Interview with UNN

Just a friendly discussion covering a few topics, the main one of which being the fraud of climate science and its flat Earth theory foundations.

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

243 Responses to Interview with UNN

  1. Joseph,
    A Tour de Force.

  2. ashemann says:

    10 mins in, the interviewer is a bit of plank

  3. excellent interview! i think it might be worth explaining for a little bit how the climate works because i can imagine an alarmist pointing to you saying ” there is no greenhouse effect” as a straw man. Wrongly implying that you don’t concede that the earth is warmer than a without atmosphere earth. It would be great to have a few minute long real climate science 101 for the msm layperson

  4. Joseph E Postma says:

    @wineknowitnothing I do actually discuss that in my last video a little bit – here, time indexed (19:37):

    The surface is both warmer and cooler with an atmosphere, but the system as a whole is exactly the temperature it is supposed to be. By day the atmosphere keeps the surface much cooler, and at night the atmosphere is simply a large mass which radiates poorly and hence retains temperature longer. Also latent heat is released at night which prevents temperature drop. As a whole, the average temperature of the atmosphere is exactly what it is supposed to be, and the bottom of the atmosphere is also exactly what it should be, with no greenhouse effect.

  5. Time index doesn’t work on embed. Go to 19:37.

  6. CD Marshall says:

    Good video and a good start.

    On point, this is what I got from a moron,
    “”This energy is already in the system”. No, the sun keeps adding energy to the system, thus energy is building up.

    The end.””

    This is my template for the reply any suggestions, proper science terms I can change or edit…
    “Since when does the Sun shine on the entire planet 24 hours a day?

    As stated previously, the troposphere expands when being heated and contracts when being cooled. Cooling, Pinocchio, means it’s not warming.

    Now I’ll explain this once more and you’ll not get it three times over.

    The Sun’s energy contribution ends on the planet when that part of the surface is no longer being irradiated by direct sunlight, the Earth converts solar energy to terrestrial (energy) emissions, everything coming off the Earth is terrestrial converted solar energy not direct solar energy. When the cooling effects of night happens, that is no longer solar energy that is terrestrial conversion of that energy. Thus, not new energy in the system.”

    Seems like I over complicated the reply but dealing with these clowns wording is everything.

  7. Joseph E Postma says:

    That’s the thing about thermodynamics…heat cannot flow into a system which is at the same temperature, and so, you can’t just “build up” energy because as soon as you put it in it starts leaking back out. Eventually it will leak back out as fast as you put it in, and that’s the best that you can do.

    It makes no sense to have a model where the solar input is 1/4 strength. In no scenario does this make sense. This is neither an average, nor real-time. Matter responds to the impulse of power…that means the power received, not 1/4 of the power received.

  8. CD Marshall says:

    Oh and regarding the C19, my wife’s family had quite a few cases over int he West, nearly half a dozen to a dozen of her family has “contracted” C19 all of them recovered without a vaccine.

  9. Philip Mulholland says:

    Hi Wineknowitnothing,
    You said:
    “I think it might be worth explaining for a little bit how the climate works because i can imagine an alarmist pointing to you saying ” there is no greenhouse effect” as a straw man. Wrongly implying that you don’t concede that the earth is warmer than a without atmosphere earth.”

    You make a good point, and so here are my comments:
    1. Is there a greenhouse effect? Yes.
    2. Is there a greenhouse gas effect? No.
    3. Is there a greenhouse gas? Yes.
    4. Do greenhouse gases heat the planet? No.
    5. Is flat earth theory correct? No.
    6. Does the Sun create the climate? Yes.
    As you can see the whole subject is littered with a veritable warren of rabbit holes, which is why Joe calls his blog the Climate of Sophistry.

    Joe as an experienced scientist is very keen to make clear the fundamental differences between Energy, Temperature and Heat.
    Here is my take on the matter as a retired professional geoscientist with a 1970s degree in Environmental Science and 50 years of learning about this subject.
    Work Done (Energy) is measured in Joules and is defined as Force times Distance Moved.
    Kinetic Energy is energy of motion, and in the case of the vibrational motion of particles or the movement of molecules in a gas, it is this motion that we customarily call temperature.

    Heat, and this is fundamental to the arguments being made, is the difference in temperature between two bodies and is therefore a boundary phenomenon and is also transitory.
    Energy can exist in many forms, not all of which are detectable as temperature. For example, Latent Heat and Potential Energy are both forms of energy storage within the structure of matter that do not have any thermal signature.

    So why do I say that there is a greenhouse effect? Well, it is a matter of definition.
    All rotating planets collect solar energy on one side only, but they almost all emit thermal radiant energy back to space from both sides (tidally locked vacuum planets are a special and exceptional category). The Vacuum Planet (VP) equation was devised by astronomers as a way of calculating the thermal emission temperature of a planet when seen from space.

    The equation makes a number of assumptions and uses the Stefan-Boltzmann relationship between kinetic energy (temperature) and thermal radiation. When applied to vacuum planets or low-pressure planets, (Mars for example), everything is fine, however when applied to planets such as Earth or Venus that have an atmosphere with a surface pressure of above 100 hPa (mbar), and that possess a troposphere (weather layer) then everything breaks down. The average annual surface temperature of the Earth is 288 Kelvin; however, its calculated VP temperature is 255 Kelvin. This measured and calculated difference in temperature of 33 Kelvin is the Earth’s greenhouse effect.

    So, what causes the difference in value between the thermal radiant exit temperature of the Earth that the VP equation calculates and the average surface temperature? To answer this, we need to understand the two fundamental layers of the Earth’s atmosphere that are involved, these are the surface high-pressure troposphere (the weather sphere) and above it the low-pressure stratosphere (the layered sphere). The boundary between these is the tropopause and it is a low temperature region with values of around 220 Kelvin.

    Now the troposphere has a high thermal radiant opacity, due to the presence of polyatomic molecules such as water vapor and carbon dioxide, that because they have modes of vibrational flexure can impede the passage of thermal radiation. The stratosphere by contrast is transparent to thermal radiation and is dry of water.

    Next, we must understand that in the troposphere temperature falls as altitude increases, whereas in the stratosphere the temperature rises as altitude increases, so the temperature profile for the Earth’s atmosphere has a wishbone shape. This means that at an altitude of 50 km above the surface, at the stratopause, the low-pressure air has a temperature of 260 Kelvin.

    So, what causes the high temperature at the base of the atmosphere? Quite simply its weight. Compress a mass of air and it heats up. Now of course that heated air will immediately start to cool by radiative energy loss to space, particularly through what is called the surface radiant by-pass window. But each day, every day and for eons the surface of the Earth is warmed by the daily passage of the sun, the climate maker. It is the Sun that warms the Earth and every day maintains the energy flow into and through the atmosphere creating our weather and seasonal climates.

    So, what about the role of thermal radiant opacity? Does that not heat the Earth? No cold above cannot heat hot below. So, opacity delays cooling then? Perhaps but how is the warmth the opacity is impeding created in the first place? This is where the role of air mass-movement and adiabatic auto-compression in the massive troposphere becomes the only plausible and physically correct explanation for the high temperatures we experience at the Earth’s surface.

  10. Joseph E Postma says:

    Is there a greenhouse effect? Yes. [Only in real greenhouses, from stoppage of convection.]
    Is there a greenhouse gas effect? No. [Only in real greenhouses, from stoppage of convection. The gas doesn’t matter, only that it is not convecting. See next:]
    Is there a greenhouse gas? Yes. [NO! This is completely a misnomer. We just say that gas cannot convect, not that it is a greenhouse gas, or gas inside a greenhouse, etc.]
    Do greenhouse gases heat the planet? No. [Check]
    Is flat earth theory correct? No. [Check]
    Does the Sun create the climate? Yes. [Check]

  11. MP says:

    Kickstarting a hypothetical frozen earth with 0.6 albedo and no atmosphere is quite easy with realtime input of our sun distance. With no surface pressure ice evaporates to vapor at 200 Kelvin (-73 Celcius) according to this pressure/temperature phase diagram of water

  12. Philip Mulholland says:

    “Is there a greenhouse effect? Yes. [Only in real greenhouses, from stoppage of convection.]
    Is there a greenhouse gas effect? No. [Only in real greenhouses, from stoppage of convection. The gas doesn’t matter, only that it is not convecting. See next:]
    Is there a greenhouse gas? Yes. [NO! This is completely a misnomer. We just say that gas cannot convect, not that it is a greenhouse gas, or gas inside a greenhouse, etc.]”

    Joe, it is a matter of sophistry,
    There is a clear difference in temperature between the thermal emission temperature that the VP equation calculates and the average surface temperature of the Earth.
    Is there a poly-atomic molecular gas that impedes the passage of thermal radiation through the atmosphere by increasing its opacity? Yes.
    In order to talk their language we are forced to use their terms , but we clearly need to redefine the concepts in away that removes sophistry from the discussion.

  13. CD Marshall says:

    As someone with a whopping two years of none science research,

    Greenhouse gases aren’t greenhouse gases, they are simply gases with a dipole moment that intercepts specific IR wavelengths and re-radiates them. They do not stop convection and they do not stop the flow of “heat” thus they do not trap heat for they do not prevent convection.

    After being heated, they no longer intercept the IR anyway, KE transfer takes over and at that point until they return to a relaxed state they are simply emitters of KE and converting Kinetic to IR energy. As stated due to their specific energy capacity, re-radiates thermal energy in the atmosphere faster than N2 and O2 can set to a relaxed state, meaning they take some of the thermal energy from warmer atmospheric gases (with larger thermal energy capacity) and help those gases to cool faster.

    Consensus uses circular reasoning that doesn’t stand the logistics of quantum mechanics science.

  14. Barry says:

    Another really good interview Joe. I wish we could get stuff like this into the msm but I suppose that would be to much honesty for them. You touched on the idea that it is either or, I now use that as my main argument with other lay people. It’s amazing when you ask them if they think the sun or co2 heat the earth they nearly always say the sun. I think the problem is that the general public believe that it must heat the earth at least a little bit,surely they wouldn’t tell that big of a lie.
    Have a great day

  15. CD Marshall says:

    Every mainstream manual or textbook in climate science I have read claims the Sun heats the earth
    as its foundation BUT as if they are all in “disconnect” then go on to say ghgs warm the earth greater than the Sun!

    And they all show the flat earth physics energy diagrams.

  16. It’s amazing dissonance, so blatant and obvious…!

  17. Philip Mulholland says:

    An incredible number of people get hung up on this issue of thermal radiant opacity of the Earth’s atmosphere. It is a massive stumbling block. If we go back to Joseph Fourier then we find that he was very impressed by the experiments in the Alps made by De Saussure in 1774 when detailed measurements were made of the heating capability of the solar radiant flame using a heliothennometer.

    “Fourier compared the heating of the atmosphere to the action of an instrument called a heliothennometer. This instrument, designed and used in scientific mountaineering in the 1760s by Horace Benedict de Saussure, consisted of a small wooden box lined with a layer of black cork. Sunlight entered the box through a window covered with three panes of glass separated by air spaces. This arrangement served to magnify the heating effect of the Sun’s rays (measured by a thermometer enclosed in the box) while eliminating the cooling effect of wind currents. In 1774, simultaneous heliothermometric observations taken at different locations by Saussure and an assistant demonstrated an appreciable increase in solar heat with altitudes. (Fleming J.R. 1999).

    No-one can doubt that opacity is a critical feature of the absorption of energy, and it is implicitly assumed that the opacity of the atmosphere due to the presence of polyatomic molecular gases must cause heating.

