Tony has slowly been approaching the Slayer position on the fraud of the climate greenhouse effect. He’s almost totally on board now, in realizing what the existence of the adiabatic lapse rate means – that it totally destroys the climate greenhouse narrative.
Categories
-
Join 545 other subscribers
- Follow Climate of Sophistry on WordPress.com
Recent Comments
- Alex Janssen on The State of Climate Sophistry
- Alex Janssen on The State of Climate Sophistry
- Alex Janssen on The State of Climate Sophistry
- Alex Janssen on The State of Climate Sophistry
- Joseph E Postma on The State of Climate Sophistry
- CD Marshall on The State of Climate Sophistry
- CD Marshall on The State of Climate Sophistry
- CD Marshall on The State of Climate Sophistry
- CD Marshall on The State of Climate Sophistry
- Alex Janssen on The State of Climate Sophistry
- Joseph E Postma on The State of Climate Sophistry
- Alex Janssen on The State of Climate Sophistry
- Alex Janssen on The State of Climate Sophistry
- Joseph E Postma on The State of Climate Sophistry
- Alex Janssen on The State of Climate Sophistry
Climate of Sophistry 
Joseph: So glad you mentioned Tony Heller, I’ve been watching him for years.Merry Christmas and cheers from the Poconos. Stanley Foss
He’s been fighting so long, I thought he was already on our side. Good to have him here with us.
Merry Christmas to all and best wishes for the new year.
Get the popcorn, this decision is going to start a lot of traditional “Skeptics” having second thoughts. Tony does not make these decisions lightly or without thoroughly examining the evidence.
Pingback: Tony Heller Coming on Side | ajmarciniak
Can you imagine how fn evil this guy is:
True,
https://www.zerohedge.com/medical/science-discovers-sex-matters-sports-performance-not-gender-identity
Tony has always skirted this fact but never outright denied it. Technically a greenhouse effect does exist, just the not radiative version and it was well established by Maxwell which was supported by Feynman.
https://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/I_40.html
https://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2015/07/physicist-richard-feynman-proved.html
Joseph, as John Kerry was spouting off in the video I was far more interested in looking at the beautiful windows behind him. They were of far more interest to me than the nonsense he was spewing.
Ned Nikolov have just made a great video on the subject where he first goes through the alarmist position and then destroys it.
CD ta for that Feyman lecture. He’s really clear and has simple step by step logic and maths.
https://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2014/12/why-man-made-global-warming-theory.html
I have some questions about this article if someone can help.
In this article it says the top of the troposphere can get as low as 220K (-53.15C)?
These models are kind of like a snapshot of the temperatures in earth’s atmosphere and on its surface at the most average day of all measured relevant days, correct? Of course we know not to get ridiculous and avg the sunshine over the entire surface reducing the sun’s power to a quarter its actual forcing potential.
If we actually measured perfect black body measurements on the “perfect avg” day, the measurements would be pretty close to the ones I placed in the second picture under your model. I indicate the sun at the top giving us virtually vertical rays indicated with the solar constant’s perfect blackbody temperature average of 121C(249.8F). This black body would be completely outside of earth’s atmosphere, but directly in the path of inhibited radiation from the sun, at the average intensity earth receives annually. It varies annually by 0.1%.
Then continuing on with this real world spherical earth perfect avg day, the atmosphere absorbs and reflects 30% of the radiation flux intensity. So at the apex of earth’s surface perpendicular to the sun’s rays, where the radiation is most intense on the surface, we would expect a perfect blackbody temperature of 87.5C(189.5F) on earth’s surface. If you can imagine a blacktop road in the desert on a hot summer day, you understand that is a reasonable temperature.
Now on to the 255k/-18C(-0.4F), the way I like to explain this measurement, is as earth’s emittance. This measurement was taken by satellites in space. It is the sun’s energy absorbed by varying degrees over exactly half of earth’s surface area, emitted by its entire surface area. That is why it is so cold, that is earth’s radiation. Earth only gets its radiation from one source, the sun. Refer to solar constant. In the article it is called the sun’s and earth’s equilibrium temperature, which I don’t think is wrong, but he seems to be confused as to why the surface temperature should be warmer than that?
Maybe I don’t understand but it seems he is still justifying that we need to explain how we get from 255k/-18C to 15C avg measured surface temperature. He still isn’t restarting with the solar constant and a spherical earth. I can’t tell if he thinks “back radiation” is real or not.
