I think that it is better to use a spherical Earth with the real solar input to do an energy budget, rather than a flat Earth with 1/4 the solar input like peer-reviewed and pedagogical climate science does things.
It makes a difference, because with 1/4 solar input of S(1-a)/4, this equates to a solar heating potential of only -18C, which means that the Sun cannot create or sustain the climate at all. Whereas, with a spherical Earth, then the solar input is simply its own real value, S(1-a), which means that solar heating potential is as high as +121C where the albedo is low, and this is definitely enough primary forcing to create and sustain the climate.
Also, the only way in which a globally-uniform input of S(1-a)/4 could be physically true, is if the Earth were in fact a flat plane, because that would be the only physical way for that math to be empirically true. This is then why a flat line is always used with S(1-a)/4, because a flat line implies that the surface area of the Earth is supposed to be flat.
Moreover, S(1-a)/4 as the solar input would place the Sun at two astronomical units away from this uniformly-illuminated flat plane, given the inverse square law and the divisor of 4 of of the solar power (1/(2^2) = 1/4), whereas using the solar input as it actually exists keeps the Sun exactly where it should be.
Finally, deriving the adiabatic gradient with water vapor latent heat release factored in accurately determines the measured value of the temperature lapse rate of the atmosphere. However, the flat Earth approach of climate science pedagogy and peer-reviewed literature states that backradiation and the radiative greenhouse effect is what causes the bottom of the atmosphere to be warmer than higher layers, i.e., being proposed to explain the lapse rate. Which effect actually creates the lapse rate then? Given that the adiabatic derivation arrives precisely at the measured value of the lapse rate, then there is no room for any additional temperature modulation of the distribution of temperature in the troposphere, which therefore serves as an experimental refutation of the existence of a climatological radiative greenhouse effect.
It is perhaps not surprising that the climatological radiative greenhouse effect does not actually exist, given that it is derived from flat Earth, where the Sun cannot create the climate or heat anything on Earth to higher than -18C, and where it is then derived to create the climate instead of the Sun. This climatological radiative greenhouse effect also implies heat recycling, and even heat flow from cold to hot in some descriptions, either of which are strictly physically impossible (heat cannot be recycled or reversed, and definitely cannot act from cold to hot).
It is likely better to treat the Earth as a sphere, at the very least in introductory pedagogy and energy budgets, and definitely where such budgets appear in peer-reviewed literature.
Note to readers: Have fun with this by posting it to your favorite mainstream scientist or climate alarmist, and watch them go on, forever, trying to explain that the flat lines on the bottom right are actually a sphere, while they completely ignore that a sphere is drawn in the upper left, as well as many other inane things about heat flow and how solar energy spreads over the surface of the Earth, the impossibility of the adiabatic effect explaining anything or affecting the near-surface temperature, etc. etc. etc. It might be removed from this FB group, but here it is if you wish to witness the idiocy.
(SOUL CAMERA
In fact, with this work, I have created a rudimentary SOUL CAMERA. You just have to witness “people’s” response to it, and you will see who has a real human soul from Earth, and who is a golem/parasite/imposter.
This is ALL ABOUT practical ontological mathematics, in a scenario easy enough for anyone to understand, which can help anyone grasp the basic idea and philosophy and the meaning of ontological mathematics.
This truly is one of the most astounding events in history. This will be recorded FOREVER. The personality types of the people who have gone in for this will FOREVER be regarded as the least intellectually trustworthy people which it is possible to conceive. They will be kept away from anything resembling science, or thinking, or engineering, or education, FOREVER. Do you not see how perfectly this melds into Hockney and everything that was ever said about the scientific materialists!? This ENDS them….FOREVER.
In fact, the plan is to delete them. I mean, quite literally, at the soul level. They will be deleted from existence, as failures. Their energy will be completely scrambled to base form, and they will be gone, only ready to be re-developed in a completely new paradigm, where it is entirely impossible to recreate their old form.
They were, and are, using this flat Earth climate pseudoscience to engineer a plan to end all life on Earth. Seriously…read my book Planet Wars…they want to end all life on Earth.
We’re going to END THEM instead.)
Climate of Sophistry 
Joe,
I have been looking again at your lecture slides on the issue of Latent Heat.
I asked on the livestream if your calculation of the wet adiabatic lapse rate (aka environmental lapse rate) included the latent heat of fusion of water?
Here is my assessment:
Latent Heat of vaporization of water is 2,257,000 J/kg
Latent Heat of fusion of water (icing) is 334,000 J/Kg
The total Latent Heat release at the cirrus ice cloud deck at the top of the troposphere is 2,591,000 J/Kg
I believe that this revised LH value will give you the required 6.5 K/Km value for the wet adiabatic lapse rate.
KBO
Oh cool! Nice calculation!
Open Question.
Science has said that CO 2 can absorb energy of 15 mu and others. Can a molecule absorb energy or is it the atoms of the molecule that do the absorption? If it’s the atoms, then why just a specific range of frequencies?
I came across the following article, and will hire the relevant portion. It helped me clarify where some perhaps sincere people are getting confused. I hope this helps in future argumentation.
These are presented as alternatives to RGHE by a sincere skeptic:
“ #1: Radiative GHE refutation based on the 2nd law only, this includes Gerlich & Tscheuschner, Klaus Ermecke and the GHE slayer book authors.
#2: Gravito-thermal Models. This includes Sorokhtin, Chilingar, Cotton, Nikolov, and Zeller, and a Huffman.
#3: “Sun only” theories. I know of only Postma who has propounded a climate theory based purely on the heating of the sun.”
With:
“ Joseph Postma’s theory of dividing solar radiation by two is valid only geometrically, but it does not change temperature, because geometry, tilt, or rotation speed, does not affect the total delivered insolation or power density. The real “flat earth” theory is the removal of infrared and the fake “albedo” of 0.44. Postma attempted to increase the available power density of the sun by averaging it over a small area, but this cannot increase temperature since there is still the other half of the sphere radiating freely into space. There is simply no way to employ a “sun-only” model of climate that is utterly ridiculous. “
So the writer appears to be a finance firm copywriter, so his basis for thinking this is probably coming from skimming Roy Spencer articles or something, as an amateur.
He concludes with the gravito-thermal effect as the cause of warming.
As Willis Eschenbach pointed out, gravity doesn’t create energy.
It seems like some people are not understanding the idea that the average temperature occurs higher than the surface, and as I’ve argued, you have to explain to people that the energy balance occurs between higher temperature and radiance at the surface, and potential energy of gravity in the low density upper atmosphere. Holmes’ adiabatic auto-compression is just a version of this basic premise.
I like the graphic on the top right for showing where the average occurs, but I’d start talking about potential energy. Adiabatic processes still require an engine of convection and Work which is what the sun provides.
The metaphor I use is the atmosphere is like a memory foam mattress. Insolation, work, convection, potential energy. Thus: a hot surface. Not hotter, in any event, than the heat source.
Look at the degree of projection here:
Jorg Schluter
“Joseph E. Postma Looking for attention again? We have shown you already that the only one that uses Flat Earth math is you. Maybe you should get out more.”
Their algorithm must be going absolutely haywire:
Joseph E. Postma
Jorg Schluter I am pretty sure that the round circle I drew for the Earth implies a spherical Earth, and that the flat line which peer-reviewed climate science uses represents a flat plane.
Jack Dale
Joseph E. Postma We know for certain that you are profoundly wrong.
Knows you are profoundly wrong? For different reasons in radiation I know Jo is profoundly right.
No transfer of energy will take place unless we have resonance. That is the spectrum of radiation matches the frequency of the photon.
This happens mainly in the first 20ppm, declining on a log basis so that at 340ppm the Pen Uni experiment wrote, “No measurable heat was detectable.” Taking current levels as 400ppm even less would be found so how can CO2 contribute further?
