Really good:
Categories
-
Join 545 other subscribers
- Follow Climate of Sophistry on WordPress.com
Recent Comments
- CD Marshall on Introduction to the CLIMATE – new book!
- Joseph E Postma on Introduction to the CLIMATE – new book!
- CD Marshall on Introduction to the CLIMATE – new book!
- Joseph E Postma on Sophistry Part 2: “Analogously, but Different”, or why the IPCC Lies, or how the IPCC Disproves the Greenhouse Effect
- CD Marshall on Sophistry Part 2: “Analogously, but Different”, or why the IPCC Lies, or how the IPCC Disproves the Greenhouse Effect
- CD Marshall on Sophistry Part 2: “Analogously, but Different”, or why the IPCC Lies, or how the IPCC Disproves the Greenhouse Effect
- CD Marshall on Sophistry Part 2: “Analogously, but Different”, or why the IPCC Lies, or how the IPCC Disproves the Greenhouse Effect
- Alex Janssen on Sophistry Part 2: “Analogously, but Different”, or why the IPCC Lies, or how the IPCC Disproves the Greenhouse Effect
- Alex Janssen on Leaving out Sunshine
- Alex Janssen on Leaving out Sunshine
- Alex Janssen on Leaving out Sunshine
- Joseph E Postma on Leaving out Sunshine
- Alex Janssen on Leaving out Sunshine
- DIN on Introduction to the CLIMATE – new book!
- CD Marshall on Introduction to the CLIMATE – new book!
Climate of Sophistry 
Joe, so useful to have this spoken dialog to express the essence of your climate analysis!
Dan, it’s notebooklm by Google.
Awesome. Thanks!
This is extraordinary. How is it done?
If only…fantastic learning tool.
If anyone is interested in Solar Proton events recorded by NASA since 1976 I stumbled upon them. Could have used this data a while ago when I was looking into Forbush decreases and cloud seeding. Might be useful to someone in your research.
Solar Proton Events, 1976 – present
Joe,
How would you explain the difference between a photon absorbed into an EM field as opposed to subsumed back into an energy field. Yes, both are absorption, but the subtle difference is relevant in QM isn’t it?
I would say subsumed is simply energy that no longer is relevant to the EM filed as it does little to nothing to change it. I was using the Sun as a reference to absorption over subsumed in the corona.
Photon waves just do constructive and destructive interference. This interference does not change their frequency though.
Better clarification of my meaning:
“Subsumed” can be used to describe a situation where a smaller quantity of energy or matter is absorbed into a larger system without significantly altering the overall properties of that system. This is different from “absorbed,” which typically implies a more direct and noticeable intake of energy or matter.
So, while absorption refers to the process of taking in energy, subsumed suggests that this absorbed energy is integrated into a larger system without causing significant changes.
This whole argument came from myself dismissing the claim that Earth’s emissions is absorbed by the Sun. Which I stated, at best on an incredibly small scale if any is absorbed it would be subsumed into the EM filed doing nothing to the overall energy state.
To which the activists foamed at the mouth.
Earth is downstream of the Sun. Earth does not heat the Sun.
So, to recap some emissions from the Earth could be absorbed by the Sun but no evidence currently supports that claim. Any emissions absorbed would not increase the heat output of the Sun.
It’s the stupidest thing ever.
This was his reply.
“Yes, every PhD physicist on earth will tell you that the sun does absorb some of the radiation that is emitted by the earth.”
Totally pointless to discuss….they love to waste your time.
Even though and I looked no evidence supports that, nothing, no satellite data, no spectroscopy, nothing I could find. This is this is the most comprehensive data on the Sun available and I at least fund nothing.
Solar and Heliospheric Observatory Homepage
Trump promised to stop the climate change mandates in the US. He will not be funding COP29 either, as I hear.
This sounds like Redacted.
The perpetuation of the “Greenhouse Effect” lie is not so different from other lies in our past. An obvious example being the earth centric model. That model is from earthly men.
In my short years of studying climate, I have found atmospheric chemistry to be the most daunting. It is unbelievable the amount of reactions that exist. Literally thousands of reactions with thousands of variables.
Anyone who write pages of chemical reactions has some serous rain man autism vibes kicking in.