There seems to be a continuing resurgence of flat Earth theorizing on YouTube and X, and its history seems highly coincidentally coincident with my revelations about flat Earth theory being found at the basis of modern academia’s most politically-relevant science it has ever produced for government. I’ve been listening to a lot of the X-spaces group chats and debates of flat Earthers, and of all the things which they reference to support their position, strangely they never use the flat Earth diagrams which originate climate alarm’s political greenhouse effect. I’ve even joined such spaces and provided them the flat Earth climate greenhouse diagrams and the theory of how it works, but they won’t use them; they will use random (and contextually justified) quotes from NASA where some obscure paper states a local flat Earth assumption for modelling some flight scenario, but they won’t use the alarming greenhouse effect climate diagrams which literally plot the entire Earth as a flat plane facing the Sun. So strange, that.
I do give credit to the flat Earthers for their debate tactics, because what they are is a practice of professional sophistry. They are very good at what they do. Sure, some of them are not so good, but some of them are very good at the art of sophistry, and they will eat most people alive in their practice of logical debate fallacies which most people cannot keep up with – they are entirely capable of making it look like, of giving the appearance, that they are winning the debate, that they know more than their “globie” opponents, that they have better reasoning, better empirical measurements, and better “science” than those who think that the Earth is a sphere. They have an extremely wide grasp of physics in multiple domains and are able to twist them all together and confront people with frontier and incredibly obscure questions which most people, including professionals, simply cannot answer. I can handle them, but most people on the X spaces who wander in there fresh and inexperienced cannot, and they get wrecked. A few professionals are able to keep up with them, but as far as I’ve experienced, I’m the only one who can actually defeat them – you know you win when they start physically threatening you, as of course they will never relent on a logical informational defeat. Other professionals still get handled by them, even if they stalemate.
In any case, what I find interesting are some of the smug-type of professionals who never really win the debate with the flat Earthers, but remain smug nonetheless, and who treat science almost as a sacrosanct religion where science is incapable of being wrong about anything. These smug-types may be good at keeping up with the sophistry debate which the flat Earthers provide, but it becomes tiresome to see that science, for them, has no nuance, and they treat science much more like a religion – the Scientism religion. For example, there are no professional scientists who seem to grasp the nuance that General Relativity fully replaces Special Relativity, and that some of the elements from Special Relativity were incorrect, such as total reciprocity of relativistic effect; General Relativity supersedes that interpretation and the space-time path which produces velocity becomes absolute, not relative. It’s a matter of conflation of language: the relativistic effects exist (time dilation, etc.), but the effect is not reciprocally relative, and is rather absolutely dependent upon the space-time path taken to achieve velocities. This is discussed in my recent book Phiism. The flat Earther’s love to trip professional scientists up on this disparity, and those scientists will always flock to defending Special Relativity because they simply don’t understand or know about the nuance which General Relativity modified in relativity theory; this is one case where scientists treat science like religion.
Of course I hate the flat Earthers and see in them an incredible danger to society, but at the same time I equally or more-so hate the smug intellectuals who cannot cogitate basic nuance and who cannot perceive that science can make grand errors even today – these people are of course even more dangerous to the whole world itself as they can be lead to believe in geoengineering schemes which would eradicate life on Earth; see:
And so, what would be really funny, is in the middle of watching one of these smug academic types struggling to defeat a flat Earther in a debate, is to confront them with the challenge that they can be made to defend flat Earth theory within one minute. There are some scientist types who run regular live debate channels on YouTube open to the public, and I think that one day I will join and will confront them with this, just for fun. I will enter and then challenge them and say: “I can get you to defend flat Earth theory in under one minute.”
Then all you do is show them the diagrams with their source references, and they will immediately defend it in some way or another. Just say: “Here are pedagogical diagrams for the climate greenhouse effect as taught at universities around the world and on government climate science websites and in peer-reviewed papers”. Be sure to say the names Penn-State, Harvard, Columbia University, and the phrase “peer-review”, NASA, and “government climate science website”:
Penn-State
Harvard
Columbia University
They will immediately begin defending the diagrams and making excuses for them: They’re “toy models”, or they’re “small spatial regions” (they’re not…they’re for the whole Earth), or they’re “only illustrative”, etc. Then ask them if it is thermodynamically valid to say that 1/4 heat is the same as full 1X heat just taken over 4 times as long: can 1/4 heating for 4-times longer produce the same thermodynamic physical effects? Of course the answer is no, and here is where you will see if you have a real nincompoop who uses science as a religion, or an actual intellectual who can do nuance and who isn’t using science as a replacement emotional security crutch over religion.
In any case, you can turn almost any scientist into a flat Earther within a minute.
Does the conventional interpretation support the high temperatures on the moon, with no atmosphere? It’s occurred to me that these would be a potent argument against the greenhouse effect on earth, except that the lunar day is two weeks long. Would that amount of time suffice for the temps to reach what they do, using the formula scientism proposes? Conversely, if the Earth had days of that length, what would be the theoretical mean?
This paper is interesting:
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4447774/
The author raises another valid point against the conventional interpretation, which is that albedo would be completely different sans atmosphere, but the current model includes the radiative effects of clouds and water vapor which significantly reduce the alleged greenhouse effect. Another apparent hole in an already leaky theory.
He also seems to be cognizant of the flat earth model’s invalidity for other reasons, which give credence to your objections:
“Due to a non-linear relationship between temperature and the emitted radiative bolometric flux, and a strong latitudinal variation of the absorbed shortwave radiation across the surface of a sphere, the actual mean global temperature of a directionally illuminated planet is not estimable in principle from a planetary averaged radiative flux (Eq. 2) using the SB law (Eq. 1). This is because a spherical geometry violates the fundamental assumption in the SB relationship for spatial homogeneity of radiation absorption and emission. Hence, Eq. (3) yields the temperature of a flat isothermal surface rather than the average temperature of a thermally heterogeneous sphere as required for planets. In other words, Te is the equilibrium temperature of a black disk orthogonally illuminated by shortwave radiation with intensity equal to the average solar flux absorbed by a sphere having a Bond albedo αp. This makes Te a non-physical temperature with respect to a spherical surface.”
