Climate Change Denial of Earth’s Orbit Astrophysics

In this video we will learn how climate science denies Earth’s orbit. Really…that sounds like a totally loaded, weird thing to say…but it’s true, and I’ll prove it and show it easily: climate change denies the distance of the Earth to the Sun. This denial is baked-in to their crazy theory of how the climate works, and I’ll show why it is important to appreciate this fact.

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

65 Responses to Climate Change Denial of Earth’s Orbit Astrophysics

  1. CD Marshall says:

    I’m not seeing the comments!!!

  2. TEWS_Pilot says:

    It will be interesting to see how the CAGW Alarmist Junk Pseudo-Science Flat Earthers explain this little “oversight.” In their math, 2 + 2 = 22.

  3. CD Marshall says:

    A follow up for the morons, would be to explain why the surface isn’t 90 Celsius, because trolls are that stupid and so are some of those in science.

  4. Rosco says:

    You could add that as Earth’s orbit is elliptical the solar power at TOA currently varies from ~1361 W/m2 during the northern hemisphere summer (Aphelion) to ~1408 W/m2 during the southern hemisphere summer (Perihelion). I quote NASA’s Planet Fact Sheet site.

    This variation alone has to have a huge impact on weather and climate.

    Imagine a time when the northern hemisphere summer coincides with ~1408 W/m2 versus the current ~1361 W/m2 – you’d see some global warming then !

    Paradoxically winters would likely be much worse.

    This will happen as established by Milankovitch.

    Last summer – September to March – saw a period of low rainfall in Australia and hence reduced cloud cover. This resulted in high temperatures and the well publicized wildfires – drought and idiocy in not reducing hazards for decades due to green morons political pressure.

    This summer – September to March – has seen significantly more rainfall accompanied by daily often complete cloud cover.

    Humidity is up, air temperatures are greatly reduced – some reports claim this is Australia’s coldest summer since the 70’s – and the chance of fires is virtually non existent in any areas outside of Australia’s large deserts.

    This alone testifies that the Sun is a major driver of climate and water is the major moderator of the Sun’s intensity.

    CO2 has absolutely ZERO involvement in ANY meteorological event !!

    Climate “scientists” are among the stupidest people on Earth when it comes to academic credibility but are among the most evil influencers of stupid and gullible politicians.

  5. Oh the herbivores!

  6. Barry says:

    Good video Joe. Does anyone have a simple calculation or explanation for how these nitwits come up with their back radiation numbers I was just thinking that if we actually have night and day the back radiation must change as it cools off at night,but if it doesn’t according to them then why does it cool off at night. Do they just work backwards to add up the energy required after dividing the sun by 4?

  7. CD Marshall says:

    The Gatekeepers, not the science integrity police, are everywhere.

  8. cmoell@xplornet.ca says:

    Hello Joe,

    Great video. Is the substance included in your book (Cold Light)?

    Charlie

  9. CD Marshall says:

    Joseph, this guy makes PC techs squirm like you make climate science squirms and he knows his thermodynamics. View for amusement and see that covering up science is global.

  10. tom0mason says:

    Thank-you Joseph,
    Astrophysics using the KISS principle 🙂 !! I’ve had this argument a few time but now that you, as an Astrophysicist have spelled it out, I now have a better example to show the AGW indoctrinated family around me.
    Have a good day, keep warm and safe.

  11. Joseph E Postma says:

    @cmoel: “Is the substance included in your book (Cold Light)?”

    Yep the book covers a lot, the 2nd one too:

  12. Pablo says:

    JP
    If you will allow me, in the hope of promoting further discussion, I would like to re-post our previous communication with a few more of my thoughts on the misrepresentation of reality as presented in that notoriously (deliberately?) confusing flat-earth diagram.

    …….Pablo says:
    2021/02/19 at 7:28 AM
    For what its worth here is my latest take on the “greenhouse effect”, as created by clear-sky water vapour content.

    It works in two ways:

    At night time, it slows down the cooling of the surface by radiation to space which prevents us from getting summer-time crop-killing ground frosts.
    In the day time, water vapour’s ability to slow down and accumulate upward infrared radiation at the sun warmed surface tends to create an environmental lapse rate greater than the adiabatic.
    This creates instability in the lower troposphere and convection begins.