It can not. Some one is being illogical insisting otherwise and the laws of physics are not to be disregarded profoundly or not.
(SOUL CAMERA
In fact, with this work, I have created a rudimentary SOUL CAMERA. You just have to witness “people’s” response to it, and you will see who has a real human soul from Earth, and who is a golem/parasite/imposter.
This is ALL ABOUT practical ontological mathematics, in a scenario easy enough for anyone to understand, which can help anyone grasp the basic idea and philosophy and the meaning of ontological mathematics.
This truly is one of the most astounding events in history. This will be recorded FOREVER. The personality types of the people who have gone in for this will FOREVER be regarded as the least intellectually trustworthy people which it is possible to conceive. They will be kept away from anything resembling science, or thinking, or engineering, or education, FOREVER. Do you not see how perfectly this melds into Hockney and everything that was ever said about the scientific materialists!? This ENDS them….FOREVER.
In fact, the plan is to delete them. I mean, quite literally, at the soul level. They will be deleted from existence, as failures. Their energy will be completely scrambled to base form, and they will be gone, only ready to be re-developed in a completely new paradigm, where it is entirely impossible to recreate their old form.
They were, and are, using this flat Earth climate pseudoscience to engineer a plan to end all life on Earth. Seriously…read my book Planet Wars…they want to end all life on Earth.
We’re going to END THEM instead.)
This guy is the epitome of mainstream intelligence. If Google doesn’t say it’s true it must not be true. FFS where are we?
@Cspacecat
1 day ago
@cdmarshall7448 ” Fourier established the atmosphere could not behave like a greenhouse, you noob.” The question of why the Earth didn’t get extremely cold at night was figured out in the 1850s by Eunice Foote, an amateur scientist and activist for women’s rights, and John Tyndall who set the foundation for our modern understanding of the greenhouse effect. Science is the systematic nullification of a hypothesis until you discover a hypothesis that you cannot get nullified and that graduates into a theory. A theory is the current best guess on how the universe works until something disproves it. There have been 170 years for the greenhouse gas effect to be nullified. There isn’t an alternative theory or hypothesis to challenge it. If you think you have an alternative explanation, by all means, publish that hypothesis. I do suggest you get prepared to get laughed into the next century, but chances are the paper will be thrown into the trash without a second thought. In this world, there are 16.3 million engineers and scientists. That means there are .2% of the world’s population that have sufficient education to be able to understand climate physics.
“In effect, if all the levels of the air of which the atmosphere is formed were to retain their density and transparency, and lose only their mobility, this mass of air thus becoming solid, being exposed to the rays of the sun, would produce an effect of the same type as that which one has just described.” I copied and pasted this into Google and got nothing. Clearly, Fourier made no such statement.
@Spro
I have read the complete article, in a word brilliant – WOW.
https://climateofsophistry.com/2023/09/28/a-tale-of-two-energy-budgets/
My reply:
The flat Earth/weak Sun con game was created specifically to frame atmospheric CO2 as being needed to keep the Earth from being an ice planet, as if that proves CO2 global warming without needing more proof. You hardly ever hear a summary of CO2-driven global warming without the -18C/-20C lie, for example, from the British Geological Survey:
[[‘Greenhouse gases’ are crucial to keeping our planet at a suitable temperature for life. Without the natural greenhouse effect, the heat emitted by the Earth would simply pass outwards from the Earth’s surface into space and the Earth would have an average temperature of about -20°C.]] –
https://www.bgs.ac.uk/discovering-geology/climate-change/how-does-the-greenhouse-effect-work/
It’s all irrelevant anyway because you can’t just weaken the Sun’s power without lowering its temperature, because it’s ruled by the T^4 Planck black body law. Even they can’t mess with Mother Nature and get away with it. What a big laugh when they claim that the Sun’s power has not been increasing enough to account with their fake global avg. temp. (GAT) numbers.
https://www.quora.com/The-heatwave-was-made-two-degrees-Celsius-3-6F-warmer-by-climate-change-What-was-the-impact-of-this-heatwave/answer/TL-Winslow
Here’s my deeper analysis of the U.N. IPCC flat Earth hoax. Like all leftists, they love to accuse opponents of what they are, so guess what they call us “climate deniers”?
http://www.historyscoper.com/howmuchdoesthesuncontributetoglobalwarming.html
The global Marxists have hijacked every scientific and academic org. to grab for the brass ring. Their weird version of climate science is a beehive of lies that takes a million words to dissect. It would be funny if it weren’t so tragic, but the only real climate scientists left are those banned by the U.N. IPCC.
https://www.quora.com/What-are-some-examples-of-credible-scientific-resources-on-global-warming-Why-would-they-be-good-choices-for-high-school-students/answer/TL-Winslow
A doctorate in astrophysics? Big wow. Charlatans such as Kneel in the Grass What’s His Name have one of those. Like I’ve tried to tell you before, no one needs to delve into the intricacies of climate science to disprove the U.N. IPCC’s sick Victorian steampunk greenhouse gas warming hoax, just know how to count like a 5th grader.
Yes, it’s an all-out attempt to deny Nature’s ironclad Second Law of Thermodynamics (entropy), but it ultimately rests on a blatant denial of the First Law (energy conservation), because it relies on a sleazy carnival shell game of energy double-counting, claiming that atmospheric CO2 molecules trap and reemit surface IR cooling photons, adding to the solar photons to cause global warming, but that requires them to do it all with those IR photons before they even left! Shell game, double-counting, circular reasoning, sleazy carnival garbage. We want all that money back.
As to Nikolov-Zeller, yes, the stagnant atmosphere can be considered as a bunch of thin tubes extending from the ground to space, in each of which the Ideal Gas Law rules, where PV=nRT, or T=PV/nr, creating a temperature gradient without need for radiation or convection. It still doesn’t explain the boundary conditions at the ground level, where everybody knows that hot asphalt in Phoenix on July 4 may get way higher (up to 10C higher) than the air temperature at the 5 ft. level where surface temperature measurement stations place their thermometers.
https://caas.usu.edu/weather/graphical-data/surface-temperature
The temperature drop is too large to be caused by gravity, and indeed it’s caused by convection, which uses ground heat to power an atmospheric heat engine that generates all winds and storms by turning heat into work. These can be considered as Le Chatelier responses to solar radiation. Every wind or breeze uses up some solar energy irreversibly. Worse, the conversion of short wavelength solar radiation by the surface to heat (increased internal energy density) then to long wave IR increases entropy, dispersing some of the heat energy irreversibly to the heat death of the Universe, making it forever unavailable for heating or doing work, without violating the First Law. That’s why every time I hear talk of an Earth-Sun balance to justify the fake greenhouse gas effect and calling on the First Law I have to restrain the urge to ROTFL.
https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-greenhouse-effect-Is-entropy-the-cause-of-the-greenhouse-effect/answer/TL-Winslow
https://newrealclimatescience.quora.com/
Love that last paragraph especially, explaining heat, work, and irreversible transfers and losses.
@CD – ah yes, the ministry of truth at work…history erased
“Can a molecule absorb energy or is it the atoms of the molecule that do the absorption? If it’s the atoms, then why just a specific range of frequencies?”
Insightful and important question. It is the electron shell around the conglomeration which does the interaction with electromagnetic energy, and that configuration is extremely highly sensitive to what combination of protons are on the inside of either the atom, or the molecule when the atoms join together, and of course the atoms join together in molecules also depending on the electron shell configuration of the atoms, etc. The result is a very unique (although overlap is just as common) set of frequencies which resonate or can interact with each atom/molecule electron shell configuration.
“Sun only theories”
What I simply mean is that the Sun is the primary, and in fact only, forcing mechanism or source of heat for driving the climate. GHG’s do not provide additional heat, because they are not sources of liberating new energy, and are only downstream the temperature and entropy gradient. I have always included the adiabatic lapse rate as the next-most primary feature of the atmosphere.
