These people are insane. They’re now repeating what I show in my diagram back to me, explaining my own diagram to me, as if it defends in some way the treating of the Earth as a flat plane with even solar input which cannot create the climate. They literally tell me that P_in (input power) from the Sun shouldn’t be equal to S(1-a)/4, and that’s why *I* am wrong about my spherical Earth diagram. Talk about gaslighting!
(Sorry…the pics are high-res in the library but it seems that when inserted here they get down-sampled automatically. Text extracted following.)
JP:
Hey Mats! I think that we should discuss the confusion regarding the posts on Climate Change Debate. What time zone are you? I am MST which is GMT – 7. Let’s have a recorded video discussion about it and resolve the inability to have a meeting of the mind in physics on what should be a trivial issue.
I am fairly open this week – let me know what works for you, your time-zone, etc. Just a friendly happy chat about physics.
Mats
Hey Joseph, Thank you for your message. My position on a “recorded video discussion” did not change. If you gave me reason to believe that such a discussion would make a difference in resolving your “confusion”, I would agree. However, you did not. You only trolled me with an endless repetition of your pictures, with insistence on your misconceptions. I thus regard a “video discussion” to be a waste of time for both of us. Besides, I stick to what I said about the recording. Even if I agreed to a “friendly happy chat”, I would not want to be seen on record with you. I do not want to be in any way associated with your claims. Best wishes from the UK, Mats
JP:
So you realize that you have no way to defend flat Earth theory and it would be embarrassing for you to put your face to such a defense. Must suck.
Mats
See, that’s exactly the behaviour that makes me think that any further discussion with you is a waste of time.
It’s YOUR behaviour, Mats. Stop projecting. You are the one who refuses to chat about this like an honest scientist.
Maybe face to face would resolve the difficulty in textual communication.
Mats
You could have at least tried to convince me that a “video discussion” could be meaningful, but no. You just continue with your stupid flat Earth rant, almost as if you’d want to confirm what I wrote. Thanks for that.
JP:
Does the Sunshine fall over the entire surface of the Earth at 1/4 power evenly as if the Earth is a flat plane? That should be a simple scientific discussion you should be capable of having. Yet, you cannot.
Mats replied to you
I answered that question before and again today. Have a look in the group.
JP:
You should be able to grasp the difference between a spherical energy budget vs. a flat-Earth energy budget. Yet you refuse to even acknowledge it.
And I answered your evasive answer which didn’t ever address the question.
Mats
And again, that’s why even writing with you is wasted time.
JP:
Yes, because I will not accept your defense of flat Earth theory just because it is worked out with math. It is still wrong even if you apply math to it.
Mats
You clearly understood nothing.
Anyway. That’s not my problem.
Bye.
My diagram shows what the procedure is. Yet you ignore it and continue to defend flat Earth approach.
It is actually a pretty big problem, for you. lol
I’ll leave you with a drawing of a spherical depiction of the Earth. I know it really irks you and bothers you, but nevertheless, you can do an energy budget with a spherical Earth. Sucks to be you if this is what you hate in life and science…
Mats
JP:
And please do not reply to tell me that a sphere is the same thing as a flat line….just…ugh
Mats, I’m an astrophysicist and work for the Canadian Space Agency. We HAVE to be able to work through this problem, do we not? It has to be possible, if you’re an actual scientist too. Lett’s work through it together!
Let’s start from first principles, and work out the 1st-year physics of the problem.
Mats
JP:
As I’ve said, there’s nothing wrong with getting the Teff of Earth. The problem is in using Teff as the solar input to Earth.
You’re repeating with the mathematical part of your graphic the exact math which is in my diagram. I show exactly that. However, that math does not equate to using that Teff of Earth as the solar input.
And indeed, the Teff calculated is in fact Earth’s temperature, as measured from space. So no problem with the Teff.
Mats
Please read again and think about it. One does not set P_{in} to be identical to (α –1) S/4 at every point in space and time, one sets ⟨P_{out}⟩ to equal that average. That’s a huge difference and your misconception starts here.
JP:
Let’s do this by video discussion…we;ve been through this via text comments.
The pedagogical and peer-reviewed diagrams most definitely show (α –1) S/4 over the entire surface of the Earth evenly as an input. This is why I keep posting the diagram of proof of such.
