# The Mercator Projection Debunks the Greenhouse Effect

Written by Joseph E Postma

From Wiki:

The Mercator projection is a cylindrical map projection presented by the Flemish geographer and cartographer Gerardus Mercator in 1569. It became the standard map projection for nautical purposes because of its ability to represent lines of constant course, known as rhumb lines or loxodromes, as straight segments which conserve the angles with the meridians. While the linear scale is equal in all directions around any point, thus preserving the angles and the shapes of small objects (which makes the projection conformal), the Mercator projection distorts the size and shape of large objects, as the scale increases from the Equator to the poles, where it becomes infinite.

The Mercator projection is all about the problem of how to transform a physically 3-dimensional object into a two-dimensional representation.  The problem is that this can’t be done without distorting the intrinsic physical properties of the 3-dimensional object, when viewed in the 2-dimensional representation.

What does this have to say about the greenhouse effect?  Simple.  A flat Earth is not a physically correct approximation to the true 3-dimensional nature of the planet.  Just like a 2-D map of the planet Earth is not a true representation of the 3-D planet.

Not only do things like day and night disappear, and rotation stops, but the physics numbers themselves get modified by this physically incorrect mathematical transformation to make the Sun twice as far away as it really is and its energy four times less intense (far below “freezing cold” in fact).

And since the greenhouse effect only exists in these 2-D maps of the planet, such as the IPCC K&T and related energy budgets, and it comes about only in order to reconcile the difference in the physics between the false 2-D and real 3-D planet, then the greenhouse effect is demonstrated as a fiction invented to fix a fiction.

It’s like if we took a Mercator map projection of the Earth and chose to believe it was absolute fact, and then found that the Northern and Southern continents weren’t the size and shape the map said they were, and so we just invented some idea that swamp gas is the explanation for the difference, because we can’t stop believing in the 2-D map, and we can’t figure out that the planet is actually 3-dimensional.

If government climate scientists were actually thinking about their science, and thinking about other things they already know, the greenhouse effect would likely never have been able to take root in the mass consciousness. The truth is that academia can too easily be a haven for cynical scientists that don’t actually like knowledge and aren’t actually intellectuals or interested in reason – they just like to make a salary talking about other people’s ideas, and never going beyond them. The last thing they might do is question or analyse any known limitations of these ideas, for their career is based on trusting them and talking about them. For those careerists it also appears to be about doing irrelevant work that never gets noticed because it benefits no one and doesn’t even hold the promise of benefiting anyone.

Read the full, unedited version at climateofsophistry.com

• ### CleanEnergyPundit

|

Of course… and wouldn’t explain a surface temperature of ~500degC. Let me get back to my original concern and your diagrammatic explanation which illustrates that the Earth receives more radiation during the day than it loses to space during the night or it would long be an ice planet (or near that). Put like that the buffer effect of the atmosphere can be called a ‘greenhouse effect’ but the question of whether CO2 has anything to do with it would not be even addressed. That question arises from this original Arrhenius paper http://www.rsc.org/images/Arrhenius1896_tcm18-173546.pdf which is either wrong, or has been cannibalised by the IPCC pseudo-scientists, or has a point which, however, is trivial, if not totally irrelevant in magnitude, compared to all other natural causes and cycles (my current non-scientist opinion). My quantum electro-dynamics are about equal to absolute zero, therefore I must wait a bit longer until someone explains ‘Arrhenius-right-or-wrong -or-misused’ in simple terms ‘for dummies’ like me.

• ### JP

|

Yes that is scattered light, not direct light. The scattered light amount of something like 5% of what would otherwise be direct light.

• ### CleanEnergyPundit

|

“No direct solar insolation reaches the surface of Venus in the first place,” which would, I think, mean jet-black continuous nighttime over the whole Venusian surface. Appears not to be the case according to the Venusian image catalogue at http://mentallandscape.com/C_Catalog.htm

• ### JP

|

He’s correct about his analysis of Venus. No direct solar insolation reaches the surface of Venus in the first place, so there can’t be radiative amplification. The temperature comes from the thick atmosphere and its lapse rate, which is NOT a greenhouse effect.

• ### CleanEnergyPundit

|

Hmm… I’ll just have to keep looking for a conclusive explanation why Arrhenius’ CO2 invention might wholly belong into the ‘phlogiston’ museum.

