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.
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.
@Robert Kernodle, “SLOWED COOLING” is not applicable to a planet like Earth because it is derived from a 2‑D radiative slab model with no convection, no rotation, and no broadband emission. Radiative models are valid only for effective radiative temperature and even then, simply an average. You cannot determine surface temperature of Earth from T_eff. Earth’s surface-troposphere is a heterogeneous, convective, collision‑dominated system not radiative dominated.
I just don’t see how “climate scientists” with educations greater than mine can possibly keep group thinking this error into existence.
@CDM you can see even more outrageous violations of science considering the idea that the oceans are warming and yet absorbing more CO2.
You simply cannot violate basic math/physics to compare a non-reality to reality and then call the difference an “effect” ………………….. unless you get paid for NASA GISS surface temperature analysis work. People’s jobs, reputations and very survival depend on this stuff.
Lol yeah, they depend on lies and fiction.
@donaldgisbey that is another can of misappropriations of terminology. Henry’s law is as far as they ever go and Henry’s Law only applies to the surface microlayer {CO₂(g) ↔ CO₂(aq)}. The ocean proper is still very cold and as such is still a sink. The SST is warmer, not the whole ocean. And the dirty little secret they will lie about: The gross flux of ocean CO₂ is not measured only the flux. They estimate they cannot approximate.
@CDM and Joe. Sure it’s a tangled web propping up an indefensible hypothesis. I try to keep to the basics as much as possible in discussion with people who have a bit of a handle on the physics but nevertheless suffer from group think. What do you think of this summation? What greenhouse theory is built on is the idea that CO2 increase will slow down heat loss to space by virtue of acting like a dam or a blanket, neither of which are great analogies but nevertheless indicate the fallacy. To slow down radiation to space requires that back radiation has some effect. This would be equivalent to saying you can add emissions up so that you can warm yourself up with an ice cube since it emits IR. Of course that’s absurd but is the basis of GHG theory in essence. A classic argument often mentioned is that a photon doesn’t “know” it came from a colder source. Of course it does know because that is the only thing that makes a photon exist! It has no mass. All it has is the memory of its source.
ME:
“A classic argument often mentioned is that a photon doesn’t “know” it came from a colder source.”
POSTMA’s INTERPRETER:
“The argument that a photon does not know its origin and therefore radiation from a colder source can heat a warmer surface is false. Photons, like molecules in conduction or convection, require no knowledge; they follow the mathematics of energy, entropy and temperature. Temperature is energy normalized to entropy and is a state, not a quantity that can be added. Heat is the one-way action of a hotter body on a colder body.
A surface at Th still emits in full at sigma Th^4. When the adjacent air is at Tc < Th the constitutive radiative transfer is the difference sigma (Th^4 – Tc^4) directed toward the colder body; that difference is heat leaving the surface, not thermalization of the colder radiation inside the warmer body. Absorption of radiation that originated in the colder gas therefore does not constitute heat performed on the warmer surface and cannot raise its temperature. The same thermodynamic prohibition applies to every mode of transfer: an ice cube does not heat coffee, and a cooler atmosphere does not heat a warmer surface."
ME:
"You said: … "Absorption of radiation that originated in the colder gas therefore does not constitute heat performed on the warmer surface and cannot raise its temperature."
So, how would you explain what happens to that "cold" photon?"
POSTMA's INTERPRETER:
"The radiation originating at Tc is absorbed only in the optical sense that it couples to the warmer surface at the frequencies the surface itself can emit. That coupling is resonance, not thermalization. The incident energy is immediately re-radiated at equivalent frequencies and intensities; it never becomes internal energy of the warmer body.
Because the entire Planck spectrum of the colder source lies inside the spectrum of the warmer source, every photon from the colder gas is of this resonant character. It therefore occupies part of the warmer surface’s spontaneous emission quota sigma Th^4 without drawing on the surface’s own thermal energy for that portion. The surface continues to emit in full at its own temperature. The only heat that exists is the one-way constitutive transfer sigma (Th^4 – Tc^4) directed from the hotter body to the colder body.
If the incident energy were converted into thermal energy, the already-warmer surface would be heated by a colder source, violating the Second Law, and the extra energy could then leave by conduction, convection or evaporation. That does not occur. Energy is conserved; heat is not a two-way quantity that can be added independently of temperature. The photon needs no knowledge of its origin; the nested spectra and the definition of heat already fix the outcome."
Wow! Thing is working great!
Here is what appears on a NASA website at:
https://science.nasa.gov/climate-change/faq/what-is-the-greenhouse-effect/
“What is the greenhouse effect?
The greenhouse effect is the process through which heat is trapped near Earth’s surface by substances known as ‘greenhouse gases.’ Imagine these gases as a cozy blanket enveloping our planet, helping to maintain a warmer temperature than it would have otherwise.”
Page Editor: Lauren Lindsey
Responsible NASA Official for Science: Dana Bolles
Every so often, I have to do reality checks like this, and I’m always amazed.
NASA !
Disturbing af.
Just doing a quick search of organizations, I’m finding that their official definitions of the greenhouse effect never clearly explain the mechanism at the molecular level. The phrase has just taken on a meaning independent of the molecular-mechanism explanation. The gases are there; they trap the sun’s heat; they prevent radiation from escaping that otherwise would not without the gases; humans add more, causing catastrophic build up, etc., but no molecular mechanism to explain how. That explanation just gets bypassed, and people are led to believe that the effect is just a fact based on these more general explanations.
