This livestream (Sept. 16, 2023, 8pm MDT) will be the first time in history where the entire temperature structure of the Earth’s surface and atmosphere (i.e., the troposphere) is explained all in one place, in one lecture. This has literally never happened before, anywhere, or in any university, although it easily could and should have.
Join me for this academia-shaking lecture and include yourself as one of the ones who was there to witness this original and paradigm-shattering scientific event! The lecture will be open to questions which you can provide via the livestream chat, and I will also ask the audience occasional questions throughout the lecture just as would be experienced in a real university classroom.
Please join me for this interactive livestream lecture on Planetary Physics and solving Earth’s temperature without an undefinable “greenhouse effect”. This lecture would nominally be directed to 2nd-year university students in an astrophysics or physics major, but do not worry if you’re not in such a program as I will explain all concepts.
Are you ready to end the chokehold which the enemy forces of irrationality have over modern science, government, and politics? After this event, things will be different. Join me in making it happen!
Climate of Sophistry 
Look forward to this one.
If this gets promoted on X, I hope your server doesn’t crash.
Looking forward to it being a big success!
Excellent. That’s on Saturday afternoon for me – beer o’clock to be precise.
From: Roy Spencer <roy.spencer@nss>
Sent: September 11, 2023 12:50 PM
To: ‘Joseph Postma’ <joepostma@
I’ve tried to come up with some kind of polite response to this invitation, but I cannot.
Any claim that Earth’s temperature (surface or upper atmosphere) can be explained without a greenhouse effect is bogus. Abundant laboratory measurements clearly demonstrate that water vapor, CO2, etc., absorb IR, and therefore must emit IR. The former is largely temperature-independent while the latter is very temperature dependent.
For every planetary atmosphere that is heated from below by sunlight, atmospheric absorption/emission of IR necessarily leads to a greenhouse effect. Without the GHE, weather as we know it on Earth would not exist. The GHE destabilizes the troposphere, partly through IR cooling of the upper layers. The observed lapse rate is after convective adjustment responds to the destabilization produced by the greenhouse effect. Other theories such as adiabatic compression fail to explain the stratospheric temperature profile, which is nearly isothermal over 2 orders of magnitude in air pressure. The adiabatic lapse rate is the result of convective overturning, and that overturning cannot occur without the greenhouse effect.
The simplest demonstration that greenhouse gases in the “cold” upper atmosphere cause surface warming is to use a $50 handheld IR thermometer on a clear day, and point it upward noting the indicated temperature, then pointing it obliquely and seeing the indicated temperature rise. THAT is the greenhouse effect. There is no other explanation for why the sensor in the IR thermometer warms.
I’m surprised Joe is still beating this dead horse. I actually hope he publishes a paper in some obscure journal so his arguments are out there to be critiqued.
-Roy
Just watch the lecture – it will be demonstrated with 2nd year university physics.
“Any claim that Earth’s temperature (surface or upper atmosphere) can be explained without a greenhouse effect is bogus.”
“Without the GHE, weather as we know it on Earth would not exist.”
This thinking is only the result of your adherence to flat Earth theory. It will be covered in the lecture, so watch it.
“The observed lapse rate is after convective adjustment responds to the destabilization produced by the greenhouse effect.”
“The adiabatic lapse rate is the result of convective overturning, and that overturning cannot occur without the greenhouse effect.”
The lapse rate is due to gravity – that’s it. It manifests at the infinitesimal scale. It will be derived in the lecture, so watch it.
“There is no other explanation for why the sensor in the IR thermometer warms.”
It doesn’t warm – it is a photoelectric device, or works via an internally calibrated difference in heat flow. Pointing up to the cold atmosphere doesn’t mean it is being heated. Heat flow is one-way only: hot to cold. Cold does not warm up hot.
“I actually hope he publishes a paper in some obscure journal so his arguments are out there to be critiqued.”
I did, and the peer-review journals all said that the Earth is flat and that flat Earth is a better model than a spherical Earth.