    With no water vapour in our atmosphere, gravity and heat capacity of the troposphere would give us a dry lapse rate of 10ºC/km to a surface temperature of 37ºC., much hotter at the surface and much colder at the tropopause than with water vapour..

    The theoretical retention of infrared from the sun’s surface warming of 60ºC is what drives the convection that cools the surface by 33ºC.

    So strangely it appears that the “greenhouse effect” indirectly cools the surface by 33ºC in the day time.

    Evaporation with is latent heat to create a moist lapse rate of 6.5ºC/km takes the average surface temperature further down to the 15ºC average.

    Thoughts anyone?

    Joseph E Postma says:
    2021/02/19 at 9:06 AM
    @Pablo:

    That’s good, close. But I would still always avoid the use of the term “greenhouse effect” since all of that process has nothing to do with greenhouses. The sophists love to intermix terms in meaningless ways, so best to avoid that altogether. They know what they’re doing.

    “At night time, it slows down the cooling of the surface by radiation to space”

    It not that though…avoid ANY use of the idea of “slowed cooling”. Because then the say that “slowed cooling” means higher temperature than the input, etc. It is simply latent heat release. Yes the air cools more slowly, because it is having latent heat released into it. Latent heat prevents frost because as you know latent heat is released at freezing, and this keeps the air from dropping below zero, hence no frost.

    And then in day time the reverse happens: latent heat absorption means that the air absorbs heat without increasing in temperature. At night it releases heat without dropping in temperature; at day it absorbs heat without increasing in temperature. That is, of course, as much as it could. Latent heat is like a shock absorber on your car’s suspension.

    Pablo says:
    2021/02/19 at 9:14 AM
    Nice analogy. Thanks JP

    Pablo says:
    2021/02/19 at 9:39 AM
    But cooling by radiation to a temperature below ambient is a thing.
    That”s why temperature drops so fast in dry deserts at night.
    Ice can form on water at night with an ambient temperature as high as 5ºC if the air is clear and dry, and the atmospheric window is wide open.

    https://www.realclearscience.com/blog/2018/07/09/how_people_created_ice_in_the_desert_2000_years_ago.html

    ….and so to my further thoughts, continuing from the above:
    “The theoretical retention of infrared from the sun’s surface warming of 60ºC is what drives the convection that cools the surface by 33ºC.”

    It struck me that this 33ºC of cooling of the surface by convection is what warms that part of upper troposphere above the equatorial regions where climate alarmists are looking for (and not finding) proof of their theory that C02 controls the surface temperature of Earth.
    They talk nonsense of catastrophic runaway feedbacks from extra water vapour, when really what should be considered is how this 33ºC of cooling from the surface is divided between latent and sensible heat and that depends on characteristics of the terrain warmed by the full power of the sun.

  13. MP says:

    Spreading sunshine over the entire globe at once requires 2 suns.
    In order to get 342.5 W/m2 from all sides 2 x 342.5 W/m2 is needed.(342.5 W/m2 from each sun)
    According to the 2 suns model divide by 2 is correct for realtime input vs space and time averaged input

  14. MP says:

    @ MP

    Should have said in the image “TSI at the TOA is any time 342.5 w/m2 on both hemispheres”, instead of relating to surface area.

  15. MP says:

    Once you calculate the average incindent upon on the surface it is not TSI at the TOA anymore. And can’t re-input that value as a new averaged TOA input

  16. CD Marshall says:

    Joe,
    Perhaps food for another video?

    https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/couldnt-sun-be-cause-global-warming

    “A second reason that scientists have ruled out a significant role for the Sun in global warming is that if the Sun’s energy output had intensified, we would expect all layers of Earth’s atmosphere to have warmed. But we don’t see that. Rather, satellites and observations from weather balloons show warming in the lower atmosphere (troposphere) and cooling in the upper stratosphere (stratosphere)—which is exactly what we would expect to see as a result of increasing greenhouse gases trapping heat in the lower atmosphere. Scientists regard this piece of evidence as one of several “smoking guns” linking today’s global warming to human-emitted, heat-trapping gases.”