    So, while there-can be no doubt that in the atmosphere high frequency solar radiant energy is absorbed by the air and thereby heated, as was proved by De Saussure in 1774, the case for low-frequency radiation is also assumed to be true. This is in spite of the clear need to apply Postma’s Law that states, “No material can be heated above the temperature of a solar radiant flame, and furthermore any material that has a higher temperature than that flame will not be heated.”
    So, we are back with the same problem, no one seems able to understand the role of frequency in the process of radiant heating.

  18. That Fleming quote is still not quite accurate because it states that the heating of the sun’s rays is “magnified”. The device did NOT magnify radiation with a lense, and, with a glass pane it is not possible to magnify heat. The de Saussure box is just a basic greenhouse, and MAXIMIZES, not magnifies, solar heating potential, by stopping convection. It still can’t do better than the input which is what magnify rather than maximize implies, which of course is what the climate science greenhouse does, is magnifies heating by heat recycling.

  19. Philip Mulholland says:

    I agree with you, but the issue is not magnification, the issue is absorption.
    The assumption being made is that all absorption of whatever frequency causes heating.

  20. That needn’t be called Postma’s law – it’s merely the application of the heat flow equation with the 1st law. Plus those aren’t my words.

  21. Philip Mulholland says:

    True, But its your idea in this application. You need to own it

  22. It’s not original. It’s well known. It’s just ignored. And I wouldn’t state it that way.

  23. Philip Mulholland says:

    Please formulate the words in your own way so that I can quote you,

  24. Philip Mulholland says:

    We are in a war. Please give me some ammunition.

  25. CD Marshall says:

    The common point is a radiative source cannot increase its own temperature without work. Energy does increase, the Bose-Einstein statistic confirms that, but since Bosons are under the B-E statistic (and not the Pauli Exclusion Principle), it shows for ‘heat’ or simply, temperature, to increase it follows the requirement that restricts photonic energy.

    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

    Radiation is quantized into photons whose energy is proportional to frequency: E=hv.

    E = hv C= λv. E is the energy of the light in Joules (J), h is a constant which is 6.626 X 10-34 J•s, and. v is the frequency of the light in s-1 or waves/s (also called Hertz (Hz). C is the speed of light.

    IR radiating from the Earth’s surface is the source energy, any energy striking GHGs and returning back to the surface is a line spectrum or spectral line if you prefer. That spectral line cannot increase the temperature of its radiative source.

    The atmosphere is simply not a black body.

  26. ive seen all the videos and I did subsid physics at a uk university a long time ago. I was making the point that the interviewer while he had a good grasp of the politics of both the climate scam and covid you could sense he was a bit lost on the detail of the science. The danger there is that you start using the language of the alarmist or their terms they will jump to use them against you if the sophist manner that Joseph testified too. I think this channel and site is a fantastic resource to spread climate realism! (an all to niche field im sorry to say ) I think the psychological insight into possible motivations other than the overarching eugenicist backdrop was particularly insightful.
    As an aside I love Tony Heller’s work also although ive always thought he was a luke warmist? Does anyone know what his opinion on agw is?

  27. MP says:

    Fresh science question site question

    Is it posible to kickstart a hypothetical frozen world with 0.6% ice albedo to a earth with an atmosphere with just the sun at current distance?Is it posible to kickstart a hypothetical frozen world with 0.6% ice albedo to an earth with an atmosphere with just the sun at current distance?

  28. @wine Heller is very anti AGW but I’m not sure that he’s totally cognizant of the flat earth greenhouse fraud. I’m sure he would get it if he was presented with the info.

  29. Philip Mulholland says:

    “The atmosphere is simply not a black body.”
    This is a critical point I need to grasp.
    Does the concept of a black body imply complete 100% and therefore and unrealistic reversibility?

  30. CD Marshall says:

    I love Heller but he is an environmentalist activist, which is his right as long as he doesn’t force it on everybody else. He wants 80% of the cars in the world removed and he rides a bike like Pierrehumbert does.

    Heller did testify to congress (2019) he believes CO2 causes ‘some warming’, but a few of his videos since then contradict that claim. He “softly” states he questions the ghg but will not openly condemn it.

  31. CD Marshall says:

    Philip Mulholland ,

    I did read in atmospheric thermodynamic manuals, that you can “treat” select layers of the atmosphere as a blackbody to some degree as a “minimum capable temperature” in direct sunlight that absorbs the higher energy rays such as the thermosphere or the stratosphere. That is a “virtual” interpretation not a direct concession it is a blackbody.

    That’s more physicist realms and not my purview not that I really have a purview seeing as I am not a scientist.

    However I think it is simply “treated as” for calculations such as the atmosphere broken down into parcels treated “as” individual systems.

  32. Pingback: Interview with UNN | ajmarciniak

  33. Philip Mulholland says:

    Thanks, The standard reply i get is “It’s a grey body”
    The trouble with really abstruse explanations is that they sound good and shut down the questioner. ( I know this is not what you are doing)
    In helping my understanding i am always looking for analogies.
    Everyone does that hence the “Greenhouse ” mess.
    I once tried very hard to get my geologist boss to drop the use of the term “palinspastic” (look it up and you will see why). He would not have any of it, That what what it was called and that is the name you must use.
    On the same theme another boss told me “it was done to me, so now I am going to do it to you”.
    As of a general rule, I don’t like bosses.

  34. boomie789 says:

    [video src="" /]

    ^ Canadians should appreciate this.

  35. Great interview!

  36. CD Marshall says:

    I would say the best interview you’ve had so far, clear and concise.

  37. boomie789 says:

    How I discovered Postma was his Vincent James interview on Red Elephants back when he was still on youtube(banned of course).

    Can’t find it but I did find this.

    This NPC bugman gets almost 84,000 views…

  38. Joseph E Postma says:

    Even its voice is retarded sounding…ugh

  39. rickis says:

    I may be late to the party here, but have you guys seen this?

    To put it in technical terms….’CO2 has got F all to do with temp.

  40. Well said! lol 😆

  41. MP says:

    Came up with a new theory that destroys another pillar of the GHE theory

    Once a surface of a planetary body reaches the max temperature the sun radiation at its distance can provide, then the incomming solar radiation at that location doesn’t act as heat anymore. This results in a thermal dehancement effect.

    A blackbody in space has high thermal dehancement. The moon has some. Earth has no (could argue very low from lower frequency spectrums) thermal dehancement, since heat transfers prevent the surface to reach the max temperature.

  42. Well the thing is though that temperature is changing all the time on earth…in the morning heat flow from the sun is definitely occurring etc. This is the difference between looking at the average, which doesn’t actually exist, vs the real time which is what actually exists.

  43. MP says:

    @ JP

    Right. I am looking at realtime input. The moon daytime high on the equator reaches 122 degree Celcius. At that point the solar radiation at that location doesn’t act as heat anymore, and the amount of new added heat relies on the outgoing heatflow.

    So that woiuld be dehancement compared to the earth where the surface never reaches over 120 degree Celcius on the equator.

  44. CD Marshall says:

    From a PhD in meteorology (allegedly)…
    “@CD Marshall All you need to do to overturn global warming theory is to
    a) publish a paper demonstrating that the current maths is wrong and we shouldn’t have anything to worry about, and
    b) publish another paper showing that our observations of a warming planet are also wrong or else can be explained by other means.

    You’d probably win a Nobel prize. I’d be cheering for sure – it would be a lot less inconvenient if we could just keep burning fossil fuels without worrying about the consequences. But I do think that it would be an extraordinary act of collective hubris to think that we can change the mixture of gasses in the troposphere without changing the temperature balance.”

    Smug bastards aren’t they? Knowing no paper will make it through review that indicates those facts.

  45. Joseph E Postma says:

    Smug and retarded…believing that changing the gas mixture can suddenly make the gas release heat or send heat from cold to hot. They literally have no clue what they’re doing, or talking about.

    And yes…they can NEVER just acknowledge the math that you show no…it has to go through peer review before they will look at it or acknowledge it…even if it is as plain as the difference between flat Earth and round Earth, hot sunshine and cold sunshine, etc.

  46. Philip Mulholland says:

    “But I do think that it would be an extraordinary act of collective hubris to think that we can change the mixture of gasses in the troposphere without changing the temperature balance.”
    Apparently never heard of Boyle’s Law then.
    Maybe he also needs to read this paper
    Maxwell, J.C., 1868. XXII. On the dynamical theory of gases. The London, Edinburgh, and Dublin Philosophical Magazine and Journal of Science, 35(236), pp.185-217.

  47. CD Marshall says:

    “Also wrong, an absorbed photon adds kinetic energy to a molecule, which effectively determines temperature.”

    This is being twisted, only if the absorbed photon is of a greater wl/f than the emissions of the molecule wold it increase the temperature, if the photon is the exact wl/f of the molecule it will not increase the temperature, and if it is lower than the emissions of the molecule it will not absorb the photon at all.

    And if the molecule is already heated and is in a vibrational/rotational state it will simply not absorb another photon as molecular collision and bumping is the primary transnational method of kinetic energy and once heated, lesser kinetic energy striking it will not knock the current higher energy of the molecule out of it or add anything to it. Once again they are confusing fermions for bosons.

    Did I miss anything?

  48. Philip Mulholland says:

    I think you are doing fine.
    In a sophistry war we need catchy labels.
    They have their greenhouse, we have our solar flame.
    I recommend the use of a solar flame thrower to burn down the greenhouse.

  49. Joseph E Postma says:

    That’s great CD!

    “Also wrong, an absorbed photon adds kinetic energy to a molecule, which effectively determines temperature.”

    Only if it is absorbed as heat, which you explain, etc.

  50. CD Marshall says:

    “Easily debunked: both soil and troposphere temperatures have been increasing for years. Why is this?”

    I see no plausible evidence that’s happening in any way?

  51. MP says:

    @ MP

    How can the moon have so called “greenhouse effect”, when comparing to a black body?

    Can’t find the image but when comparing to a blackbody and correcting for emisitivity and albedo there is on the moon slight colling during the day and substantial warmer than expected temperatures at night.

    Could the general concept of radiation balance on a blackbody be oversimplified?

    Reaching the max temperature around the equator of the moon during the 2 weeks days suggest high photon rejection rates (not adding heat) as part of the outgoing radiation equation.

    And if so those ratios on an hypothetical real time black body would be much more.

    And that circles back to the first question. Not incorporating photon rejection rates at certain temperatures versus flux intensity creates the illusion that there is a greenhouse effect on the mooon, compared to a blackbody

  52. Joseph E Postma says:

    “both soil and troposphere temperatures have been increasing for years. Why is this?”

    At ANY time scale, they are changing. Like I said in the video…current changes are entirely nominal…within historical norms on ANY time scale.

    Noise requires NO explanation…in a chaotic system, small changes don’t have an explanation. And they must just love that…because then they can invent whatever explanation they want, even though the changes are identical to nominal variation.

  53. CD Marshall says:

    “Molecules can easily absorb more photons, if they already absorbed one and are in an excitated state.”

    Not sure where this guy learned his QM or the COE laws?

  54. CD Marshall says:

    According to him a molecule can turn supernova.

  55. CD Marshall says:

    Maybe that’s how stars are made? Supernova molecules?

  56. Barry says:

    We can only hope that it is still warming and that we are still recovering from the little ice age. If we start cooling I would be quite concerned for my grand children. The people on the equator seem to have adapted to warmer weather than the rest of us enjoy and I think most Canadians and a lot of Americans as well as a lot of Europeans would be quite happy to see a degree or two of warming. We are now enjoying a few more frost free days than we did a few decades ago which means our crops now have a better chance to mature so we can feed more people easier and cheaper. I don’t know why people would consider warming a problem when it has always been of a benifit to mankind.

  57. Because they’re insane and they’re actually trying to destroy civilization.

  58. CD Marshall says:

    Barry the ocean would need to cool off first as a sign of an impeding glaciation, if I have the geoscience correct.

