# On the Flat Earth Rants of Joe Postma

Written by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.

Willis Eschenbach and I have been defending ourselves on Facebook against Joe Postma’s claims we have “flat Earth” beliefs about the radiative energy budget of the Earth.

The guy is obviously passionate, as our discussion ended with expletive-laced insults hurled my way (I suspect Willis decided the discussion wasn’t worth the effort, and withdrew before the fireworks began).

Joe advertises himself as an astrophysicist who works at the University of Calgary. I don’t know his level of education, but his claims have considerable influence on others, which is why I am addressing them here.

He has numerous writings and Youtube videos on the subject of Earth’s energy budget and greenhouse effect, and the supposed errors the climate research community has made. I get emails and comments on my blog from others who invoke his claims, and so he is difficult to ignore.

Here I want to address just one of his claims (repeated by others, and the basis of his accusation I am a flat-Earther), recently described here, regarding the value of solar flux at the top of the atmosphere that is found in many simplified diagrams of the Earth’s energy budget. I will use the same two graphics used in that article, one from Harvard and one from Penn State:

Joe’s claim (as far as I can tell) is that that the solar flux value (often quoted to be around 342 W/m2) is unrealistic because it is for a flat Earth. But as an astrophysicist, he should recognize the division by 4 (“Fs(1-A)/4” and “S/4”) in the upper-left portion of both figures, which takes the solar constant at the distance of the Earth from the sun (about 1,370 W/m2) and spreads it over the spherical shape of the Earth. Thus, the 342 W/m2 value represents a spherical (not flat) Earth.

Just because someone then draws a diagram using a flat surface representing the Earth doesn’t mean the calculation is for a “flat Earth”.

Next in that article, Joe’s (mistaken) value for the solar constant is then used to compute the resulting Earth-Sun distance implied by us silly climate scientists who believe the solar constant is 342.5 W/m2 (rather than the true value of 1,370 W/m2). He gets twice the true, known value of the Earth-Sun distance, simply because he used a solar flux that was off by a factor of 4.

Now, I find it hard to believe an actual astrophysicist could make such an elementary error. I can ignore Joe’s profane personal insults, but he ends up influencing many people, and then I have to deal with their questions individually. Sometimes it’s better if I can just point them to a blog post, which is why I wrote this.

Read more at www.drroyspencer.com

• ### HerbRose

|

Hi Dr. Spencer,
I am not any sort of expert but I believe what Joe is trying to point out is that a sphere is a true three dimensional object not a two dimensional object in three dimensions. While a sphere may have the same surface area (4 pi r^2) as a cylinder it cannot be converted to a two dimensional plane like a circle.It will never be flat. Since the light from the sun will always be striking a curved surface the absorption and the reflection of the sunlight will vary across the exposed area and the representation of the Earth as circle with all areas receiving the same light is not accurate.
The T 38 tank revolutionized tank design by using slanted surfaces to increase armor thickness without increasing thickness of the steel. The same effect is done by a sphere in changing the angle of incidence of incoming sunlight which changes the amount of light absorbed and reflected.
Herb

• ### judy Ryan

|

I agree with HerbRose.I also am no expert, but I read and understood Joe’s article. I didn’t see any profanities. I’m having trouble reading between the ad-hominem attacks here though.

• ### Joe Postma

|

Go to my Youtube and see my videos debunking the climate science/alarmist fake greenhouse effect for yourself:

Here is a good example if you like:

As for “Thus, the 342 W/m2 value represents a spherical (not flat) Earth.”

That is the flux of sunshine spread over the entire surface area of the Earth at once. This never happens, and thus, does not represent reality. Additionally, this number is uniform, and thus, it does indeed represent a flat Earth, and indeed, the diagrams even draw it that way, as a flat Earth, because it works to do that form them.

Here is a good sample of my vids to get you up to speed:

• ### John O'Sullivan

|

Thanks Joe!

• ### Gerhard Kramm

|

Dear Mr. Postma,

1) Your claim regarding the factor of 4 is incorrect. Using the current value of the solar constant of S = 1361 W/m^2 yields a globally averaged value of the solar insolation at the top of the atmosphere (TOA) of about 340 W/m^4. The factor of 4 is provided by the global averaging procedure.

2) Your criticism on these two-layer models is absolutely correct. From a physical point of view, both two-layer models are wrong. At the interface Earth-atmosphere, there is, generally, no radiation balance. Instead, there is an energy flux balance in which, at least, the fluxes of sensible and latent heat play a notable role.

The energy flux budget at the Interface Earth-atmosphere reads (see Table 2 of Kramm & Dlugi, 2011):

(1 – a_E -A_a) S/4 = H + E + DR_L (1)

Here, a_E is the planetary albedo at the TOA, A_a is the absorptivity of the atmosphere in the solar range, H is the globally averaged sensible heat flux, E is the globally averaged latent heat flux, and DR_L is the globally averaged net radiation in the infrared range (IR). The absorptivity A_a was already considered in Liou’s two-layer model (see Liou, 2002). The net radiation is defined as the difference between the locally emitted IR radiation and the absorbed down-welling IR radiation. None of these globally averaged energy fluxes depends on a globally averaged (near-)surface temperature. This is an absurd simplification because the power law of Stefan and Boltzmann is, if any, only valid on a local scale, but not on a global scale as suggested by these two-layer models. The Stefan-Boltzmann law is based on two integrations. First, the integration of Planck’s radiation law over the entire spectrum (from zero to infinity) provides the total intensity I that depends on the T^4, where T is the local temperature. Since Planck’s radiation law is only valid in case of thermal equilibrium, we must recognize that such a thermal equilibrium only exists on a local scale (usually, we assume a local thermodynamic equilibrium, LTE). Second, to obtain the emitted radiation flux F, it is necessary to integrate the total intensity over the adjacent half space. Assuming that the total intensity is isotropically distributed, one obtains the well-known relation

F = pi I (2)

where pi = 3.141592……

This means that both integrations are performed on a local scale. Thus, the Stefan-Boltzmann law is restricted to the local scale.

