SOHO Lyman‐α Mapping: The Hydrogen Geocorona Extends Well Beyond the Moon”

    The curious case of Earth’s leaking atmosphere is not a very trustworthy site though, seems more like pop culture physics to me so not surprising the next source is NASA.

    To Image Leaky Atmosphere, NASA Rocket Team Heads North

  288. CD Marshall says:

    Joe more losers under:

    Christopher Calder
    1 week ago


  289. Joe – I have been a follower for a number of years; I have ended up quoting you on my new wiki which covers ont math, the anatomy of slavespeak, lucid dreaming and other key things. Maybe you will enjoy it.

    I am not asking for anything, in fact I find now I am searching for the universal qualities I can’t seem to get from friends or relationships. Idle curiosity though.

  290. 1000Frolly says:

    First a note about insolation;
    I did not use a separate term for Insolation in the molar mass version of the IGL because it is unnecessary. Insolation is automatically baked-in to the three gas parameters density, pressure and the molar mass.

    T=P/(R x ρ/M)
    Therefore short-term temperature can be seen as mainly a battle between pressure and density.

    I see from the comments that some are still not sure about what my papers mean!

    What my papers do is invalidate the “Greenhouse Gas Hypothesis” (the ‘Greenhouse Effect’) in not one, but in two very different ways. This ‘Greenhouse Effect’ hypothesis is now scientifically dead.

    First invalidation (2018 paper);
    I am not trying to use the IGL to predict planetary temperatures; What I am doing is confirming the correctness of the IGL, and using it to invalidate the greenhouse gas effect.

    Can the IGL be used to determine what is causing a warming? – NO it cannot!
    It is correct to say that the molar mass version of the ideal gas law cannot be used to determine what causes a warming!
    However, it CAN be used (see my 2018 paper) to determine what is NOT causing a warming.

    This is where my first invalidation of the ‘GHE’ comes in – both through a terminal conflict (due to problems with the IPCC’s so-called ‘equilibration time’), and through the above; that is, the non-appearance of a large anomalous change to gas pressure and/or density.

    This change MUST happen if there is such a thing as a separate class of “Greenhouse gases” which cause anomalous warming – and yet it doesn’t – (and actually it can’t, – unless the IGL is wrong – which is why I went to such pains to demonstrate that it isn’t wrong…)
    Either the Ideal Gas Law is correct or the Greenhouse Gas Warming Effect is correct – both CANNOT be correct. The IGL is a pillar of gas thermodynamics and I will go with it.

    My second invalidation of the GHE comes from atmospheric measurements at 1 bar – showing that different atmospheric percentages of ‘GHG’ do not affect temperature – only insolation does.
    See my last paper (2019).
    This demonstrates that there is no such separate class of gases called ‘greenhouse gases’ which can cause anomalous warming in planetary troposphere’s.
    This is consistent with the fact that there never has been any empirical measurement of warming in the atmosphere, caused by increases in any so-called ‘greenhouse gases’.

    Best Regards,
    Dr Robert Ian Holmes

  291. Philip Mulholland says:

    Thermo-nuclear destruction of AGW
    Thank you Dr Holmes

  292. CD Marshall says:

    Thank for you clarity, Dr. Holmes.

    Philip I found the comment:
    EF M
    5 months ago
    @CD Marshall “Humidity has nothing to do with CO2 more politcal science propaganda.” There is where you are dead wrong. It takes the secondary greenhouse gases to put the primary greenhouse gas H2O into the atmosphere. Without the secondary greenhouse gases, this planet would be an ice ball. There would basically be no water vapor in the atmosphere.

    I’ll use web pages instead.

  293. CD Marshall says:

    Dr. Holmes should enjoy this one as well since EM F claims he schooled him or something.

    EF M
    5 months ago (edited)
    @CD Marshall “Look you might have been a good engineer but you don’t know jack about QM or how it works in climate physics. Which is fine, most climate science doesn’t understand QM and that’s why they get part of the climate physics wrong.” Again, show me what you are talking about in scientific literature. If there is something there I’ll find the error. It took me 3 years to convince 1000frolly he was in error. Ultimately, he made the mistake of making a video and accused me of denying freedom of speech. I got 3 other civil engineers I worked with, went through the physics, got online in the comment section, and proceeded to beat the hell out him. 1000frolly took the video down and we haven’t heard from him since.

    “What you aren’t getting is that’s not the surface of the Earth that’s the global average, which includes the entire Troposphere and that average can be found around the middle of the Troposphere never at the surface, which is 14.5C.” No one lives at the center of the Troposphere.

    “You also aren’t getting that an average is worth nothing in real-time solar input, which is mainly at the Equator where it creates the Earth’s climate and moves it through the other atmospheric cells.” You are wasting your time until you admit Earth’s climate is carbon-based. If there is no carbon in the atmosphere, the planet will remain at -18C at the surface. That carbon is in the form of either CH4 or CO2. Without carbon, there is no water vapor in the atmosphere. All hydrogen compounds crystalize on the surface and albedo goes to 1. We know for certain this has happened at least twice in Earth’s history when atmospheric carbon dropped too low and the planet froze. What brought the planet out of being an ice ball was volcanoes putting carbon back into the atmosphere.

    EF M
    EF M
    5 months ago
    @CD Marshall “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 not be converted to IR by IR active gases and emitted to space.” There would be no “bulk of the heat-energy created via conduction/convection/advection”. All hydrogen-based molecules would come out of atmospheric solution and settle onto the surface of the planet causing the albedo to become 1. There would be no IR transition from white light. The planet would become a crystalline ice ball. Mars has no plate tectonic activity. There is no carbon coming out of the planet’s core. All glacial activity has stopped. The magnetic planetary field has ended. The planet is dead.

    Venus on the other hand still has plate tectonic activity. Radioactivity decay continues to heat the planetary core. Carbon continues to move. All water has been pushed to the outer atmosphere where ultraviolet has broken it down and the solar wind has stripped the hydrogen from the atmosphere. That has left carbon and oxygen to combine into CO2 and turned the planet into a hellhole. That is your two extremes.

    Earth has been storing it’s carbon in the ground as the sun continues to heat. This is why we are in an ice age. As we continue to burn carbon for energy, we put carbon back into the atmosphere and that is why the planet continues to heat. The question is where do we want to go?

  294. CD Marshall says:

    While I am at it where did this crazy concept come from that CO2 makes water vapor hotter? CO2 is water soluble, not water vapor soluble yet some people claims CO2 is absorbed by water vapor.

  295. Philip Mulholland says:

  296. Leon says:


    “Either the Ideal Gas Law is correct or the Greenhouse Gas Warming Effect is correct – both CANNOT be correct.”
    Right! I remember you stating this in your video. Sometimes it just needs repeating to drive it home.

  297. CD Marshall says:

    So if Venus had the same pressure atmosphere as Earth the surface average temps would be 274 Kelvin? (if I did the math right).

    Really 1C? That doesn’t sound right.

  298. MP says:

    @ CD Marshall

    The mean surface pressure of Mars is only 0.6% of that of the Earth, (0.006 x earth atm)

    If you decrease the pressure, the freezing point of water will increase ever so slightly. From 0° C at 1 atm pressure it will increase up to 0.01° C at 0.006 atm. This is the tripple point of water. At pressures below this, water will never be liquid. It will change directly between solid and gas phase (sublimation).

    Mars has high mountains and deep valeys. In the mountains water can never be formed because of the low pressure, at the mean hight also not (equal to the tipping point). In deep valeys the presure is around 0.008 atm. Enough to can get water above 0.01% C, but when it is above 4 degrees cellcius at that pressure level it boils away to gas.

    So the low presure prohibits the planet from becomming a water planet. If you want to terraform mars the first thing you should do is increasing the atmospheric pressure.