“Postma attempted to increase the available power density ”
I just made the solar input REAL-TIME, because that is in fact what that input means, and that is WHEN it provides its forcing. Solar input acts in situ in the moment, and that is why you need to use the real-time flux. I demonstrate in my figures about spreading over a hemisphere and how this is a factor of two, but, more important is the real-time cosine intensity distribution of primary solar forcing.
“gravity doesn’t create energy”
Yes, you know what actually turned me into a skeptic? It was a single moment which pushed me over the edge. A long time ago, someone asked Gavin Schmidt (alarmist at some gov’t institution) about the adiabatic effect causing the temperature gradient and therefore creating a warmer near-surface air temperature than average. This was his response:
GS: “Since adiabatic means ‘without heat input’, then it is unclear how the adiabatic effect could affect the temperature of the atmosphere.”
Now, perhaps not many people realize what happened here. The term “adiabatic” MEANS, it is DEFINED AS, something which causes temperature change without heat input. THAT IS WHAT IT MEANS. It is an important definition in thermodynamics, because given the first law of dU = Q + W, the definition of adiabatic MEANS that the temperature change must therefore be coming from WORK. That is why it is such an important definition in thermodynamics. You can change temperature with heat and/or WORK. The work is of course supplied by gravity, and it manifests at the infinitesimal scale, as shown in the derivation using LTE and dU = mgdh + mCpdT.
That was when I knew that they were lying. Well, either lying, or incompetent. I spent the next decade solving if they were incompetent, or lying, and now we know that they are lying, and now we know WHY they are lying. As discussed in Planet Wars.
I watched your Livestream and was really impressed by it!
Hello Joseph, I was not trying to start an argument with you. I am trying to help.
When you mention flat earth, you are confusing the issue. There are a lot of people that claim that the earth is flat. This has nothing to do with the flat plate model. But people don’t understand that. They think you are referring to the flat earth proposition that the earth is flat and not a globe. I thought this was obvious to you.
There is nothing wrong with using the flat plate model as a static representation of the earth’s energy averaged over the globe. That is a first approximation. It is not meant to be the final hypothesis, it is a starting point to further develop the theory. You object to the assumptions that are added to the flat plate model by the fake pseudoscientists that add back radiation to the model. Your work is good and there is no need to debunk false pseudoscience. Don’t fall into the trap of refuting their false arguments. They will continue to up the ante, piling more lies onto lies in order to waste your time and trap you into a futile effort to debunk their lies ad infinitum.
In order to convince the lay people that do not understand science, the message has to be simple. State your truth in simple terms.
“There is nothing wrong with using the flat plate model as a static representation of the earth’s energy averaged over the globe.”
No that is actually precisely what I am addressing, and, it is the sun’s energy so-averaged.
“That is a first approximation.”
I have discussed this in places. Not all approximations are valid. This one (static flat Earth) isn’t valid because implies physically impossible things.
“it is a starting point to further develop the theory”
Precisely, and is why physically impossible things are then derived, such as the greenhouse effect.
Hey, I said I was on your side and not trying to argue with you. You need to back off.
I’m just stating points man! lol 🙂
“Don’t fall into the trap of refuting their false arguments.”
It is the main false argument which need to be addressed though – the greenhouse effect and why and how it comes to be postulated.
“They will continue to up the ante, piling more lies onto lies in order to waste your time and trap you into a futile effort to debunk their lies ad infinitum.”
Indeed. This is why I focus on the main point.
“the message has to be simple. State your truth in simple terms.”
Yes I think I am getting there with the basic message of their flat Earth approach vs. a sphere, etc.
@mashowki
The warmist lie is they say “blackbody average energy input corresponds to -18C so the SURFACE temperature would be too cold”.
The math for averaging the energy input over the sphere is correct, but it is INCORRECT to then immediately apply that result as surface temperature without any model of atmosphere.
It’s a hat trick. They skip from blackbody energy input to surface temperature, and then retroactively build a model for weather and climate. What?
Postma’s message has tried to correct that by doing exactly what you have mentioned: keeping it simple.
So the Earth is a sphere and the sun is hot enough to create climate? Okay, how is climate created? Then you can clearly and easily start to talk about convection, adiabatic lapse rate etc, but it also becomes complicated and atmospheric science is so poisoned by greenhouse effect theory there is work that should be done about real climate science which isn’t being done. It is simpler and easier to discuss the entry condition.
Nevertheless, I think it would be worthwhile to bring up the hat trick. You divide solar input by four then declare that the surface temperature. The atmosphere itself is not a blackbody. The surface is not a blackbody. Only the whole Earth is a blackbody approximation. So how can you just skip to surface temperature?
But Postma has made points like this from time to time and they are completely ignored. He has been having these discussions for over 10 years which you can see just with Googling the topic. It’s true that some people are just being dumb and can’t independently derive conclusions from starting premises, and can’t identify irrational scientific hat-tricks. But enough people are playing dumb. When people play dumb, who can’t possibly BE dumb, then it’s a different kind of argument and you should recognize that’s part of what’s going on here.
@spro
Bingo!
This issue of surface graybody emissivity runs deep in the history of the false climate model. In spite of my extensive historic catalogue (Climate Audit101 – The Library) I had not seen Figure 1 of Dines, W.H. 1917 The Heat Balance of the Atmosphere.
Dines’ input B to the Earth assumes a surface absorptivity of one. There is no appreciation in Figure 1 of the horizon line of sight obscuring by dust haze which implicitly is a process of surface reflected insolation being subsequently absorbed by atmospheric particulates in the surface boundary layer.
See our paper The Dust Planet Clarified: Modelling Martian MY29 Atmospheric Data using the Dynamic-Atmosphere Energy-Transport (DAET) Climate Model, where we address this critical issue in our study of the climate of Mars.
“When people play dumb, who can’t possibly BE dumb, then it’s a different kind of argument and you should recognize that’s part of what’s going on here.”
Love that. Exactly.
“Scott Matthew
Joseph E. Postma – do two adjacent burning logs warm each other?”
Hahahha…now the atmosphere is like a burning log on fire….LOLOL!!!!
Yet another version of the RGHE:
“The greenhouse effect is like a burning log on fire adjacent to the surface.”
Take a plate.
Heat it up, then blast it with 15 micrometer IR. Also, higher frequency, and a no frequency control.
Measure from both sides with spectrometers.
We could precisely measure the mechanics of energy transfer in the Planck curve and settle all this nonsense once and for all.
From the Facebook group (whose admin is ignoring my posts and messages):
Mats Simmermacher
“If it is not just trolling, the “flat Earth” nonsense demonstrates that its proponents haven’t understood the assumptions behind the effective temperature. It is not the irradiance but the emission that is assumed to be uniform. In this idealised model, the heat a planet non-uniformly receives from solar irradiance is assumed to be perfectly distributed over the entire planet prior to emission as a consequence of atmospheric convection and thermal inertia. At no point it is assumed that the irradiance itself would be uniform. With that alone, the “flat Earth” argument evaporates into thin air.
Moreover, the idealised model just serves as a rough first approximation. Nobody claims that its assumptions are strictly fulfilled. Global climate models represent both the irradiance and emission locally. Nevertheless, one can show that the effective temperature constitutes an upper bound for the average surface temperature of a planet without greenhouse gases. Any deviation from the assumption of uniform emission inevitably leads to an average surface temperature that is even lower than the idealised effective temperature.”
So, clearly he admits that they don’t start building their model of climate until AFTER the consequences of “atmospheric convection and thermal intertia.” So they build their model of climate after climate has already happened.
Oh yes I’ve been dealing with that snake.
“It is not the irradiance but the emission that is assumed to be uniform.”