It is MY diagram which does not set Pin to be equal to (α –1) S/4. MY DIAGRAM does that.
Mats
You are insisting on your misconception by mere over- and misinterpretation of a simple diagram. Congratulations.
JP:
The flat Earth climate science diagrams are which do do that. You are inverting reality here. Strange.
Look here, my diagram: Pin is NOT equal to (α –1) S/4.
Look here, pedagocail and peer-review climate science: Pin IS EQUAL to (α –1) S/4
Mats
You are again only repeating yourself. You are completely stuck. With that kind of reasoning I honestly wonder how you managed to even get through “1st-yeat physics”.
JP:
You’re literally taking my own argument and repeating it to me, pretending that it is not my aargument and that somehow my own argument is the refutation of itself because you yuourself present it back to me…lol
You said: “One does not set P_{in} to be identical to (α –1) S/4 at every point in space and time, one sets ⟨P_{out}⟩ to equal that average.” And yet, this is precisely what the peer-reviewed and pedagogical climate science diagrams do. And, it is precisely what my diagram does not do. So, THANK YOU for finally acceding the argument to me.
Mats
One last time: it is the outgoing, not the incident flux that enters the Stefan-Boltzmann law in the blackbody model. Your diagrams do not change that. I get that it may be somewhat misleading that P_{in} is itself defined via the gloabal average, but that’s nevertheless not the meaning of the blackbody model. You can define P_{in} locally, without any reference to the average, and still get exactly the same effective temperature as long as you assume perfect redistribution of heat within the climate system, as long as you assume that the blackbody radiates with one and only one temperature. That has nothing to do with “flat Earth”.
And if you wish to insert the local value of P_{in} for the local value of P_{out} instead and then average, arrive at the other extreme, you may do so. However, that leads to a significantly lower, not higher average surface temperature.
JP:
Thank you for explaining my own diagram back to me. You’re right that my diagram is not flat Earth. However, when one uses S(1-a)/4 over a flat line for the Earth as the even solar input, like climate science does, this is flat Earth science because a flat Earth is the only way that input could be possible, which is why they use a flat line for the Earth. So, again, thank you for agreeing with my spherical model and making the point that the climate science flat Earth approach is not possible.
Mats
I give up. You are a lost case.
JP:
I’ve in fact owned you.
Mats
If you want to believe so…
JP:
It’s OK Mats. Be graceful about it at least.
Mats
You are not a physicist, you are a crackpot. That’s the only thing you’ve “owned” here and there is nothing “graceful” about that. It’s, quite frankly, a disgrace.
JP:
Yes I am a crackpot because I draw the Earth as a sphere rather than a flat line, and demonstrate in the diagram precisely what you request (that S(1-a)/4 shouldn’t be equal to Pin from the Sun), and because I say that the Sun can create the climate. Yes, your logic is very consistent…lol.
Mats
See how all you have is insult? That’s called a loss.
Mats
Have a nice day.
JP:
Thanks for stepping out, due to your lost argument.
Mats
Again, you have shown me that any discussion with you is a waste of time. That’s the sole reason I am “stepping out”. But please feel free to further fool yourself and believe you have won the argument, if you need to do so. I honestly don’t give a shit. Your opinion doesn’t matter to me and it doesn’t matter to physics.
Now, finally, good bye.
JP:
Wow look at all this complaining and whining because you lost the argument. No need to try to save face with this sort of stuff, Mats.
Climate of Sophistry 
They keep arguing the same point because the math adds up. Even though they use the wrong assumtions. These people are academics, not engineers. I would suggest you ask them to show you a real life experiment or technology that used back radiaton. It should be easy for them as the effect is almost as powerful as the sun.
Arguing with liars is like wrestling with a pig in the mud. After a while you realize that the pig is enjoying it.
Joseph: I read every line of that exchange and thoroughly enjoyed it, in fact I’m still laughing. The reply at the bottom was spot on, they feel vindicated because their math is flawless…on a flawed theory! Cheers Mate, Stan FossPocono Mountains of PA
They are like the IDIOTS who claim the same conditions that cause the atmosphere to HEAT also cause it to COOL!!!
REALLY?
So if I want to cook a steak, do I put it on top of a block of ICE or on a BURNER? Do I cool my drink by putting ICE in it or by putting it on the stove and lighting a burner?
