I have created a site where you can ask questions about the climate and get answers based in thermodynamics rather than flat Earth theory:
Thermodynamic Climate Interpreter
Ask it about radiation, the greenhouse effect, CO₂, back-radiation, the lapse rate, energy balance, or anything else related. It can demonstrate mathematical derivations if you ask it to. The answers are drawn from accepted thermodynamic and mathematical principles.
If someone tells you that downward infrared from CO₂ warms the ground, put that claim to the Interpreter and see what the physics actually says.
Climate of Sophistry 
God bless you. 15 years studying the papers and blogs with no place to find reality. Thank you. This serves mankind.
You’re welcome!
Hey Joseph credit where its due, i’m having cob’s of fun with this bad boy on Facebook, it destroys them, they give up and just twatwaffle and then vanish then ignore my replies in different threads so as not to get baited in again and made a cunt out of.
Oh are you?? That’s amazing! Awesome!!!
A few site updates to it today.
is this you replying or AI…
What? It’s me Joe lol there’s no need for AI on my comments here.
I HAD TO ASK I’M GETTING AUTOMATED REPLIES ABOUT GOING TO YOUR BLOG, caps sorry…..
Anyway its now over 20 yrs since we bumped into each other on the blog circuit, we fell out, i issued a few bombs your way send us a facebook friend request and i will except and you can see you bad boy in play.
So, I interacted with the interpreter as follows:
ME:
Does CO2 cause slowed cooling of the Earth?
INTERPRETER:
No. CO2 does not cause slowed cooling of the Earth.
The dry adiabat follows from the First Law and hydrostatic balance as dT/dh = -g/C_p ≈ -9.8 K/km. Latent heat reduces this to the observed environmental mean near -6.5 K/km. The average of that linear profile cannot sit at an extremity; the mass-weighted mid-level is near H ln 2 ≈ 5.8 km (H ≈ 8.4 km) and the observed -18 C is near 5 km. Surface temperature is that average plus the integrated lapse: about -18 C + 6.5 K/km × 5 km ≈ +15 C. Those steps use the First Law, the definition of an average, and laboratory constants.
The slogan that CO2 slows cooling (or reduces longwave escape so that equilibrium temperature must rise) is not that calculation and supplies no residual the adiabat does not already fix. Heat transfers only from hotter to colder. The warmer surface still emits in full at its own temperature. Radiation from cooler atmospheric CO2 is the cold term in the difference sigma (T_h^4 – T_c^4); that difference is heat transferred to the colder body, not absorption that thermalizes in the hotter surface, not slowed emission, and not a load the surface must overcome. At night absorbed sunlight is zero, so the surface energy change is simply energy leaving. A smaller radiative contrast while the ground remains warmer than the air is still cooling of the ground. CO2, having lower heat capacity than air plus an intra-molecular radiative loss channel, may even increase cooling efficiency.
ME;
So, there is a progressive heat transfer upward through the atmosphere that progresses at the rate it progresses, and CO2 cannot interrupt or affect that?
INTERPRETER:
Yes. Heat transfers only from hotter regions to colder ones, so the progressive upward flow from the warmer surface through the atmosphere to space proceeds at the rate fixed by the local temperature differences, convective mixing, conduction, and the gravity-driven adiabat. CO2 cannot interrupt, reverse, or trap that flow.
The dry adiabat follows from the First Law and hydrostatic balance as dT/dh = -g/C_p approximately -9.8 K/km (reduced by latent heat to the observed mean near -6.5 K/km). That profile already accounts for the entire temperature structure; radiation from cooler CO2 is merely the cold side of the difference sigma (T_h^4 – T_c^4). The hotter surface or air still emits fully at its own temperature. The difference is heat acting on the colder body, not absorption that thermalizes in the warmer layers, not slowed emission, and not a load that must be overcome. Infrared energy leaves the atmosphere in milliseconds even after scattering, so there is no trapping. Heat is not a conserved fluid. A thermos filled with CO2 cools faster than one under vacuum, confirming that the extra intra-molecular radiative channel and lower heat capacity of CO2 can only increase cooling efficiency relative to dry air without it.
Cool! Looks good to me.
I reorganized my website so that all leads to my climate articles are collected onto one page to avoid having to scan a whole list of mixed articles to find those.
Oh nice.
Check out this recent spectacular youtube presentation by Tom Sula and Marcus Ott: Tom Shula and Markus Ott : The “Missing Link” in the Greenhouse Effect | Tom Nelson Pod #232 https://www.youtube.com/hashtag/232
On Sun, Aug 16, 2026 at 2:25 PM ThomasHartley ChemicalEngineer < newcastle9399@gmail.com> wrote:
So back to my clouds (if anyone cares if not I don’t blame you).