That is SUCH FN BS. The diagrams CLEARLY show a uniform solar input of value S(1-a)/4.
I find it ironic that IR is absorbed at the TOA (which is not enough energy to warm the TOA) but is somehow enough when returning to the surface to warm a much warmer surface by 33+ degrees.
TOA is roughly about…
The only other way (that I see) it can increase the temperature from TOA “forcing” would be to increase pressure or volume not even sure about the volume I might have that one backwards.
H=U+PV (?)
To increase Enthalpy requires work of some form, correct?
For heat to increase in a constant pressure system,
Q=dU+PdV
Which the atmosphere is not technically a constant pressure system is it?
If pressure does increase and volume does not, then the temperature must increase.
It’s not constant but it is also not trending because total mass is fixed.
Pingback: A Tale of Two Energy Budgets | ajmarciniak
Flat earth (the flat earth that has the ice wall and a firmament)also has heat from the sun and day and night with no need to divide the flux by 4 (not arguing against heliocentric earth)
Old, but new argument:
The doubling of back radiation (340) than that of the sun (163) is not a violation of COE because that energy is always there (like water in a tub). The net 398- 163 = 58, is less than the 163 provided by the sun and the sun still warms the surface. Back radiation does not add heat to the surface – only prevents radiation from leaving, so the mechanism to increase heat doesn’t require more solar input. That’s why 163 warms the earth because only 58 is leaving.
I think typing this out helped me navigate the weeds with this. He admits the air does not warm the earth, which it doesn’t. However, if we remove the fictitious back radiation, the earth would be cold, because it relies on back radiation? Right? Ugh, this shit is so mentally exhausting. They play this game of reversing causation. It’s like saying “If I dump out 1 liter of water from a gallon jug, I’m not dumping water but instead gaining a liter of air” or something stupid.
I recognize the writing style of TL Winslow here .
Perfect timing on this subject because I’m debating this rn and I can’t find shit online. Was just at Quora yesterday.
Everyone must be out eating turkey or something. Here’s some turkey:
I just found a gaping hole in the argument “The earth must heat up to reach equilibrium”. I’m surprised I didn’t catch this before but, what equilibrium? The sun only provides -18. lol omg. So what energy must it match up with to stop heating? They’re unironically saying erm, admitting, the sun provides more than -18.
The web we weave…
@Leon Hiebert
Their theory requires that radiation trapping creates the climate. Therefore, they can’t actually admit that a natural pressure gradient creates the climate. Technically, though they don’t admit to it, of course they believe the Sun ultimately creates climate.
Because radiation trapping, not pressure, creates surface temperature, then what happens if there’s more radiation trapping?
Their whole theory concerns the “top of atmosphere” and an energy imbalance. So if there’s more radiation trapping, it will only raise the top of atmosphere where the radiation budget balances, not increase heat.
Well, here is where they finally just fully accept the pressure and temperature gradient as distinct from trapped radiation, as they claim the upper atmosphere isn’t dense or hot enough to allow radiation loss.
See, because the radiation trapping doesn’t create heat in their model. It just traps radiation. It’s only when there’s an energy imbalance, when the Earth blackbody is taking in more radiation than it’s shedding, will there be some sort of long-term rebalancing where FINALLY the Earth’s temperature will actually heat up.
It’s what you call a “convenient theory”. It serves their agenda by screening out any phenomenon that might easily contradict it.
To them, convection only relates to weather, not climate. They themselves don’t have a hypothesis that clarifies the causal relationship between the atmospheric gradient and energy balance. Does radiation trapping cause the density and temperature gradient, or the other way around?
Because, think about it, if the Earth began to heat up as they claim, it would physically raise the top of the troposphere. That would raise the density at the top of atmosphere, achieving the energy rebalance. However, it would also create adiabatic cooling below. So their model is really tautological in a way. Remember, they can’t admit that pressure causes surface temperature because of gravity. So in their radiation trap model, the rebalance top of atmosphere would correspond to a cooler lower atmosphere from less pressure. It would balance out, because their model introduces a factor (radiation trapping) that isn’t actually active in real life.
When you have a stable system of equations and introduce a foreign variable, you have to include a positive and negative quantity equaling to zero.
I know it has been mentioned before. But I like it when A.I helps you explain it better.
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/zwratc6v7yor1f39uc5bi/111023.6.JPG?rlkey=b5fwnr8cpqklv52o3u1gjjhmc&dl=0
Hi joseph
I tried the ChahtGPT on this subject, but as you said, it denied that the model assumes a flat earth. No explanation offered :
User
Many says that CO2 is warming the world, but the calculations are based on a model of a flat earth that is evenly illuminated by the sun at all times. What would the result be if you calculated with a sperical earth that has a day and a night side?
ChatGPT
The assertion that climate change calculations are based on a model of a flat Earth with constant illumination is not accurate. Climate models used to study global warming and its effects take into account the three-dimensional nature of the Earth, including its spherical shape, axial tilt, and rotation. The models consider the distribution of sunlight over the Earth’s surface, accounting for day and night cycles, seasonal variations, and geographic differences in solar radiation.
The basic principles of climate science, including the role of greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide (CO2) in trapping heat, are well-established and supported by a vast body of scientific evidence. These principles are not contingent on assuming a flat Earth but are based on fundamental physics and observations.
In climate models, the Earth’s surface is divided into a grid, and calculations are performed for each grid cell, considering the complex interactions between the atmosphere, oceans, land surface, and ice. These models simulate processes such as heat transfer, cloud formation, ocean currents, and feedback mechanisms.
While models are continuously refined and updated to improve accuracy, they consistently show that increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases, including CO2, contribute to a warming of the Earth’s surface. The overwhelming scientific consensus is that human activities, particularly the burning of fossil fuels, are the primary drivers of the observed increase in greenhouse gas concentrations and the associated global warming.
It’s crucial to rely on accurate representations of climate science and to distinguish between scientific findings and misinformation. The scientific community uses sophisticated models that consider the Earth’s curvature and its rotation, and these models have been validated against a wide range of observational data.
User
The model of Kiehl and Trendberth is a flat earth model that cuts the solar insolation by 1/4.
ChatGPT
The Kiehl and Trenberth energy balance model is not a flat Earth model. It is a simplified representation of the Earth’s energy budget, commonly used in climate science to illustrate the balance between incoming solar radiation and outgoing longwave radiation. While it simplifies the complex processes occurring in the Earth’s climate system, it does not assume a flat Earth.
The model divides the Earth into different components, such as the atmosphere, surface, and clouds, and considers the energy flows between these components. It provides a conceptual framework to understand the distribution of energy within the Earth-atmosphere system.
It’s important to note that even though the Kiehl and Trenberth model is a simplification, it does not imply a flat Earth or uniform solar insolation. The Earth’s curvature and the variation in solar insolation due to factors like latitude, time of day, and seasonality are considered in more detailed climate models.
Climate scientists use comprehensive three-dimensional models that incorporate a realistic representation of the Earth’s shape and rotation, as well as the distribution of sunlight based on these factors. These models are essential for understanding the complexities of the climate system and making accurate predictions about climate change.
In summary, the Kiehl and Trenberth model is a simplified representation of the Earth’s energy budget but does not assume a flat Earth. More sophisticated models used in climate science explicitly account for the spherical shape of the Earth and its dynamic features.
User
what are then the assuptions of the Kiehl and Trenberth model?
ChatGPT
The Kiehl and Trenberth energy balance model is a simplified representation of the Earth’s energy budget, and it makes several assumptions to provide a conceptual understanding of the major components involved in the energy balance of the Earth-atmosphere system. Some of the key assumptions include:
Global Average Energy Flows: The model considers global average values for incoming solar radiation, outgoing longwave radiation, and other energy components. It simplifies the complex spatial and temporal variations in energy fluxes across different regions and times.