    What possible “experts” would think ALL layers of the atmosphere would warm under a more intense Sun?

    Clown experts?

  17. MP says:

    @ CD Marshall

    They found circle reasoning on a certain layer phase change at a certain hight.

    Ignoring the fact that is measuredl that increased co2 faster cools the Antartic.

  18. CD Marshall says:

    The stratosphere cooling is from solar storms and Ozone, even known in atmospheric physics and meteorology, but “experts” pretend it doesn’t exist when selective ignorance can propagate climate clown science.

    Less ss less higher energy rays (UV and X-Rays) reach O3 in the stratosphere.

  19. MP says:

    What are the properties of lightning?

    Does it always go down or also goes up at times?

  20. Pablo says:

    As for the seemingly crazy energy budget cartoon, I can only assume that it comes from a misattribution of atmospheric radiation from the emissive height at -18ºC to that of the sun.
    It may work as an illustration of the total energy put into the system as a whole but is useless in explaining the reality.

  21. rickis says:

    CD Marshall
    The Connolly brothers have analysed literally millions of weather balloon data. There is no warming data!
    https://globalwarmingsolved.com/2013/11/summary-the-physics-of-the-earths-atmosphere-papers-1-3/

  22. MP says:

    @ Pablo

    Right. It is just an illustration, like using a black body in space or a flat world JP refers to.

    When refering to a flat world the divide by 4 numbers resolves in a sun at twice the distance. Plugging in the divide by 4 number in the 2 sun model results in a total system input that is half of reality.

    Some conclusions from the 2 sun model

    Averaged time and space can’t create the climate, need a realtime model for that.
    When you average out time, as a result space also gets averaged out, and the other way around.(at least in the 2 sun model)
    Divide by 4 is incorrect to get the average TSI at the TOA in a time+space averaged world, it should be divide by 2
    Averaged TSI at the TOA should be 685 W/m2, no need to invent heating back radiation in the system

    Please correct me if and where i went wrong, just hypothesizing now

  23. CD Marshall says:

    So I haven’t look at this yet any input on it before I do is appreciated. A mentally ill climate clown gave it to me, I’ll look at it eventually.

    Click to access stratospheric-cooling-ESPHERE-encyclopedia.pdf

  24. CD Marshall says:

    Actually Joseph if you have a moment to look at it I’d appreciate it but naturally ALL input is more than welcome.

  25. CD Marshall says:

    rickis

    Those links don’t work, does anyone have a link to the Connolly updated weather balloon data?

  26. MP says:

    By dividing solar power by 4 they create a virtual 4 suns reality

    When using the 2 sun model time and space is leveled out (suns shine together 1 x on the whole world and no day and night)

    By dividing by 4, it is the equivalent to a 4 star model (each at 1/4 of the realtime sun input). But that would be space time cheating since the whole world gets shined on twice at the same time.

  27. boomie789 says:

    “You have been permanently banned from participating in r/climateskeptics. You can still view and subscribe to r/climateskeptics, but you won’t be able to post or comment.

    If you have a question regarding your ban, you can contact the moderator team for r/climateskeptics by replying to this message.

    Reminder from the Reddit staff: If you use another account to circumvent this subreddit ban, that will be considered a violation of the Content Policy and can result in your account being suspended from the site as a whole.”

    I was having to much impact it seems.

  28. boomie789 says:

    pretty bummed.

  29. Joseph E Postma says:

    WTH! So much for being a climateskeptic group!!

  30. Joseph E Postma says:

    How does that “weeklyrise” idiot get to keep commenting and trolling in that group!? But you get banned? How the heck that happened makes NO sense. Someone is screwing with things.

  31. CD Marshall says:

    Woke police AND the cancel mob are everywhere.

  32. boomie789 says:

    r/RealClimateSkeptics is open, I’ll try and request that subreddit. Maybe I can make something happen.

    “Build and they will come”.

  33. Joseph E Postma says:

    Nice!

  34. CD Marshall says:

    Joseph from that Kingsley Evans guy on your YT posts…
    “Wrong. The ideal gas law is not why or about why jars of different gasses warm at different rates in the same sunlight. Who are you trying to impress?”