  299. Philip Mulholland says:

    We have to put the brackets around the quaternary root.
    The insolation ratio between Venus and Earth is Venus =1.91* Earth
    Now for the temperature relationship we need to apply the S-B relationship that involves the radiative power law.of 4th root
    1.91^0.25 = 1.175597
    So T of Venus equals T of Earth 288 times 1.91 ^0.25 = 338.6 Kelvin

  300. boomie789 says:

    Don’t miss this Curt Doolittle debate.

  301. Philip Mulholland says:

    He is applying flat Earth physicks where the surface temperature is 255 Kelvin (-18C)
    In a one bar atmosphere the -18C temperature is the Stratosphere temperature at which the radiative process to space occurs, and not in the Troposphere; because it is the Stratosphere that is thermal radiatively transparent and NOT the Troposphere.
    Big climate science mistake – HUGE! (Pretty Woman).
    This is why I always call it The Vacuum Planet equation.

    Now in the Stratosphere a temperature of 255 Kelvin occurs at an altitude of (wait for it) 44.6.Km (Oops).
    In the Stratosphere the lapse rate Γ is negative and has a value -0.925 K/Km
    So winding back to the tropopause 34.6 km below at 10 Km height we get a Tropopause temperature of 223 Kelvin (-50C).
    Now winding back to the surface with a lapse rate Γ is positive and has a value 6.5 K/Km
    We have 223 Kelvin plus 65 Kelvin which gives us 288 Kelvin which is a balmy 15C
    What was the problem again?

    P.s. I do remember being told the that the liquefaction temperature of nitrogen gas is 77 Kelvin, so that can not be a problem. The Earth will always have a nitrogen atmosphere to bootstrap the water cycle.

  302. I can hear the screams already. You’re just playing with numbers.
    In my defence I will point out that the temperature of the Stratopause is 260 Kelvin at height of 50 Km. Does that temperature look familiar?

    Remember this
    255 Kelvin is an agreed temperature (no dispute from me).
    But the lapse rates are determined by gravity and specific heat.
    So, to locate a temperate of 255 Kelvin in the stratosphere and maintain a one bar atmospheric pressure at the surface and a 100-mbar tropopause pressure at 10 km with a temperature of -50C the numbers are already closed down.

    The thermal radiant stratospheric temperature of 255 Kelvin must be at a height of 44.6 km with the two measured lapse rates (which because they are temperature differences per height, are independent of actual temperature).
    And what is it that also changes with height?

    It is the link back to pressure that is the key.
    It is pressure that controls the critical height of the tropopause turning point in the temperature profile, but how do we prove that link?

    The real question to address is what is it that controls the temperature of the tropopause?

  303. Zoe Phin says:

    Global Average Surface Pressure

    2003 985.060
    2004 985.041
    2005 985.073
    2006 985.018
    2007 984.975
    2008 984.966
    2009 985.052
    2010 985.044
    2011 985.029
    2012 985.027
    2013 985.062
    2014 985.075
    2015 985.044
    2016 985.119
    2017 985.085
    2018 985.146
    2019 985.252

    Linear Regression:
    ΔP/t = 0.00847 mb/year

    Boys, what’s changing the pressure?

  304. Zoe Phin says:

    More data from

    Global Average Pressure and Surface Skin Temperature

    2003 985.060 288.398
    2004 985.041 288.310
    2005 985.073 288.492
    2006 985.018 288.395
    2007 984.975 288.369
    2008 984.966 288.209
    2009 985.052 288.325
    2010 985.044 288.359
    2011 985.029 288.254
    2012 985.027 288.328
    2013 985.062 288.363
    2014 985.075 288.411
    2015 985.044 288.567
    2016 985.119 288.717
    2017 985.085 288.644
    2018 985.146 288.577
    2019 985.252 288.683
    Δ/y 0.00847 0.01989

  305. J Cuttance says:

    CD That was a bizarre joust you had with the warmie engineers. So according to their gospel, CO2 came first then water, for the pleasant green land to come about…? How many evidence-free leaps of faith do you need to make for that religion?

  306. MP says:

    @ Zoe

    No change in pressure between 2003 and 2010.

    So what you see are oscilations by a combo of at least the 65 year ocean cycle, cloud albedo variations, and el nino/la nina variations.

    Due to the oscillations there is nothing meaningfull about 16 year pressure temperature/average correlations

  307. Zoe Phin says:

    You’re looking at a 0.2 mb difference between 2003 and 2019 and saying there’s no difference.

    “65 year ocean cycle, cloud albedo variations, and el nino/la nina variations.”

    Those are all things known for their temperature variation.

    So which is it? T drives P or P drives T?

  308. MP says:

    @ Zoe

    Not one or and not the other.

    There are 3 players.

    Input heat, the by depth pressure increasing mass of the atmosphere, and the properties of the gas mixture in terms of pressure vs density (how that gas mixture will react with certain heat input and mass above it that gives extra pressure )

  309. Zoe Phin says:

    “pressure increasing mass of the atmosphere”

    And the cause …

  310. MP says:

    I said “the by depth pressure increasing mass of the atmosphere,”

    Try stacking books upon each other. What book has the highest pressure, from the mass of the other books?

  311. Zoe Phin says:

    “pressure increasing mass of the atmosphere”


    Who’s stacking books? God?

  312. MP says:

    @ Zoe Phin

    Doesn’t matter, it changes the internal properties of, gas/liquid,/solid ice.mixtures

    Glacier end points tend to melt fast when the pressure is extremely high, with high enough pressure ice can automaytically melt at -20 degree Celcius.

  313. Zoe Phin says:

    Doesn’t matter -> Pressure -> Temperature.

    That’s your theory of warming?

  314. MP says:

    My theory of warming is that we can’t do anything about it by ading gasses. Henry’s law will equal it out to the ocean anyway in time so that is a double thing in can’t do anything.

    Making massive albedo changes artificially can be very dangerous tho, that is artificially trying to push an extreme oscilation.

  315. MP says:

    @ Zoe

    What is your theory about the American concept vs the communist concept?

    Nation under god > god made the people > the state serves the people


    State is god > people serve the state

    Question 1 Do you believe the first concept?
    Question 2 Do you prefer the first concept?

  316. Philip Mulholland says:

    I prefer balanced equations:
    The Devil made the State > State is god > people serve the state

  317. Zoe Phin says:

    Communism is great for sadists. Period.

  318. CD Marshall says:

    This is great stuff guys thank you for your input, as usual will take some time digesting.

  319. CD Marshall says:

    Zoe the troposphere is not in thermal equilibrium, Carnot cycle, Surface TSI changes every minute regionally, the troposphere expands and contracts globally because of it thus pressure changes.

    Think of 4 identical pans on a stove touching each other one on giant burner set on low.

    Now add ingredients to the pans.

    One two pans add hotter ingredients and in two colder ingredients but keep taking the ingredients out and adding more in as a constant.

    The flame remains a constant temp, but the surface pans will all fluctuate every time temps of ingredients are exchanged.

    Now switch flame for gravity. The 4 pans is the Earth’s surface, the ingredients is surface temperature change and you have variable atmospheric pressures even though gravity remains the same.

  320. CD Marshall says:

    For some reason the point of zero energy balance (ZEB) at the tropics has been erased from search engines. Does anyone have a reference link I can use for the ZEB? Any papers anywhere? Meteorology books, manuals pdfs?

    It’s like the Climate Cabals erased it from existence.

  321. CD Marshall says:

    Another question:
    The tropics isn’t as hot as it should be because the oceans are taking most of that energy. I agree.

    Why exactly is the surface parts not hotter in direct sunlight? Especially at the equatorial zenith?

  322. Philip Mulholland says:

    In this Climate War you MUST use an Archive.

  323. Philip Mulholland says:

    “Why exactly is the surface parts not hotter in direct sunlight? Especially at the equatorial zenith?”
    Are you talking water or land?
    Water is a soft surface for light, it punches right through down to 200 metres (the photic zone).
    Land is different, it is a hard surface for light. All diabatic radiant forcing (warm sunshine) heats the ground and creates an adiabatic response in the air above (convection).