Very effective sophistry.
The Interpreter is very annoying in explaining the fate of a 10 micron photon from a cloud onto a warmer lake. I can’t get out of it exactly what happens to the energy of that photon. Photon is absorbed by water in a skin of microns; it ceases to exist; it’s energy is not distributed into the energy of the water molecule. Okay, but what happens to that energy? What’s the rule here? … I brought up that the water has enough energy that the added photonic energy could not add anymore, but the interpreter didn’t seem to like that. So, I’m still looking for an answer.
Hmm…I’ll look into the training and logs.
Could be that the basic answer it provides matches its logic of having answered the question, but I just don’t have the tech grasp to interpret the equation in a way that answers the question for me. I’ll keep trying from different angles.
@Joe and Robert, I hope you don’t mind my interjection here but I’ve been looking a bit more deeply into this question and other related questions over the last couple of months. I know that I’m limited by access to information that’s reliable, as we all are, but what strikes me is although I come from a “downstream” viewpoint I require both honesty about observations and about their interpretation.My downstream position stems from the disbelief that it’s possible to determine what the change in global temp has been since about 1850 given the extremely sparse and inaccurate measurement going on then. The IPCC co-ordinated and (supposedly) verified by independent statistical analysis claim that this base line from 1850 is accurate to within 0.6c is clearly a violation of the limits of stastistics. The temptation then is to say that one thing is not true therefore everything they say must also be false. So that introduces confirmation bias. There might be a bit of truth in it but that gets hidden by the lies. There is no scenario where a colder object can cause a warmer object to heat up. There is however a scenario where a warmer object has to heat up in order to shed energy at the same rate, that rate being predetermined. That is where the upstream intersects with the downstream. It is accepted that photons are delayed from exiting to space through the interaction of collisional and radiative transfer between molecules in the atmosphere. Uninhibited escape would take about 34 microseconds whereas the actual rate means it takes some milliseconds. Delay in radiative transfer constitutes thermal resistance. That’s why multi foil insulation can achieve the same thermal resistance as much thicker PIR (polyisocyanurate) boards.
Convection seems to be the lapse rate driver in this otherwise intelligent analysis.
http://notrickszone.com
Subsumed is the missing factor in photonic physics that gets missed in these discussions. A low‑energy photon entering a region with higher equilibrium energy density does not persist as a thermal perturbation. That’s it. It’s statistical irrelevance.
Even if the absorbed energy is retained momentarily, it does not change the macroscopic temperature because the lake’s thermal reservoir is greater than the perturbation.
That’s well-described.
Temperature and heat are so confusing to most because they’re not just energy, but they’re about quality…it’s energy but normalized to entropy which then determines what it can do to something else, and if it cannot, then it doesn’t.
That’s beautiful, man. 😊
I did a deep dive on the 10 micron claim over oceans in my DWIR research.
As I see it, omitting the blatant corruption in science, the biggest milestone is ‘group think’ tunnel vision: Radiative forcing is correct in its radiative domain, and pressure–temperature relationships are correct in their thermodynamic domain and so on. The problem is that the atmosphere is governed by a system‑level interaction of radiation, mass, gravity, convection, and circulation all on a macro and micro level.
Domain‑limited interpretations cannot describe the climate system as a whole. As an expert in any specific field, scientists by nature of the profession are compartmentalized.
…Even someone as brilliant as Happer fell into tunnel vision.
I have pointed these out in parts. If you want to understand the MWP claims I spelled it out for whoever wants to study, it or use it no credit needed or desired or discard it as you wish. I’m not a scientist, leave credit to those who earned it. Feel free to ask questions.
The modern warming signal appears more coherent largely because it is measured with high resolution, global, continuous instrumentation (and observation in recent decades). The Medieval Warm Period is reconstructed from low resolution, regionally biased proxies that smooth out short term variability and cannot resolve basin scale dynamics or deep ocean behavior.
A thousand years from now, when today’s climate is viewed through the same low resolution proxy lens, the modern interval will also appear as a broad, smoothed warm phase, very similar in structure to the MWP. You cannot directly compare low resolution, land weighted proxy reconstructions to high resolution, globally observed datasets and treat them as equivalent. They measure fundamentally different things at fundamentally different resolutions.
The coherence of the modern signal is therefore partly a function of instrumental resolution, not solely a function of a physical unique signal. Any paleoclimate interval, when smoothed over centuries, loses the fine scale structure that makes modern warming appear exceptional in short term datasets. And this is exactly why the “hockey stick” looks the way it does. The sharp modern uptick is partly a function of high resolution, globally observed instrumental data, while the preindustrial portion is built from low resolution, regionally weighted proxies that inherently smooth out short-term variability.
Mann explicitly noted this in his technical documentation (a fail-safe?): The proxy network contradicts itself at fine temporal scales, and the smoothing required to combine heterogeneous proxies necessarily suppresses the amplitude of past variability. You cannot compare low resolution proxy reconstructions to high resolution instrumental observations as if they were equivalent. And not one honest scientist would ever claim otherwise.
Land = fast reservoir → spikes, noise, circulation, weather (internal variability).
Ocean = slow reservoir → only responds to sustained ΔU > 0
Only the Sun adds new energy to Earth’s system and only the ocean can signal that increase on marginal scales over time (thermal expansion).