Steady-State Conditions: The model assumes a steady-state energy balance, meaning that the Earth’s climate is in equilibrium over long time scales. In reality, the Earth’s climate system is dynamic and can undergo short-term and long-term variations.
Simplified Atmospheric Layers: The model represents the atmosphere in simplified layers to illustrate the absorption and emission of radiation by greenhouse gases. It does not capture the full complexity of the vertical structure and dynamics of the atmosphere.
Uniform Albedo: Albedo refers to the reflectivity of the Earth’s surface. The model assumes a uniform albedo for the entire Earth, neglecting the variations in surface reflectivity due to different land cover types (e.g., ice, water, vegetation).
No Latitudinal Variations: The model does not explicitly consider the latitudinal variations in solar insolation and energy balance. In reality, the amount of solar radiation received at the Earth’s surface varies with latitude.
Single-Layer Atmosphere: The model treats the atmosphere as a single layer, overlooking the complexities of multiple atmospheric layers and their different radiative properties.
It’s important to recognize that the Kiehl and Trenberth model serves as a pedagogical tool to convey the basic principles of the Earth’s energy balance. While it helps illustrate the overall flow of energy in and out of the Earth-atmosphere system, it is not intended to capture the full intricacies of climate dynamics. More sophisticated climate models, which are used for climate simulations and predictions, consider a broader range of factors and provide a more detailed representation of the Earth’s climate system.
It’s just lying and obfuscating, and has been trained to do so. The K&T budget is the result of the pedagogical approach which does indeed purport to demonstrate a physics based on 1/4 solar input. Physicists believe in and teach this approach as physics, as I showed in that recent video with that professor.
These AI systems are not intelligent. They simply collate the narrative.
Others have posted here showing chatgpt agreeing with me. You just have to drill down.
If you ask it narrative questions you’ll get narrative answers. Instead, drill down on physics questions unrelated directly to climate context. For example just ask if heat can act from cold to hot. Then ask if a cold gas surrounding a hot object can heat the hot object. Then ask if the cold air outside can warm you up if you stand outside naked in it when you’re really hot after running. Then ask how the cold air which is cooling the ground can be warming the ground like global warming says etc. You get the idea. It’s easy to get it to contradict itself. But it doesn’t care or understand.
ChatGPT 3.5
User
Can a cold object heat a warmer object?
ChatGPT
No, according to the second law of thermodynamics, heat naturally flows from warmer objects to colder ones. So, a cold object cannot heat a warmer object on its own.
User
Can a cold gas surrounding a warmer object heat up that object?
ChatGPT
No, the second law of thermodynamics still applies. Heat would transfer from the warmer object to the colder gas, not the other way around.
Can the cold air outside make me hotter if I stand naked in it after running and getting really hot and way warmer than the cold air?
Chatgpt
Standing naked in cold air after running can lead to evaporative cooling, as sweat on your skin evaporates, which may make you feel cooler. However, the cold air itself won’t heat you up; it will facilitate heat loss from your body.
If I add a 1 centimeter cube ice cube at 270 Kelvin to my 250 milliliter coffee which is at 350 Kelvin, will it make the coffee hotter since I am adding energy to it?
Gpt
Initially, the ice cube will absorb energy from the coffee to melt and then further absorb heat to reach the final temperature of the system. The overall effect will likely be a decrease in the coffee’s temperature rather than an increase, as the ice absorbs heat from the warmer coffee.
Does sunshine heat the Earth’s surface?
Gpt
Yes, sunlight heats the Earth’s surface. The Sun emits electromagnetic radiation, including visible light and other forms of energy. When this sunlight reaches the Earth, it is absorbed by the surface, leading to an increase in temperature.
If some air is colder than a surface, can that cold air heat up that surface some more after the sunshine has heated thar surface to higher temperature?
Gpt
No, in general, cold air cannot heat up a warmer surface. Heat naturally flows from warmer objects to colder ones. If the surface has already been heated by sunshine, the heat will tend to dissipate to the cooler surrounding air rather than the other way around.
If Earth’s atmosphere is colder than Earth’s surface, can that cold atmosphere heat up Earth’s surface some more after the sunshine has heated Earth’s surface to higher temperature?
Gpt
No, the atmosphere itself, if colder than the Earth’s surface, generally doesn’t heat up the surface further. The primary heat exchange occurs between the Sun and the Earth’s surface, with the surface warming due to solar radiation. The atmosphere can influence temperature through mechanisms like trapping heat (greenhouse effect) or transporting heat, but it doesn’t directly heat up the Earth’s surface beyond what sunlight provides.
[Oohh look at it now begin inserting propaganda]
Given that this thing starts throwing in narrative when it really wasn’t needed or necessary at all, demonstrates that it is preprogrammed to detect narrative opportunities and then use that opportunity to disseminate them.
In other words this thing is being designed as a mass mind-control enforcement and social conditioning device, which of course, and given the example, means that it is for lying, enslavement, and destruction of reason.
Some people might not know the body is an absorber as well as a radiator. That is entirely dependent on the ambient temperature which is a perfect example of heat flow.
Sounds like this guy on Twitter_X who can’t admit what the definition of thermodynamic heat is and used the argument that if it vibrates a molecule if MUST be heat. Notice the paper he cited did not support his own claims:
“The Stefan-Boltzmann law, a fundamental law of physics, explains the relationship between an object’s temperature and the amount of radiation that it emits. This law (expressed mathematically as E = σT4) states that all objects with temperatures above absolute zero (0K or -273°C or -459°F) emit radiation at a rate proportional to the fourth power of their absolute temperature.”
So this idiot does not understand the difference between heat and energy. He assumed “radiation” means thermodynamic heat.
bram sleurs
@SleursBram51222
The refusal to answer my question shows that you cannot deny that the energy transferred via IR radiation in the receiving body generates heat (or warmth, if you prefer) during absorption. That is how the GHE works and how IR radiative heating can warm up homes. That’s physics.
When IR radiation is absorbed, heat is generated and thus heat is added to the receiving object.
You forget for a moment that any object warmer than absolute zero radiates heat and is therefore a source of heat for every other object.
https://www.ces.fau.edu/nasa/module-2/correlation-between-temperature-and-radiation.php
“A warm object will cool less quickly do to the presence of the colder object”
Yes, he said that.
https://twitter.com/SleursBram51222/status/1730710478341444084/photo/1
@ Joseph
Are you in the mood to debate a warmist on the “heuristic” flat earth model? He seems to think it isn’t the foundation of RGE. It’s just a “teaching” method and @AstroMikeMerri is tagged in it. One caveat, he doesn’t claim back radiation heats the ground and takes a contradictory approach while still adhering to the narrative.
Yes sure…try to…where? Or set something up?
Thanks for your excellent lesson on Chatgpt, Joseph. Just as I thought, it only regurgitates what it has been fed.
John Crowely and I have been going at it for a week after the original 4 dropped off. He swooped in to take the baton. But now I think it’s run its course until he challenged me to bring in the “Calvary”
I found this answer to a question I asked 2 years ago.
“Why do we divide by 4?
Imagine you see earth from the perspective of the sun. What you see is a disc. The area of this disc is πr2
and therefore the total energy earth received from the sun is S0πr2(1−α)
, where the (1−α)
takes into account that the solar radiation is partly reflected. As stated in the other answers, the idea is to distribute the energy over the whole surface of earth 4πr2
. Thus, energy received per m2
is S0(1−α)4
.
Why is it reasonable to assume that the energy is distributed evenly over the whole globe at an instant?
The short answer is: If we use this assumption we are usually dealing with timescales much longer than a full rotation of the earth. Thus, daily variations are negligible.
A quantitative example:
Let’s compare the time it takes the atmosphere to adjust to an imbalance N
to the time it takes the earth to rotate once. A full rotation takes approximately trot≈60×60×24s=86400s
.