    All energy loss from a heated material is cooling.
    The three cooling mechanisms are:
    1. Conduction (which in the case of conduction to air in a gravity field leads to convection, the adiabatic process which is flux asymmetric, it acts like a one-way gate).
    2. Evaporation – all evaporation is cooling. (Remember that Latent Heat is a hidden store of energy, it has has no kinetic signature).
    3. Thermal Radiation (the diabatic process which is a gradient flux cascade of half out and half back).
    And for good measure there is also the issue of thermal inertia; the heat capacity of the body being warmed. The thermal capacity (specific heat) of water is much larger than that of air. Water takes longer to warm and stores more energy.

  324. CD Marshall says:

    Ah I didn’t connect the ^4 rule, the hotter the ‘solid’ surface gets the more the emissions to space increases by the fourth power of the absolute temperature of the radiating body…


  325. Philip Mulholland says:


    I have been trying to work out what you did.
    Error analysis is an important part of learning.
    Thanks, I can now move on 😉

  326. Philip Mulholland says:

    I think that you should publish your solar flame idea so that I can call it Postma’s Law.

  327. Zoe Phin says:

    I see you’re a Temp -> Pressure type. Welcome to the club.

  328. George says:

    You sent out an email with the title of a new post titled “Earth’s Rotation – No One Has Demonstrated This Before”. It isn’t here. What happened?

  329. CD Marshall says:

    So a troll who loves Venus as the greenhouse gas effect even though no proof exists says Dr. Holmes is wrong…
    “Furthermore, Holmes prediction pf temperature is not physically relevent. The ideal gas law merely describes tge state of the system. That Holmes can ‘predict’ the correct surface temperatures, given the input data P, ρ and μ is completely logical in any dense enough gas. There is no description of temperature over time in response to a change in either of those variables, and hence Holmes never correctly tested his assumptions.”

  330. MP says:

    @ CD Marshall

    He states the obvious derived from the IGL. By that admitting that the IGL is true, not only in a labaratory setting, also on planetary scale.

    What he tries to avoid by stating the obvious is is the pain points where the GHE theory and the ideal gas law are not compattible.

  331. Barry says:

    This guy is off his nut, he is basically attacking the good Dr. For not attacking the ghg theory. You would think when you have proved that you can predict the temp of something that actually exists using data that actually exists,that you wouldn’t need to make up another lab experiment to test the theory. On another topic I had never seen that data that Zoe put up above here. As stated I’m only a lay person,but I was amazed at how constant the pressure and temp measurements are over fifteen years in such a chaotic system as our wx. Would seem it’s not that chaotic?

  332. Tightly constrained input and mass. Limits to the chaos.

  333. boomie789 says:


    Scroll back to the comments from around 3 days ago. Comment from Postma starts with, “I’m just going to put that new post back into a comment instead:”.

    That’s the post you are talking about about I assume.

  334. Oh sorry George yes I took it down right after posting was just a comment.

  335. Zoe Phin says:

    Water Vapor’s Enthalpy of Heat is an incredible Temperature reducer. CO2 4x less so.

    They don’t make a radiation source warmer.

    You will always have to deal with gov-sponsored cranks that use the affirming-the-consequent fallacy.

    Even the tiny 0.0916 W/m^2 geothermal heat flux produces ~36 Kelvin. Latest numbers show the “greenhouse effect” to be pretty much exactly that: ~36 K.

  336. 1000Frolly says:

    I was searching for this troll CDM was talking about.
    Mercifully, I don’t remember him or all his ‘schooling’ him and his mates are supposed to have done at all.

    Finally I got onto this website;
    Which is a real treasure trove of tripe.

    There was this gem from someone called “Malawby” who sensibly keeps a low profile;
    “… if it gets cooler when you climb, it is actually because of less CO2 trapping heat”.

    Here is another diamond from a glaciologist called Camillo Rada;
    “Note that the warming effect of putting additional CO2 in the atmosphere last many centuries, so even if emissions stop suddenly by year 2066, the planet will keep getting hotter and hotter for a long time. Up to 6c in many places”.

    Dr Robert Ian Holmes

  337. CD Marshall says:

    Not to worry Dr. Holmes, later he had to admit he did not know what TSI and TOA meant. Yet he schooled you, lol. Delusion runs strong in these fellows.

    Reminds me of the debate Joseph had with that other guy he didn’t even know the basic radiative transfer equations yet was an expert on the ghge.

    Or that other half dozen scientists Joseph and I debated together (of late) who don’t know what heat is, some even PhDs. Joseph I’m sure could add dozens more to that list with his one debates.

    A popular definition among climate clowns is that heat is internal kinetic energy. Don’t get fooled by the wordings, guys they will try and hide it somewhere between actual equations. I fell for it once and didn’t notice until after I commented.

    In KE energy, heat is only in the transient boundary layer if it is increasing the temperature of another object, still hot to cold.

    ”While internal energy refers to the total energy of all the molecules within the object, heat is the amount of energy flowing from one body to another spontaneously due to their temperature difference. Heat is a form of energy, but it is energy in transit. Heat is not a property of a system. However, the transfer of energy as heat occurs at the molecular level as a result of a temperature difference.” -Nuclear Power manual.

    ”Heat is a transfer of thermal energy caused by a difference in temperature.” -Energy Education.

    They may claim if it has a temperature it has heat. Temperature is how we measure kinetic energy, not “heat”. Thermodynamic heat has a simple requirement, Delta T from hot to cold.

    I remember learning about steam powered engine never CO2 powered engines.

  338. Philip Mulholland says:


    “I don’t know what you mean by ‘glory’,” Alice said.

    Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. “Of course you don’t- till I tell you. I meant ‘there’s a nice knock-down argument for you!'”

    “But ‘glory’ doesn’t mean ‘a nice knock-down argument’,” Alice objected.

    “When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean- neither more nor less.”

    “The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.”

    “The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master-that’s all.”

    In Climate Science The Humpty Dumpty Theory of Language is required reading.

  339. CD Marshall says:

    “I see you’re a Temp -> Pressure type. Welcome to the club.”

    That’s why these things are reversible its just an exchange of kinetic energy and potential energy.

    Same reason why ocean floors don’t get hotter.

    Higher pressure does not always equate higher temperature. Gas is compressible, air is compressible, water mostly isn’t.

    As I read and a subtle distinction, “pressure does not increase temperature, compression does. It’s not so much pressure, but rather compression, that increases the temperature of a given fluid. In other words, forcing more and more stuff into the same volume generates heat (by increasing the kinetic energy of molecules) in the system.”

    (Just keep in mind the subtle difference in kinetic energy and heat.)

    “…water is generally an incompressible fluid. Still, the temperature of water at the bottom of an ocean could potentially increase if its pressure were to increase all of a sudden, but the water at the bottom does not experience pressure variations (as pressure is basically constant at that depth), and therefore does not compress, which is why it does not heat up.”

  340. Philip Mulholland says:

    “pressure does not increase temperature, compression does.”
    Nice, really nice.

  341. CD Marshall says:

    @Philip Mulholland
    LOL. Indeed! Science in consensus climate are open to private interpretations. Is this a product of modern academia?

    Billy in school:
    ” 2+2 equals 5!”
    “Good work Billy, it means whatever you want it to mean!”

    College grad:
    “Kinetic energy is heat!”

    Professor Billy:
    “Good work, it means whatever I want it to mean!”

  342. Zoe Phin says:

    Chris et al,

    I showed 17 years of both temperature and pressure change.

    Do you think it got warmer because some process is compressing the atmosphere? What is that process?

    Or do you think pressure increased because temperature increased, as I do?

  343. MP says:

    The allam cycle is a new way to generate electricity, using recycled co2, heat, extra gasses, and a combustion chamber that limits expansion to get co2 in a supercritical state.

    Could use it as a way to explain the inner workings of the atmosphere on mars. Need to flip things around since in this system work of the supercritical co2 turbine to create electricity is an output.