    The bad thing about glaciations is you have little warning. By the time oceans are cooled off to the point of being blatantly obvious you’ll be in the glaciation.

    Then again all it takes is a slight change in albedo or TSI.

  59. Barry says:

    Sadly I think you are right Joseph. When I seen Gores rediculous so called doc years ago the first thing I said was they want to destroy the middle class,why else would all the elites be pushing this nonsense while flying around on their private jets and floating around on their gas guzzling yachts. They simply don’t want us in their space.

  60. CD Marshall says:

    I know this is going into more complex QM than I have studied, but can a molecule absorb another photon before releasing the E of that photon in the open atmosphere? I know they can manipulate things in labs, but this is the open atmosphere. Molecules can collide and bump transferring kinetic energy before the ejection of the original adsorbed photon but that dipole moment is still spectrum specific, regardless of a change in emissions, its absorption range doesn’t change.

    But what if it is a higher energy photon that is compatible to that molecule’s absorption range, would it knock out the existing photon’s KE and replace it or “add” its kinetic energy to it to the existing energy or scatter, partially transferring the some of the energy. Then again can single photons partially scatter?

    I know a whole field of scattering theory was created just to study this very thing.

  61. MP says:

    @ Joseph E Postma says 2021/02/24

    Antidote for cherry picked graphs is zooming out, Looking at larger times scale waves/variations.

    Also for ocean Ocean Acidification crap, coral proxies show long time sidewards wavy patterns

  62. CD Marshall says:

    Pierre gave me an excellent rebuttal for ocean pH a long time ago.

    “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.
    CaSiO3 + H2CO3 → CaCO3 + H2O + SiO2
    CaCO3 + H2CO3 → Ca(HCO3)2

    Carbonic acid/ H2CO3”

    Thank you Pierre, wherever you are.

  63. CD Marshall says:

    Sorry I double dribbled the last part.

  64. CD Marshall says:

    CaSiO3 + H2CO3 → CaCO3 + H2O + SiO2
    CaCO3 + H2CO3 → Ca(HCO3)2

    This is the correct equation.

    I tried writing it out a long time ago and messed it up.

  65. CD Marshall says:

    So the full text should read as,

    “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
    CaCO3 + H2CO3 → Ca(HCO3)2

  66. Philip Mulholland says:

    @ MP
    “How can the moon have so called “greenhouse effect”, when comparing to a black body?”
    If we are going to talk about the mean surface temperature of the Moon, then we need to use the Vacuum Planet (VP) equation. I hope that this short note helps:

    A short note to show how, using the Vacuum Planet equation of Astronomy, the mean annual surface temperature of the Moon can be determined.

    Using the standard Vacuum Planet equation as exemplified by Sagan and Chyba [1] “The equilibrium temperature Te of an airless, rapidly rotating planet is: –
    Equation 1: Te ≡ [S π R2(1-A)/4 π R2 ε σ]1/4.
    where σ is the Stefan-Boltzmann Constant, ε the effective surface emissivity, A the wavelength-integrated Bond albedo, R the moon’s radius (in metres), and S the solar constant (in Watts/m2) at the moon’s average distance from the sun.”

    Volumetric Mean Radius of Moon 1737.4 Km [2] Moon Fact Sheet.
    Average Surface Atmospheric Pressure 3E-10 Pascal [2] Moon Fact Sheet.
    Expected Te 220.8 Kelvin [1] The early faint sun paradox
    Eclipse duration Minimal % time in eclipse Lunar Occultations NASA JPL WebGeocalc
    Surface gravity 1.62 m/s^2 [2] Moon Fact Sheet.
    Average Solar insolation per solar orbit 1361 W/m^2 [3] Earth Fact Sheet.
    Bond Albedo 0.11 A (Constant) [2] Moon Fact Sheet.
    Average Surface Solar Insolation 605.65 W/m^2 From Irradiance [3] and Albedo [2]
    Average Orbital Distance (Earth) 149,596,000 Km [3] Earth Fact Sheet

    Solar Constant at distance a S 605.65 W/m2
    Radius of Body R 1,737 m
    Bond Albedo A 0.11 Constant
    Stefan-Boltzmann Constant σ 5.67E-08 W/m^2/K^4
    Effective surface emissivity ε 1 Constant
    Expected Te Te 220.79 Kelvin
    Greenhouse Effect GE 0.0 Kelvin
    Actual Ts Ts -52.36 Celsius
    Distance from the Sun a 1.4960E+08 m

    The Moon has an average surface temperature of 220.79 Kelvin (-52.36 Celsius).

    [1] Sagan, C. and Chyba, C., 1997. The Early Faint Sun Paradox: Organic Shielding of Ultraviolet-Labile Greenhouse Gases. Science, 276(5316), pp. 1217–1221.
    [2] Williams, D.R., 2020a. Moon Fact Sheet NASA NSSDCA, Mail Code 690.1, NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, MD 20771
    [3] Williams, D.R., 2020b. Earth Fact Sheet NASA NSSDCA, Mail Code 690.1, NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, MD 20771.

  67. Mack says:

    Meanwhile, back in a simpler world….. land of the laypeople…
    Further down in that thread ,,, there’s this bloke Rick. 🙂 who would drive you to drink.

  68. Philip Mulholland says:

    Here is the view of a laypersons friend of mine, Erl Happ:
    The Absurdity of Climate Hysteria

  69. Philip Mulholland says:

    “Maybe you should get your eyesight tested Haven’t you noticed this planet is the blue planet. Water has a colour. It is blue. Nasif Nahle is a BIOLOGIST …. he’s noticed that the Earth is not covered in black asphalt with an emissivity of near enough to 1. Sorry, 0.82 looks right to me.”
    Awesome comment.
    That thread is a goldmine,

  70. Philip Mulholland says:


    “Flushed him out as a DINO…. denier in name only. …hopefully time will make them extinct, too.”

    You need to trademark that before it gets stolen.

  71. MP says:

    @ Philip Mulholland 2021/02/25 at 2:28 AM

    Thx for the metrix to play with.

    Found the image that shows global warming on the moon, at least compared to a to the moon adjusted greybody.

  72. MP,
    Interesting Graph.(The New Earth eclipse shadow is a nice touch).
    Makes me wonder how much energy the Moon is receiving from the Earth-light at New Moon.
    A comparable set of measurements made on the Far-side that never receives any Earth-light would be very instructive in this regard.

  73. Joseph E Postma says:

    @CD I think that the absorption spectra is mostly due to scattering, not real absorption, because the molecules are collisionally dominated and already vibrating in all modes in the first place. But a vibration mode is a specific frequency…it can only contain the energy specific to it. So

  74. CD Marshall says:

    Interestingly enough, molecules according to mode, can flip from IR to Raman absorption. CO2 is not IR active in one of its modes, it’s actually Raman active.

    In order to block the bulk of solar storms in the thermosphere, CO2 needs to be active to higher energy rays of the Sun or at least work with NO to redirect those rays, but it does get heated.

    Quite a subject.

    So briefly, in scattering theory it says as a result of collision (from a sharp beam to a localized target) several outcomes are possible: elastic, inelastic and absorption.

    After that it gets really complex, scattering theory is some heavy physics but as a cursory study it seems they are more centered on particle physics not lesser energy waves such as IR.

  75. CD Marshall says:

    I found a paper from MIT with the annual heat balance of the NH no mention of the ghge but then it is from 1954.

  76. CD Marshall says:

    I found someone you “might’ be able to help, he sounds like a young kid but he’s asking the right questions. I don’t think you can put links in this site though? I have before with trickery, but I think he takes them down once found.

    You can find it under my post “Sorry buddy but CO2 does not trap heat. Physics approved and quantum mechanics tested.”

  77. Philip Mulholland says:

    That must be:
    Houghton, G. H. 1954.On the Annual Heat Balance of the Northern Hemisphere. Journal of Meteorology, Vol. 11, No. 1, 1-9.

    Have a look at my Library if you are into digging.
    The links will not work from the archive but the list is quite comprehensive, and then you can always go on to Google Scholar.

  78. CD Marshall says:

    Philip Mulholland,
    That is exactly it. Thanks for the links.

  79. Joseph E Postma says:

    I just had a real long debate with a climate scientist PhD that was arguing with me on reddit…from one of boomies posts on the skeptics reddit.

    Basically the response is how we saw it with the other person that I debated: 1) they deny that the derivation flat Earth models are what the GHE is or how it works, 2) they focus on other things that aren’t the point, 3) they try to argue that the GHE is measured by something TOTALLY different which actually has no clear definition or meaning at all, 4) they misunderstand basic points being presented, 5) they tell you that you have no support.

    It is interested about that comment I made the other day about herd herbivores: at the end of the debate, he goes “You’re all alone.”

    Doesn’t that speak volumes? A pack hunter doesn’t gaf if he’s alone…he still makes do. A herd animal on the other hand…it’s the greatest horror, literally when they are in the greatest danger is when they are alone. They can’t stand it.

    It’s a bit too long and boring to post, unless I do a heavy edit which I might do one day…but I can link either an unlisted YT link or a onedrive download for those who wish to sit through it…the raw video?

    Well…I just started working on the edit. But it’s a much more boring and slower debate over-all. Interesting for case study, but I am not sure I will post it. After I’m done what editing I care to do, I will post a private link.

  80. CD Marshall says:

    You’re not alone you have support from other scientists and because you are aren’t widely circulated your work never gets noticed on a larger scale.

    The herd mentality is a strange sad thing to see when you’re an outsider looking in. The herd will even sacrifice their own members to save their own careers.

    If Mann ends up being ousted as the fraud he is, they’ll cut him loose and claim they simply didn’t know. The lie must be protected at all costs and all members of the herd are expendable to keep the lie alive.

  81. Exactly! The herd is more than willing to sacrifice individual to protect itself. The whole point of being in a herd is so that the problems you present to it are suffered by other individuals.

  82. Barry says:

    Good point guys, those on the outside of the herd protect the inner circle of sheep by self sacrifice although they don’t know this until to late. Interesting thread from Mack’s conversation with Rick who at the end claimed that a microwave and fridge prove reverse heat flow. This is the mentality we are up against people who don’t even understand mechanical things that they use everyday but can rattle off equations all day long.
    Have a great day guys

  83. Joseph E Postma says:

    Man you guys should watch this actually. Just working on the edit. I’ll post soon.

  84. Joseph E Postma says:

    “Interesting thread from Mack’s conversation with Rick who at the end claimed that a microwave and fridge prove reverse heat flow. This is the mentality we are up against people who don’t even understand mechanical things that they use everyday but can rattle off equations all day long.”

    Literally so braindead. It’s not heat…it’s WORK!!!!!! Those example do MECHANICAL WORK…lol.

    But yah, anyway…we’ve seen those stupid arguments before about fridges and microwaves. They just love to obfuscate and confuse everything.

    You all should watch this debate when I post it…the guy just obfuscates and mixes up and confuses everything! It’s a great case study.

  85. MP says:

    Making memes about stupid climatechangeists arguments, combined with the correct answer. (side by sides) would work very well.

    Memes should be short in text lenght tho

    Could provide already popular funny side by side meme templates if anyone if interested.

  86. boomie789 says:

    @MP I made this one after the last debate.

  87. MP says:

    Here is an example of a current popular side by side meme. Can plug in the text you want left and right. There are many variations with different carracters left and right

  88. MP says:

    @ boomie789


  89. boomie789 says:

  90. CD Marshall says:

    Boomie that makes me chuckle each time I see it. Showing the heat equation to alarmists is like silver to a vampire (with pretty much the same reaction).