• ### JP

|

It is by converting the flux (W/m2) into the temperature this would induce on a surface given a known absorptivity, via the Stefan-Boltzmann Law: F = (1-alpha)*sigma*T^4. You just solve for T given that you know F (flux), and alpha (0.3), and sigma (5.67e-8).

Yes just right it is the matter that has the temperature induced in it, from the photons.

Input and output should be measured just in Joules, but not in W/m2 (J/s/m2). The input FLUX is much more intense than the output flux, but the total energy is the same.

Interesting point about flat-disk equivalent output. In that case, the flux is the same value as the disk input. But it isn’t physically meaningful, because output of course comes from the sphere.

Basically, the REAL input to the planet can produce temperatures nearly 100C, while the GHE models just decide to hide this and reduce the sun to -18C input…but spreading sunlight input over the entire globe when it actually only inputs to a hemisphere.

• ### CleanEnergyPundit

|

Yes, but how does a solar flux measured in W/m2 become a temperature K? What is it that exhibits that temperature? After all, what arrives from the sun is nothing but photons which do exactly nothing until they hit some matter which is then the only thing which can have a ‘temperature’, giving rise to black body radiation. In the last resort, if total input is measured in W/m2, what is the output when reversing the stated ‘exit’ temperature of 255K? I would expect to see a similar ‘flat disk’ equivalent to the input disk at 180deg opposite 😉 — or am I too naive here? And even when it shows an obvious difference in W/m2, what does that explain about any warming effect of the whole atmosphere (never mind any miniscule bits of CO2 in it)? I’m not trying to be facetious here, but keep looking for a conclusive explanation why Arrhenius’ CO2 invention might wholly belong into the ‘phlogiston’ museum.

• ### JP

|

Alpha is the albedo (reflectivity) so you take that out of the TOA flux. The factor of 0.5 is for the areal projection going from a TOA disk to a hemisphere, then the output comes from a full sphere which is 4 times the area of the disk TOA input.

• ### CleanEnergyPundit

|

Apologies for my earlier typos; please substitute ” Well, I confess I do not understand the math, e.g. how does a solar flux of 1370 W/m2 reappear as 360.5K via F(1-alpha)? And when that same formula is halved the continuous hemispherical system input reappears as 303.5K? And then, halving that again, it becomes 255K as spherical system output? Nevertheless, “Alas the climate establishment wants nothing to do with reality” is obvious from IPCC’s own statements as in cleanenergypundit.blogspot.co.uk/2011/10/west-is-facing-new-severe-recession.html”
My maths still remain deficient….;-)

• ### CleanEnergyPundit

|

Well, I confess I do not understand the math, e.g. how does a solar flux of 1370 W/m2 reappear as 260.5K via F(1-alpha)? And when that same formula is halved the continuous hemispherical system input reappears as 360.5K? And then, halving that again, it becomes 255K as spherical system output? Nevertheless, “Alas the climate establishment wants nothing to do with reality” is obvious from IPCC’s own statements as in http://cleanenergypundit.blogspot.co.uk/2011/10/west-is-facing-new-severe-recession.html

• ### JP

|

Fuller was a genius, that’s for sure. A sphere to map projection of course simply can NOT get the distribution of sunshine correct. That fact is why they invent the greenhouse effect, to correct the error. It’s not like simply using a spherical rotating Earth is that difficult. I’ve done it myself, in MATLAB for crying out loud, based on a reality-diagram like this:

[img]http://climateofsophistry.files.wordpress.com/2013/07/zoomed-in-reality.jpg[/img]

Alas the climate establishment wants nothing to do with reality.

• ### CleanEnergyPundit

|

I prefer the Buckminster Fuller projection, as in http://www.lmhdesign.co.uk/planet.php. What I fail to see is, how can any kind of sphere-to-map projection have, per se, anything to do with how the 4000 trillion kWh of sunshine which reach the top of the atmosphere every 24 hours, is distributed?

|

This article represents possibly the strongest argument against the GHE. The GHE is nothing but a historical figment of one person’s imagination. As time passed this fudge factor became irrelevant. Fiction requires a bogus explanation – or hand waving exercise.

• ### JP

|

Correctly this time.

Though the Mercator projection is about mapping a cylinder onto a sphere, ultimately the point is obviously that the Earth is a 3-D sphere and this is what ultimately is being mapped to a 2-D plane.

• ### JP

|

Subbing to article.