    Also other things need to be flipped around and/or rearanged to fit the Mars atmosphere. But the base principles are the same

  344. Barry says:

    From the peanut gallery, CD I was thinking about that very thing a couple of days ago. Thinking in my air compressor when it is running the lines to the tank get very hot but if you let it sit overnight with 100 psi in the tank the next morning it is down to ambient. So thanks that clarifies it beautifully.

  345. Philip Mulholland says:

    Let’s do some basic Dimensional Analysis.
    Pressure is a Force, it is the product of mass times acceleration F = m.a
    Mass is mass and has dimensions M.
    Acceleration is the rate of change of velocity per unit time A = V/T
    Acceleration has dimensions LT^-1/T = LT^-2
    Put these together and we have M.L.T^-2 as the dimensions of Pressure.

    Now Temperature is measured in Kelvins and has its own dimension K

    It is clear from this that K does not equate with M.L.T^-2
    Therefore Temperature is not a Force.

  346. CD Marshall says:

    @ Zoe
    All things needs a medium in this regard, finding the correct medium finds the correct equations for the cause.

    Does heat increase pressure? It expands the air around it and the troposphere expands when heated.

    However, parcels of air are treated individually in a system and as such can be closed, open, isolated or partial. Thus pressure must work with other factors.

    Now think about this, what if the troposphere didn’t expand when heated, what if somehow the troposphere kept that contained? Then you add compression.

    Holy heck would the surface get hot!

  347. MP says:

    @ Zoe Phin 2021/02/15 at 4:03 AM

    How do new stars get born? compression > heat ?

    Can’t just look at it in 1 fixed way….

  348. CD Marshall says:

    It really is an interesting subject on heat, volume, pressure and compression well for a none physicist I’d wager. Amazing how you can actually spend years just studying this.

    Yet you have graduates in atmopsheric physics (in some places) that can’t tell you what heat is.

  349. Philip Mulholland says:

    It certainly does under the constraining effect of planetary rotation induced forced air descent and the consequent high surface pressure in the Horse Latitudes. e.g. The Sahara Desert.
    Planetary amospheric circulation is a dynamic mass motion process.

  350. boomie789 says:

    Ice storm in the bayou. Don’t see that to often down here. Even got icicles and everything.

  351. CD Marshall says:

    Philip Mulholland,
    “It certainly does under…”
    Sorry which part of my comments were you referring to?

  352. CD Marshall says:

    Does heat increase pressure?
    I’m guessing it was that?

    Of course heat can increase pressure it was just rhetorical.

    It’s still a combinations of heat, pressure, volume and so forth.

    This sound like a chicken or the egg conversation?

  353. Philip Mulholland says:

    Sorry, fast moving game, that pitch was mistimed.

    “Now think about this, what if the troposphere didn’t expand when heated, what if somehow the troposphere kept that contained? Then you add compression.

    Holy heck would the surface get hot!”

    Just adding a bit of context to support you.

  354. George says:

    Joe, thanks for your response.
    Boomie, thanks for your response. I found it. Good comment from Joe.

  355. Philip Mulholland says:

    In the history of science, Sir Isaac Newton was a world-class genius, and not just of his generation.
    Not one of us here is qualified to go up against him.
    It is not necessary to understand what he did, but it clearly helps if we try.
    As scientists however we are required to know what he did.

  356. MP says:

    @ 1000Frolly 2021/02/15 at 1:06 AM

    I gave them an answer on a question. Based on your provided logic. Feel free to add on or correct.

  357. CD Marshall says:

    Joe does any of this make sense to an astrophysicist?

    The conversation was the extinction of mammoths.

    “Regarding the extinction of the mammoths: The over hunting hypothesis has never been a logical argument m, especially when coupled with:
    (1). The size of the herds vs projected human population at the time.
    (2). The literal mountains of carcasses & bones piled in major flood flow ways, and the conditions of the skeletal remains (e.g., showing in many cases Microspheroidal embedded into the bones. The most likely origin being from terrestrial impacts).
    (3). The known number of megafauna that all suddenly died out at the same period in history, which also coincides with the sudden disappearance of the “Clovis” peoples in North America. So, if the Clovis were wiped out, who was left to commit the “over hunting”.

    “And what might have been the mechanism for this? Perhaps a cyclical micro nova event? Might explain the same glass spheroids found on earth, the moon, and mars.”

    What not on Earth are they talking about? A cyclical micro nova event?

    Is that really a thing and if so how often does it happen and what can be the effects if it happened now?

  358. CD Marshall says:

    Skeptical Science:

    What is says about John Cook now:

    What it actually said about him according tot he way back archives:

  359. CD Marshall says:

    That was published 9 years ago.

    This is what is says NOW on SS site:
    About John Cook
    Skeptical Science was created and maintained by John Cook, a research assistant professor at the Center for Climate Change Communication at George Mason University. John co-authored the college textbooks Climate Change: Examining the Facts with Weber State University professor Daniel Bedford. He was also a coauthor of the textbook Climate Change Science: A Modern Synthesis and the book Climate Change Denial: Heads in the Sand.

    In 2013, he lead-authored an award-winning paper analyzing the scientific consensus on climate change that has been highlighted by President Obama and UK Prime Minister David Cameron. In 2015, he developed a Massive Open Online Course on climate science denial with the Global Change Institute at the University of Queensland (see a full list of his scholarly publications).

    There is no funding to maintain Skeptical Science other than Paypal donations – it’s run at personal expense. John Cook has no affiliations with any political organisations or groups. Skeptical Science is strictly a labour of love. The design was created by John’s talented web designer wife.

  360. CD Marshall says:

    About John Cook NOW 2021:

    Skeptical Science was created and maintained by John Cook, a research assistant professor at the Center for Climate Change Communication at George Mason University. John co-authored the college textbooks Climate Change: Examining the Facts with Weber State University professor Daniel Bedford. He was also a coauthor of the textbook Climate Change Science: A Modern Synthesis and the book Climate Change Denial: Heads in the Sand.

    In 2013, he lead-authored an award-winning paper analyzing the scientific consensus on climate change that has been highlighted by President Obama and UK Prime Minister David Cameron. In 2015, he developed a Massive Open Online Course on climate science denial with the Global Change Institute at the University of Queensland (see a full list of his scholarly publications).

    There is no funding to maintain Skeptical Science other than Paypal donations – it’s run at personal expense. John Cook has no affiliations with any political organisations or groups. Skeptical Science is strictly a labour of love. The design was created by John’s talented web designer wife.

  361. MP says:

    @ CD Marshall

    Ned Nikolov suggests massive pressure changes. Only low atmospheric pressure could have supported the hight and mass of dino creatures

  362. CD Marshall says:

    Actually I looked at the current SS site and now “cartoonist” is gone and he is an “expert” in climate science.

    About John Cook
    Skeptical Science was created and maintained by John Cook, a research assistant professor at the Center for Climate Change Communication at George Mason University. John co-authored the college textbooks Climate Change: Examining the Facts with Weber State University professor Daniel Bedford. He was also a coauthor of the textbook Climate Change Science: A Modern Synthesis and the book Climate Change Denial: Heads in the Sand.

    In 2013, he lead-authored an award-winning paper analyzing the scientific consensus on climate change that has been highlighted by President Obama and UK Prime Minister David Cameron. In 2015, he developed a Massive Open Online Course on climate science denial with the Global Change Institute at the University of Queensland (see a full list of his scholarly publications).

  363. CD Marshall says:

    My comments are getting chewed up.

  364. MP says:

    @ MP

    Low pressure and high co2 levels would be the the golden age of Dinasaurs.

    Low pressure to be able to grow big, and high co2 for the plant growth food chain to be able to get herbivores becomebig, and as a result carnivores become big.

  365. Joseph E Postma says:

    “A cyclical micro nova event?

    Is that really a thing and if so how often does it happen and what can be the effects if it happened now?”