  91. MP says:

    @ boomie789

  92. Mack says:

    Look at it.!!!…..Aahahahahahahaha
    That’s priceless, Boomie

  93. MP says:

    @ JP

  94. Haha MP gosh that’s so awesome

  95. MP says:

    Begun, the climate change memewar has

  96. Joseph E Postma says:

    OK here’s the debate – it is unlisted on my YT and so it won’t show up to subscribers…only if you have the link.

    It’s the usual thing: he spends all of his time running away from the point that I want to make, running away from acknowledging it, denying that what I’m pointing out is what I’m pointing at, he even denies heat flow thermodynamics at one point, and tries to scheme some crazy alternative explanation which he won’t acknowledge is still based on interpreting the climate as where the Sun cannot create it and that temperature needs to be bumped up by other means. It’s really an amazing case study in the degree to which they insist upon lying and refusing to simply acknowledge what is being pointed out to them. They just run and run from argument to argument and don’t stop when each argument is refuted…never stop to reconsider. Their statement that heat can flow from cold to hot gets debunked? Who cares, continue to the next argument, no matter that they violated the most important laws in modern physics. They really have the strangest minds…watch and you will see him come up with things that make no sense whatsoever, miscomprehending the most basic things. This is a PhD in atmospheric physics, apparently.

    Of course, they CAN’T acknowledge the very first point I’m trying to make, because that’s precisely where the whole rest of their interpretation of climate and absorption spectra etc etc etc falls apart.

    It’s so telling to see how he skips from one subject to another subject to another one, etc., all the while refusing to acknowledge the meaning of the rebuttal of the flat Earth diagrams. At one point he says that the GHE derivation diagrams are “only teaching tools”, which we’ve seen this argument before, implying that we teach totally false and non-existent things as a matter of course in the classroom but then do actual real physics after we leave the classroom…lol! Where do we learn the real physics if classroom physics only teaches “pedagogical tools which aren’t how the real thing works”??? lol I just love this argument for its circular self-destruction!

    I think it’s too slow and boring and long to post, but the hard-cores here will want to watch it for sure – I would be really interested to hear your breakdown and evaluation of it:

  97. CD Marshall says:

    “Do you understand gravitational waves?”
    He asks this to a physicist in astrophysics? Did he know who you are?

    Are you going to have to get a degree in atmopsheric physics next?

  98. On average, over the course of a year, half of the Earth is never lit.
    There is always night somewhere on the Earth always and at all times.

  99. Philip Mulholland says:

    He’ll be asking the light to bend round the rapidly rotating 1 Hz Earth next.

  100. Exactly. They love to use this idea of averages to say that the earth can be approximated as lit at all times…at quarter power…but yah, over the course of a year, half of the earth is never lit!

  101. They really do seem like programmed computers with a well defined script. It’s uncanny.

  102. CD Marshall says:

    The fact that he didn’t know the SB law I find a little concerning in the fact he has a PhD.

  103. Yah he really is clueless at some points.

  104. CD Marshall says:

    He also doesn’t comprehend density flux and the difference in using averages.

  105. CD Marshall says:

    So basically he is just another cookie cutter textbook scientist which is no better than a glorified technician. Even some engineers can think outside the textbook (the really good one can anyway).

  106. CD Marshall says:

    So he also doesn’t understand watts per meter per second which allocates the Earth rotating each second and applied the SB Law.

  107. Philip Mulholland says:

    “I don’t see math in that diagram, I just see arrows with numbers.”
    Well that’s vector theory out of the window then.

  108. Purposefully obtuse.

  109. MP says:

    What they basically do is averaging out all possible potential, and then ask what is the max potentional on an average with no potential.

  110. Philip Mulholland says:

    “But what number do you add back in?”
    “Where does that 2nd 240 come from?”
    “Why did you decide 240 is the right number to use?”
    If 240 plus A equals 480, then A equals 240 is just something that is made up by choice?

  111. CD Marshall says:

    Should have said,
    So he also doesn’t understand watts per meter per second which allocates the Earth rotating each second and thus you can apply the SB Law for that input per second.

    The chunk is “spreading” that wavelength to different frequencies, thus the Earth is still emitting just not in that specific wavelength. CO2 is just diffusing light which it has always done.

    However, that graph is one graph they keep showing over the Sahara on a specific day, I have never seen anything showing that all over the world every day.

  112. Philip Mulholland says:

    He almost managed to create an argument that if you removed the CO2 bite from the graph then the area under the curve would go up, then he stopped because he realizsd that he would end up proving that CO2 generates cooling.

  113. Yah he was making it up as he went along.

  114. CD Marshall says:

    Actually that graph (at least the one I have) is from when the CO2 was 325 ppm from the IRIS Satellite over the Sahara with a surface temperature of 320 Kelvin/46.85 Celsius which is rare to reach that temperature.

    Now the weird thing is in that graph it shows CO2 which has a remarkably less absorption that water vapor or O3 is intercepting more energy than either one. Which is simply impossible, granted little water vapor would exist in the Sahara, O3 would be the same.

    Two possible conclusions I’ve heard is that they flipped the graph or switched the gases from water vapor to CO2.

  115. CD Marshall says:

    It sounds like he is reading these things off a list.

  116. CD Marshall says:

    If you compare that graph to total absorption lines of the atmosphere, it is confusing because it’s in wave number, whereas in wavelength that gap doesn’t exist at CO2 levels or water vapor, when looking at the graph of all absorption the natural graph has waves with peaks and dips and CO2 is not in that dip, neither is water vapor but O3 is.

  117. boomie789 says:

    BLANKET! He said it! lololololol

    When he said he just wanted the math I think he wanted something like this in the number 8 box.

    I’m only halfway through and I love it.

  118. Yes…try to use blanket analogy but when that doesn’t work just move on to the next argument…never go back to address the actual point.

  119. boomie789 says:

    You do show one just like it a bit later just as good.

  120. CD Marshall says:

    1:31 He is mixing up the assumption that the planet works as a greenhouse which was a theory not a proven fact, with the false justification included in the K&T budget.

    So, yes K&T made it up based on a false assumption but worked for their purpose of demonizing CO2.

    “The atmospheric greenhouse effect, an idea that many authors trace back to the traditional works of Fourier 1824, Tyndall 1861, and Arrhenius 1896, and which is still supported in global climatology, essentially describes a fictitious mechanism, in which a planetary atmosphere acts as a heat pump driven by an environment that is radiatively interacting with but radiatively equilibrated to the atmospheric system. According to the second law of thermodynamics such a planetary machine can never exist.”

  121. CD Marshall says:

    From Slaying the Sky Dragon

  122. Barry says:

    Not sure where you find the patience Joe. They can’t seem to grasp that they have started out wrong, it’s as if co2 has to raise the temp because we say it does. And yet the simple experiment that should easily prove it can’t. If you gave a four year old a train engine model and asked him what makes it fly he would tell you it’s not an airplane. If you give that same scenario to a climatologist he will immediately divide the horsepower by four and explainto you that wings and lift aren’t required just trust me.

  123. Yep Barry they just refuse to acknowledge where they start…

  124. Philip Mulholland says:

    boomie789 2021/02/25 at 7:20 PM
    That diagram is so good, I went to put it in the archive but it is already there.

    One for the library.Thanks.

  125. Philip Mulholland says:

    CDM 2021/02/25 at 7:36 PM
    “essentially describes a fictitious mechanism, in which a planetary atmosphere acts as a heat pump driven by an environment that is radiatively interacting with but radiatively equilibrated to the atmospheric system. According to the second law of thermodynamics such a planetary machine can never exist.”

    There is no argument from me that trying to drive any machine with the energy of its exhaust is impossible. Using the intensity of the diluted solar flame as energy input is bogus physics. This is because divide-by-4 energy intensity is the weak impotent thermal exhaust surface area flux and not the strong powerful solar input surface area,flux.

    However, once you put back the power of the day lit hemisphere flux into the equation with the zenith blow torch heating of the solar flame then the system can do work.
    All of meteorology and all of hydrology are the physical reality that results from the capabilities of solar flame that allows the atmosphere to do work by the process of physical mass motion of a compressible fluid in a gravity field on a rotating globe.

  126. Philip Mulholland says:

    I forgot to add Oceanography and Glaciology to my list. In essence the list includes all of the aspects of Environmental Science which deal with energy capture, storage, transport, dissipation and loss by the mass motion of fluids and solids over the surface of the Earth. Climate is just a component of this dynamic, and it is very much the stubby tail on the rear end of a very large dog.

  127. Mack says:

    Speaking of heat pumps, I’ve been wondering about CO2 actually acting as a sort of refrigerant in the atmosphere. What I’m saying is that a work input of convection could hoist the heavy molecule up into higher altitudes….there lose heat… and the weight of the heavy gas to bring it back down pick up more heat …etc …etc.. Anyhow, the whole rotation of Earth puts work input to the atmosphere with water vapour doing the heavy lifting and coming back down as rain.
    I put this sort of comment on Carbon Brief…. it stayed for a few hours and just disappeared.
    I’m hoping you guys and Joe might say something about this….please.

  128. Philip Mulholland says:

    Mack 2021/02/26 at 2:33 AM
    “Speaking of heat pumps”

    This is a complex subject and it depends on who you ask.
    One of the features of atmospheric science is the thermal profile of the atmosphere, in particular its lapse rate. This is a rich area to study and one about which there is a lot of uncertainty.
    The bulk of the atmosphere’s mass is located in the two lowest spheres, the troposphere and the stratosphere.
    The Earth’s temperature profile for these two layers has a wishbone shape with the lowest values located at their mutual boundary, the tropopause.

    Amongst the key differences between these two is that the high-pressure troposphere is opaque to thermal radiation, whereas the low-pressure stratosphere is transparent. Now one of the really strange things is that everyone seems to assume that the planet’s average thermal radiant temperature of 255 Kelvin (its Vacuum Planet thermal radiant exhaust temperature) is located in the troposphere at a pressure of about 540 hPa. I say curious because at this level the troposphere is still translucent to thermal radiation.

    like I said, lots of moving parts and issues to raise.

  129. tom0mason says:

    For the Christopher Debate, even NASA says that the 2nd law of thermodynamics is irreversible,

    The second law states that if the physical process is irreversible, the combined entropy of the system and the environment must increase. The final entropy must be greater than the initial entropy for an irreversible process:

    Sf > Si (irreversible process)

    An example of an irreversible process is the problem discussed in the second paragraph. A hot object is put in contact with a cold object. Eventually, they both achieve the same equilibrium temperature. If we then separate the objects they remain at the equilibrium temperature and do not naturally return to their original temperatures. The process of bringing them to the same temperature is irreversible.

  130. Joseph E Postma says:

    @Mack – one of the big tenets of climate theory is that GHG’s emit radiation. The thing is, if they emit radiation, but the rest of the 99% atmosphere doesn’t, then that means that GHG’s give the atmosphere a vector by which to shed thermal energy. An emissive substance (GHG’s) will always have a lower temperature than a non-emissive substance (N2, O2, etc.). So if GHG’s introduce a means by which the atmosphere can shed thermal energy, then the atmosphere will cool.

    This is just another example of the contradictions generated at the basis of climate theory.

  131. Funny how he was describing my model at the start hey? Not realizing he’s debunking their model lol

  132. MP says:

    Found an alternative explanation for the infrared gap in earths outgoing radiation

    Co2 absorbs around 15 microns or wavenumber 600 and radiates in a somewhat wider range

    However, the top layer of the oceans seem to also convert that spectrum. According to a paper i found there is some increased absorbtion of infrared in water around the 600 wavenumber.

    Click to access Water_absorption_spectrum.pdf

    This can’t heat the oceans since infrared can olnly penetrate the first few molecules of the top layer in depth, so it would radiate out or convect out.