True global warming events (sustained, planetary energy balance shifts) are rare in Earth history. The modern use of ‘global warming’ to describe short term surface temperature changes has overwritten a precise paleoclimate term and created a great deal of confusion.
>Energy enters the system first (TSI → ASR → insolation → ocean heat content).
>Only after ΔU > 0 does temperature rise.
>Spectral processes happen after the energy is already in the system, and only determines how energy leaves, not how much enters.
Transient Surface Anomaly Chain: TSI → ASR → insolation → surface flux partitioning → boundary layer mixing → ΔTₛ (surface anomaly): That’s it! No ocean heat content. No Earth system ΔU. No long-term energy storage. No global warming mechanism. Just the local, internal variability short timescale surface temperature response and nothing more.
Earth energy budget expressed as a proper energy flow chain: TSI (solar input) → *ASR (absorbed solar) → insolation (surface) → ocean absorption → net energy gain (ΔU) → warming (ΔT) → spectral interactions → thermalization → broadband flux → OLR (radiative output).
*’Climate science’ treats ASR @ TOA interaction not a surface mechanism.
WIP always open to modifications.
I put this on Potholer’s sight, he couldn’t even reply.
The idea of a thermodynamic interpreter for climate questions is intriguing — I appreciate the attempt to strip away the political framing and get back to physical principles. I will be curious to see how the site handles more complex scenarios like ocean-atmosphere coupling. Bookmarking to dig into it further.
“ocean-atmosphere coupling” is intriguing and very complex. This is just my summary w/no details or expansion and it needs far more to fill it out and this is just the tropics.
Tropical Ocean–Atmosphere Coupling: Radiative and Thermodynamic Summary:
• Solar Primacy: Ocean heat content is driven by visible and near-IR solar input, not by downwelling longwave radiation (DWIR). Recent declines in planetary albedo have increased solar absorption, especially in the tropics.
• Skin Layer Modulation: DWIR (primarily from clouds and water vapor) is absorbed in the top ~10 μm of the ocean {the top ~10 μm refers to thickness, not depth}. This reduces the skin–bulk temperature gradient, slowing net upward heat loss (via conduction, evaporation, and radiation), but does not add heat unless solar input has already warmed the subsurface.
• Nocturnal Cooling: Oceans cool at night. DWIR cannot reverse this; it can only reduce the rate of cooling. Claims that DWIR “heats the bulk ocean” misinterpret energy exchange as thermodynamic heat.
• Heat vs Energy: Energy transfer ≠ heat unless it flows from hot to cold and results in a temperature increase. Radiative exchange is bidirectional, but net heat flow is
Q = σ (Thot^4 – Tcold^4)
• Dew Point Constraint: In humid tropical regions, the dew point sets a high nocturnal temperature floor. Near the ocean surface, air temperature rarely drops below dew point, limiting nighttime cooling and reinforcing thermal coupling between SST and the lower atmosphere.
@CDM “Nocturnal Cooling: Oceans cool at night. DWIR cannot reverse this; it can only reduce the rate of cooling. Claims that DWIR “heats the bulk ocean” misinterpret energy exchange as thermodynamic heat.”My understanding is that the statement that “DWIR heats the bulk ocean” is from non-scientific publications and is a kind of shorthand form of saying that DWIR reduces the rate of cooling and thus provides thermal resistance which then means that with the same energy input from SWIR and visible light the bulk ocean has to be at a higher temp in order to overcome the thermal resistance. There is another aspect which I find intriguing and that is the possibility of the Iris Effect having much more of an impact than discovered by IR satellite detection. Microwave detection systems (deployed by china but cut from NASA funding) have the ability to see through to surface and so may be able to better track the Iris Effect on top of cloud albedo within the daily cycle on which it occurs. Then there is the lapse rate negative feedback element and the biological effect of aerosols. There may be more thermostats than meet the eye?
@donaldgisbey Your observations are correct, and the Iris Effect (a very interesting topic) is clearly a modulating factor (thank you for pointing that out). It may be consistent, but it’s not a dominant constraint. Why? Because across multiple satellite datasets (MODIS, CERES, Himawari‑8, CloudSat), the pattern is the same: short‑lived tropical maritime clouds are not declining. In fact, the data show that these short‑term clouds peak in the evening. That evening peak matters because it overlaps with the onset of nocturnal cooling.
Once you apply the correct thermodynamic boundary condition, the nighttime energy balance is fixed:
Δ𝑈 = 0 − OLR + DWIR 0). That’s just thermodynamics based on an externally heated energy source.
Δ𝑈 = 0 −OLR + DWIR <0
cut cut off there
@CDM yes despite advancements in satellite remote sensing the resolution remains low enough that the cloud issue is still an area of uncertainty. I thought this might also be of interest?https://www.researchgate.net/publication/370475066_Laws_of_Physics_Define_the_Insignificant_Warming_of_Earth_by_CO2
I didn’t know my email comments to you were coming up on the blog joe.
Thats why i asked the AI question.
Any way the interpreter is not working any more, pissed right on my chips that has.
Yah the interpreter is down due to one of the AI API services used to generate responses was attacked. Specifically, the attacker was looking for API keys for AI services…which is interesting. My paranoid mind says that someone really doesn’t like that I trained AI on thermodynamics and it started destroying the greenhouse effect…so they tried to figure out what AI API I was using for that? lol After a day they still haven’t fixed things up…with the railway.com backend service.