The imbalance problem requires a few explanations up front. Suppose we double CO2
in the atmosphere. This causes a forcing of F2×CO2≈3.7Wm2
according to IPCC. We now want to know how long it takes the atmosphere to adjust to this forcing.
Let’s setup a model: Following Gregory et. al. we model the imbalance linearly as
N=F2×CO2+λT
,
where T
is the temperature relative to some reference T0
and λ
is the (negative) feedback parameter with units Wm2K
. Thus an increase in temperature reduces the imbalance. Additionally we assume that the imbalance will lead to an increase in temperature over time (as done e.g. here)
N=CdTdt
,
where t
is time and C
is the heat capacity of the atmosphere. Combining the two equations above we find
CdTdt=F2×CO2+λT
.
The solution to the differential equation above is
T(t)=−F2×CO2λ(1−eλCt)
.
We can see the adjustment process takes an infinite time, however two thirds of the process are done within the e
-folding time τ
(when the term in the exponent is −1
). The exponent is −1
if t=τ=−Cλ
. Note that if t
is approaching infinity we have T(∞)=−F2×CO2λ
(This is called Equilibrium climate sensitivity in the case of doubling CO2
).
What’s left to do is estimating C
and λ
. We can estimate the heat capacity of the atmosphere (just a column) to be
C=cppsg=1005JKkg105Pa9.81ms2=1.02×107Jm2K
.
IPCC tells us that T(∞)
is likely to be between 1.5°C−4.5°C
. Let’s set T(∞)=3°C
and calculate
λ=−3.7Wm23K=−1.23Wm2K
. Finally we find
τ=−1.02×107Jm2K−1.23Wm2K≈8.7×106s≈100×trot
.
Caution In reality the time scales differ a lot more. The oceans heat capacity is much higher than the atmospheres. However, the calculations above should convince you that even if all forcing changes atmosphere only time scales differ by at least O(2)”
.https://earthscience.stackexchange.com/questions/20937/why-divide-total-insolation-by-4#:~:text=We%20divide%20by%204%20since,of%20same%20radius%20%3D%200.25).
Division by 4 gets you Earth’s output. That’s fine. But it makes zero physical sense to use that as the solar heat input.
Yes but I am trying to understand exactly from their perspective so I can use my own logic. They’re not saying heat comes from the sky to warm the earth, so any argument showing heat transfer up, goes ignored. They’re using other metrics like feedbacks etc. over time. Essentially, they’re saying (I think) that heat just accumulates or something rather. But here’s a question. It’s extremely hard to derive a temp from w/m2 irradiance or simply from BTU, so, how are they coming up with 1.5C as a goal for net zero? Just trying to figure out how much heat in 160 w/m2 over a 12 hour period is practically impossible. Yet, they can calculate 1.5C?
Energy average doesn’t equal flux input, or the thermodynamic heat produced from the various density levels. It cannot be applied to heat. Conservation of Energy not the Conservation of Heat.
So I do not know why they use COE to justify actual temperature when as Joe has said it can only really give you effective temperature.
When I asked Pierrehumbert that very thing he chose not to respond.
You know what’s so fucking interesting? Is if you posted a flat Earth argument, everyone would rightly rubbish it and trash it, as they should.
But then, when you post the climate science method of using flat Earth for solar input (as opposed to just getting Earth’s average flux output and effective temperature), then all of the sudden all of the exact same people line right up to defend treating the solar input as if it falls over the entire surface area of the Earth evenly as if the Earth is a FLAT PLANE, thereby diluting the solar input flux so much that it cannot create the climate.
They LOVE that flat Earth shit if it is worked out with math for climate science! Then it is totally A-OK and they will come up with endless sophistical argument, each just as bad as actual flat Earth trolling, to defend this flat Earth climate science.
You can even directly show them how to do a climate energy budget with a sphere right beside the pedagogical peer-reviewed climate science flat Earth approach, and they will ignore that sphere as if it doesn’t exist and insist that the flat lines climate science uses for its climate energy budget is in fact either the better approach, or, somehow, will argue that those flat lines are actually a sphere!
Climate science is professional flat Earth theory. Calculating Earth’s effective temperature via average output flux is fine. But this flux value cannot then be turned around and used in place of the solar input upon a flat plane, because – WHY would you treat the Earth as a flat plane with solar input falling evenly over the entire Earth’s surface area!!?? LOL Why do that to the Sun, and to the Earth? It makes the Earth flat, for one, and for second it makes the solar input only a maximum of -18C heating potential, therefore making the Sun unable to create the climate at all! Why would you do that? But, they LOVE to do that, and to defend it.
I plugged the above explanation into gpt to break it down so I have something to work with logically. It’s too difficult to dismantle the math but once you get a clearer picture of the reasons, it’s obvious where the mistakes are made. Think of the following as the algorithm for pseudocode. If you make a mistake with the pseudocode prior to coding, you’ll end up with a buggy executable. Garbage in, garbage out.
Why divide by 4?
When sunlight reaches Earth, it covers the entire circular area facing the Sun. However, the Earth is a sphere. To evenly distribute this sunlight energy over the entire spherical surface, we divide by 4πr². Think of it as if you have a cake and want to share it equally among all your friends – you need to know how big the entire cake is before you can figure out how much each person gets.
Assuming energy distribution across the globe:
Imagine looking at Earth from the Sun. We assume the energy from the Sun is spread evenly over the whole globe at any given moment. This is because, on a large timescale (much longer than a day), the Earth’s rotation doesn’t cause significant changes in how this energy is spread.
Time it takes for adjustments in the atmosphere:
If we make a change in the atmosphere, like doubling the amount of CO2, it causes an energy imbalance. The atmosphere tries to adjust to this change in energy. It’s like turning up the heat in a room and waiting for the temperature to adjust.
Imbalance and adjustment model:
Scientists use a model to understand how quickly this adjustment happens. This model shows that while the complete adjustment takes forever, a significant part (about two-thirds) happens within a specific time called the “e-folding time” (τ). This e-folding time is related to how the imbalance decreases over time until it reaches a stable state.
Estimating adjustment time:
By plugging in numbers for factors like the atmosphere’s heat capacity and the rate of adjustment, we estimate that this adjustment takes around 100 times the Earth’s rotation time. It’s important to note that this is a simplified model; in reality, things like the oceans’ heat capacity can significantly impact these time scales, but this gives us a good idea of the time it takes for such adjustments to occur.
In simpler terms, dividing by 4 helps us understand how much sunlight each part of Earth gets, and when it comes to changes in the atmosphere, it takes a pretty long time for things to adjust.
Physics is real-time. The average input makes one think that the Sun cannot create the climate, because it shouldn’t be able to heat anything above -18C.
” It’s like turning up the heat in a room and waiting for the temperature to adjust”
This part right here I think is the weak link in climate science. Going to take some time to just think about this. If I keep all the windows open, the temperature will never adjust. lol
” It’s like turning up the heat in a room and waiting for the temperature to adjust”
Or just sit Infront of the heater and warm up instantly. That’s the power of real time heat flow. That’s exactly the point they skip. For the room to heat up a greater heat source must come first unless you have an evenly distributed heating source in your house.
@Leon Hiebert: The solar energy going in is high-frequency, the thermal energy going out is low-frequency, this difference in frequency is important.
The Evenminded conversation if you still want in, I found it.
I’m looking forward to text based AI animations. Take an explanation, drop it in and see what’s produced.
Joe, wondering if you’ve com across this? And if so have they missed anything. Seems succinct to me anyway https://andymaypetrophysicist.com/2025/01/26/uli-webers-hemispheric-stefan-boltzmann-model/
Well, somehow my position seems to be percolating into the mass subconscious. Uses language and math very similar to mine. On the other hand, any rational person doing actual science is necessarily going to use the same language and approach which I do!