    But it can contribute to a conversion of that spectrum range to other spectrums.

  133. Joseph E Postma says:

    So that fellow from the debate email me with two questions. I don’t think I will bother responding to him as it is clear that he will simply follow the script he’s programmed to, but I will copy the answer to the first question here which I did write out in draft just for the fun of the exercise:

    Christopher: “1) What temperature would the surface of the Earth be if there was no atmosphere? You keep saying that the atmosphere cools the surface by convection, but we also agreed that the effective temperature of the planet is -18C. If we could remove the atmosphere without affecting the albedo (obviously removing the atmosphere would have a huge impact on the albedo, since oceans would evaporate, etc), but if that were possible, then I posit that the effective temperature of the Earth would be the same as the surface temperature. So the earth with no atmosphere would be -18C on the surface, but now we see it is 15C – therefore the atmosphere warms the surface. Tell me how this is wrong?”

    1) Yes of course we can assume equal albedo for the purposes here. I would point out though that we still have two different system, and hence can expect different results. Without an atmosphere it is the solid surface which is the exterior of the system; with an atmosphere now the gas makes part of the exterior of the system, and then we must understand how the gas is going to behave. A gas, driven by high-power thermal energy, will convect, and, an adiabatic gradient naturally gets set up in the air column. The adiabatic gradient necessitates that the gas will be warmest at the bottom of the column, coolest at the top, and the average is naturally in middling region. Since the comparison of “average temperature” is always made with reference to the effective temperature, for Earth -18C, it is said that the average temperature of the surface would be -18C without an atmosphere. That is fine. With an atmosphere the ground surface is no longer the surface, as the atmosphere comprises part of the surface. So with reference to the -18C average temperature, now we must expect this not at the ground surface, but within the atmosphere. So if we make that comparison again, staying consistent with the proviso of the non-atmosphere case, then we expect that the bottom of the air column will be warmer than that average. Staying consistent, if we compare where -18C is found in the atmosphere on average, and apply the adiabatic gradient to that, then we find the near-surface-air temperature which is measured on average of +15C. Thus, without an atmosphere, the effective radiative temperature is -18C, and with an atmosphere this is still the effective temperature, but between these two scenarios we cannot expect to find that actual temperature at the same location. With an atmosphere that temperature must be found in the middling atmosphere, not at the bottom of the atmosphere. Thus, the temperature of the bottom of the atmosphere is fully explained in theory and successfully predicted in practice without reference to a “greenhouse effect”.
    a. Without an atmosphere, we calculate the effective temperature and assume that this temperature would be the average of the surface. The effective temperature is what is always compared against.
    b. With an atmosphere, it is the same effective temperature, which we will continue to compare against, but it can no longer be expected to be found at the ground surface due to the fact that the ground surface is not the surface any longer, and, the adiabatic gradient establishes that the average temperature must be found around the middle of the atmosphere, not at its top or bottom, as per the definition of an average.

    Climate science entirely ignores the provisos of part b, and maintains focus on the surface without taking into account that the ground surface is no longer the surface. On the Earth, having an atmosphere in between being overwhelmingly deep as on Venus, and extremely thin as on Mars, the result is that the surface temperature is both cooler and warmer than can be expected. In the day time the surface is kept much cooler with an atmosphere due to convective and evaporative cooling, etc., and at night the surface is kept warmer due to the presence of latent heat release from H2O as well as the simple fact that there is additional thermal mass making up the surface. But still, the near-surface-air temperature will be warmer than the average temperature, where we continue to compare against the effective temperature of -18C. If we consider where we actually find -18C, and continue to apply basic equations of thermodynamics, then the near-surface air temperature is calculated to be exactly what is actually measured, +15C.

    This highlights a second issue which climate science obfuscates and gets wrong, which is what causes the temperature differential in the atmosphere. In climate science this is attributed to radiation and the radiative “greenhouse effect”, whereas it is actually the adiabatic gradient which creates the temperature differential within the atmosphere as a function of altitude.

    A last relevant point is the issue of atmospheric emissivity. The reason why so-called “greenhouse gases” are named as such, and their primary function in the misnamed “greenhouse effect” of climate science, is that they emit thermal radiation, whereas the rest of the 99% + atmosphere does not. If “GHG’s” emit but the rest of the atmosphere doesn’t, then this means that “GHG’s” introduce to the atmosphere a vector by which it can shed thermal energy, where no such vector existed before. Thus, a “GHG” would cool the atmosphere, not warm it. It is true that a “GHG” may absorb heat radiation from the warmer surface, and there is nothing wrong with this, but this simple process is not the “greenhouse effect” of climate science. Additionally, CO2 is collisionally-dominated with the rest of the atmosphere, which means that the rest of the atmosphere is continually keeping CO2 activated in all modes of vibration. If CO2 can emit this thermal energy it picks up from the rest of the atmosphere, then again this will serve to cool the atmosphere, not warm it. Given that CO2 is overwhelmingly collisionally dominated, the question is how much heat it picks up from the surface vs. how much energy it emits due to collisional activation; collisional dominance would imply that it emits more from collision than it picks up from heat radiation from the surface, which again indicates a cooling effect. Perhaps it is neutral.

    Climate science theory requires that “GHG’s” somehow increase the temperature of the surface above what the Sun can provide; however, heat cannot be recycled and it cannot flow from the cool atmosphere back to the warmer surface, as heat flow is unidirectional down temperature gradients only, and so there is no mechanism by which a “GHG” could actually perform that requirement via radiative transfers. On the other hand, the adiabatic lapse rate naturally explains why the near-surface-air is higher in temperature than the average of the air column. It is simply an entirely complete and self-consistent explanation when we refer to the atmosphere with regards to the adiabatic gradient and the basic equations of thermodynamics, whereas the climate science interpretation with its misnamed “greenhouse effect” is rife with inconsistency and contradiction to established physics. Climate science of course claims to be consistent with physics, but it may only claim this by ignoring physics which is inconsistent with it.

    It is not simply that the surface temperature is warmer than the average temperature as compared as the effective temperature with an atmosphere, the question is why, and what is the mechanism? With the adiabatic gradient, which must exist according to basic thermodynamic law, the mechanism is thus explained: the bottom of the air column cannot be the average of the air column, and the average of the air column is found around the middle, and hence the bottom of the air column must be warmer than the average. Thus, the mechanism is explained, the reason for the difference is explained. Climate science attempts to substitute this explanation with its “radiative greenhouse effect”, but the substitution is invalid, violates physics and thermodynamics, and is unnecessary to postulate in any case.

    We may also refer to the fact that areas with the highest “GHG” concentrations in the form of water vapor are cooler on average than areas which receive the same insolation at the same latitude but are deserts with almost no water vapor present, and are warmer on average. Again, another example of theoretical and empirical inconsistency of climate science’s approach to the climate.

    A thermodynamic approach to the climate, consistent with empirical facts about the way that sunlight interacts with the Earth, leads to natural explanations of the features of our climate and atmosphere, and it does this without generating opportunity for debunking and argument. On the other hand, climate science’s approach to the climate ignores thermodynamic principles, ignores empirical facts and the way that sunlight interacts with the Earth, and comes up with explanations for the climate which are rife with inconsistency both internally and externally to other fields of science, and thus generates many opportunities for debunking. The only approach that climate science has is to simply ignore the thermodynamic analysis, and that is basically all that it does. In discussing things with countless climate scientists and climate science followers over the years, the overwhelming and in fact universal character of such people is that they have no understanding of basic thermodynamics whatsoever. And while it is true that not that many people do, even within science, the problem is that the climate is fundamentally a thermodynamic process and nothing besides. Every single time I discuss things with a climate scientist or follower of such, I find a person who believes that heat can flow from cold to warm by radiative means, and when asked for literature references to support their claim, it can never be produced, whereas all thermodynamic literature explains that heat flow is irreversible for all modes of transfer and that heat cannot naturally flow from cool back to warm by any means. The equations are simple enough and start at the First Law of Thermodynamics: dU = Q + W; to raise an object’s internal thermal energy, it requires heat and/or work. Then you write the heat equation: Q = sigma*(Thot^4 – Tcool^4), which shows that heat is the net of the energy flow between hot and cool, and heat does not flow from cool to warm; the cool term of the equation is not heat, only the difference between terms is heat, the net difference of the terms is heat. Climate scientists do not understand the most basic thermodynamic principles or its mathematics.

    The standard approach to the climate by climate science is to entirely discount and ignore and rewrite the fundamental empirical and thermodynamic facts about the way that sunlight interacts with the Earth. It is from this fundamental starting point taught at the very basis of climate pedagogy from which all subsequent postulations of climate physics is then created and interpreted by climate science, the fundamental feature being that climate science assumes a need to explain higher temperatures than what the Sun (which it ignores) and basic thermodynamics (which it also ignores) can explain. Of course, if you begin with ignoring the Sun, and begin with ignoring thermodynamic theory, then of course there is a need to postulate alternative explanations outwith those pre-existing empirical and theoretical facts.

  134. Mack says:

    Thanks Joe,
    I was looking at that poor Scotsman on that interview at the top. A mixture of incredulous, shock, disappointment, discomfort….look on his face.. as he was faced with the “bitter” truth. But it shouldn’t be “bitter”, should it, Joe.? These people should be rejoicing,… knowing that there’s nothing to worry about with CO2…. now knowing that CO2 can go through the roof and it won’t make a hoot of difference to the weather….knowing that their children’s and grandchildren’s future is free from any “global warming” catastrophe .
    My argument with the Rick bloke over at Treadgold’s place seems to have wound down to a halt.
    I left the guy amicably so it’s also good for my soul, too.

  135. @mack – ya maybe that’s the problem, it’s just too shocking even if it’s good news. Wow…how bad is that!? Good news is too shocking to handle…that’s some psychological abuse right there…

  136. CD Marshall says:

    It is over the Sahara though.

    Funny thing is that’s the only “proof” they offer and it was over a decade ago?
    Where are all the other SABER satellite images allover the world currently that supports this was global and not an isolated one day phenomenon?

    Just like the convenient CO2 levels which they claim are global but but never decrease it doesn’t pass the smell test of legitimacy.

    The Spectral emissions of CO2 according to temperature: (all are in the open window)
    320= 9.0554
    300= 9.6591

  137. CD Marshall says:

    The troposphere does function like a Carnot cycle. granted, and each Hadley cell (renamed for convenience bu technically we have 6 Hadley cells) are smaller “engines” but as you said they all need fuel.

    The Sun supplies the thermal energy and the Coriolis effect supplies the moving parts?

  138. Philip Mulholland says:

    (renamed for convenience but technically we have 6 Hadley cells)
    #6 Fair point,. I have been spending too long looking at Venus.
    Coriolis effect supplies the moving parts?
    The air is the moving part, the Coriolis effect is the cylinder wall that limits the movement options of the air.

  139. Mack says:

    He also tested you on “chem-trails”. I was holding my breathe there, for you, Joe…. hoping you hadn’t fallen into the tin-foil hat brigade. It’s a tester for kookiness.

  140. MP says:

    Joseph E Postma says:2021/02/26 at 2:17 PM

    I would send it JP.

    That redpill might work. Since it has a lot of NLP programming in it (repeating the main arguments). So it might plant the right seed to deprogram him away from the dark side NLP programming.

  141. Mack says:

    “Children of The Con” 🙂 🙂 that deserves an up tick, MP. You guys are very clever with these graphics etc….. now showing at the bug-house.