I’ve also published on YouTube and blog, and no one can actually critique the arguments because, after-all, the Earth is a sphere, and sunlight warms the surface and drives the climate – not the flat Earth greenhouse effect. I published the peer-review critiques in the book Planet Wars, where the peer-review critique was to say that there is no evidence that the Earth is a sphere, which is de-facto your position as well, Roy.
Best regards,
Joe
Pingback: Livestream Lecture! Planetary Physics 201: Earth’s Temperature (Sept. 15, 2023, 8pm MDT) | ajmarciniak
Roy,
Re: Your comment:
“Other theories such as adiabatic compression fail to explain the stratospheric temperature profile, which is nearly isothermal over 2 orders of magnitude in air pressure.”
There is not enough atmospheric pressure in the stratosphere, which is less than 0.1 bar, to form an adiabatic pressure gradient. Adiabatic auto compression only works in atmospheres greater than 0.1 bar. Which is why adiabatic auto compression works on Venus and Titan but not really on Mars.
Spencer’s email reads like a b-grade science fiction screenplay.
https://notrickszone.com/2023/09/11/lab-experiment-shows-a-2500-fold-increase-in-co2-delivers-surface-cooling-not-warming/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=lab-experiment-shows-a-2500-fold-increase-in-co2-delivers-surface-cooling-not-warming
“In a modified experiment, where IR emission from the heating source is present, no heating but a slight cooling of a black object is found when air is replaced by CO2. The modified experimental situation is also more like the earth/atmosphere situation.” – Seim and Olsen, 2023
Scientists Hermann Harde and Michael Schnell published a paper in 2021 entitled “Verification of the Greenhouse Effect in the Laboratory.” The study purported to experimentally determine that the atmospheric CO2 greenhouse effect not only exists, but functions in concert with physical laws.
“To our knowledge we present the first demonstration of the atmospheric greenhouse effect in a laboratory experiment, which also allows quantitative measurements under conditions as in the lower troposphere. We use an experimental set-up consisting of two plates in a closed housing, one plate in the upper position heated to 30°C, the other at the bottom and cooled to -11.4°C.”
Thorstein Seim and Borgar Olsen (2023) have analyzed their experimental setup in further detail. They discover that in the Harde and Schnell (2021) greenhouse effect experiment, when the CO2 is increased 500-fold, or from 0.04% (400 ppm) to 20% (200,000 ppm), the plate temperature increases by just 1.18°C. Further, raising CO2 from 20% to 100% (1,000,000 ppm) adds just 0.4°C additional warming (1.6°C).
Since it is assumed that the 100 ppm (0.01%) atmospheric CO2 increase since 1950, from ~310 to 410 ppm, has been the primary cause of 1950-to-present global warming, an experiment that shows increasing CO2 2500-fold (0.04% to 100%) only produces a warming of 1.6°C would hardly appear to support the “verification” of the CO2 greenhouse effect.
But it may be worse than that. Seim and Olsen modify the Harde and Schnell experiment to better simulate “the earth/atmosphere situation.” Instead of modestly increasing the plate temperature by a degree and a half, the modified experiment shows that increasing CO2 from 0.04% to 100% actually cools the blackbody (plate) by about -0.2 to -0.3°C.
…………….
Awesome
Looking forward to watching. Won’t publicize video until after to minimize trolls.
@eilert
Awesome study! I’m sure it will face retraction pressure but Planck institute is gritty. Will be interesting to watch.
Still, sad that we are having to do 120 year old science to correct something that should have never become consensus.
Why does Spencer make a reference to water and carbon dioxide absorbing and emitting IR? Nobody is denying this. I’ll tell you why. It’s because that is the only empirical data to which the warmists can refer, hence the strange emphasis at this point.
…Look at these absorption charts! How can you suggest the atmosphere isn’t absorbing anything?
Take this adjective, abundant, thwack! and this abverb, clearly, sock! There, that’s told you, you denier you.
But since that’s the end of anything proven in a laboratory, the abverbs default to supporting bold assertions and he says that this IR stuff necessarily leads to a GHE.
There are no field experiments backing him up, just big, scientific words
…GHE destabilises the troposphere…
What the hell is that supposed to mean?
…partly through IR cooling of the upper layers.