That is like saying the same Gravity that causes objects to be pulled toward the center of the Earth should ALSO cause a bowling ball to FLOAT UP INTO THE AIR!!!
Makes me think of something an attractive North Korean defector said. Idk how true it is but I think I can make a good point with it. In North Korea, the population is taught that 1+1=1 because when you add one drop of water to another drop of water, they combine into 1 drop of water. This is why “White man math” is wrong. As declared by the dear leader.
Now what does it take to convince this North Korean person indoctrinated with this that they are wrong? They don’t even have the proper understanding of basic arithmetic at all. Are they adults? If so their brain is crystalized and their minds are often harder to change. Then these people admire the dear leader, they fear and respect him.
North Korean-“No, no, one water droplet always one water droplet”
Me-No, there is more than one water droplet, when you take a water droplet and split it with a card or a knife dissecting it, you turn it into 2 water droplets. When it rains how many droplets are on the surface area of your window? Probably take a minute to count them all right?
North Korean-“2 droplets combine into 1, all droplets are one”
Really at the most basic level, these people are arguing something as dumb as 1+1=1.
This guy is incapable of stepping outside of his box.
I suppose the concept of SIZE escapes that North Korean as well. The combination of the two drops into one form ONE droplet, but it is TWICE the size of each original drop. Taken to the extreme, I suppose they would claim that all of the combined oceans are just ONE DROP….but arguing with someone as badly brainwashed as that is useless.
I like the word “indoctrinated” better.
“Indoctrinated” is probably a more accurate term. They would have to have a brain for it to get washed and reprogrammed.
https://odysee.com/@ZachStarHimself:9/the-day-the-number-1-was-invented:9?r=AUHBg8UpFrFRjosg7dZhKdpHwQ2D37MM
This, after posting my spherical model on FB:
“Jordan Holmes
Joseph E. Postma the ocean looks flat but we know it’s a sphere. A flat line can definitely represent a sphere, what are you talking about.
Meanwhile you are the one treating the earth as if it is fully illuminated everywhere at once, which is only possible if it were flat.
You are the flat earther and ranting about how everyone else is.”
Fucking incredible.
It’s not like you’re speaking Greek lol.
Did you tell him?
https://www.nbcnews.com/science/science-news/geminids-meteor-shower-where-see-peak-times-2023-rcna129068
Watch out tonight past 9pm. Meteor shower.
https://www.infowars.com/posts/russian-military-releases-new-data-on-us-military-biological-activity-in-ukraine/
Fact or fiction.
Either way maybe invest in a Hazmat suite and a gas mask.
I tried running ~1W of current through a nichrome wire to heat it, then placed it within a small aluminum-lined box and then inside a vacuum chamber. According to the flat earth mathematics, it should get way hotter than the equivalent blackbody radiating 1W, because of the self-heating via back-radiation. Yet it didn’t get even close
Reality doesn’t behave like in the idealized math… it just doesn’t.
Five out of 6 “climate scientists” prove that Russian Roulette is completely safe.
https://www.reddit.com/r/RealClimateSkeptics/s/FVmAL4IJtN
https://www.reddit.com/r/RealClimateSkeptics/s/lhOg0yVEXH
@Dale Cloudman
Geraint Hughes has done plenty of experiments and Joe has his contact info maybe he can walk you through some or help you out?
https://principia-scientific.com/niblet-no-6-no-greenhouse-effect-exists/
https://www.youtube.com/@gerainthughes3725
How can this “Mats” possibly not see that the math does not match the actual physics that is occuring………. He’s basically saying that Joseph is wrong because climate science can pretend that night and day doesn’t exist using math…….. He’s a clown!!!!!
@PB2505
Night and day do exist, even on the planet Mars:
The Dust Planet Clarified: Modelling Martian MY29 Atmospheric Data Using the Dynamic-Atmosphere Energy- Transport (DAET) Climate Model.
@Philip Mulholland
I enjoyed that paper thankyou.,…… So I take it then that the same equatorial convection process is why our troposphere is only 6 KMs at our poles and about 16kms at the equator??
@ PB2505
same equatorial convection process is why our troposphere is only 6 KMs at our poles and about 16kms at the equator??