  142. MP says:

    LIVE – Biden Bombs Brown People – REEEeeeee Stream

  143. Barry says:

    Joseph did you send your reply? I watched some of the vid again and found it interesting how hung up on actual numbers this guy is like -18. Who cares what the actual number is if you don’t care how you arrived at it has no consequence. I think a lot of these people don’t really understand what they are defending but it is what they were taught and sure enough the computer kicked out exactly what we put into it. Sometimes I get the impression that they think we just don’t know how to run a calculator,he seemed quite sure that somehow the climate model has to be right because it gets all the answers he agrees on without ever considering the input. I vote send.
    Have a good day

  144. Joseph E Postma says:

    Cheers Barry. I think I won’t, for now. I know what the response will be, I know what they will do with it. I will soon, just not right away yet.

  145. That’s about it lol

  146. tom0mason says:

    Thanks Joseph for showing us your reply to ‘Christopher’. It crystallizes down to real basic science, and it starkly shows the morass of pseudoscience modern climate theory has become, and exactly why it is wrong.
    I will probably plagiarize your reply (with attribution) a lot. 🙂

  147. tom0mason says:

    @MP says: 2021/02/27 at 1:14 PM
    LOL!! You made me splutter a mouthful of tea into the bin – LOL 🙂

  148. MP says:

    Climate changeists may argue that this argument isn’t fair, since convection isn’t allowed to take place. Not if they are consistent tho.

  149. J Cuttance says:

    Here’s the first few paragraphs of a book I’ll probably never finish, with apologies to H.G. Wells.

    Venus Attacks

    No one would have believed in the early years of the twenty first century, that Venus had relegated global warming to the status of flat-earth theory.

    No one gave a thought to the other worlds of space as sources of paradigm destruction, or they dismissed the idea of counter-evidence from them as impossible or improbable.

    As the quacks and peer reviewers busied themselves about their concerns, such as their fellow humans’ dangerous breathing, their hopeless mathematics were being scrutinised and studied, as someone with a microscope might scrutinise the transient creatures that swarm and multiply in a drop of water.

    With infinite complacency, eco-fascists went to and fro over this globe serene in their assurance of their empire over the masses’ minds.

    Yet across the gulf of space, facts that are to warmists as sunlight to the vampire, data vast and cool and unsympathetic, regarded earth’s presumptions with enlightening eyes.

    Slowly and surely, reality drew against the carbon-based religion, and then came the great disillusionment.

  150. J Cuttance says:

    Actually The War of the World’s first chapter has a really interesting take on planetary and biological evolution that I’d forgotten about in the decades since I’d last read it.

    Mars cooled first, because of its size, so developed intelligent life first. But then the cooling continued so as to threaten the Martians and they regarded Earth with ‘envious eyes.’

    What you could call Wells’ boundary conditions were a linear evolutionary rate dependent on time and a geological global-cooling problem. They were a great basis for the book.

  151. CD Marshall says:

    A great comment from someone?

    “Reproducibility, not peer review, has always been the final measure of quality in published scientific research. All sorts of garbage has always passed through peer review. Once published, bad science gets discovered only when other researchers in the field attempt to reproduce the results reported in the garbage paper, and find that they can’t.

    One of the ways that climate alarmism is propagating is by exploiting the fact that climate researchers rarely even try to reproduce each others’ model results. Models are very complex, so methods are rarely described in enough detail for outsiders to attempt to reproduce them, even if they want to try, which they don’t. This gives the modelers free reign to generate almost any result they want, knowing that no one will ever independently test their methods. In effect, there is no final test of quality for climate models.

    Compare climate science to a hard science field, like chemistry: If I publish a paper reporting a single-pot method for synthesizing DNA from inorganic reactants, the chemistry world would be astonished. My paper would make headlines, and for a while I would be a big star, attracting lots of grant money. However, if other chemists went into their labs and found that they could not reproduce my results, I would be disgraced, and the grant money would disappear. But in climate science, researchers can report astonishing results, get the headlines and the grant money, and know that their methods and results will likely never be independently tested. This is a bad situation that encourages bad science. The incentive to generate sensational, alarming results is great, while the risk of invalid methods being found out is small.”

  152. Gosh that’s brilliant. Exactly…it’s a field built on model results, and that’s it, and those results can be anything, and verification is always 30 years in the future for which you need continued funding to get there lol!!!!

  153. CD Marshall says:

    Plus you have NOAA “adjusting” data to fit the false model outcome.

  154. MP says:

    @ CD 2021/02/27 at 5:46 PM

    Right. Like “hide the decline” in the climategate emails

  155. Philip Mulholland says:

    CDM 2021/02/27 at 5:40 PM
    “Models are very complex,”
    Here is a nice simple one that works for the Climate of Titan.

  156. Philip Mulholland says:


    Rising sea Levels?
    I love this game.
    Castell Harlech: Architecture

    In the 13th century, the sea came up close to the stairway, allowing resupply by sea, but today the sea has retreated significantly, making it more difficult to envisage the concept in its original setting.

  157. MP says:

    To come back to a theory i threw out earlier in this thread.

    What causes the parabolic curvatior after a certain temperature?

    It goes in a straight line until a certain temperture. Then it bends.


  158. MP says:

    Sry wrong pic, here is and adjusted one to make an aking point

  159. MP says:

    The answer to above question is important for follow up questions/logical reasoned answers

    Maybe i am wrong in the perception of the first question, in that case move on

    If not, lets dig further

  160. CD Marshall says:

    The guy who claimed he “schooled Dr. Holmes” is back…oh and said Joseph should be in prison for speaking out against climate change with actual science lol.

    EM F:
    “Without the understanding of the secondary greenhouse gases, you still cannot explain life on Earth when the sun was 30% cooler than today. This planet would have been exactly like Antarctica but global wide. Since the atmosphere was primarily CO2 and CH4 with virtually no O2, the planet was sufficiently warm for life to begin. There have been at least two snowball Earth events when the secondary greenhouses were weathered out of the atmosphere. This is understood because there are 1.2 billion years of the geological record missing and dropstones at the equator where they shouldn’t exist. Try to theorize that otherwise. Hothouse Earth’s climate is Earth’s normal. During those periods, the Milankovitch cycles don’t appear simply because there are too many secondary greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Even during the Milankovitch cycles, temperature surges up and down depending on how much CO2 and CH4 go in and go out of solution from the oceans. Otherwise, the Milankovitch cycles would show smooth temperature sine wave variables.”

  161. They just invent a bunch of interpretations to suit the narrative.

  162. MP says:

    @ CD Marshall

    Got a picture of him?

    Could meme satire him into oblivion for the fun of it.

  163. MP says:

    @ CD Marshall

    I asked that question on a science question site.

    And they admitted it is even with double averaged out (divide by 4) very probable . So even much more from around the equator and in the middle of the day on all locations.

  164. CD Marshall says:

    Oxygen has existed on Earth for billions of years so not sure where he got that from anyway? Dr Holmes should do a video on it, short as that maybe. You know, since this guy schooled him and everything lol.

    Plus the planet was warm because it still had a hot surface had nothing to do with ghgs.

    What’s next? Greenhouse gases caused the core to melt?

  165. CD Marshall says:

    This is why science has gone butt wild, now everyone can say whatever they want (thanks to climate consensus science) and never have the work proved and tested with valid methodology and tested science verification.

    Now science is backwards, Joseph HAS to prove the Sun heats the Earth but CO2 can hold the full intensity of nuclear powered radiation without hardly a glance at the science.

  166. A complete inversion of reason. Holy cow. What an operation.

  167. MP says:

    MP 2021/02/28 at 5:16 PM

    Is the parabolic temperature increase bending at a certain temperature because of photon rejection rates at certain temperatures?

    If so, would subsurface and other heat transfering means lower that photon rejection rate?

  168. It’s the real-time Stefan Boltzmann law heating in effect. The differential is large and sudden giving the parabolic increase, but then tapers off as the heat flow goes to zero as the energy out becomes equal to energy in.

  169. MP says:

    @ MP says 2021/02/28 at 6:34 PM

    To complete the questioning.

    Does a calculated black or grey body have max heat eascape routes at certain locatins, or all warms at the same time and no sub surface?

    Is emissivity a constant?

  170. Emissivity is constant. Subsurface does warm but the heat transfer is slow and not as dramatic as the surface layer.

  171. MP says:

    @ Joseph E Postma says: 2021/02/28 at 6:36 PM

    “but then tapers off as the heat flow goes to zero as the energy out becomes equal to energy in.”

    Right. Also think that

    So would a system with sub surface and other means heat flow and energy conversion to latent/potential be able to keep that rate of heat rejection down compared to a blackbody what cant?

    Given the same solar input there are other metrics in play in real time, not incoirporated in black/grey body calculations.

    So the moon gets because of heatflow to the low subsurface (max 15 cm) extra heatflow from the sun, at noon, in mi9d lattitudes.

  172. Yes in real time there is heat loss to subsurface and other things like convection etc.

  173. MP says:

    So should there be curvatior bending point in time and rate correction factors for calculated temperatures when comparing to greyblack bodies?

  174. It becomes a differential equation. So it naturally bends.

  175. CD Marshall says:

    Just remembered a quote I have from Joseph on the moon…
    “The moon has lower albedo than the Earth…it absorbs more input energy from the sun and reflects less energy than compared to the Earth. That is, the lunar regolith has greater absorptivity of incoming solar energy than the Earth does. The Earth is more reflective due to the presence of clouds. This is the only thing that makes the effective temperatures different.” -Astrophysicist Joseph Postma

    It is believed the Moon has a hot core as well but does nothing to heat the surface, they have discovered craters at the Lunar South Pole believed to be around -238C yes that is the right temperature, a little colder than the surface of Pluto.

    The Moon is an odd object and most of the calculations don’t make a whole lot of sense off hand. So can the Moon retain some solar irradiance due to its emissivity in direct sunlight and how long does that last after the sunlight drops.

    More curious if they built a base on the Moon would they have to put most of it underground?

  176. boomie789 says:

    Did “The Martian” with Matt Damon look realistic to you? Or “The Moon”, much better film. I’d imagine the first bases on the Moon to look like those.

  177. boomie789 says:

    Correction “Moon (2009)” with Sam Bell. Good movie.

  178. CD Marshall says:

    Space1999 was my role model for the Moon, the Eagle transport was my childhood dream of what a ship would look like.

  179. rickis says:

    You guys are as entertaining as hell. A beacon of reason in a sea of insanity! My only qualifications are a thinking mind, but even I ‘get’ the math trick of GHG theory.
    But…The Borg have been assimilating everyone they come into contact with for a very long time now. And despite the pushback from some small bands of resistance fighters…as Picard would say “ I think we’re fkt !”

    P.S. I think memes are the most potent language of the internet. Keep em coming, get em out there.

  180. Philip Mulholland says:

    CDM @ 2021/02/28 at 5:23 PM

    “Without the understanding of the secondary greenhouse gases, you still cannot explain life on Earth when the sun was 30% cooler than today. This planet would have been exactly like Antarctica but global wide.”

    He is applying the divide-by-4 rule. There is no faint Sun paradox.
    Even with a divide-by-2 application and a 30% weaker Sun in the Archean then the reduced solar flux value of 330 W/m^2 (post-albedo) gives a solar flame temperature of 3 Celsius (lit hemisphere average).
    The kick -back will be that the albedo is higher under conditions of global icing.
    The response is to check the temperature at the solar zenith.
    For a 30% weaker Sun irradiance of 953 W/m^2 and an albedo of 0.3 then the zenith flux will still be 660 W/m^2 for an S-B temperature of 55 Celsius which is clearly good enough to melt ice at the equator.
    You have to kick the Earth’s planetary Bond albedo up to 0.67 to get the zenith flux down to 315 W/m^2 and a solar flame temperature down to 0 Celsius.

    The Earth is a rapid daily rotator, (more so in the Archean) atmospheric dynamics with a Hadley convection cell that is forced to the surface in the mid-latitudes will guarantee that a planetary high albedo atmospheric veil, such as exists on slowly rotating Venus, will never have happened on the Earth.