Wait, isn’t he making our point here? Or is it a trick to appear to concede on a minor point while claiming overall victory?
Plus, the “partly” part suggests the, um, destabilisation of the troposphere is partly caused by something else, too. What else? And if it’s only partly, surely there are measurements and proof and equations to determine how much of this, um, destabilisation of the troposphere is caused by the, what was it? oh, yes, the IR cooling of its upper layers.
…The observed lapse rate is after convective adjustment responds to the destabilization produced by the greenhouse effect.
Oh, for heaven’s sake, Spencer has got to be taking the piss here. Fuck off with this, ok? Fuck. Right. Off.
…adiabatic compression fail(s) to explain the stratospheric temperature profile.
Because it doesn’t try to. Ultraviolet light heats it from the top, hence it’s warmer at the top. The air’s pretty wispy up there and it’s not hard for the sun’s UV to do this, so there’s no need to go all 2-orders-of-magnitude on us.
Here is Ferenc Miskolczi’s latest paper in which he disputes the existence of the greenhouse effect:
Greenhouse Gas Theories and Observed Radiative Properties of the Earth’s Atmosphere
August 6, 2023 Ferenc Miskolczi
They just lie with big word strung together in word salad.
That’s what’s so disappointing about that Sabine video in the comments – all the comments (likely fake actually) saying “you explained the GHE so well I totally understand it now”, when in fact she said nothing that was understandable at all, and made no sense at any point!
Hence that whole discussion about form vs. function.
Why do they mix the environmental and the adiabatic lapse rate up? Since they know better, I mean it is Meteo101 isn’t it? That means they are doing it on purpose.
They pull that crap on me, the “educated” ones try it. So much so I bookmarked my reply:
“Don’t confuse the environmental lapse rate with the adiabatic lapse rate: dT/dh = -g/Cp delta temperature/delta height minus gravity and thermal capacity
ALR is dependent only upon the thermal capacity of gases and the strength of gravity.
The ELR is highly variable, being affected by radiation, convection, and condensation.”
In this regard you can treat the ALR to temperature as you treat hydrostatic equilibrium to pressure. They are global constants altered by localized variables.
@CD Marshall
If their theory of back radiation was real, then the “raised height of effective emissions” would be a self-corrected change to the temperature lapse rate. They avoid that by referencing the real life lapse rate in conjunction with the raised height of emissions. To me, raised height of emissions is a thermodynamic and atmospheric phenomenon. To them, it is calculated purely radiatively with their nonsense back radiation. So they apply the radiative math to the real-life lapse rate, while also claiming their greenhouse effect causes that lapse rate.
It’s nuts.
Roy Spencer is obviously employing some trained rhetoric. I always wonder if these highly skilled liars and gatekeepers are weird masons or something. The reason he’s talking about the stratosphere is literally turning the card table over, not because it’s a good argument but because it makes a mess that takes up time to deal with and confuses idiots.
^Exactly!
Sorry but Roy’s reply is a load of old cobblers, which actually made me laugh out loud.
“For every planetary atmosphere that is heated from below by sunlight, atmospheric absorption/emission of IR necessarily leads to a greenhouse effect.”
.
The earth cannot possibly heat itself by it’s own back-radiation.
But the atmosphere is heated from above by the Sun as well as below from Earth! So a ‘blanket’ effect cannot possibly work anyway!
.
“Abundant laboratory measurements clearly demonstrate that water vapor, CO2, etc., absorb IR, and therefore must emit IR.”
.
So what?
Is there a point to this statement?
We know what the boring radiative qualities of some gases are; this is irrelevant since according to the ideal gas law, all gases are equal. There is no special class of gases which can cause warming anomalously. Added gases can ONLY affect temperatures by their additional partial pressure, density or molar mass via;
T=PM/Rρ
.
“Without the GHE, weather as we know it on Earth would not exist.”
.
This claim like these others by Roy here is sheer nonsense.
The sun and an atmospheric pressure of over 10kPa is all that is needed to create weather and a lapse rate, through auto-compression and convection. Which gases are in the atmosphere is irrelevant.
.
“Other theories such as adiabatic compression fail to explain the stratospheric temperature profile”
.