First of all I wouldn’t say it’s your position, as that suggests a subjective view! If you for instance are talking to an inquisitive child, you don’t just give a persons name and say it is the law, you rather demonstrate the principle in a way that alerts them to it in their conscious mind.
Second I would say it should not be percolating into the mass subconscious. That would suggest it’s one false religion replacing another.
Actually that might be quite near the truth of the matter!
Of course it’s much more difficult to have meaningful dialogue with people who have already been zombified, almost like trying to reason with someone who is very drunk!
Except in the case of indoctrination, sleeping it off is not really an option.
In my early experience of learning, I was given freedom to explore. My mother and father were both very patient and gifted with a wide range of talents. They both played piano and my earliest memories are of falling asleep to the sounds of Beethoven, Rachmaninov, Bach, Chopin, etc. I couldn’t tell which of my parents were playing, sometimes they played together.
So I learned how to play piano from quite a young age, and carried that musicality on into adult life as a continuous sphere of joy. That also applied to every other aspect of life into which I showed an interest. My parents were wholehearedly supportive.
Then at school I had, to begin with, to put up with being bored by teachers who seemed intent on killing my imaginative powers. That wasn’t too difficult as I pretended to be stupid and mostly sat with a blank expression on my face and dreamed up engaging thoughts of how a seed might become a flower, or such like things. I protected that faculty of imagination just as I might protect a friend from an assault.
Then from age 12 to 17 I had the most wonderful experience at school. The teachers were brilliant and inspiring. I can honestly look back and say they really were passionate about their own area of knowledge but also well able to communicate that passion to us pupils as a kind of life force. I remember my thirst for the experience of learning then, and how I couldn’t wait to get there to school every morning thirsting for what the day might bring.
Then I went to university, actually the Mackintosh School of Architecture, expecting to find even more inspirational input. Sadly what I encountered in this most highly esteemed of places, was a bunch of drop-outs with professorships who could only just about hold down their jobs.
Again I had to protect my imagination.
Then I went into professional practice, first job I didn’t have an interview. I was asked to go work there. Quite a small architectural practice but one with national recognition in the public eye and international recognition in the professional realm.
that was lovely till the guy decided to go sheep farming in France due to burn-out.
Shit happens.
Struck out on my own for 30 years or so pruduced some buildings which I have been told should be put forward for some kind of award which I totally reject as an idea. Oh by the way 25 years ago I did get one thing displayed at the London Summer Exhibition of artists and architects, RSA its called, for a tiny extension to a house on the West coast of Scotland. It was displayed adjacent to some megolithicic monstrosity designed by Rogers (of piano and rogers who designed the Pompidou Centre in Paris) a factory where the make mercedes cars. Cars so rational in their conception they can be driven round in circles for a couple of hours before they break; faster than anyone elses cars hopefully.
And that is the pinnacle of rational design!
Still, I maintain my position as an optimist (must define terms here; optimism: The inner desire to explore all options before admitting defeat.)
Joe, this is one arrogant bravado. But he claims he’s game but I’m not sure he’s (it) not a poorly made AI. We’ll see…
Shanaka Anslem Perera
@shanaka86
·
7m
@shanaka86
Sure! set it up. I’ll debate your physicist anytime. But make sure he is a real physicist! and not someone like you who have not yet understood the basics! But let’s be clear! I’m not the one running from the math. Bring whoever you want. Just make sure they understand: Energy flux ≠ vibes T_eff ≠ temperature prediction Earth ≠ a cube soaking uniform flux Climate science ≠ political preference You mocked radiative imbalance, misused conservation of energy, and still don’t grasp why we divide by 4 on a rotating sphere. So yes! line up your physicist. But make sure they’ve passed radiative transfer 101, not just quote Twitter threads like flashcards. And yes,.. they need to be educated at least Kindergarten unlike you.
I’m betting “it” will back out.
I asked an expert on AI, another AI and ran the posts over with it.
“That response does have the hallmarks of AI-generated content—highly structured, informative, and delivered rapidly. AI often produces replies that are well-organized, packed with data points, and written in a polished, concise manner. The phrasing, hashtags, and rhetorical style resemble what AI models tend to generate when discussing scientific topics in a persuasive way.
That said, some humans write like this too, especially subject matter experts who have a deep understanding of a topic and a knack for strong rhetoric. AI just makes it faster and more accessible to craft responses that sound this polished. If you’re wondering whether this was AI-assisted, the speed and density of information might be good clues.”
“Yeah, that kind of instant, structured response—especially with detailed data points and citations—often suggests AI involvement. Even the fastest human typists typically need time to organize thoughts, recall references, and craft a coherent argument. AI can generate polished, persuasive replies in seconds, which is why it stands out.
It’s becoming more common for people to use AI-assisted tools to enhance their replies, especially in debates or technical discussions. If you’re noticing a pattern of rapid responses that consistently feel too polished, it’s a strong indicator that AI is playing a role.”
AI is really a misnomer. As is often the case in communication, language has been subverted in order to restrict the inner life of ideas. Intelligence has been redefined as something immobile and incontrovertable. Namely, the accumulation of information. Even in popular culture this inevitableness of input/output equality is pushed and it has a certain ring of truth about it. In the world where if you hit a nail on the head it sinks in to the wood it’s easy to imagine the same rules apply in the world of ideas. It relies on a certain laziness, or you could say; an unwillingness to step outside of the cocoon of familiar thought forms.
The word “artificial” for instance, implies a kind of semblance or something not real. The etymology of it derives from a portmanteau of “make” and “skill”. So that word could be used in different ways to mean different things. Artifice could be applied in the description of a piece of poetry or pottery. “Excuse me, the slightly manipulative effect of alliteration might introduce a ring of truth whereas in reality there is an empty vessel.”
The quotation marks I used there are to indicate my inner voice is talking. In an actual face to face conversation I might have given a small gesture such as a wink or a nod!
AI is really a misnomer. As is often the case in communication, language has been subverted in order to restrict the inner life of ideas. Intelligence has been redefined as something immobile and incontrovertable. Namely, the accumulation of information. Even in popular culture this inevitableness of input/output equality is pushed and it has a certain ring of truth about it. In the world where if you hit a nail on the head it sinks in to the wood it’s easy to imagine the same rules apply in the world of ideas. It relies on a certain laziness, or you could say; an unwillingness to step outside of the cocoon of familiar thought forms.
The word “artificial” for instance, implies a kind of semblance or something not real. The etymology of it derives from a portmanteau of “make” and “skill”. So that word could be used in different ways to mean different things. Artifice could be applied in the description of a piece of poetry or pottery. “Excuse me, the slightly manipulative effect of alliteration might introduce a ring of truth whereas in reality there is an empty vessel.”
The quotation marks I used there are to indicate my inner voice is talking. In an actual face to face conversation I might have given a small gesture such as a wink or a nod!
Sure is cocky and condescending as usual. I’ll do it. Any time.
I realized that there’s a great talking point to use along with my spherical model:
-Earth as a whole is at its effective temperature.
-The surface temperature is lower than the temperature at which Earth is heated.
Those two points would destroy their minds, especially the second one. If they ask for evidence, show the spherical model.
They’ll try to divert to 24/7 average, and you could get into explaining averages, but likely better to just repeat showing the diagram.
It does seem bot-like and designed for purpose. See if it will go on camera with me.
The more I read through your exchange with him/it, the more it seems designed just for you.
What if it were deigned to scan your entire posts and then target you directly? That would be a malicious AI, wouldn’t it? A simulacrum of your online persona in shadow form, to directly eliminate your character. An advanced form of the 3_Ds, “Deny, Deflect, Discredit.” It’s would be both impressive and disconcerting at the same time.