Anyway, that got me doodling on that model up there with all the layers of the atmosphere trying to put the perfect blackbody temperatures where they go. Which you(Postma) already put 4. See what I’m going for? Is it -18 all the way through the middle of the troposphere like I put the light blue circle? That doesn’t seem right intuitively. I would expect different temperatures depending if I’m on the day or night side. But, mountains have ice on their peaks no matter where they are if they are tall enough. Then the 87.5C, 30C and 15C are surface temperatures. Perfect blackbody surface temperatures at 15 degree angles. Perfect dawn, noon, dusk and inbetween. Then, what is the perfect blackbody surface temperature on the perfect average day at midnight? There will be a big difference between one in a dessert and one in a jungle of course.
That article and other articles linked in it had me asking a bunch of other questions but I’ll stop here for now. TY.
Got to remember photons don’t do anything until that energy can be transferred into a compatible body. TOA has a potential to reach 121C if those photons were transferring all energy there and they are not. A flux (which varies by the inverse square law) is simply a measure of potential temperature (in a given area). Insolation is the total of those photons from the Sun reaching a given area surface insolation is a measure of that thermal energy reaching a given area at the surface. On a perfect clear sky (including particulates) temps at the equatorial zenith would reach very high temperatures and that simply does not happen which is why we don’t get 121 C surface temps like the Moon.
Most of the tropics is ocean and much of that thermal energy is transported through water vapor. We have effective thermal energy transport systems on Earth.
If I followed this right or I’m just on crack.
“Only one 33C greenhouse theory can be correct, either the 33C Arrhenius radiative greenhouse theory (the basis of CAGW alarm and climate models) or the 33C Maxwell/Clausius/Carnot/Feynman gravito-thermal greenhouse effect, since if both were true, the surface temperature would be an additional 33C warmer than the present. As we have previously shown, the Arrhenius greenhouse theory confuses the cause (gravito-thermal) with the effect (radiation from greenhouse gases).”
Neither if you both think the sun only inputs -18C and Gravity is why the average measured surface temperature is 15C.
I think that is what they are saying Gravity makes up that 33 degree difference. Which is also just a way out of wack way to look at things.
Right?
There is no “Greenhouse Effect”. There is only what happen inside of a greenhouse and we already have a word for that, convection.
There is no “Greenhouse Effect”. There is only what happens inside of a greenhouse and we already have a word for that, convection.
“Maybe I don’t understand but it seems he is still justifying that we need to explain how we get from 255k/-18C to 15C avg measured surface temperature. He still isn’t restarting with the solar constant and a spherical earth. I can’t tell if he thinks “back radiation” is real or not.”
This happens, people get confused in what they’re trying to explain, when they leave out the adiabatic effect which establishes that the surface must be hotter than the average, and the average, by definition, must occur around the middle, and therefore cannot be found where the heat is deposited in the first place nor where it must be the hottest part anyway.
“Is it -18 all the way through the middle of the troposphere like I put the light blue circle? That doesn’t seem right intuitively. I would expect different temperatures depending if I’m on the day or night side. But, mountains have ice on their peaks no matter where they are if they are tall enough.”
Great insights. It’s all of this. At low altitude you get a wide diurnal variation due to heat deposit from the sun during day and then radiative cooling from high-emissivity surface at night.
The surface heat convects and diffuses into the lower atmosphere, however, because it spread out, the temperature variation gets attenuated out so that it becomes almost constant. I think that at 5-6km where it is -18C, the temperature is actually almost constant there; however, at only 100 meters, there is lots of variation and at the surface itself there is the most variation. The temperature variations dampen out with altitude.
“I think that is what they are saying Gravity makes up that 33 degree difference. Which is also just a way out of wack way to look at things.
There is no “Greenhouse Effect”. There is only what happen inside of a greenhouse and we already have a word for that, convection.”
Right. And yes it is too-based upon that flat Earth approach.
This would be perfect:
There is a 33 degree difference between the effective temperature of the Earth, which is physically found at 5km altitude, and the near-surface air temperature at 0km altitude, due to the adiabatic effect.
“There is a 33 degree difference between the effective temperature of the Earth, which is physically found at 5km altitude, and the near-surface air temperature at 0km altitude, due to the adiabatic effect.”
Which on my “perfect avg blackbody surface temperature day” happens at dawn and dusk.
Those temperatures in reasonable spots? The 30C too.
Then my brain wants to continue the pattern to 7.5C and -2.5C at midnight.
Deserts get down to -2.5C at night more or less.
Interestingly in Postma’s model the sun’s input is flat. In this case that is fine though. The sun’s real world input is flat, cast on a spherical earth so this is still a real world model.
Well, yes it’s a cross-section falling over a hemisphere.
Well Postma does knock 30% from the atmosphere. It is 87.5C at the hottest part of the surface.