Another statement for which there is no point.
No-one is saying that adiabatic compression and convection happen in the stratosphere or mesosphere. Unlike the troposphere, heat transfer in these regions is dominated by radiative interactions.
.
“THAT is the greenhouse effect. There is no other explanation for why the sensor in the IR thermometer warms.”
.
It is not a greenhouse effect.
It’s a thermal gradient caused by known gas thermodynamics, which results in a thermal surface enhancement.
Dear Roy we like you, but watch my videos or
Please read my papers!!!!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wbQ-KviHT5I&t=1s
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/338393205_On_the_Apparent_Relationship_Between_Total_Solar_Irradiance_and_the_Atmospheric_Temperature_at_1_Bar_on_Three_Terrestrial-type_Bodies
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/324599511_Thermal_Enhancement_on_Planetary_Bodies_and_the_Relevance_of_the_Molar_Mass_Version_of_the_Ideal_Gas_Law_to_the_Null_Hypothesis_of_Climate_Change
Dr Robert Ian Holmes
@Dr Robert Ian Holmes
Robert, I am going to challenge this part of your otherwise excellent comment – the issue of pressure and convection.
When Stephen Wilde and I started to look at the atmosphere of Mars using MY29 data I was surprised to find the presence of a thick weather layer in the low-pressure atmosphere of the Red Planet. A moment’s thought shows that of course Mars has a weather layer as the presence of global dust storms adequately demonstrates, the surprise for me however is the thickness of this convection layer.
From the MY29 data set the daytime tropopause on Mars is at an elevation of 62 Km and a pressure of 0.592 Pascal. These data set a challenge to our DAET climate model concept and we resolved the issues by the following data driven conceptual adjustments to our model:
1. We confirmed that the Vacuum Planet equation for the energy balance of Mars applies an emissivity value of 1 (the planet when viewed externally from space operates as a black body).
2. The surface absorptance of Mars however is less than 1, therefore there is a component of daytime insolation energy that is rejected by the surface by the process of reflectance and so cannot heat the surface.
3. This reflectance loss of solar energy leads to the misconception that Mars possesses a negative greenhouse effect as the surface boundary layer temperatures are higher than the surface below.
4. It is clear from a comparison with the low-pressure carbon dioxide rich stratosphere of Venus that the low-pressure carbon dioxide Martian atmosphere does not heat the surface of Mars by the fictitious process of “back radiation.”
5. Using our MY29 data set for the nighttime surface temperatures of Mars and applying the Vacuum Planet equation we established that the global surface emissivity of Mars is 0.87
6. Now this is the fun bit – Because the Vacuum Planet equation applies a Bond Albedo solar energy rejection filter to the planet’s insolation, it necessarily follows that all of the post-albedo insolation energy MUST be absorbed by the planet in some way, shape or form (else the external blackbody status of the planet cannot be achieved).
7. But the surface absorptance of insolation is less than 1 therefore the surface dust layer must absorb solar energy by a process of surface backlighting. We see this process in action all the time here on Earth and call it haze. Our MY29 data show low solar angle illumination regions of Mars to have higher temperatures in the dust layer than at the surface.
8. Our revised DAET model demonstrates that the 2 Kelvin atmospheric thermal effect in the Martian atmosphere is caused by adiabatic convection in the thermally transparent carbon dioxide atmosphere and that it is Dust Opacity and not gaseous thermal radiant opacity that acts in the Martian troposphere.
See our pre-print paper: The Dust Planet Clarified: Modelling Martian MY29 Atmospheric Data using the Dynamic-Atmosphere Energy-Transport (DAET) Climate Model.
Wouldn’t a constant dust cloud function like a surface comparable to cloud cover but with more emissivity? Absorbing radiation prior to reaching the surface in this case in greater magnitude than the average surface insulation. Assuming of course it’s absorbed and not reflected/scattered.
@ CD Marshall.
Our concept is data driven. The global dust clouds are highly intermittent occurring only every few years, for the majority of the time the Martian surface is visible and so the backlighting process of solar energy absorption by haze in the surface boundary layer must apply.