Hopefully some of this will be useful to you. Hope you’re well!
I meant to say “significantly increase the alleged greenhouse effect.”
Hehe, just saw the erratum on that paper. Looks like the authors are hated by the scientism priesthood too, and had to conceal their identities to get it through peer review:
“Erratum to: SpringerPlus (2014) 3:723 DOI 10.1186/2193-1801-3-723
As authors of this article (Volokin and ReLlez 2014) we would like to clarify that our real names are Ned Nikolov and Karl Zeller. We created the pseudonyms Den Volokin and Lark ReLlez by spelling our names backward. Ned Nikolov is a physical scientist with the USDA Forest Service; he had been instructed by his employer not to engage in climate research during government work hours, nor to reveal his government affiliation when presenting results from his climate studies. Karl Zeller is a retired USDA Forest Service research scientist with no restrictions. Ned Nikolov worked on this manuscript outside of his assigned official work duty hours. Because of the controversial subject matter and the novel findings previously associated with Nikolov and Zeller, we felt that the use of pseudonyms was necessary to guarantee a double-blind peer review of our manuscript and to assure a fair and unbiased assessment. We are sorry for any inconvenience this may have caused the Editorial Board and the readership of SpringerPlus.”
This passage appears to answer my question about the duration of radiation with respect to rotationall speed: If I understand it properly, it asserts that the only variable significantly affected is ground heat flux into the planetary body, which has minimal impact on the mean:
“Equation (25) through (28) collectively suggest that a faster rotational speed causes less heat to be conducted into the ground under steady-state conditions. This is due to a reduction of the vertical temperature gradient at the surface, which is a key factor controlling the magnitude of instantaneous ground heat fluxes (Eq. 21). The vertical gradient ∂T/∂z reaches maximum for a particular illumination when the incident solar flux changes slow enough to stay in equilibrium with the outgoing infrared flux. Increasing the rotational speed causes incident solar radiation to vary faster than the rate of ∂T/∂z formation set by the regolith thermal inertia. As a result, the temperature gradient begins to deviate from its potential strength. The faster the rotation, the greater the deviation of ∂T/∂z would be for a given ground thermal inertia. Thus, increasing a planet’s angular velocity decreases the average ground heat flux via reduction of instantaneous heat fluxes. This causes the ratio in Eq. (24), i.e. the solar flux fraction stored into the ground to remain conservative across planet spin rates. The Law of Energy Conservation dictates that a change in rotational speed may only affect the magnitude of the diurnal temperature amplitude at the surface but not the diurnal mean, i.e. rotation solely acts to redistribute the total available energy between daytime and nighttime hemispheres through the planet’s thermal inertia. As the rotation frequency increases beyond a certain threshold, the surface temperature amplitude begins to shrink, thus flattening the diurnal heat wave without affecting the diurnal mean. This frequency threshold depends on the absolute magnitude of the surface thermal inertia, i.e. the greater the inertia the slower the rotational speed, at which the diurnal temperature amplitude becomes affected. Since regolith-covered ASCOs such as the Moon are expected to have a very small thermal inertia due to a low thermal conductivity of the regolith in vacuum, it takes a rather fast axial rotation to noticeably impact the diurnal temperature amplitude at the surface. This analysis suggests that ω cannot affect ηe and the average surface temperature of a planet. The heat storage fraction can only be altered by a significant change in the apparent thermal conductivity of the regolith, which requires the introduction of a qualitatively different environment such as adding atmospheric pressure to the surface.”
”they get wrecked” They get wrecked, because they have no good arguement and can only quote some pseudo-scientific nonsense. The people that promote flat earth came to the understanding that the globe theory must be a lie. It remains interesting to see that many people – even with the heavy cernsorship (since 2015) come to understand the idea of the flat earth.
I think we have a “state religion” taking over from traditional religion and it is based on altruism, which has been politicised as socialism. The basis is that the environment is more important than us and so eugenics is also appearing again. This is not a recent event. It began with both world wars which were started to enable more control by the state and technology has given them the means of control.
If we’re on a flat object, why aren’t people, animals, trains, buses etc always falling off the edges?
Out of the box. Vibrational energy does not play a part in 1 Bar temp. Translational and Rotational do. For Venus and Earth Rs/Cp is 2/7 when using Translational and Vibrational only.
1365 x 2/7 = 391W/M2
2610*2/7= 747W/M2
Coincidence? May be
OLR is better. It is based on molar mass and a Structured Atmosphere. What is a structured atmosphere. Well lets use earth as the reference.
Earth – 391WM-2 * 18.015/28.9655 = 243 WM-2
Venus – 391 WM-2 * 18.015/43.43 = 162WM-2
The molar mass of water is a proxy for something yet unknown?
Oops I meant when using Translational and Rotational only
The framing here is deliciously cynical — pointing out that the real trick is finding a scientist with an axe to grind rather than evidence to weigh. As someone who reads climate papers for fun, I appreciate the skepticism about consensus-by-charisma.
@squarepegman keep in mind that Lunar temp:
T (surface)≈ 390 K (in sunlight)
T (z > 1cm) ≈ 0 K (vacuum)
That “1 cm” region only exists when the surface is being actively heated by direct sunlight. Outside that narrow radiative skin, the temperature is effectively a vacuum (≈ 0 K).