    Good god science is doomed.

  35. “By dividing solar power by 4 they create a virtual 4 suns reality.”>

    Isn’t it really an indeterminate-sun or infinite-sun reality?

  36. boomie789 says:

    A flat disc earth with a cold, distance sun, and alternate thermodynamics.

  37. boomie789 says:

    I guess it’s really either-or for the sun, either reduce it’s power by 4 or move it 4x farther away. Not really both.

  38. MP says:

    @ Robert Kernodle

    Right. Divide by 4 number is an indeterminate number in relation to the TSI at the TOA on 1 hemisphere where all is derived from. The number has lost its meaning, and makes potential heating equations on that number meaningless.

  39. Pablo says:

    I hate to do this to you all, but if you want to know how deep the deception has become then you have to see this excruciating example of … well I am speechless.

    Bill Gates on climate change:

  40. MP says:

    Russel Gold talked a lot about balanced equations, that at all times can be reversed enginered,

    To avoid what someting means for different parties who look at it. Also for language and contracts.

    Not sure if larp or not but the provided logic makes sence.

  41. boomie789 says:

    Curt Doolittle wrote about that guy. If you want some perspective.
    https://propertarianinstitute.com/2020/10/24/the-whipping-post-daily-conspiracy-theory/

    TLDR: It’s a bunch of nonsense and that guy is a nutbar.

  42. CD Marshall says:

    Monday, February 22, 2021.

    Everyone knows we can’t win if we only play defense.

    From the beginning of the political climate issue, liberals have been on the offense and conservatives have been on the defense, or worse, not even on the playing field.

    Conservatives let liberals score all the points. Yesterday (February 21, 2021), Fox News host Chris Wallace helped climate-challenged billionaire Bill Gates broadcast his irrational view of how climate works. Gates might as well have said witches cause climate change.
    His climate science was no better than that.

    Now, conservatives have their big opportunity to go on climate offense and whip the liberal climate agenda. Conservative states must pass true-science climate resolutions as soon as possible.

    These conservative climate resolutions will set the ground rules for the climate debate. Today, Google, YouTube, Twitter, Facebook, and media set these rules by default.

    Conservative climate resolutions will force liberals to defend their climate claims in a public forum where they will lose and expose their anti-science climate agenda.

    So, I drafted a climate resolution for government jurisdictions around the world. You can read, comment, and download my draft climate resolution here.

    True climate science will defeat the liberal climate agenda and
    promote climate truth in schools, colleges, universities, public discourse, and laws.

    Let’s Roll,

    Ed Berry, PhD, Physics

    Climate Physics, LLC
    439 Grand Dr #147
    Bigfork, MT 59911

    Website: https://edberry.com
    Email: ed@edberry.com

    THE DRAFT:
    https://edberry.com/blog/climate/climate-politics/a-climate-resolution-for-your-group/?__s=9781jjfkal082g3culaw

  43. tom0mason says:

    Hi Joseph,
    In the video you’re a bit vague about the S-B value but from your paper for PSI ‘The Model Atmospheric Greenhouse Effect’, Joseph E. Postma, M.Sc. Astrophysics, July 22, 2011′ (that I struggled to come to grips with) comes —
    “Beginning with the basic Stefan-Boltzmann equation, we have that the surface brightness (s) of an object radiating like a blackbody is proportional to the object’s absolute temperature to the fourth power, as shown here:
    s = σ T^4 (W / m^2 ) ___________{1}
    The proportionality factor ‘σ’ is called the ‘Stefan-Boltzmann constant’, and has a value of 5.67×10^ -8 (W/m^2/K ^4 ).

    Your video has made this paper that bit more accessible for (stupid) people like me.
    Thank-you Joseph.

  44. Pablo says:

    “…..the atmosphere is not governed by radiation, but by thermodynamics.”

    “The blackbody temperature ( atmosphereless) of Mars is minus 63ºC,…The real temperature of the surface is just this minus 63ºC., making the measured greenhouse effect of orders-of-magnitude-more-CO2-than-on-Earth zero within the measurement of error.”

    https://www.scirp.org/journal/paperabs.aspx?paperid=97917

  45. Joseph E Postma says:

    Cheers tom0mason.