Let me try and put it this way:
The Vacuum Planet equation applies the planetary Bond Albedo as a pre-filter that reduces the solar radiant energy that impacts the planet.
Therefore all post-albedo insolation energy must be absorbed by the planet, the question is how does this happen?
Because the planetary surface has an absorptance of less than 1 it follows that the solar insolation reflectance must be absorbed somehow. This energy absorption process occurs after the insolation has illuminated the surface and not before.
This error is writ large in the standard cartoon of Kiehl and Trenberth (1997) Figure 7 where all of the solar energy absorbed by the atmosphere 67 W/m^2 before it illuminates the surface with remaining 168 W/m^2 absorbed by the surface, yet the surface is not a black body! N.B. the Reflectance element of 30 W/m^2 is NOT absorbed on the way back to space and is instead shown as part of the Bond Albedo!
Surface haze is real and is clearly missing from the foundation concept.
@Philip Mulholland
Got it.
Great reply.
Dan Miller
@danmiller999
You claim to be a scientist…
Dr. Matthew M. Wielicki
I don’t claim to be a scientist. The fact that I have a PhD and dozens of publications in earth science makes me a scientist…
Joe, backup everything.
Tony Heller:
You probably have noticed that the blog has been broken for weeks. The previous hosting service ran out of disk space and deleted tens of thousands of image files without my permission. They also failed to keep a backup of the site before deleting the images. Then they shut the blog down completely and sent me this message :
“(you are) very illustrative of why the country so hates right-wing influencers who can’t see beyond their own grift and selfish hypocrisy”
Fn pieces of crap. Talk about projection too.
That is insane.
@ Philip Mulholland
CBL can reach 5km? I did not think solar forcing would cause that much delta in temperature at that distance. That makes you wonder what the difference would be if Mars had a thicker atmosphere.
@CD Marshall
The MY29 data show zones of temperature inversion in the Connective Boundary Layer of 5 km. The presence of dust devils on the Martian surface shows that there is a mechanism for injecting dust into the CBL, the presence of which will absorb solar energy in both the down and upwelling directions.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/363763024_MY29_Seasonal_Panels_Day18Mar21
Isn’t the lecture supposed to start?
Sorry guys…fk…total letdown. Laptop bluetooth won’t hold the connection. Up on my PC it works great. Hopefully I can get people to show up again tomorrow.
Thanks so much to all you awesome people who were there waiting on the stream. I was SO mad at myself for not getting it right for you guys…my heart really sank feeling like I let you guys down. But like I say with my daughter: don’t wish the past could have been different, but see what you can do now and in the future! I’ve been up all night now troubleshooting and it looks like the laptop Bluetooth has quit, which is why it would give sound for a few seconds after turning off and then back on. I thought it was the headset itself, but on my PC the mic works amazing. I now cannot get ANY response via the laptop Bluetooth via any program/restarts/etc., so it looks like it has completely failed.
In any case – I can’t wait to see you guys in 20 hours or so! Hopefully most of you, all of you, and more of you, can come all come back on! We’ll have a great time and it will be even more interactive than it would have been. I have a GREAT presentation for you all which I actually wrote while out camping! I’ll re-post the lecture slides in PDF a few minutes before the stream starts again.
So sorry again about the previous attempt. Seeing you all waiting and chatting made me feel really great. Let’s make this next try a success, have a great laugh, have a great time, and we’ll slice out a portion of calm sweet rationality for us to chill in for a couple of hours. Maybe I’ll bake biscuits and “share” them with you over tea 🙂
See you soon!
Pingback: RESCHEDULE Livestream Lecture! Planetary Physics 201: Earth’s Temperature (Sept. 16, 2023, 8pm MDT) | ajmarciniak
“The GHE destabilizes the troposphere, partly through IR cooling of the upper layers.”
Which would increase CAPE.
However, as I stated, radiative inversions can stabilize the lower trop which reduces cloud formation the next morning. This was confirmed by a weather station analyst (not always as I am guessing turbulence plays a factor in that). That would promote more surface insulation by midday.
KILLING PEOPLE FOR CLIMATE???
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=meYI_0DOHYA