Categories
-
Join 545 other subscribers
- Follow Climate of Sophistry on WordPress.com
Recent Comments
- 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
- Joseph E Postma 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 
By the simple process of averaging the dual planetary environments of lit day and dark night, climate science removes from the analysis the critical role of planetary shadow in creating a surface environment where radiant cooling dominates. This is particularly so in the case of the polar circle environment where the axial tilt generates an annual orbital cycle of half-year continuous winter darkness that permits the deposition of snowfall, that then becomes a potent variable of the summer daylit surface albedo.
See our analysis of Mars where real temperature data demonstrates the need to model the atmosphere with both lit and dark hemispheres.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/376377498_The_Dust_Planet_Clarified_Modelling_Martian_MY29_Atmospheric_Data_Using_the_Dynamic-Atmosphere_Energy-_Transport_DAET_Climate_Model
@TomANelson
Fun stuff: After I invited Sabine Hossenfelder to be my podcast guest, someone with pronouns in their email signature had a number of questions, including one about compensation. After I answered the questions and offered no compensation, I immediately heard back: “…unfortunately due to her schedule she is unable to take on any interviews without compensation.”
@skdh
No climate realist has ever even asked me for compensation to appear on my podcast. Aren’t they supposed to be evil folks motivated only by money, while climate scam believers like Sabine are supposed to be completely uninterested in money?
…And then Sabine blocked him.
I think this tells us a lot.
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/b2gck33owl6fr6gp3blwv/010224.JPG?rlkey=s0ekkx0jmdahdcial72y5pw6o&dl=0
Sabine is a shill confirmed.
Definitely John.
Imagin having an argument with a so called “educated” person over whether night and day exists……… The stupidity is staggering
That’s literally what happens on FB with scientists. I have to ask what’s wrong with just showing a sphere with day and night?! Like why can’t I do that? Lol
Maybe you can ask how they would change the model for a flat earth with the same area as earth and with only daylight 1/4 of the sun and no night?
That’s the question!
All I got from this is IR can warm air.
The Influence of IR Absorption and Backscatter Radiation from CO2 on Air Temperature during Heating in a Simulated Earth/Atmosphere Experiment (semanticscholar.org)
IN what alternate universe is this considered science?
Click to access PhysTodayRT2011.pdf
Oh God that’s so bad. Science has completely lost the plot. Any PhD in physics should be able to pick that apart, but they don’t.
Judith Curry agreed with this nonsense.
Yet Pierrehumbert is a PhD in physics.
What is the source of that excerpt CD?
Pierrehumbert’s work.
Infrared radiation and planetary temperature (uchicago.edu)
Curry’s endorsement…
https://judithcurry.com/2011/01/19/pierrehumbert-on-infrared-radiation-and-planetary-temperatures/
The snippet was from Pierrehumbert’s work, the discussion was on Twitter over with now for they had nothing to bring to the table but misdirection.
Also on the Curry page:
So, if you have followed the Climate Etc. threads, the numerous threads on this topic at Scienceofdoom, and read Pierrehumbert’s article, is anyone still unconvinced about the Tyndall gas effect and its role in maintaining planetary temperatures? I’ve read Slaying the Sky Dragon and originally intended a rubuttal, but it would be too overwhelming to attempt this and probably pointless. Has anyone else read this?
Somehow by magic a 240 input increases its own energy and temperature.
That’s why they have no fixed definition of it. What’s happening there? Backradiation? Slowed cooling? Raising the emission height? Which one? Always the one other than the one you’re debunking, and when you debunk all three, it just starts over.
Great comments as always, Joe. This is the state of education these days.
“The only way energy can be added to a system without increasing temperature is when there is a change of state.”
Forget thermodynamics we’re in a new state of scientific de-evolution where everything is treated as static, and all energy is heat.
So basically climate science has reverted to the “trapping heat” narrative in order to push this “slowed cooling” as a ruse to comply with the laws of thermodynamics……
Even though if the earth remained hotter (in this cooling phase) the earth would not absorb the same amount of energy (because it is allegedly hotter) from the sun…….
How could they push this without also changing the earths absorptivity……. The 0.7 would have to become lower and lower as the alleged cooling becomes less and less….
These people are truly WEIRD
Kevin Richardson “The Shell is loosing 1000W/m2 out the right, and 1000W/m2 out the left.”
Sorry, no, the plate is NOT losing 1000 W/m^2 on the left toward the source plate, but is losing 0, because 1000 W/m^2 is coming from the source plate to replace whatever might be lost.
The only direction the plate loses energy is 1000 W/m^2 on the right, away from the source wall, out to space.
The suggested annotation has a positive heat flow from the wall into the plate, which therefore, via THE LAW OF CONSERVATION OF ENERGY, which is the First Law, thee plate would have to increase in temperature, which violates the premise that this is an equilibrium with dT = Q = 0.
The very definition of the Law of Conservation of Energy, which is dU = Q = mCpdT, requires that the energy density from the source wall must equal the energy density at the surface of the plate, and therefore they must both be 1000 W/m^2, so that Q = 0, so that dT = 0.
KR: “You are not obeying conservation of energy on the shell….”
Obeying conservation of energy means obeying the First Law, and the Law of Conservation of Energy which is the First Law of Thermodynamics is defined as dU = Q + W = mCpdT, or with no work then dU = Q = mCpdT.
To obey the law of conservation of energy, when there is thermal equilibrium, therefore means that dT = 0 (no temperature change), which requires Q = 0 (no heat flow), which means no temperature differential between the panes in plane-parallel geometry.
The Law of Conservation of Energy is not about this idea of “energy balance” which has been created for flat Earth climate alarm pseudoscience.
The Law of Conservation of Energy is the First Law of Thermodynamics, which is defined as dU = Q + W = mCpdT, or with no work then dU = Q = mCpdT. This is how you obey the law of conservation of energy. When there is thermal equilibrium, then dT = Q = dU = 0, and Q can only equal zero when the energy densities are equal in plane-parallel geometry, which means that the panes have the same temperature.
Sorry, but there is simply no way in which flat Earth theory can justify these reinterpretations of the laws of thermodynamics. Every example brought forth only reinforces the fact that flat Earth theory has attempted to redefine thermodynamic laws and principles for the sake of climate alarmist pseudoscience.