    It’s completely speculative. There are studies, not well known, which show that there may have been “pole flips” and also meteorite impacts affecting North America, etc. But “micro nova” is complete speculation…and it’s not really a meaningful phrase in astronomy.

  366. MP says:

    MP says 2021/02/15 at 2:46 PM

    Got this answers so far (middle answer is from me). Will stop answering since is sence he is a moderator and will instant block me.

    “Average temperature at 1 Bar will be exactly the same with no co2, 0.04% co2, and 20% co2.” This is wrong. It is not consistent with known physics, nor with measured real world changes that are due to rising atmospheric CO2 levels. – Ken Fabian 2 hours ago

    Modern day interpretation of physicsa is not consistent with the clear imperical evidence that the proportionality of temperature vs distance to the sun of a black body (because of a thermal equalibrity with the sun) is the same proportionaly as certain atmospheric pressure layers (because of thermal equilibrity with the sun) – user21841 1 hour ago

    So global warming is happening because… atmospheric pressure is rising? No. The science on climate is well developed and sound in all it’s fundamentals. This site is the wrong place to try climate science denial

  367. We do deny climate science…lol…because we deny flat earth theory. Just reply and say you deny flat earth theory. I have a stack account…should post a few of my videos there. Let’s all watch what happens…lol.

  368. MP says:

    @ Joseph E Postma

    He is quite funny. Does 2 times apeal to authority to make a point.

    1 of the 4 to 6 % that will never wake up, even showing the truth, and correct math.

  369. Philip Mulholland says:

    President John F. Kennedy’s Moon Speech at the Rice Stadium on 12 September 1962

  370. CD Marshall says:

    59 years later ’cause of greed and closed minds we are no closer to the space exploration of our forefather.

  371. CD Marshall says:


  372. Philip Mulholland says:

    Let’s look in detail at your Pressure / Temperature conundrum.
    To do this we need to use Boyle’s Law in its form that states:
    For a given mass of gas the product of Pressure times Volume divided by Temperature (in Kelvin) is a constant.
    Looking first at this with Dimensional Analysis we have:
    Pressure (MLT^-2) dot Volume (L^3) per Kelvin (K) equals (M . L^4 . T^-2 . K^-1)
    Curious, but not very helpful.

    Now let’s dig into the relationship between Pressure, Volume and Temperature in detail.
    For a given mass of gas at the Earth’s surface if we change its Temperature by solar radiant forcing (aka a sunny day) then the product of Pressure and Volume must change also.
    The question is in what way?
    1. Does only the Pressure change?
    2. Does only the Volume change?
    3. Do both change together?
    Well # 3 applies, after all the atmosphere is an open system. No not exactly. We have the issue of planetary rotation induced forced air descent to content with at some point.

    The Hadley cell is a giant machine made of air. At the business end at the equator the solar zenith tracks by every day at supersonic speed, and heats the surface layer of the atmosphere while it races by. Here there is no issue of planetary rotation induced Coriolis force to contend with, so the heated and moisture rich air increases in volume and falls in density. Eventually it explodes upward in a giant set of daily convection thunderstorms that reach to the stratosphere. Violent storms that jet liner pilots sensibly avoid.

    As the moist air rises in the convection cell, it cools by adiabatic conversion of KE to PE and the precipitation process kicks in (it rains a lot) so the rising air dries out. At the tropopause the air has a problem, it cannot easily go back down because on ascent as it dried out it gained Latent Heat (both of vapour condensation, and for good measure also that of ice crystal fusion). Furthermore, the water that gave it that Latent Heat is now back on the ground, so while the air cooled at the moist adiabat on ascent, it is forced to warm at the dry adiabat on descent. So, guess what? Descending dry air gets to be warmer than descending moist air when falling through the same distance.

    So how does the air get back to the ground? Well, the only way to go is sideways, so it sets off on a long journey across the upper atmosphere towards the pole. Except it never gets there. Thanks to the Earth’s rapid rate of daily rotation the dry air is forced to track eastwards and eventually, in the Horse Latitudes it cannot go any further pole-ward, and so it is forced to descend. (This is a really clever design feature, well done Slartibardfast.)

    On forced descent the dry air will maintain a clear atmosphere, and so sunlight will be able to reach the ground more easily. At the surface the descended air creates a zone of high pressure before it sets off back to the equator as the surface Trade Winds. On crossing over the ocean, the Trade Winds pick up moisture from the water by forced evaporation of moving air, and eventually the now moisture rich air arrives back at the equator. Here in the Doldrums, it is now ready for the next daily passage of the solar zenith. It is then set off on its journey once again and forever through the cycle strokes of the giant Hadley cell convection machine.

    There are two points in this Hadley cell cycle where Boyle’s relationship applies in different ways.
    #1 In the Doldrums, solar heating induces a change in volume of the air, which leads to a drop in density, which when combined with the low molecular weight of the moist air leads to a buoyancy induced rise. (Remember that water is a lighter molecule than oxygen).
    #2 In the Horse Latitudes, under open clear skies, the daily solar heating leads to pressure rise as the dry air volume is bring constrained by the falling mass of air from above.

  373. Barry says:

    Thanks Philip that is a simple but educational description. For us lay people trying to understand all this it makes the whole thing a little simpler. Usually when I try to follow this stuff it can get to complex to grasp without an education,I know what seems everyday to you guys feels like rocket science to us.
    Have a good day

  374. Philip Mulholland says:

    Correction Pressure is Force per unit area = M. L^-1 . T^-2

  375. Philip Mulholland says:

    Your welcome.

  376. boomie789 says:

    If you have hydro or geo power available that usually works out fine. Wind is one that seems to just be a big waste of time, money and energy. Solar too.

  377. Barry says:

    Boomie,the problem seems to be when you need energy the most is when it is the most difficult to get even ng turbines have problems with the cold. It’s sad that our current idiot leaders are taking us down this non productive backward road.

  378. MP says:

    Asked this quetion on a science question site

    “Why is the average 1 Bar temperature on planets with a thick atmosphere proportional to the distance of the sun?”

    Got these answers so far.(middle answer is from me). How can i best counter the lst question? Have some ideas but input from you guys is welcome.

    Have you checked the wikipedia page on – AtmosphericPrisonEscape 1 hour ago

    @ AtmosphericPrisonEscape . Looked at it but in the calculation on that page there is a correction for albedo. In this case there is no need to adjust for albedo, and for the amount of greenhouse gasses. The temperature at 1 bar is proportinal to the distance of the sun alone. – MP1 1 hour ago

    You need the high Albedo correction at Venus and at Earth, together with green-house gases to get the right temperature. Your statement ” The temperature at 1 bar is proportional to the distance of the sun alone” is wrong. What your scaling formula is computing, is the equivalent Temperature of solar radiation at a distance. Check this paper for a solar-system wide comparison taking into account all the available data. – AtmosphericPrisonEscape 58 mins ago

  379. Joseph E Postma says:

    I responded there with a comment MP.

    Also everyone, check out this new OP:

    I wonder how long till it is removed?? lol

  380. MP says:

    @ Joseph E Postma

    Yea, immediately saw it was you who responded, you go in like a bulldozer. Lol

  381. CD Marshall says:

    A meteorologist replied to you Joe, he was careful though.

  382. Joseph E Postma says:

    Oh yes they were very careful, the sick freak. I replied and drew it out for them though! lol

  383. CD Marshall says:

    If I were a betting man I’d bet he’ll stay clear of replying or tap dance around it. Unless I missed the reply?

  384. MP says:

    Joseph E Postma 2021/02/16 at 4:43 PM

    Put in more relevant tags (not just greenhouse gasses and thermodynamics), 5 tags are allowed. …that give max exposure

  385. Joseph E Postma says:

    Added 3 more MP.

  386. MP says:

    Got a new answer.

    Another apeal to authority lol.