It destroyed jim means, a scripps oceanography climate”expert”’ so badly he got facebooik to shut my account down as a hacked account and when i got back in to facebook they had deleted all 43 replies that destroyed his bullshit….
not that i tell anyone about the interpreter, i keep that little nugget to myself… i love fuuking over academics with it.
They have gotten away with using their definitions or interpretations of heat energy and temperature for years, hold them to textbook definitions and interpretations their bullshit crumbles to dust.
Oh and i won’t let them steer the conversation into hypotheticals and their grey area interpretations, thats their sophistry sand pits they so love to play in. they say ”imagine” this that or the other, i say no we we don;t live in your world we live in this one now prove me or fuuk off.
That last post should read….
Oh and i won’t let them steer the conversation into hypotheticals and their grey area interpretations, thats their sophistry sand pits they so love to play in. they say ”imagine” this that or the other, and i say no we we don’t live in your imaginary world we live in this one now prove the algebra wrong or fuuk off.
And they get all faux insulted because they are not used to being spoken to so directly and uncompromisingly.
I started calling him jimmy jack rabbit, he ran away quicker the the fuuking coyote in the road runner cartoons that often.
Holy F are you serious re: “destroyed jim means” comment??!! HAHA and WOW. They had to shut it down.
No wonder they activated their retard network to try to figure out what was destroying them and compromise the railway API keys (not really seriously about that…but funny to think about…they certainly would do so if they could)
” i love fuuking over academics with it.”
So awesome!
“They have gotten away with using their definitions or interpretations of heat energy and temperature for years”
That’s what’s great about the interpreter…it can re-state the definitions ad nauseum…keeps me from losing my mind lol. And I love how it slices through their sophistry. I mean, I’ve done that for years, but it takes mental energy and time; now it is automated!! haha
I especially love that it sticks to the point of mutual exclusivity: they can say what they want, but thermodynamics already closes the account for explaining the troposphere temperature structure, and they and their RGHE therefore have nowhere to live!
I love using tiny variations of their names which are unbecoming to refer to them! haha!!!
Sometimes they make it easy – today on X some climate asshat was named “Degenerate_Ecology”, so every paragraph in reply to it I started with “Degenerate, …” lol
Do you know jim means then, slimmy bastard.
After this exchange he went winging to facebook, and they auto logged me out as an account hack, for ”my security”, then after 20 minutes of jumping thru hoops to get back in all my replies to him were listed as ”we have deleted” these posts….
But because he himself had been deleting his posts to me taking my replies to his posts along with his deletions i started screen shotting the conversations and putting them on my wall so my friends could see a published climate expert deleting our conversations because he was getting his ass hand to him.
heres the final 4 posts that got him so bad he went whining to facebook..
Gary Ashe
·
Jim Means HOW IT STARTED …. jim Means The key is where (on average) that 255 K (-18 C) level occurs. Imagine starting with an Earth as it is but without greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, then that 255 K level is at the surface. The atmospheric temperature will fall as you go upward at the dry adiabatic rate of 9.8 K/km. There is no latent heat in that case. As you start adding greenhouse gases you will raise that effective radiating level. It will always be at 255 K, but now when you use the height at that level and the lapse rate to calculate the temperature at the surface, you will get a value higher than 255 K. The more greenhouse gases you add, the higher it gets and the higher the surface temperature gets.
Gary Ashe
The emission-height argument cannot start. There is no legitimate initial state in which 255 K sits on the ground, so infrared opacity has no residual height of -18 C to raise, and adding greenhouse gases does not compute a warmer surface.
From the First Law and hydrostatic balance the dry adiabat is dT/dh = -g/C_p ≈ -9.8 K/km. Latent heat reduces this to the environmental mean near -6.5 K/km. The average of a 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. That -18 C is the observed temperature at that altitude and the blackbody equivalent of Earth’s outgoing planetary power S(1-alpha)/4. It is not absorbed sunlight and it is not a surface boundary condition that can be parked and then lifted. 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.
Heat is deposited where sunlight is absorbed, which is the ground, so that is the hottest location. A transparent atmosphere does not cancel gravity, heat capacity, or that deposition. You never obtain Te on the ground. Even if one granted 255 K at radius R, holding that same temperature on a shell of radius R+δ increases the emitting area from 4πR^2 to 4π(R+δ)^2 while the intercepting disk remains πR^2, so outgoing power would exceed absorbed power. Energy conservation fails for every δ > 0, including the first kilometre.
A rival complete cause of the same observables must produce the dry lapse, the environmental lapse, the altitude of the average, and the surface temperature with explicit equations and a residual this accounting does not already fix. Sliding an adiabat from a parked 255 K is not that calculation.
Jim Means You are assuming the greenhouse effect in order to “disprove” it.
Gary Ashe
No. The closed accounting of surface temperature from solar deposition, gravity, atmospheric mass, and the adiabat does not assume a radiative greenhouse effect. The emission-height construction does.
From the First Law and hydrostatic balance the dry adiabat is dT/dh = -g/Cp ≈ -9.8 K/km. Latent heat reduces this to the observed environmental mean near -6.5 K/km. The average of a linear profile cannot occupy an extremity; the mass-weighted mid-level is near H ln 2 ≈ 5.8 km. The -18 C level is the observed temperature at that altitude and the blackbody equivalent of Earth’s outgoing planetary power. Surface temperature is that average plus the integrated lapse: about -18 C + 6.5 K/km × 5 km ≈ +15 C. Those steps use laboratory constants, the definition of an average, and the fact that sunlight is absorbed at the ground. Greenhouse gases do not enter the calculation.