    The faint Sun paradox does not exist.

  181. CD Marshall says:

    “The faint Sun paradox does not exist.” rename that and it would make a great research paper, meaning make the wording so complex normal folk would have no clue you were actually talking about this and just maybe you can slip it through peer review.

    Seriously, that would make a great paper.

    Plus I was just thinking by their own lack of reason, the planet was warmed by the core over the Sun at one point and thus the so called greenhouse effect, especially at the incredibly higher amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, would have created “a runaway greenhouse affect” on Earth and Mars when both were still young planets, preventing both from ever cooling.

    Thank you, Philip that was a good answer.

  182. MP says:

    So far 4 upvotes and almost 100 views on a radiation conversion by water on a specific wavelenght question.

    Not a single answer lol.

  183. CD Marshall says:

    Philip M,
    This is my “re-vised” reply about glaciations…
    Ice Age glaciations occur because of the incidence of radiation decreasing at the surface, not a degree change but actual thermal energy density change.

    Why would that matter? Decreasing the incoming solar density flux decreases the potential thermal temperature of the planet.

    What brings us out of a glaciation? Increase in the solar density flux of the surface TSI at the equator.

    W/o water vapor the Equator could reach 120 Celsius. However, if that density flux lowered the temperature would as well.

    Mini ice-ages occur because of the same short term concept, total density flux decreases, or referred to as a Terrestrial Dimming usually caused by an increase of atmospheric aerosols, such as volcanic activity.

    Even at 30% density flux at the Equator, the Sun is still hot enough to evaporate water unless the angle of incidence of the total solar flux is reduced then the glaciation moves in and that is justified by the Milankovitch cycles.”

  184. CD Marshall says:

    That is a fascinating paper. I’m curious, what were your thoughts so far on it?

  185. Philip Mulholland says:

    Looks like we are getting close to a theory of everything.
    Atmospheric water vapour causes atmospheric warming.
    Atmospheric particulates causes atmospheric cooling..
    All of this action is taking place at the solar flux input point, – the solar zenith

  186. CD Marshall says:

    Just think what would happen if cloud coverage increased to 70%?

  187. CD Marshall says:

    So I just dropped this on a troll, odds are he will have no clue what I am saying and use peer review research as the scapegoat in some way or form.

    “CO2 doesn’t cause warming so the estimate was not correct based on that alone. CO2 is not a heat source, only gullible and uneducated in science would think that (and many in science are that gullible or not properly educated or just good charlatans). CO2 like all improperly named greenhouse gases, which have nothing to do with a greenhouse at all, re-radiates a specific or specific wavelengths of IR which is a line spectrum, as such a radiative source cannot under any circumstances under the laws of physics or thermodynamics, increase its own heat source without work.

    A photon carries transferable energy based on the frequency of the photon in that specific wavelength, and those wavelengths do not increase the frequency to a higher frequency, regardless of energy population at that specific wavelength.

    In other words a hundred photons at 15 microns or 1 photon at 15 microns can increase energy of a system and never raise the temperature one degree this is regulated by the Bose-Einstein statistic which governs all bosons including those used in climate science.

    To raise temperatures heat is required and that is why the political version of climate science makes no distinctions between energy and heat. Trust me the distinctions between makes all the difference in the density flux of solar heat coming into the planet and just energy emissions going out from the planet”

  188. Philip Mulholland says:

    CD Marshall @ 2021/03/01 at 10:50 PM

    “Just think what would happen if cloud coverage increased to 70%?”

    One of the things that should be apparent by now is that climate science is Lewis Carroll’s Looking-Glass World, where Alice found that everything was back to front.
    My father, a maths teacher, once told me how spherical geometry was first devised by mathematicians. Everyone knows that the sum of the 3 internal angles of a triangle is 180 degrees, this is an immutable consequence of Euclidean geometry. Right?

    Well actually no. What happens if you assume that the sum of the 3 internal angles of a triangle is more than 180 degrees? The answer is that you have just discovered spherical geometry where the sum of the 3 internal angles is indeed more than 180 degrees. Just ask any ship’s navigator if you don’t believe me.

    Science advances by testing assumptions. Take albedo for example, in climate science this is a primary control on solar energy flux into the planetary atmosphere. Maybe this is just another Looking-Glass world assumption? One of the interesting aspects of designing the DAET climate model is that we can make so many new explanations for observed climate phenomena.

    Albedo is one such example. Specifically, planetary cloud albedo and the temperature of the tropopause, where the relevant condensing volatile finally freezes solid, and therefore changes to become an efficient upper atmosphere particulate thermal radiator. In the case of the Earth, it is super-cooled water, for Venus the freezing volatile is concentrated sulphuric acid.

    It is the temperature of the tropopause that governs the process of volatile freezing. It is the planetary lapse rate, a function of gravity and specific heat, that determines the level of this point above the ground in the atmosphere. It is the mass and gravity induced pressure reduction below 100 hPa that determines where the mean free path to space for thermal radiation through the overlying atmosphere is no longer blocked.

    In short, atmospheric albedo is a consequence and not a cause of planetary climate.

  189. CD Marshall says:

    Cold creates clouds, that’s an interesting point, water vapor creates the source but cold actually creates the cloud formations.

  190. CD Marshall says:

    More from EF M who seems to not get anything I say?
    Ice Age glaciations occur because of the incidence of radiation decreasing at the surface, not a degree change but actual thermal energy density change.

    Why would that matter? Decreasing the incoming solar density flux decreases the potential thermal temperature of the planet.

    What brings us out of a glaciation? Increase in the solar density flux of the surface TSI at the equator.

    W/o water vapor the Equator could reach 120 Celsius. However, if that density flux lowered the temperature would as well.

    Mini ice-ages occur because of the same short term concept, total density flux decreases, or referred to as a Terrestrial Dimming usually caused by an increase of atmospheric aerosols, such as volcanic activity.

    Even at 30% density flux at the Equator, the Sun is still hot enough to evaporate water unless the angle of incidence of the total solar flux is reduced then the glaciation moves in and that is justified by the Milankovitch cycles.

    EF M reply:
    “but actual thermal energy density change.”
    The only way to increase thermal density without increasing temperature is to increase photon frequency which means the sun instead of being a white star would be a blue star. That would mean output would have to be in the ultraviolet to x-ray which would kill anything and everything. Life would never arise with a sun like that. Nonetheless, you’d still have an issue with the second law of thermodynamics. Instead of the sun’s AU of 1,000 W/m^2 at the surface, you’d have about 700 W/m^2 which should bring the AU temperature down to -95C. Without some sort of insulator converting blue light to infrared and then blocking those infrared photons from escaping, the Earth would be a solid ice ball. Not only would the blue light have killed anything and everything, but it would have been too cold. Your theory doesn’t work.

    You still haven’t explained “Catastrophe: Snowball Earth”., nor can you explain “the Missing 1.2 billion years”. Using the greenhouse gas model, it all fits.

    “Terrestrial Dimming usually caused by an increase of atmospheric aerosols, such as volcanic activity.” I’ll agree with this, but there is the usual corresponding spike in temperature afterward.

    “Even at 30% density flux at the Equator, the Sun is still hot enough to evaporate water” Well, not enough to put sufficient water vapor into the air to heat the planet. The planet would remain an ice ball clear to the Equator. Once in a Snow Ball Earth climate, the only to get out of it is sufficient secondary greenhouse gases to heat the planet, and then once melted, you would a runaway greenhouse effect afterward, which is exactly what happened.

  191. CDM @ 2021/03/02 at 4:19 PM
    We need a new set of terms for this new climate science.
    Form now on no more “greenhouse effect” I will instead refer to the “Maxwell Mass Effect” in honour of the renowned Victorian mathematician James Clerk Maxwell.

  192. Just because they can make something fit, doesn’t mean it’s correct. That’s exactly where the GHE comes from in the first place – to make flat earth fit! From there you can make the ghe fit anything to make anything fit.

    The GHE still fails at its basis and origin. Other explanations for what he’s talking about are required and are likely already available. His example of geological history is hardly evidence of the GHE.

  193. Philip Mulholland says:

    “Your theory doesn’t work.”
    Your understanding doesn’t work.

  194. MP says:

    CD Marshall says:2021/03/02 at 4:22 PM

    They just make up an imaginary non reality world.

    In the example the commenter made He didn’t take into acount the lower flux intenstity to make ice evaporate at lower presure

    And he didn’t take into acount that it takes both high pessure and low temperature to get NO or O2 into a freezing state. …..making it improbable to get an no atmosphere pressure world.

  195. CD Marshall says:

    This is the kind of stuff where atmopsheric chemistry comes into play with atmopsheric physics.

  196. CD Marshall says:

    The biggest issue I find with this theory is a young Earth was far hotter than the Sun was creating on the planet with massive amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere. With this theory, the Earth would have been created in a runaway greenhouse effect and became Venus so would Mars.

  197. CD Marshall says:

    Talk about irony…
    The International Standard Atmosphere from NASA

  198. CD Marshall says:

    “Variations in air properties extend upward from the surface of the Earth. The sun heats the surface of the Earth, and some of this heat goes into warming the air near the surface. The heated air is then diffused or convected up through the atmosphere. Thus the air temperature is highest near the surface and decreases as altitude increases. The speed of sound depends on the temperature and also decreases with increasing altitude. The pressure of the air can be related to the weight of the air over a given location. As we increase altitude through the atmosphere, there is some air below us and some air above us. But there is always less air above us than was present at a lower altitude. Therefore, air pressure decreases as we increase altitude. The air density depends on both the temperature and the pressure through the equation of state and also decreases with increasing altitude.”

  199. CD Marshall says:

    You should quote NASA exactly for your paper and reference this.

  200. Philip Mulholland says:

    CD Marshall @ 2021/03/02 at 7:22 PM
    “With this theory, the Earth would have been created in a runaway greenhouse effect and became Venus so would Mars”
    The runaway Maxwell Mass Effect is a fiction. Using their own flat earth physics then the maximum possible thermodynamic temperature that can be achieved for ANY terrestrial planetary atmosphere of ANY composition coupled with a planetary Bond albedo of zero, is 3 times the surface diluted solar irradiance. This is the immutable mathematical limit of their own infinite geometric series of energy recycling.

    So, as we have already established that the Sun was 30% less powerful in the Archean and delivered only 953 W/m2 at the Top of the Atmosphere (TOA), then with an albedo of zero the divide-by-4 full surface (no night-time) planetary solar flux received at the surface will be:
    953 divided by 4 all times by 3.
    This has a value of 715 W/m2 which gives a S-B thermal global temperature of 62 Celsius. This low global temperature, being below the boiling point of water will never create an atmospheric mass induced boiling water thermal runaway.
    More atmospheric pressure? Then the boiling point of water just goes up (nice try) 😊.

    For more details of this mathematical proof see:'s_Energy_Budget

  201. CD Marshall says:

    I was referring to the claimed theory that ghgs take us out of the snow ball effect as claimed by EF M and those videos.

    If the ghge was real as they claimed then when the planet was far hotter from the surface still cooling, with massive amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere, the planet would have never cooled, becoming another Venus (if Venus was actually from CO2 which we know it is not). With that kind of surface temperature, CO2 would be active in all its rotational/vibrational mods. I was just stating how fallacious the statements are by simple observation.

    While you are here, more fun from idiots…
    “Why on Earth are Winters Getting Worse if the Planet is Getting Warmer?”
    The planet warming is causing more snow to fall.
    2C warming is causing more snow according to a climatologist.
    Look at 4:00

  202. Philip Mulholland says:

    CD Marshall 2021/03/03 at 2:01 AM
    “The planet would have never cooled, becoming another Venus (if Venus was actually from CO2 which we know it is not).”