    “If it were true we would not have current global warming. But we DO have global warming that is unrelated to changing distance from sun or change to surface air pressure, therefore it is not true. Distance and atmospheric pressure are factors but other factors are involved too, like Greenhouse Effect. Too few planets and insufficient and imprecise data has led to jumping to the conclusion that climate science is wrong about the significance of greenhouse gases. – Ken Fabian 1 hour ago”

  387. MP says:

    With apeal to authority in the last comment i meant ignoring that we are close to the 20 year moving average between 1979-2000

    Believing that there isn’t rappid cooling, to avergae 21 year equilibrium levels of 20 years ago

    Because MSM didn’t told so

  388. boomie789 says:

    Check this out, YouTube shut off the subscriber count on this Canadian girl.

  389. We live in a fn horror show. This reality seems to be about making us just conscious enough to comprehend horror…and then that’s it.

  390. CD Marshall says:

    Another factor I didn’t add to the atmospheric conversation is density,

    “…there is a balance between vertical pressure gradients and the gravitational force per unit volume acting on each portion of the atmosphere. On combining the equation describing hydro-static balance with the ideal gas law we find that, in a hypothetical isothermal atmosphere, the pressure and density would fall exponentially with altitude.

    “In the real, non-isothermal, atmosphere the pressure and density variations are usually still close to the exponential form, with an e-folding height of about 7 or 8 km. Gravity thus tends to produce a density stratification in the atmosphere.” -Cambridge/Andrews

    Basically gravity resets our chaotic atmosphere or a least holds the atmospheric layers within some boundaries.

    And they just admitted thermal equilibrium does not exist and yet use that to justify forcing.

  391. CD Marshall says:

    Joseph I see your post was closed down 14 hours ago. Couldn’t let that get in the way of climate science.

  392. boomie789 says:

    Wow, we have another ice storm on the way. East Texas to Mississippi.

    Grand solar minimum? Anybody?

  393. MP says:

    Joseph E Postma 2021/02/17 at 12:09 AM

    horror show.

    I prefer looking at it as a clown world. Gives comfy feels, and satire counter ammunition.

  394. boomie789 says:

    relevant quote lol

  395. J Cuttance says:

    boomie, who is Eddy and why does he get to have a mini ice age named after him?

  396. J Cuttance
    Here you are:

    The Maunder Minimum was named by solar astronomer John Eddy in 1976 after E.W. Maunder, an English scientist who, along with German scientist Gustav Spörer, first noticed the decrease in solar activity in the 1890s, according to the New York Times.

    “I have re-examined the contemporary reports and new evidence which has come to light since Maunder’s time and conclude that this 70-year period was indeed a time when solar activity all but stopped,” Eddy wrote in the Times.

    Eddy looked through historical documents dating all the way back to Galileo to find any mention of visual observations of sun spots — everything he found corroborated, though to double check, he looked to some hard data.hard data.

    Why his name? Because it’s a matter of honour.

  397. CD Marshall says:

    That snow doesn’t exist according to the activists that told Texas governments winters would be warm for the rest of the century. Hayhoe, friends of Obama and Leonardo DiCaprio, assured them.

  398. CD Marshall says:

    Look to the end of this videos at the arrogance…

  399. Leon says:

    @ 49:39 proof of concept “Liberals are full of hate and lies” – Heller

    Guy stands up and displays his hate and lies.

  400. Leon says:

    I’m disappointed Heller thinks co2 contributes “some” warming.

  401. Leon says:

    Um, could this be what is happening to the planet?

    Check it out.

    Could we be headed for another ice age and that’s the reason they want us to eat bugs, give up our energy and roll back to the dark ages?

  402. CD Marshall says:

    ‘Some warming” is the trick of climate science and they mix facts up on purpose.
    Nowhere in the atmosphere above the tropics at the middle of the troposphere is it above 0C and only on the equatorial line proper, even at 4200 meters, just below the middle troposphere, is it “warmer” with a few digits above 0C.

    Even at the 1500 meters nothing but the tropical regions is above 0C and remains an average of 15C while the rest of the atmosphere is below 0C dropping exponentially to the poles.

  403. Joseph E Postma says:

    It is the nature of flat Earth theory to ignore the 3rd dimension! lol

    The only average that exists to them is that of the slice next to the surface…the depth of the atmosphere and its average temperature over 10km is non-existent to them…despite them LOVING to average over everything! Everything they do contains contradiction…there is no consistency at any moment. The bottom slice of atmosphere is NOT the atmosphere…it’s not where any average should be found.

  404. CD Marshall says:

    Joseph if you want to review his paper here (physicist to physicist), anyone with advanced math skills who wants to check the math.

  405. boomie789 says:


    2 class system with a great separation, speciation even. The elites with a massive technological, genetic, knowledge…power differential. Compared to the remnant mongoloid race who will be their slaves. The elites will be gods to their subjects. That’s what I think the true end goal is.

    Feudalism but the castle is defended by robots and drones. The remnant mongoloid race are cattle for the new gods of earth.

    Ever heard of “The Time Machine” by H.G. Wells? Check out that story again with this idea in mind.

  406. boomie789 says:

  407. Joseph E Postma says:

    There certainly seems to be a class of people that we’re all being force-managed into – the herbivore class. It is perhaps not surprising that we find the overwhelming preponderance of veganism and vegetarianism among the left, whose minds perceive a universal blanket-trust to anything which simply claims authority via a herd-following. The leftists are herbivores, spiritually, and trust everything, except that which is different and unique, which they reject outright without consideration. The herbivore has no theory of mind…it simply assumes that everyone thinks and believes as it does, and it is literally impossible for it to consider that anyone could ever act with purpose, intent, or let alone purposeful subterfuge. This is how you can present flat Earth theory to them and have them believe in it, because it is not about whether it is objectively true but whether there is a herd following with it; and further, this is how you can then afterwards show it right to their faces, and demonstrate to them that they believe in flat Earth theory and that the basis of their herd is flat Earth theory, and it doesn’t matter, because it’s impossible that anyone could have ever acted with an intent of subterfuge, because everything is trustworthy that has a herd with it.

    The carnivore must exist with a theory of mind, for understanding its prey. It must understand how its prey will react, which means that it must understand how its prey will think. An herbivore…never…encounters the need to imagine how something else might think; it only seeks grass, which doesn’t think, and doesn’t move. Grass is trustworthy. For the predator (carnivore), the very nature of its survival necessitates theory of mind, necessitates understanding the minds of others.

    It is good to note that while the herbivore can recognize danger, in the form of different opinions, and in the form of predators, it is impossible for them to recognize danger from the herd itself. The herd is absolute safety and absolute trust. This is why the leftists exhibit such blanket universal trust to anything from a herd, and despise anything not from a herd. Therefore all that a predator has to do is to pretend to be part of the herd…the wolf in sheep’s clothing…and it can command the entire herd.

    For all the discussion on psychology out there, Jung and Freud and Myers-Briggs, etc., and all of this discussion about archetypes and what have you…it’s quite interesting that the dichotomy between herbivore thinking and predator thinking hasn’t been so clearly delineated. As an omnivore and with both the limbic brain system and the neocortex, etc., we’re clearly capable of behaving in herbivorial and predatorial ways.

    So yes, it is clear that there is an “elite” managing society into an herbivorial behavioral pattern. I’ve said elsewhere that such people only exist to be extracted from…the leftists…their only purpose is to be consumed. The scientific materialist is the prime example…despite humanity’s best education, their herbivorial thinking pattern precludes them from appreciating what should be the most trivial thing possible to understand: that flat Earth theory makes for bad science. That is how strong the herbivore archetype is! That the people most highly educated in physics and mathematics become totally incapable of rejecting flat Earth theory! That is an amazing power. It’s breathtaking psychological power. And people, predators and parasites, are going to wield it, because it can be.