A transparent atmosphere still has gravity, heat capacity, and ground-level solar heating, so the planetary energy-balance temperature never sits on the surface. Placing 255 K on the ground as an initial state, then raising it by adding infrared opacity, is the greenhouse argument inserting the very difference it claims to explain. Holding that same temperature on a larger-radius shell also increases emitting area while the intercepting disk is unchanged, so outgoing power would exceed absorbed power. The construction cannot start, and there is no residual height left for gases to set. ……………..HOW IT ENDED.
he got those posts deleted so i just went back to the interpreter, and replied to him again with the conversation that facebook deleted.
That was only 2 posts each, they deleted 43 similar replies to his bullshit over a week or more…. and they listed them. so i could see them all…
Those mother fuckers! They did not want that record on the site for anyone else to see nor for whatever AI system they have learning and training off that site to see it and therefore be trained in it. Because any AI system looking for truth is going to prefer our interpreter’s side.
This makes me suspect all the more that the railway.com backend hack looking for AI API keys is related to my interpreter!! lol They took you out and then they came looking to see and get rid of who was helping you. No worries. Railway.com backend will be back up soon, and now we know what they will try, so we will just hammer them more.
Ah, interpreter is working again. Railway is back up.
yEAH I KNOW IT ALL OFF BY HEART NOW I HAVE READ DOzENS oops caps, of times over and over, and i already knew it any way, but i cannot explain it like i know it or do write the algebra behind it the explanations or use the pro lingo, but i fully understand their bullshit and how its at fault…. that is why i like the the interpreter it says all for me, and destroys academics…..
A funny story, i didn’t use the interpreter for this one.
I went to an academics page, a geologist and his professor friends, they were discussing climate change.
And the geologist whose wall it was stated ”deniers are physics illiterates”.
Well i couldn’t resist it, i piped up it is you that is the physics illiterate believing in greenhouse effect theory and i will prove to you that you are all physics illiterates right here right now.
Well thev started in with the mirth, and the mockery.
So i just went to the 1972 standard atmosphere and started posting the physics behind it.
And off they went mocking and laughing and debunking with their Fisher Price bullshit debunking me.
Post after post after post all joining in the fun mocking the retard…
Then i posted the link to the standard atmosphere and told them this is what you physics illiterate fuckwits have been busy debunking the atmospheric model used by the whole of earth sciences division and global industries like meteorology and the aviation industry, SEE I TOLD YOU I WILL PROVE HERE AND NOW IT IS YOU THAT ARE PHYSICS ILLITERATES. Y ou didn’t even know how the atmosphere above your own fuuking heads works,,,,
Silence ensued not one more reply from any of them.
Very nicely done.
You know what’s something I haven’t done yet? I mean I hate the flat Earthers and find them insane, but man, some of the academic types who try to debate them are just idiots, have no idea how to debate, and literally lose the debate to flat Earthers. Anyway, one day I will bait and academic by telling them that I can get them to defend flat Earth theory. I will open something like: “Do you reject flat Earth theory? What if I draw a diagram of a flat Earth – isn’t that a valid model?”
Of course they will go insane over the idea that just because I have a flat model of the Earth, doesn’t have anything to do with it being valid or being real! What a stupid idea, right? RIGHT????
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!
Then I’ll show them the climate science chalkboard diagrams, and watch them fucking squirm and defend it to the hilt!
@Joe; the key argument I find being used to defend ghe is that without the ghe the atmosphere would not have a temp gradient purely under gravity. Loschmidt was disproved by Maxwell and Boltzmann. Personally I think that’s a red herring. The models which “prove” how ghe works involve sleight of hand taking actual data and manipulating it in order to produce the desired result. The simple flat earth single layer ones are of course dismissed as being elementary pedagogical introductions and therefore not up for criticism. The colder atmosphere doe not heat the surface. Well of course not. The cold of space at near 0k is tempered by the intervention of radiative thermal resistance which slows the escape of photons to space to the tune of 33k difference. The “carnot” engine responds to that resistance sending more energy to the tropopause enabling heat transmission to space at the same rate it is inhibited by the addition of CO2. Have I got that wrong?
Donald, see this new post:
“Loschmidt was disproved by Maxwell and Boltzmann. Personally I think that’s a red herring.” It is a red herring and it is also false. Maxwell and Boltzmann were not talking about our atmosphere!
“without the ghe the atmosphere would not have a temp gradient purely under gravity. Loschmidt was disproved by Maxwell and Boltzmann.”
Maxwell and Boltzmann were modelling something that is not out atmosphere. See the new post. https://climateofsophistry.com/2026/10/23/the-infinitesimal-slice/
The temperature lapse rate is natural and necessary just as much as pressure and density vs. altitude is.
“The simple flat earth single layer ones are of course dismissed as being elementary pedagogical introductions and therefore not up for criticism.”
Yes, that’s a cope-out. The pedagogical models imply that the RGHE should create the lapse rate itself, but the lapse rate comes from thermodynamics and the ideal gas law, which derives the observed values. The RGHE pedagogical models do not derive any values.