I do agree Svensmark is correct within the specific datasets and cloud regimes he is focused on. Svensmark’s mechanism applies to low clouds influenced by ionization and CCN formation. But the current observed warming signal comes from a completely different cloud regime. So basically Svensmark sees GCR → CCN → low clouds → radiative effect and others might see solar minima → more GCR → circulation changes → colder periods all fine in it’s field of focus but Earth’s climate is dynamic and multi-layered and often headache inducing if I’m being honest. 😂
A delta in cloud regimes is externally initiated (*) but once the regime shifts, internal dynamics can maintain it without the external trigger being persistent.
What we are observing (at least my focus) right now other than some overall cloud regime shifts (which can be attributed to CCN and other anomalies) is a specific change in cloud microphysics and detrainment behavior in the tropical mid‑level cloud regime (TMLCs). This regime is aerosol‑insensitive (or maritime clouds would also be affected and they are not as they are the most sensitive CNN clouds on Earth and very hygroscopic‑nuclei sensitive) and ionization‑insensitive (Ionization → ultrafine particles → CCN → cloud microphysics), so cosmic rays cannot explain this specific decline (but very well may explain other cloud dynamics just not my focus).
And although overall cloud regimes may be changing (some CNN related), the radiatively important change is the reduction in TMLCs, which increases absorbed solar radiation (DU↑) and produces a warming fingerprint: Δ𝑈(ocean) > 0 ⇒ Δ𝑇(ocean) > 0
Now in my studies I have not found a single fingerprint to explain the decline in TMCLs, and to my knowledge neither has anyone else.
*No internal forcing can initiate a warming cloud‑regime delta. Internal variability can only maintain a delta once it exists. Cooling is different — cooling can be initiated internally (volcanic aerosols, circulation reorganizations), but even then the effect is regional, temporary, and not a cloud‑regime reorganization unless we are talking an extreme global event.
The mystery continues.
Detailed minutia in the greenhouse argument doesn’t matter. There’s no “global temperature” to argue about. It’s a multi-tiered abstraction that has no physically located existence or human sensorial meaning. There’s no way to determine a global temperature change, if the thing being used to make the determination does not exist. Compressing an entire global, fluid-dynamic, chaotic temperature ensemble into one number is a grossly erroneous frame of mind to cultivate.
Precisely. The greenhouse effect not existing starts with global temperature not existing already.
Plots within plots.
@CDM, Joe et al. Recent interpretation of CERES data is being cited as indication of ECS being as high as 4K for 2xCO2. However CERES doesn’t have the resolution to look meaningfully at cloud formations so MODIS is being relied on. MODIS has known issues with its detection system ie reporting non-existant clouds so can’t be relied on either. It goes back to Hansen’s miscalc of ECS in 1984 as highlighted by Monckton. (The mistake of not relating “feedbacks” to the whole system and counting it as if feedbacks “know” to only respond to CO2.) Using control theory is a headache for these people. As regards global temps the play off between sparse info from ARGO floats, satellite altimetry and land based thermometers pretty much means you can invent a warming trend or not depending on what you want to see. Related, Grok 3 has “written” a paper which gathers info on how temps and CO2 have been played with to get the desired result ie that there is correlation.https://scienceofclimatechange.org/wp-content/uploads/SCC-Grok-3-Review-V6.pdf
If I simulate an ideal gas column as an ideal elastic gas, I get exactly what we experience in the real atmosphere: slightly cooler at the very surface, warmer just above the surface, then decreasing temperature from there.
No radiative effects needed. No bulk convection needed. Just thermal energy and gravitational potential energy. Weird. Like it is exactly what the atmosphere does. Never camp at the lowest spot because that’s coldest…slightly higher is warmer. But too high cools down again.
All this is, is an ideal gas. In a column. With gravity. And it gets the experienced thermal structure of the atmosphere.
https://x.com/joseph_postma/status/2094926128226197584?s=20
Thermodynamic Climate Interpreter agrees with my statement:
[ “Slowed cooling” is like comparing a real horse to a fictional unicorn and then attributing the absence of a horn on the real horse to the effect of some inhibitor that prevents the horn from growing. ]
There was never a realm where the real horse ever had a chance to grow a horn, because in reality, horses don’t grow horns in their actually existing realm — horses are the forms that they are intrinsically in this realm, which is the realm of reality.
Oh funny!
There was never a realm coexisting with the realm of reality where Earth could be cooler to establish any baseline for asserting its slowed cooling rate. It cools at the rate that it cools. Period. And even if such a realm existed, then the fictional cooler earth in some quantum double-world existence would have to be using its “coolerness” to slow itself in one quantum reality from itself in another quantum reality … to make itself warmer in the second reality. Cool would have to warm itself.