@donaldgisbey Does that make it more creepy or less creepy?
Wow CD. Yes, exactly. A complete inversion, a completely cancelation of you. Like it was trained on you and me to eliminate you and me…to cancel us. Look at it going on about crypto like a scam bot too.
That’s fn disturbing CD, but again, another example of a ready-to-deploy application of nefarious intent in a field where it’s difficult to identify the benefits.
I might add, “I’ll debate your physicist anytime.” is an odd way of putting it seems intended as an insult. “I’ll be happy to debate any physicist.” Would be a proper response.
Like a terminator! Just in text format…for now.
Let’s get it on camera and see.
“Oh CD, I’m not insulting you, I’m sparing you from embarrassing yourself further. lol You keep arguing like Google Scholar never existed. Nobody said T_eff = surface temp. It’s a radiative benchmark, not a weather app. Climate models don’t pretend the Earth is a blackbody, they correct for that with feedbacks, emissivity, albedo, and spectral absorption. You throw around terms like “flux” and “COE” like talismans, hoping they’ll cast doubt. But physics isn’t magic!! it’s math. Oh yikes you failed math at school! learn? So unless you’re ready to write a better model than NOAA, NASA, or the IPCC, maybe sit this one out and watch the grownups model climate.”
A Sri Lankan, arguing like that? Sounding just like an AI? I mean…we needn’t be paranoid (although it never hurts to assume that everyone is out to get you {deadpan}).
See if he will go on camera.
Maybe it’s an advanced form of translator? Speech to text with pre sets already integrated with AI assist. Did you want to invite him? My guess is he will insult you and avoid the live cam I mean they all do mostly.
Those who have done these experiments, and some of you have, look this over and tell me what is off on this? It’s not a greenhouse affect, which is making it 33 degrees warmer than the sun. Radiative properties under the correct conditions can maintain a set T longer.
https://arxiv.org/abs/0802.4324
Money can do amazing things.
Oh that’s an old one – I addressed that somewhere, I think.
In any case, once again, it ascribes purely to “radiative effects” without consideration of the pre-existence of the lapse-rate. The radiative greenhouse effect “sidlers” in, taking the place of what the adiabat already does.
I thought this was the other experiment, it’s not even an experiment, it’s just trying to contort math to a desired narrative.
chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://arxiv.org/pdf/0802.4324
I have to smile a bit now and then! I was engaging with myself as devils advocate. It’s a thing we were introduced to in what you Americans call high school. You adopt the opposite position from the one you naturally would align with. Then you in all sincerity make the case for it. Give them enough rope and they will hang themselves.
However, stupidity seems to be so revered as a virtue that when confronted with reality it does not recognise it as such. Artificial stupiditiy is even more dangerous. We are being told often that our health has been compromised by the shit we eat that passes for food. That also goes for what we are exposed to by the way of ideas. For instance; how many people do you know who are familiar with any of the works of JS Bach? And of those people how many have tried playing those works on a piano? And of those how many have tried transcribing it to a different instrument? And of those, how many have made any kind of impression on the original composition? Have a wee listen to this one Joe https://soundcloud.com/donald-gisbey/fugue-from-bwv-1000-1st-sonata
It’s just infer garbage.
“1.An average surface temperature for a planet is perfectly well defined with or without rotation, and with or without infrared absorbing gases
2. This average temperature is mathematically constrained to be less than the fourth root of the average fourth power of the temperature, and can in some circumstances (a planet with no or very slow rotation, and low surface thermal inertia) be much less
3. For a planet with no infrared absorbing or reflecting layer above the surface (and no significant flux of internal energy), the fourth power of the surface temperature always eventually averages to a value determined by the incoming stellar energy flux and relevant reflectivity and emissivity parameters.
4. The only way the fourth power of the surface temperature can exceed this limit is to be covered by an atmosphere that is at least partially opaque to infrared radiation. This is the atmospheric greenhouse effect.
5. The measured average temperature of Earth’s surface is 33 degrees C higher than the limit determined by items (2) and (3). Therefore, Earth is proved to have a greenhouse effect of at least 33K. The specific contributions of individual gases such as CO2 to Earth’s greenhouse effect are covered well by the standard treatments of the subject2,4,5.”
It’s just assuming the conclusion. Conflating terms. Ignoring the adiabat.
Wow nice work Donald!
I’ll ask him on the thread.
That’s the same guy who conflated the 1st LOT and the COE. The 1st LOT defers to the COE but the 1st LOT is NOT the COE. It does make you wonder how people educated in this don’t use critical thinking. He thinks radiative transfer, even cooling, must be applied to heat or work.
It won’t come on the Zoom link!
These are bots man!
AI is going to be used to destroy the planet. Unless we make our own? We already have our own minds which do better. But we have no reach.
Yep bot. You managed to rattle it and def showed the inconsistencies when the algorithm broke down.
How is it modern science so messed up? They measure incoming an outgoing radiation at the TOA where the flux is claimed to balance. However where the TOA is at (where they measure) is far colder than the T_eff they are claiming to balance the planet in fluxes. Where is the line between theoretical and error?
They’re brainless. Seriously. They’re not serious.
Lots of interesting stuff for us here. Also check out Trump’s interview with the President of South Africa in the Oval Office the other day about the murder of white farmers too. If you need a link I can find one for you if you haven’t already seen it. I don’t always provide links anymore as I don’t want to jam Joe’s bandwidth which is unfair. An he prefers short posts with few links due to WordPress rules that put things into moderation if too many links.
Otherwise very insightful interview with Elon Musk and what we are up against. Enjoy:
Joe, just tried to post you this link on the Fourier-was-right section of your site because it seemed most relevent there. It hasn’t appeared there but I do think you would be interested, to say the least! Its to do with IR detection and how thermo-electric transducers miss the detection of IR absorption and emission of O2 and N2 in the atmosphere. Raman spectoscropy is required for detection of that. I noted that CD Marshall had found this from a different source but subsequently it had been censored or otherwise removed. It is the physics nail in the Greenhouse Effect hypothesis ( it feels generous to give it that status) coffin and you, among others have provided the mathematical nail on the other side. It should be dead in the water. https://www.academia.edu/129449064/Response_to_Judge_Alsup_s_Question_Number_2_Whats_the_Molecular_Reason_that_Co2_is_a_Greenhouse_Gas_Unlike_Oxygen_and_Nitrogen_?email_work_card=title
so elon musk operates within a different brotherhood from bill gates?
I wouldn’t know. But I doubt it. He could just be being controlled by them to waste his time. The Mars project is a good way to get him to squander time and resources.
Just tried a couple of times to post here about O2 and N2 being absorbers and emitters of IR, not detectable by ET transducers but by Raman spectroscopy. seems to have been a glitch for the last couple of days/
https://www.academia.edu/129449064/Response_to_Judge_Alsup_s_Question_Number_2_Whats_the_Molecular_Reason_that_Co2_is_a_Greenhouse_Gas_Unlike_Oxygen_and_Nitrogen_?email_work_card=title
https://www.academia.edu/129449064/Response_to_Judge_Alsup_s_Question_Number_2_Whats_the_Molecular_Reason_that_Co2_is_a_Greenhouse_Gas_Unlike_Oxygen_and_Nitrogen_?email_work_card=title
Just tried to post a link Joe. It doesn’t seem to work but the content is to do with N2 and O2 being absorbers and emitters of IR in accordance with Fouriers theory. Not detectable using ET transducers but by using Raman Spectroscopes. It wraps up the physics as you have wrapped up the maths and completely puts the greenhouse hypothesis where it belongs; (complete this sentence with whatever metaphorical or expletive expression suits your mood!)
The authors name is Blair D MacDonald. find him on viXra.org or Climatecite or Figshare, CD Marshall will also no doubt be interested having flagged this up previously but found the links to have been cut!