“The colder atmosphere doe not heat the surface. Well of course not. The cold of space at near 0k is tempered by the intervention of radiative thermal resistance which slows the escape of photons to space to the tune of 33k difference.”
The 33K difference from the average tropospheric temperature to the surface temperature is just from the lapse rate.
“The “carnot” engine responds to that resistance sending more energy to the tropopause enabling heat transmission to space at the same rate it is inhibited by the addition of CO2. Have I got that wrong?”
Yes, that is what they say and claim. And there is nothing you can do even when showing them the existing and accepted thermodynamic math to change their minds.
Looks like they actually literally were trying to come after the thermodynamic climate interpreter! lol
@Joe yes I’ve got my head round that but I don’t see that there is a mutual exclusivity problem in assuming the ghe. The atmosphere being not a closed system and not in equilibrium but driven out of it by boundary fluxes. In this context meteorology and kinetic theory are not mutually exclusive. The argument for ghe includes the argument for radiative ecape. Radiative escape provides the altitude anchor and the lapse rate provides the gradient. Ghgs determine where the anchor is placed.
It’s not that kinetic theory and meteorology are mutually exclusive as theories, it is that Maxwell and Boltzmann were not actually treating the atmosphere as it actually exists, but something else.
The mutual exclusivity is between the RGHE and kinetic theory correctly applied to the atmosphere. Kinetic theory fully explains the absolute temperature structure, deriving both the lapse rate and determining that the ideal gas law set the absolute temperature, and the average temperature must be around the middle. After this complete derivation which matches observation, there is nothing left for the RGHE to account for, including any anchor.
@ Joe well here’s a simple question; Is the atmosphere an isolated system settling into a thermodynamic endpoint, or is it a heat engine driven by external boundary conditions?
It’s not isolated, but it is generally settling.
@donaldgisbey My opinion? Both in part. The distinction is largely diagnostic versus reality. The atmosphere is not actually an isolated system, but treating parts of it as isolated, equilibrated, or steady-state can be a useful mathematical simplification. The usefulness of the diagnostic should not be confused with a literal description of the climate system. The real climate system behaves more like a heat engine driven by continuous external boundary conditions, primarily solar input and radiative loss to space.
CD and Robert have learnt a great deal from you Joseph.
Very impressive the pair of them.
Joe,
I am now puzzled …
Alan Siddons says in his essay at https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2010/02/the_hidden_flaw_in_greenhouse.html, that “every species of atmospheric gas gets heated mainly by conductive transfer, and that all heated bodies radiate light”.
I asked the Thermodynamic Interpreter this question,
how do oxygen and nitrogen, being 99.3% of the atmosphere, help in heat loss from the atmosphere to space?
It’s first statement contradicts Siddons’ claim.
Interpreter:
Oxygen and nitrogen do not emit thermal infrared. They are homonuclear diatomics with no electric dipole, so they are transparent to longwave radiation and contribute nothing to the radiative flux that carries energy from the atmosphere into space.
The planet loses energy to space only as radiation. That radiation comes from the surface through the atmospheric window and from the small fraction of radiatively active molecules after those molecules have been collisionally excited by the bulk N2 and O2. Collisions transfer kinetic energy from the non-radiating majority to the emitters; the emitters then radiate spontaneously at their local kinetic temperature. Infrared leaves the column in milliseconds.
N2 and O2 supply the mass and heat capacity of the atmosphere. Hydrostatic balance plus the First Law give the dry adiabat dT/dh = -g/Cp. Latent heat reduces this to the observed environmental lapse. That temperature structure already determines the altitudes and temperatures from which the minority gases radiate. Because N2 and O2 are poor emitters, Stefan-Boltzmann requires that they sit at higher temperature than a highly emissive gas would for the same energy-loss rate. The gases that actually radiate therefore cool; the gases that do not radiate keep the column warmer. They do not trap radiation and cannot heat a warmer surface.
I think it’s just repeating prevailing approximations. Gases are poor emitters generally, solid objects with a T definitely radiate, but I think the emission from O2 and N2 is not very high – the emissivity of them that is.
Maybe I need to take a look at the training. If N2 and O2 emit poorly, have low emissivity, then they are what hold on to thermal energy efficiently, and retain “heat”.
I asked it about emmisivity of O and N helping cool the atmosphere and I think that’s my answer. Simply put, they don’t absorb so they don’t emit. I guess that’s according to Kirchhoff’s law.
Me: if all heated matter radiates light, oxygen and nitrogen must also help cool the atmosphere.
Interpreter:
All heated matter radiates, but only according to its emissivity at the wavelengths that carry the energy. Oxygen and nitrogen are homonuclear diatomics with no electric dipole, so their emissivity in the thermal infrared is essentially zero. They neither absorb nor emit the longwave radiation that leaves the atmosphere for space.
Kirchhoff’s law equates absorptivity and emissivity. Because N2 and O2 are transparent to thermal infrared they contribute nothing to the radiative flux that cools the column. The Stefan-Boltzmann relation with emissivity is F = ε σ T^4. For a given energy-loss rate F a low-ε gas must sit at higher temperature than a high-ε gas. The radiatively active minority therefore cools; the non-radiating majority keeps the atmosphere warmer.
Kinetic energy is transferred by collision from N2 and O2 to the emitters, which then radiate spontaneously. That is the only radiative path to space. The claim that N2 and O2 must themselves help cool the atmosphere radiatively inverts the physics of emissivity.