Maybe just imagine the whole earth as a perfect blackbody but with the same atmosphere?
Merry Christmas and Happy New Year btw guys.
Cheers
I use a different approach because using their own claims shows that it is stupid and doesn’t support their claims at all because it is IMPOSSIBLE for CO2 to generate todays warming trend which seems to be caused El-Nino’s doing the actual warming they create a step warming then a partial cool down then a flat trend to the next El-Nino there is no evidence of CO2 warming anything in the temperature data in between the phases which can last 10 years or more thus unsupported.
Fact: There is NO Hot Spot existing.
Fact: There is NO Positive feedback Loop existing.
Fact: CO2 doesn’t prevent exponential increase in energy leaving the planet which is far more than what the postulated CO2 warm forcing can generate thus no net warming can occur which is another example of their crazy AGW failure which was exposed years ago.
It is a government run climate scam for the singular purpose of replacing the Republic with a Marxist based regime in America and similar trash in other nations.
Joe, I have a question about you explanation:
“…the adiabatic effect which establishes that the surface must be hotter than the average, and the average, by definition, must occur around the middle, and therefore cannot be found where the heat is deposited in the first place nor where it must be the hottest part anyway.”
“There is a 33 degree difference between the effective temperature of the Earth, which is physically found at 5km altitude, and the near-surface air temperature at 0km altitude, due to the adiabatic effect.”
So there are 3 things that have to be equal:
1) The height of the TROPOSPHERE MEAN TEMPERATURE
2) A height roughly in the middle of the troposphere
3) The height of the EARTH EFFECTIVE TEMPERATURE
1=2=3
I get why 1 and 2 are equal, it’s just a simple mathematical fact that the mean temperature has to lie somewhere in the middle if there’s a linear lapse rate
But I don’t see why 3 is equal to the other ones. The earth effective temperature is set by where radiation gets out to space. If the atmosphere emitted a lot, this could be at the top of the troposphere or even higher. If the earth didn’t emit any to space, this would be at the surface. In reality the atmosphere emits different amounts at different wavelengths, so there is no one height where radiation gets out, but we can still make a kind of average radiative height. But why is this tied to 1 or 2? Thanks
Typo: should be “If the ATMOSPHERE didn’t emit any to space, this would be at the surface”
Just why?😜
Chrsitopher Collins
@CDCollins5269
Dec 2, 2023
The formula was pretty straightforward.
P = e sigma A (T^4-T^4)
Nowhere did that say, “slows cooling” and nowhere does that claim “slowed cooling” increases temperature. 1st LoT DT= Q – W. Only the net difference in energy can be applied to “heat”.
bram sleurs
@SleursBram51222
·Dec 2, 2023
an object cools less quickly when in the presence of a second object, even if the second is less warm; This is only possible if this second object transfers energy to the first through radiation and thus adds heat to it. How could this be otherwise?
Chrsitopher Collins
@CDCollins5269
Dec 2, 2023
A photon carries transferable energy based on the frequency of the photon in that specific wavelength, and those wavelengths do not increase the frequency to a higher frequency, regardless of energy population at that specific wavelength.
bram sleurs
@SleursBram51222
Dec 2, 2023
When IR radiation is absorbed, heat is generated and thus heat is added to the receiving object.
Chrsitopher Collins
@CDCollins5269
Why do you keep interchanging energy for heat?
bram sleurs
Please indicate where I confuse energy with heat; I’m just saying that IR radiation transfers energy from one object to another, causing heat to be generated there.
Chrsitopher Collins
@CDCollins5269
“Please indicate where I confuse energy with heat; I’m just saying that IR radiation transfers energy from one object to another”.
This part is correct. Why did you assume that equals heat? That is the stumbling block most of us get wrong, me too, for years. DT>0 then DQ>0.
@CDCollins5269
Internal energy is not heat nor can it be treated as heat. Equipartition of Energy in a local system maintained at LTE is not exchanging Q. Translational thermodynamic energy is…energy until it meets the requirement to be treated as heat.
bram sleurs
That is exactly what I am showing: the energy transferred by IR radiation generates heating in the receiving object.
Rancourt is close too.
https://thepeoplesvoice.tv/new-hampshire-becomes-second-u-s-state-to-ban-chemtrails/
Let’s see what the man says…
https://twitter.com/i/spaces/1BRJjPoWyMaKw
Tony Heller is talking on that link.
Listening
Some clown sent me this haven’t look at it yet.
Like Tony said…just a bunch of made up charts…Zero critical analysis. For scientists pretending to be so scientific, there sure is an acute lack of critical analysis.