    Herbivores exist to be eaten. They have no other purpose. They don’t think, and pondering existence is anathema to them. It’s impossible for an herbivore to achieve Gnosis…strictly impossible, and it has never occurred before, and it never will. To have a mind one must be able to reflect upon mind, and herbivores only reflect upon grass. Only predators, carnivores, reflect upon mind, and therefore have minds. Even if an herbivore discovered these truths and pressed upon themselves the need to understand them and utilize them, it would only ever be pretending, only ever simulating, only ever struggling to comprehend, what for the carnivore comes naturally. Such an herbivore, if it truly has a mind, will only ever finally conclude, in the face of its herd that doesn’t care about and won’t listen to what it has discovered, that it is best to simply become a carnivore.

    Perhaps this is why the “elite” hate Christianity so much above all other religions – because it instilled within the herbivore herd the idea that there is a universal danger present, unseen, but possibly within anyone and anything, and you need to think about it. Thus historical right-wing Christianity. Christianity, likely more than any of the other religions, has at its unperceived core the teaching of theory of mind. That would be entirely consistent with the modern leftist scientific materialist having absolutely no theory of mind whatsoever to speak of at all.

  408. Joseph E Postma says:

    Think of all the tactics used by the climate alarmists – the ad-hom, the peer-review, the pressure to conform to the consensus, etc., – someone has deployed the herbivore archetype as a psychological weapon to control the herd via its government, etc. It doesn’t matter that it reduces to Chicken Little and hysteria about weather and things that have always existed. You just tell an herbivore that something is new, even though it has existed around the herbivore for all time, and the herbivore will become alarmed because you’re making it aware of something outside of its herd life, the alarm spreads to the other herd members likewise fearful of something being pointed out which is outside of the herd, and presto – you control the herd. That is how stupid the herbivore is and how little mind let alone theory of mind it has: that it has never even considered that it is surrounded by weather, and a climate, and all you need to do to the herbivore is say “LOOK! WEATHER!” and it runs for safety!

  409. Barry says:

    Just excellent Joseph

  410. Joseph E Postma says:

    We should use this herbivore archetype thing against them – whenever they do their consensus peer review bs, just say “wow that’s great herbivore thinking you’re demonstrating! the herd is always afraid of what it is unique and different, right?!”

  411. CD Marshall says:

    “There certainly seems to be a class of people that we’re all being force-managed into…”
    More common than you think. My wife’s hairdresser commented he wouldn’t care if they chipped him as long as he could party and still have his debauchery lifestyle.

    What New Order kills is love, family, mental stability in friends and loves ones and self-dependence.

    A show came out about that very thing, it was illegal to have partners or plan for the next day or think for yourself. The show was based on an AI controlling the entire city to the point where humans didn’t have critical thinking anymore ans weren’t allowed.

    You had two classes the Alphas and the Betas. The Alphas were ‘in charge’ the betas weren’t allowed to question the alphas. The alphas didn’t even know where their commands came from, they just obeyed the program without question.

    And another subclass was a little more than drones who were janitors and took care of all demeaning chores and had no names, just tags like Dave100 or something and they were all clones.

    Well in the show the program finally broke and the janitors rose up and slaughtered everyone. Proving social engineering doesn’t work, freedom does.

  412. In reality though the herbivores never rise up…

    Hence why they want to stamp the predator/carnivore out of humanity – as omnivores we still have a part of us that can act independently and do things like “rise up”. If they can get rid of that side of us with sufficient engineering, then they will have a perfected herbivore class. Hence why they want to move to synthetic plant-based “meat” and what have you…because eating real meat literally maintains the predator genetics in us.

    The less it seems like all of this is just fiction. Something out there seems intent on managing the herd, as a herd.

  413. Herbivores don’t want to be free. The concept means nothing to them. Only the carnivore side of us wants things like freedom.

  414. CD Marshall says:

    if you want accurate weather and climate on a global scale go here and use this as a template against all other forms, especial NASA.

    Notice where the heat actually is and this is based on satellite and radar information globally. Kudos to Philip Mulholland for this excellent source.;36;2&l=temperature-2m

    Go into settings
    scroll down to “WEATHER MAP SETTINGS”
    and tick “Show values in grid:” and it will show virtual temperatures globally. Punch in any coordinates and it will take you locally. Unfortunately it only goes back to May 2016.

  415. CD Marshall says:

    I heard along time ago the only thing we are born with is freedom of choice and if that is bred out of humanity at birth then humanity has no future. We are close how much hope does the average child have agaisnt social engineering anywhere in this world?

  416. boomie789 says:

    Beta, Soyboy, NPC. Millennials and zoomers can instinctually see this.

  417. Philip Mulholland says:

    Leon says:
    2021/02/18 at 8:13 AM
    Um, could this be what is happening to the planet?
    For his spinning model to work it has to have structural rigidity.
    On the scale of a planet, it is a giant blob of incompetent “liquid” rock.
    That is why planets are round, they are massive and way past the size point at which they can maintain overall structural rigidity.

  418. Philip Mulholland says:

    CD Marshall says:
    2021/02/18 at 12:58 PM

    Your welcome, and thanks for sharing the data display feature, I was not aware of that part of this resource.

    BTW this NOAA archive is a weather data treasure trove.

  419. Philip Mulholland says:
  420. Leon says:

    Are you saying the earth’s structural integrity would be compromised if it did a Dhzhanibekov flip? Wouldn’t it be gradual?

  421. boomie789 says:

    I think he means the earth is more like a water balloon than a rigid rock, so the physics don’t quite apply.

    That’s probably why the earth is an oblong spheroid. Same as if you spun a balloon on your finger like a basketball.

  422. boomie789 says:

    Exscuse me, oblate spheroid.

    “In 1687 Isaac Newton published the Principia. He included a proof that a rotating self-gravitating fluid body in equilibrium takes the form of an oblate ellipsoid of revolution (a spheroid).[3] The amount of flattening depends on the density and the balance of gravitational force and centrifugal force.

    In other words, the Earth is a spheroid because it rotates. Gas giants like Jupiter and Saturn are flattened by rotation more than the Earth.”

  423. MP says:

    @ Joseph E Postma 2021/02/18 at 12:54 PM

    I saw some vids about holistic farming. A concept where if you have a plot of grassland you don’t just let the cows go where they want. The plot is divided by secotors and the herd kept close by just 1 singel low voltage electric wire. Depending on the local climate changes /grass growth the cows get moved from sector to sector.

    Saw one cow go through a wired area on the vids once on a low grass plot. And despite being free and fresh grass on the horizon, the cow immediately went back through the shock wire to go back to the low quality shitty grass herd

  424. MP says:

    @ Joseph E Postma

    Maybe reference another vid? And Change the title?

    It is a small community (herd world), they will immediatly remember your earlier post. At least the down voters

    Your strenght is telling things in many different ways, from different viewpoints.

  425. Joseph E Postma says:

    So…the herbivore archetype has little to do with individual survival or benefit. You would think that this serves the herd…but it doesn’t actually either. The herbivore only uses the herd for camouflage and concealment in numbers, only that there is greater likelihood that other individuals of the herd will be killed, rather than itself. The herbivore’s preference for the herd has nothing…NOTHING to do with benefitting the herd; it’s association to the herd is entirely selfish.

    So the herbivore herd animal has two problems: one) it’s preference for the herd is so great that it will not do anything to benefit itself which exists outside of the herd, and two) its preference for the herd is only to increase the chance that other members of the herd are killed rather than itself.

    To clarify the first sentence: herd herbivores ARE interested in individual survival, but not from any vector originating outside of the herd, and, the individual survival they seek from the herd is such that other members of the herd are more likely to be killed rather than itself.

    This would explain why leftists, who are herd animal herbivores, vote for policies which are quite openly and plainly destructive to the herd, while assuming that they will not suffer the consequences of those policies. They get a temporary survival benefit in the meantime, before the herd collapses, via the “virtue signal”. That their virtue-signal is destructive to other members of the herd is precisely why they live in a herd in the first place(!) – so that consequences are more likely to accrue to other members of the herd, rather than themselves.

    Amazing. The herd-herbivore archetype can’t be ignored.