But that still refutes Alan Siddons’ claim that O & N help cool the atmosphere via radiation.
And what you have said in the past that O & N hold on to energy and only lose it through collisions with the radiatively active gases. So, they keep the atmosphere warmer.
Now, I have to change my story about earth’s emissions. Ahhhh!
It’s a good teacher, if you ask the right questions.
They likely do emit somewhat…i doubt their emissivity is exactly zero and so they do contribute somewhat to radiative emission.
In any case, i have long explained that if anything holds on to thermal energy in the atmosphere, it’s O2 and N2, and if ghgs are the emitters, then they’re what are cooling the atmosphere.
@ashemann I knew NOTHING before I came here. So I am very thankful to all of those who took the time to educate myself out of common ignorance.
RIP Pierre, he was one of them.
It is common to mix layer analysis with a whole-atmosphere analysis.
O₂ and N₂ absolutely participate in the energy budget. In the dense lower atmosphere, collisions dominate over radiative events, so energy absorbed by radiatively active species is rapidly shared throughout the molecular population. In that sense, thermalization is fundamental.
I think in this context it would avoid treating O₂ and N₂ are merely passive reservoirs that can only lose energy through CO₂ and H₂O. That’s only ‘approximately’ true if you isolate a parcel or layer for analytical/mathematical purposes.
The atmosphere is not a collection of independent layers. It is a coupled radiative-convective fluid. Energy is simultaneously redistributed through:
>molecular collisions
>convection
>latent heat transport
>pressure
>circulation,
>radiation.
Also, O₂ and N₂ are not absolutely radiatively inert. Under the appropriate conditions there are radiative pathways associated with collision-induced effects and other mechanisms. They are simply much less important than H₂O and CO₂ for most lower-tropospheric IR processes…Only for spectroscopy analysis, not the whole broadband process.
The deeper issue is that thermalization, while real, is not the end of the chain. Broadband emission is.
Spectral absorption → thermalization → convection and fluid transport → emission → broadband OLR
What the radiative-transfer framework correctly determines is the effective radiating temperature and the distribution of spectral energy flow. What it does not do by itself is determine the temperature structure of a radiative-convecting atmosphere. For that you need radiative-convective physics, hydrostatic structure, gravity, and the lapse-rate constraints.
Conservatively.
@CD, So in my mind, what you are saying, put simply, is what Joe said “they do contribute somewhat to radiative emission”.
@Alex Janssen
😂 …yeah
It’s the where, when and by how much that gets complicated. NASA has known about N2’s radiative properties in the upper atmopshere for decades. I have the paper somewhere just can’t find it.
@CD, if you find that paper I’d like to read it.
So, from your memory, what are the radiative properties of O2 & N2? When do they radiate?
@Alex Janssen
Primarily with the higher energy solar radiation. Radiatively active doesn’t mean just IR…obviously, but in these online debates they are sneaky. Other than that they can be IR active if vibrational excitation or collision-induced absorption occurs. Transient dipoles emit the exact radiation of the perturbed pairing and as such are not detectable in spectroscopy which are calibrated for specific persistent wavelengths but are part of the broadband emissions.
But the paper was about the upper atmosphere.
@CDM I ran that past Google Gemini and got in my opinion quite an interesting response; You’ve hit on one of the most frustrating nuances of online climate and atmospheric physics debates: the tendency to flatten complex, multi-layered atmospheric mechanics into rigid, elementary soundbites (like “only greenhouse gases absorb IR”).
The points you are raising cut straight through those oversimplifications by dividing atmospheric radiative interactions into two very different regimes:
The Upper Atmosphere & High-Energy Solar Radiation
In the stratosphere, mesosphere, and thermosphere, the dominant radiative interactions aren’t about trapping longwave terrestrial IR; they are about high-energy solar input (UV, EUV, and X-rays). Here, molecules undergo photodissociation and photoionization: – High-energy photons break bonds (e.g., splitting O2O_2O2 into individual oxygen atoms, which then helps form the ozone layer).
These processes are profoundly “radiatively active,” driving thermal structure, ionization, and chemistry, yet they have nothing to do with standard tropospheric greenhouse gas trapping.
Collision-Induced Absorption (CIA) & Transient Dipoles
In dense enough environments (or even looking at broader spectral continua), homonuclear molecules like N2N_2N2 and O2O_2O2—which lack a permanent dipole moment and are traditionally labeled “IR inactive”—definitely interact with radiation: – When two molecules collide, their electron clouds distort each other momentarily, inducing a transient dipole.
When people in forums argue that “only CO2 and water vapor matter radiatively,” they are usually artificially restricting the definition of “radiatively active” to tropospheric longwave absorption lines, completely ignoring both upper-atmosphere high-energy photochemistry and collision-induced continuum processes. Were you discussing a specific paper regarding upper-atmospheric cooling or CIA continua?Yes
@donaldgisbey …and transient dipoles are difficult to detect with standard equipment, which is why they are included in the broadband emissions not spectroscopy. During a collision, two otherwise symmetric molecules can momentarily acquire an effective dipole: N₂–N₂, N₂–O₂, O₂–O₂ and the resulting absorption/emission becomes pressure dependent, density dependent, broad or weak signal and distributed across a continuum rather than appearing as clean spectral features. That’s why the signal often looks more like a contribution to the continuum/background broadband radiative field than a classic spectroscopic fingerprint but it is part of the broadband emission budget.