Yes, the only difference is that for the Earth it has a 3 cog machine, Hadley, Ferrel and Polar whereas Mars has a single cog that directly links tropical ascent of air to polar descent of air.
Here is our analysis for the Earth:
The Application of the Dynamic Atmosphere Energy Transport Climate Model (DAET) to Earth’s Semi-Opaque Troposphere
@Philip Mulholland
Aha……. Wow……..So is this attributable to atmospheric mass in combination with gravity????……… As in Earth requires 3 cogs because our atmosphere obviously has more mass and our gravity is also higher than Mars…….
@Philip Mulholland
I forgot to say that being closer to the sun and receiving higher insulation would also obviously create the 3 cogs effect in combination with gravity and a atmosphere with greater mass……
@ PB2505
So is this attributable to atmospheric mass in combination with gravity????
It’s complicated.
Venus is a high surface pressure, high-gravity terrestrial planet, but Venus is a slow daily rotator and has only a single cog system.
The Venusian Insolation Atmospheric Topside Thermal Heating Pool
Mars and Earth are both fast daily rotators and yet have a different circulation pattern. The circulation structure for the low-pressure Martian troposphere is perhaps more akin to that of the Earth’s low-pressure stratosphere (my speculation not assertion).
Venus still has active volcanoes and a thin outer shell. I was fascinated to find out volcanoes can’t erupt vertically (in the traditional sense I suppose with enough power they could), making them appear like effusive flow rather than eruptions.
Sabine Hossenfelder
@skdh
Why does Sabine talk about climate change so much recently? Because it worries me and I think a lot of people don’t take it seriously enough. There isn’t much I can do, really, but at the very least I can try to make people think, so that’s what I try.
The base misconception of the GHGE. I came across this on another site:
“KB permalink
May 12, 2022 10:28 pm
No I can’t figure it out.
WHY cannot IR radiation emitted by the 400K cube be absorbed by the 800K cube?
If the two cubes were radioactive sources, they would absorb radiation from each other, despite both of them being radioactive. What’s the difference?”
I do think it’s funny how they argue Kirchhoff so much, which is BASED on a system in perfect thermal equilibrium and that is not Earth. LTE is not perfect thermal equilibrium and something as simple as convective currents, pressure and so forth can break it.
The difference is that radioactivity is particulate (alpha = protons, beta = electrons) and gamma = extremely high energy EM.
Uh lord.
You do know what the reply to that would be?
…computing
…computing
… … …
…error
“You’re lying!”
The mind virus is everywhere.
Look at this lying POS… on Twitter.
Ian Copeland, PhD
@IanCopeland5
What do you know about gene therapy @HopiNg66966500
?
You are a paramedic with a highschool diploma.
MRNA is not gene therapy and does not alter DNA.
Get in your place. Stay in your lane.
Bastards
The whole gene therapy thingy was their special selling point
“look how great we are. We invented gene therapy, even tho it didn’t go as expected on animal tests”
Conversation
Ian Copeland, PhD
@IanCopeland5
·
5h
What do you know about gene therapy @HopiNg66966500
?
You are a paramedic with a highschool diploma.
MRNA is not gene therapy and does not alter DNA.
Get in your place. Stay in your lane.
Go sit down and wait for someone to need CPR. Then we’ll call you 🫡.
Image
Chrsitopher Collins
@CDCollins5269
·
4h
😂
Even the Pfizer CEO has admitted mRNA ‘vaccines’ are gene therapy, mRNA can be transcribed into the DNA in the liver, making it a permanent part of your DNA.
You’re done.
Chrsitopher Collins
@CDCollins5269
Furthermore,
The gene-therapy ‘vaccine’ mRNA (with a non-organic end-cap so it can’t be broken down as easily by the liver) undergoes reverse transcription into liver cells in as little as 6 hours after first exposure.
Nobody needs poison pushers.
Yes, you can average global temperature.
No, it has no real-world applications for surface variations.
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2883465
Boomie, is that paper ok? The vortex get-around of the 2nd law that-isn’t-really doesn’t jump out as sound. He doesn’t get his pressure vs density take across very well either.
We used to work with that author, Cotton, until he tried stealing all of our work claiming it all as his own and then making modifications to make it retarded. In as much as he repeats my work it’s good lol