  426. Philip Mulholland says:

    Leon says:
    2021/02/18 at 2:44 PM

    Are you saying the earth’s structural integrity would be compromised if it did a Dhzhanibekov flip? Wouldn’t it be gradual?

    No, As boomie says the Earth is like a giant water balloon.
    Have a look at your glass of beer and slowly turn it round,
    I think that you will find that the froth stays still as the glass slowly turns.

    It is a great video but somehow I think that it is a feature of the unbalanced T shape.

  427. Joseph E Postma says:

    “From: Alan Siddons
    “The standard model does not assume an even distribution of radiation.”
    See, Joe? You’ve been wrong all along. Now go, and sin no more. (What a whopper that was! Literally unbelievable.)”

    They just lie…lie and lie, and that’s all they do, and they get away with it freely.

    Turns out…it is the EASIEST things to do in the world, is to lie in science. The easiest place to lie in the world is in science.

    Amazing, really.

    And not just little lies. But the biggest lies imaginable. The biggest lies possible.

    Flat Earth in modern physics. And heat flow from cold to hot.

    The biggest possible lies in science.

    And they get away with it freely, without any resistance whatsoever.

  428. MP says:

    @ Joseph E Postma

    I dropped a smaller redpill (without mentioning the earth climate), based on the logic you provided.

  429. Excellently phrased!

  430. boomie789 says:

    Incredible video I want to share around. Cartel child sex trafficking camp found in Arizona. Authorities refuse to investigate. This guy is going to dismantle the camp and deliver the evidence to the DHS.

  431. boomie789 says:

    story is from middle of 2018, I thought it was more current. Still very interesting.
    Weeks after launching his non profit organization, the former Navy Seal warned that two groups have been working to derail his efforts.

    “One of them is the Muslim brotherhood. We’ve known they are on the wrong side of history from the beginning – deep ties to terrorism and everything else – pedophilia, there’s no surprise there,” he explained in a video posted on YouTube. “Another one is one of our two major political parties.”

    These are the same guys.

  432. Jopo says:

    Hey MP that is very well done.

    Do you mind if I paraphrase that on an Australian thread. I will not take credit for that. All yours. I like it.

  433. CD Marshall says:

    The rodeo clown show and disconnection everywhere is incredible. Some like this troll Jensen (I’ve deal with) is pathological liar, the only explanation I can come up to justify his remarks.

    At that sight, Joseph, they are so climate washed they replied, ”
    you should ask this question over at cooking food is science for some but it is not earth science.”

    How ignorant or condescending do you need to be to “know” science and say something that stupid?

  434. J Cuttance says:

    Thank you Phillip Mulholland. I had assumed some sunspot or ocean eddy involvement. Eddie the Ice Age is going to smart.

  435. MP says:

    @ Jopo 2021/02/19 at 1:22 AM

    Great! Sharing info makes us win the information war. The question is closed on the science question site because a moderator didn’t think the question has anything to do with climate science lol

    Anyhow, i rephrased parts to further match the roasting chicken analogy with the sun heating a rotating earth.

    Averaging out time and space of heat incidet upon a chicken can still create the climate to roast a crispy and well cooked chicken?

    Here is a visualization of roasting rotating chickens alongside 1 heat element.

    When roasting a fixed speed rotating chicken alongside a 1000 watt red hot heating element. Then at any time half of the surface area of the chicken gets roasted. And over time any half of the chicken gets roasted half of the time.

    Does it make a difference if you stop rotating and roast a chicken with 2 x 250 watt heat elements (one on both sides) and roast both sides all the time?

    The over time averaged energy input on the total surface area of the chicken is the same.

  436. MP says:

    The radiation balance for the chicken is

    full heating power on half the chicken surface area during half tof the time = 1/2 of the heating power on both sides surface area all of the time

    In this formula many variables can be played with. With the common used “The cross section for a sphere” formula not.

  437. MP says:

    And it makes it easier to understand when something is heat or not. Since heat is in both sides of the formula.

  438. MP says:

    forget what i said 2 post above. Need to re-formulate what i meant to say some day in time

  439. John Cook is a fraud.
    He has no qualifications in climate, and his PhD is actually in Philosophy.
    His climate paper on the “97%” consensus was rigged, and was refuted even by his own subsequent paper – which showed that the consensus is only 42.9%;

  440. On the so-called “Earth Science” blog, these people (Fred, gansub, arkaia.) deleted my comment, which contained nothing but science, measured temperatures, well known and measured TSI and GHG differences and some obvious conclusions. I repeat it in full here;

    “This new contributor is entirely correct.
    Given that it is a fact that the average surface temperature on Earth can easily be calculated simply by knowing the relative differences of Venus and Earth from the Sun, and by measuring the temperature in the Venus atmosphere at 1 bar, this is proof positive that there is no anomalous ‘warming’ effect from CO2 or from any other so-called ‘greenhouse gas’. Not necessary to go near the Earth’s atmosphere; not necessary to know what gases it is made from either.
    Yet Venus has 96.5% ‘GHG’ and Earth has only 2.5% ‘GHG’; Earth surface temperature (Te) calculated from the Venus at 1 bar (Tv 49km) measured by the VERA-2 and VEGA landers;
    Te = ∜0.523 x Tv
    Te = 0.85 x 339
    Te = 288.15 Kelvin
    Earth temp at surface can also be calculated from Titan in the same way.

    It means that there is no special class of gases called ‘greenhouse gases’ and obviously no special warming effect from them; this assumed effect has been erroneously called the ‘greenhouse effect’ for decades. This so-called ‘greenhouse effect’ effect simply does not exist. Best Regards, Dr Robert Ian Holmes”.

    So these people cannot possibly be scientists, they can only be described as dogmatic activists.

  441. ashemann says:


    I have a question for you unconnected with this topic .

    I have been reading the comment section under this eli rabbit shite post because i like Rosco.
    About 300 posts in i realised who betty pond is by the explosion of frustration ”she” felt at the sophistry/troling ”she” was getting.

    That’s when i twigged that Betty is actually Joe, you are unmistakable when you detonate.

    It is you isnt it, like in the dirty harry film ”i gotz to know man”.

  442. CD Marshall says:

    Chris A. is for sure the same Chris A. the physicist who like Spencer believes in the insulation can create heat or some such something to that grounds.

  443. Ashemann – no I don’t use pseudonyms…no reason to.

  444. CD Marshall says:

    More comments from your PH exchange…

    @Climate of Sophistry “Thus, these experimental results refute the basis of modern climate science with its idea of a radiative greenhouse effect, as if such an effect were in operation then Fourier and de Sausure should have found several hundred degree Celsius results in their apparatus, instead of only the 110 which can be explained by sunlight insolation alone.”

    Doesn’t that mean that for it to disprove climate science he would have to calculate the theorized temperature of “several hundred degree Celsius results” and explain the disrepancy? This is just “muh logical coNcLuSiOn!!” Without that there is simply no proof of your claim. Why make such a grandiose claim and then fall so short in your citation? I don’t think you’d be so cocky in person.

  445. Haha…omg…yes, it is the logical conclusion, because something should have been found which wasn’t.

  446. CD Marshall says:

    These guys are chronic losers.

  447. CD Marshall says:

    They love bringing up the “hit piece” by Skeptical Science, you should really do a video on that when you have the time so we can just link to it. I know you have addressed it in parts here and there but a concise piece would be nice.

  448. CD Marshall says:

    Haven’t delved into this guy yet but he is a former NOAA Meteorologist, not sure on his understanding of CO2 but he is predicting cooling and not “out of control warming”.

  449. CD Marshall says:

    My brother did survival training and “exercises” in the Amazon but hasn’t gotten around to fixing his grill.

    …the human species 🙂

  450. Pingback: Tucker: The climate cult has grown stronger – Newsfeed Hasslefree Allsort

  451. Pingback: Third Consecutive Centuries of the Global Warming Scam – Newsfeed Hasslefree Allsort

Leave a Reply

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

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s