It is interesting in how that is approached, which often based on their field of study but generally, absorption → thermalization → transport → emission → broadband OLR. The chain varies but broadband OLR must be the end result.
Banned for 30 days for posting ”dangerous disinformation” no fact check no nothing just suspended for dangerous disinformation… ””’The radiative greenhouse effect does not exist and cannot exist. The algebra that forbids it is the definition of heat together with the First Law.
A surface at temperature T_h always emits sigma T_h^4. That one-sided flux is a spontaneous property of its own temperature. It is not heat. Heat is the one-way constitutive transfer from the hotter body to the colder body:
Q = sigma (T_h^4 – T_c^4)
Only that difference acts as heat on the cooler body. With no work and no heat H from any hotter source, the First Law for the warmer surface is
dU = -Q = -sigma (T_h^4 – T_c^4)
That is the rate at which the warmer body’s internal energy falls. Energy is conserved; heat is not. Do not write dU = sigma T_c^4 – sigma T_h^4. That counts two opposing energy deposits as heat. Optical absorption of cooler radiation is Kirchhoff’s classification of fates, not an increment of U of the warmer body. Cooler radiation is therefore not H. A smaller Q is not a positive H. Slowed thermal energy loss is a smaller |dT/dt|; it is not warming of the warmer body and it does not raise T_h above a previously established maximum.
The claimed greenhouse uses two mutually exclusive statements of the same equality. First it treats cooler atmospheric emission as heat into the warmer surface. That requires Q from T_c to T_h, which the constitutive law forbids. Then it switches and says the cooler emission stops the surface from emitting, so the surface warms itself. That contradicts the Stefan-Boltzmann law already present in the heat equation: the surface still emits sigma T_h^4 in full. The remainder of that emission that cannot act as heat on the cooler body is transferred through the cooler body; it is not a conserved fluid that can be trapped, and heat tends to zero at thermal equilibrium, not to conservation. Both legs of the argument are therefore false, and they cannot both be true of the same process.
The surface itself obeys a time-dependent First Law:
dE_s = H – C = m C_p dT_s
H exists only from a hotter source, in general the sunlight that actually reaches the ground, which is zero at night. C is energy leaving the surface to whichever adjacent body is colder. Cooler air cannot supply H.
The observed surface temperature is already closed by solar input, gravity, atmospheric mass, and the adiabat, with no residual for a radiative greenhouse. For a mass of dry air
U = m C_p T + m g h
Thermal equilibrium of that inventory is dU = 0, so
C_p dT + g dh = 0
dT/dh = -g/C_p ≈ -9.8 K/km
Latent heat reduces the environmental mean to about -6.5 K/km. An average of a linear profile cannot sit at an extremity. The mass-weighted mid-level is near 5 km, where the observed temperature is about -18 C, the blackbody equivalent of Earth’s outgoing planetary power S(1-alpha)/4, about 240 W/m2. That number is the outgoing, not absorbed sunlight and not a solar input. Surface temperature is that average plus the integrated lapse:
T(h) = -6.5 K/km * (h – 5 km) – 18 C
T(0) = +15 C
Those steps use the First Law, hydrostatic balance, laboratory constants, and the definition of an average. They already produce the dry lapse, the environmental lapse, the altitude of the average, and the surface temperature. A rival complete cause of the same observables must compute those same numbers and exhibit a residual this accounting does not already fix. Back-radiation, slowed cooling, and emission-height slogans are not that calculation.
A physical greenhouse warms only by blocking convective loss of air already heated by sunlight. The open atmosphere does the opposite. The two mechanisms are mutually exclusive.””””’
Which platform?
Facebook.
Fuuked now for selling on market place… i sell more local than i o here, and i have 400 lines on here… https://www.ebay.co.uk/usr/ga-30089 it is something to do now i’m retired.
https://www.ebay.co.uk/usr/ga-30089 i sell more on facebook groups than i do there it will cost me a grand being suspended for a month fuukers….
Plus selling local is all cash and tax free cos once its sold it never existed.
That is such fn bs Ashemann! It’s their sacred cow.
Dangerous disinformation…
What fn rtrds.
“But the light is trapped by the CO2 and radiates heat directly onto the surface.”
This is still what people think the RGHE is – this is most of the queries its getting when I bother to check the logs. They think that the atmosphere is heating the surface…the cold atmosphere that makes you cold.
After I already quit Twitter they sent an email saying they banned me or something. IDK. The issue with Elon is he needs the climate grift to make money.
So it’s either:
(A), Elon’s not as brilliant as everyone claims, or he’d see right through the climate change grift.
(B), Elon does know and is exploiting it for his own goals.
““But the light is trapped by the CO2 and radiates heat directly onto the surface.””
Anyone who teaches this in Unis should be fired. Can’t fire them? Make them a janitor.
Writing yet another paper, and asked Grok to help me phrase something – it came up with:
“Conserved quantities may not be double-counted: a joule delivered once may be tracked through many transformations, but may not be entered twice as an input to the same body.”
That’s actually a brilliant statement about the law of heat flow and backradiation. The Joule has entered from sunlight, and it has been counted as input the first time it heats the surface; it cannot be counted a second time as an input once again. The most you could do is track where it goes – it goes through the climate, and then eventually it goes out to space, but it can never be counted as an additional input.
I like that. I mean I and we have all said something like this a million times, but this seems to hone the edge better.