    And that’s a great quote Pablo!

  46. Rosco says:

    Speaking of Mars I assume everyone will be lining up to escape Earth’s GHG hellhole and move to the basically airless Mars where there is zero protection from either the solar wind and cosmic radiation due to the total lack of a magnetic shield.

    The only thing stupider than Earth climate science is the belief that we can colonize Mars !

  47. Rosco says:

    Forgot to mention that the surface of Mars has reached temperatures of 30°C according to NASA – must be all that CO2 – oh sorry the atmosphere has about 9 mb surface pressure versus 1014 mb here.

    I cannot believe anyone can swallow the gobbledygook sprouted as climate science and think they are smart !

  48. Pablo says:

    A reminder of how effective water vapour is at slowing down the radiative cooling of the surface to space both at night to prevent ground frosts and as a potential retainer (not an amplifier) of solar heating of the surface during the day that creates instability for convection to take over and move that warmth and latent heat elsewhere.

    “It has been well known since ancient times, that a black radiator facing a clear night sky can reach sub-ambient temperature. ….A temperature reduction of up to 40ºC has been demonstrated only at high-altitude desert locations with extremely low humidity”

    “In this paper, we first theoretically show that ultra-large temperature reductions up to 60ºC below ambient can be achieved.”

    https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms13729

  49. Joseph E Postma says:

    Wow…so much for backradiation heating from the atmosphere, providing twice the heat of the Sun!!

  50. Pablo says:

    Exactly!

  51. Pablo says:

    And then there is the other 71% of the surface …the ocean.

  52. Pablo says:

    “Doubling CO2 alone will increase the IR flux to the surface by 1-1.5 W/m2 averaged over the globe.
    If continuum water vapour is considered, doubling CO2 will produce hardly any increase in IR flux to the surface in tropical latitudes where the moist surface layer is already essentially opaque to IR radiation (Kiehl and Ramanthan 1982). Yet most doubled CO2 model experiments appear to compute a tropical ocean warming of about 2ºC. I have yet to hear a plausible explanation of this apparent gross discrepancy.”

    “…substantial increments in radiative flux (would be needed) to warm tropical ocean waters in contact with the atmosphere to temperatures above their current level of 26º to 30ºC.”

    “… he identified the limiting temperature for land stations which had not exhausted their soil moisture as about 33ºC.”

    “sensible heat flux became negative (flowed from the atmosphere to the surface) at temperatures above about 32ºC.”

    Hugh W. Ellsaesr

    from “Global Climate Change”… overviewed by S. Fred Singer

  53. Pablo says:

    So where moisture or water are around the maximum temperatures on Earth appear to be around 33ºC.
    This 33ºC keeps popping up!

  54. CD Marshall says:

    I don’t see your average IR ‘backradiaiton’ evaporating any ocean water anywhere, not strong enough, generally. I read an estimate 3 meters of surface ocean water is evaporated each year, and is returned through the water cycle about as much per year.

  55. Rosco says:

    https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/615834/does-climate-science-deny-earths-orbit

    https://astronomy.stackexchange.com/questions/41572/does-climate-science-deny-earths-orbit

    “Page not found
    This question was removed from Physics Stack Exchange for reasons of moderation. Please refer to the help center for possible explanations why a question might be removed.”

    “does-climate-science-deny-earths-orbit”

    Obviously or else they wouldn’t simply delete answers or questions that don’t fit their moronic meme !

  56. CD Marshall says:

    Or maybe it was 1 meter per year of ocean water evaporated, I don’t recall anymore?

  57. Pablo says:

    @CDM

    Don’t forget that downward atmospheric radiation from water vapour does not add anything to the power of the sun. It simply holds more of that daily heating pulse close to the ground which destabilises the air, and as it rises weather can begin.

  58. Pablo says:

    Also it seems to me that CO2 only increases the lapse rate by radiative cooling at the top of the atmosphere.

  59. Pablo says:

    This is interesting.
    Geothermal heats the surface of the planet to 33ºK before any input from the sun.

    https://www.businessinsider.com/how-long-life-could-survive-if-the-sun-went-out-2013-7?r=US&IR=T

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s