    A simple rule of battle – Take control of your enemy’s weapon and turn it against them.
    By their own irrefutable logic there is a fixed limit to the process of solar radiative heating.
    Venus is hot because it has a massive atmosphere – agreed, but Venus is a slow rotator and this has a controlling effect on the planet’s atmospheric mass-motion circulation dynamics.

    The Earth is cooled because it is a fast rotator and the surface-to-space atmospheric by-pass window is kept clear of cloud in the mid-latitude rotation forced descending limb of the Hadley cell (deserts get cold at night).
    Lots of moving parts to consider 🙂

  203. Philip Mulholland says:

    OK, let me nail Snowball Earth as well (and this time I will do a full model analysis and not just my previous single lit hemisphere scoping number fudge).

    We know what the Earth’s dry atmospheric lapse rate is for the troposphere, it is 7.5 K/Km
    Looking at Snowball Earth with an Albedo of 0.306 and a weak Sun irradiance of 953 W/m^2, then the simplest single cell DAET model gives a global average temperature of minus 9.6 Celsius – Snowball Earth. But that is with an atmosphere of 1 bar. Now to get the global average above freezing we need to add 1.3 km of extra air to the dry atmosphere lapse rate of 7.5 K/Km to raise minus 9.6 Celsius up to a global average temperature of zero.

    For the Earth’s pressure profile this extra 1.3 km of surface air equates to an increase in surface pressure to 1.18 bar.
    So how do we do this? Get those volcanoes to pump out CO2, to increase the surface pressure. Now there is no rain to wash out the CO2 (it’s a Snowball) but it will take a good few million years to achieve this. (There is however no land-based animal life to care about this).

    Let’s check the albedo sensitivity. Going all out with a Venus albedo of 0.77 then the Snowball will have a global surface temperature of minus 73 Celsius, seriously cold – but not yet cold enough to initiate a high-pressure carbon dioxide condensing volatile meteorology (curious that). To melt this Snowball, we need to add a lot more pressure to the atmosphere. This is equivalent to an extra air thickness of 9.76 km for the 7.5 K/Km atmosphere lapse rate. This extra air requires a surface pressure increase to 3 bar.

    A 3-bar carbon dioxide atmosphere Earth is achievable by normal geological processes, but just needs more time. (Geology is a patient science).
    Remember however with a surface ice high albedo of 0.77, any albedo changes down, for example a decent volcanic sourced global dust cloud settling on the ice (Mars has those type of global dust storms) then the sudden surface albedo change at a high atmospheric pressure will initiate a catastrophic global melting and the end of Snowball Earth.

    Did I mention carbon dioxide? Oh yes it makes the surface pressure rise., but that’s all that it is required to do.
    P.s. Those photosynthetic Archean algae have a lot of explaining to do.

  204. CD Marshall says:

    My faith in the standard IQ and critical thinking of humanity is fading fast.

    I showed someone the International Standard Atmosphere model, explained a dozen times (literally) that the standard model has shown the surface temperature average to be 15C for over 45 years and that model must be accurate for all air flight world wide.

    To any reasonable mind deduction would be GISS, NASA and NOAA are lying their arse off by claiming the surface has increased by 1-2 degrees in just the last decade or whatever its claimed now.

    But nope, the person’s reply…
    “So help me out here. I googled “International Standard Atmosphere model”, and “If air flight used GISS or NASA or NOAA models, airplanes would be dropping out of the sky like flies”, and I’m not getting anything related to climate change. Am I doing something wrong?”

    At this point, why do I bother?

  205. Barry says:

    CD I think it’s hopeless the general public seem to have the IQ of a hammer. They can’t seem to understand how the real physical world works but seem to believe anything that comes from a computer model even though it’s proven over and over to be wrong. It’s almost as if people want the world to fail and then some how that will be better for our children.

  206. MP says:

    Higher educated conservatives still level with lower educated, just confirming their toughts some more

    Higher educated liberals have a huge difference in understanding things compared to the general population.

  207. MP says:

    The high educated neo-liberals (wannabe globalist commie/fascist/technocrat combo).

    They are the lone wolves. ….Not reasonating with the rest of society.

  208. MP says:

    Got my first answer on a water absorbtion of ispecific infrared wavelenght question.

    They just play stupid. And claim despite a visual explaining the point not undersanding the question because of in his/their view of wrong used terminology lol

  209. CD Marshall says:

    Yes he’s playing the 3-ds Deny,Discredit, Deflect.
    If he is smart enough to ‘correct’ you he is smart enough to understand the question.

  210. CD Marshall says:

    The latest troll reply,

    “If you took an air compressor and pumped it to 1,000 atmospheres, in a clear glass container, leave it in sunlight and in a relatively short period of time it would cool to the ambient temperature. Try it, your theory won’t work. O2 and N2 simply won’t retain heat for any length of time. Do the exact same thing to a clear glass container of CO2 and the temperature will increase dramatically. This has been tested time and time again. Your theory is bonkers.”

  211. CD Marshall says:

    I just had another thought,
    ” 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…”

    Wouldn’t that geometry be assuming the TOA is the heat source, and not treating light as the physics which reaches the surface and then converts to the heat source?

    Which is basically treating albedo as a divisor not a reflector/diffusion?

    So the TOA “can” be treated as a virtual restricted blackbody in that sense due to the amount of absorption and re-direction of the higher energy particle physics.

    The atmosphere would then be the characteristic grey body or limited blackbody for the conversion of some energy particles that is so weak the temperatures are still below freezing.

    Then we have the surface, more like a blackbody creating higher temps at the equatorial zenith.

  212. CD Marshall says:

    Apologies esteemed scientists, I got lazy in my verbiage.

    I did not mean TOA as in 100 km, I meant the actual top of the atmopsher as in the Thermosphere.

  213. CD Marshall @ 2021/03/04 at 9:06 PM
    “If you took an air compressor and pumped it to 1,000 atmospheres, in a clear glass container, leave it in sunlight and in a relatively short period of time it would cool to the ambient temperature.”

    More rabbit holes, it is hard to know where to start.
    1. What is ambient temperature? The atmospheric pressure on the surface of Venus is 9.3 mega Pascals. If you pumped the air up to that pressure and left your cylinder on the ambient surface of Venus what would happen? How long would it take to cool back to 15 Celsius? He is clearly a Boyle’s law denier.
    2. The air is always warmer at the bottom of a deep mine shaft. Why is that?
    3. What about the wind? He is trying to equate a static system with a dynamic one. For as long as the planet continues to daily turn, for as long as the sun continues to shine on its surface, then the air will circulate and the Trade winds will blow. Where does he think that the motion energy of the wind comes from? Is he also a Hadley cell denier?
    Maybe he does not “believe in” the “science” of “green energy” after all.

  214. CD Marshall says:

    Philip while you are here (if you still are), do you know what generally causes SSWs (sudden stratospheric warming) over the Arctic?

    I know this has happened for centuries, and it can break down the Polar Vortex which breaks down the Polar jet stream which then can dump snow over Texas or England or anywhere.

    But what kickstarts it?
    Does a change in wind patterns influence this at all?

  215. Philip Mulholland says:

    CD Marshall @ 2021/03/05 at 1:18 AM
    “Do you know what generally causes SSWs (sudden stratospheric warming) over the Arctic?”
    No I don’t know. However it is a very good question and clearly needs an answer,
    I suspect that Piers Corbyn is the man to ask.

  216. CD Marshall says:

    This was my reply to the troll,
    You are confusing two different (but closely related) processes here buddy, pressure/compression. This is like heat and energy, something many get tripped up on in thermodynamics.

    While the compressor is running the hoses typically get hot due to compression, pressure by itself does not normally increase the temperatures. Take CO2 cartridges for an example, not hot at all even under pressure.

    The ocean floor is a perfect example for water is not compressible.

    IR absorption through the glass is a totally different process than the compressor.

    Everything under the Sun will get hot including O2 and NO.

    Ghgs are IR reactive as well, and CO2 has a higher molar mass and different specific heat than NO and O2.

    Thus it will expand, increasing pressure and compression, which activates the KE and creates the increase in temperature.

    Did you forget Boyle’s Law and Charles’ Law?

    The difference in molecular constants and state variables?

  217. CD Marshall says:

    Thank you, will do!

  218. Mack says:

    All this talk about temperature and pressure makes me think that those who survive this catastrophic global warming may be the ones with the strongest eardrums..

  219. Philip Mulholland says:

    Because of all the shouting?

  220. CD Marshall says:

    Or the pressure on the eardrums?

  221. CD Marshall says:

    I just heard ice is melting at the poles because of the acid in the oceans.

    Will these idiots ever stop? No real science will exist at the end of this century if they keep this up.

  222. Joseph E Postma says:

    “”If you took an air compressor and pumped it to 1,000 atmospheres, in a clear glass container, leave it in sunlight and in a relatively short period of time it would cool to the ambient temperature. Try it, your theory won’t work. O2 and N2 simply won’t retain heat for any length of time. Do the exact same thing to a clear glass container of CO2 and the temperature will increase dramatically. This has been tested time and time again. Your theory is bonkers.””

    Except the atmosphere is convecting, and a glass container isn’t large enough to manifest the adiabatic gradient.

  223. Barry says:

    These people keep telling us that you can warm co2 with a heat source. I don’t think anyone disagrees,the problem comes in when they claim to make the heat source warmer which not being a scientist I can’t say it doesn’t but would need to be shown proof.

  224. CD Marshall says:

    As if acid “melting the Arctic” wasn’t enough, I read this:
    Coal Ash Is More Radioactive Than Nuclear Waste

    Now they have people convinced coal is radioactive!

  225. Leon says:

    Wait, what’s going here?
    Imagine roasting 200lb pig on a spit over a fire. It takes 24hrs on a slow rotation to cook the pork evenly. The temperature is 160F. If I use your equation, and four sources of 40F surround the pig instead of a fire, the pork will still be raw. Averaging temperature serves no purpose. Further, (1−a)Ω4 suggests all sunlight is reaching the earth at the same time. This is not the case. Why not (1−a)Ω2? – Leon Hiebert 16 mins ago

    Imagine this: dt of the time on one side, dt on the opposite. So half of the time 2dt is on one side, same on another. Now add these small amounts of time. – User123 12 mins ago

    Why is user123 wanting to add the sunny side to the dark side if I’m understanding correctly? Is he suggesting the “4” in 1−a)Ω4 is based on the speed a body rotates? Say we had 3 planets that spun at different speeds and one that didn’t spin at all. How would you calculate it then?

  226. tom0mason says:

    CD Marshall,
    WRT your thoughts at and the consequences of a planet without water.
    Some thoughts.
    Without water —
    1. The temperature differential between the sunlit side of the planet and the night side would be much greater.
    2. Without the regulating effect of water on the atmosphere, probably the top of the troposphere on the sunlit side of the would rise while at the the dark side and pole that is in winter would fall.
    3. With no water the polar albedo disappears, polar summers are much hotter, polar winters are very much colder.

    With such stark temperature and therefore pressure differential around the planet the air will move around faster. This high movement ensure that the cell structure of the atmosphere would change. Out goes the Hadley, intermediate, and polar cells, and probably more cells would appear between the equator and the poles. Increased wind speeds would ensure lots of dust in the atmosphere, more dust that is not only whipping around the planet but also being lofted high up at the sunny equatorial region. This dust would band-up to regions of dust overcast sky with a cold surface below and clear areas where the ground beneath is very warm. However these areas are not static but writhe all across the planet.

    Overall I would envision the planet to look more like a mini Saturn but with faster moving features, than anything here is today.

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 )

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