In the paper of Kramm et al. (2017), “Using Earth’s Moon as a testbed for quantifying the effect of the terrestrial atmosphere”, we showed that in case of our Moon the formula of Gerlich & Tscheuschner (2009) which is based on a local radiation balance provided a globally averaged temperature of about 151 K. Using the local energy balance equation for a thin slab of Moon’s regolith that also includes the heat flux in the regolith below the slab yielded a globally averaged temperature of about 198 K. Applying the Stefan-Boltzmann law on these globally averaged temperatures would provide (eps = 0,98) 29 W/m^2 and 85 W/m^2. However, both temperature distributions fulfill the globally averaged radiation balance, i.e. the globally emitted IR radiation amounts to 280 W/m^2. Using a planetary albedo for the Moon of a_M = 0.178 would provide

(1 – a_M) S/4 = 280W/m^2 (3)

Consequently, the globally averaged (near-)surface temperature has no physical meaning. In principle, it is a nonsense quantity. But the x-degree goals of the Paris climate agreement of 2015 are based on this nonsense quantity. The globally averaged (near-)surface temperature can vary even though the globally averaged energy flux budget at the interface Earth-atmosphere does not change.

What is the reason for this conclusion? In their textbook “Fundamentals of Atmospheric Radiation” from 2006, Bohnen & Clothiaux stated:

“In general, energy (or power) is a more relevant physical quantity than temperature. Energies are additive, temperatures are not; energy is conserved, temperature is not. Energy fluxes drive atmospheric processes. But W/m² is banned from American newspapers, both because it is an SI quantity and because it is much too scientific for readers of even the most pretentious newspapers in the land. Similarly, in-stead of energy fluxes we get the wind-chill temperature, which obscures the fact that energy fluxes, not temperatures, kill people by hypothermia.”

This statement is correct because energy is an extensive quantity, but temperature is an intensive one. And this difference is known for more than 100 years (see Planck, 1897, Tolman, 1917).

• ### Gerhard Kramm

|

Dear Mr. Postma,

1) Your claim regarding the factor of 4 is incorrect. Using the current value of the solar constant of S = 1361 W/m^2 yields a globally averaged value of the solar insolation at the top of the atmosphere (TOA) of about 340 W/m^4. The factor of 4 is provided by the global averaging procedure.

2) Your criticism on these two-layer models is absolutely correct. From a physical point of view, both two-layer models are wrong. At the interface Earth-atmosphere, there is, generally, no radiation balance. Instead, there is an energy flux balance in which, at least, the fluxes of sensible and latent heat play a notable role.

The energy flux budget at the Interface Earth-atmosphere reads (see Table 2 of Kramm & Dlugi, 2011):

(1 – a_E -A_a) S/4 = H + E + DR_L (1)

Here, a_E is the planetary albedo at the TOA, A_a is the absorptivity of the atmosphere in the solar range, H is the globally averaged sensible heat flux, E is the globally averaged latent heat flux, and DR_L is the globally averaged net radiation in the infrared range (IR). The absorptivity A_a was already considered in Liou’s two-layer model (see Liou, 2002). The net radiation is defined as the difference between the locally emitted IR radiation and the absorbed down-welling IR radiation. None of these globally averaged energy fluxes depends on a globally averaged (near-)surface temperature. This is an absurd simplification because the power law of Stefan and Boltzmann is, if any, only valid on a local scale, but not on a global scale as suggested by these two-layer models. The Stefan-Boltzmann law is based on two integrations. First, the integration of Planck’s radiation law over the entire spectrum (from zero to infinity) provides the total intensity I that depends on the T^4, where T is the local temperature. Since Planck’s radiation law is only valid in case of thermal equilibrium, we must recognize that such a thermal equilibrium only exists on a local scale (usually, we assume a local thermodynamic equilibrium, LTE). Second, to obtain the emitted radiation flux F, it is necessary to integrate the total intensity over the adjacent half space. Assuming that the total intensity is isotropically distributed, one obtains the well-known relation

F = pi I (2)

where pi = 3.141592……

This means that both integrations are performed on a local scale. Thus, the Stefan-Boltzmann law is restricted to the local scale.

In the paper of Kramm et al. (2017), “Using Earth’s Moon as a testbed for quantifying the effect of the terrestrial atmosphere”, we showed that in case of our Moon the formula of Gerlich & Tscheuschner (2009) which is based on a local radiation balance provided a globally averaged temperature of about 151 K. Using the local energy balance equation for a thin slab of Moon’s regolith that also includes the heat flux in the regolith below the slab yielded a globally averaged temperature of about 198 K. Applying the Stefan-Boltzmann law on these globally averaged temperatures would provide (eps = 0,98) 29 W/m^2 and 85 W/m^2. However, both temperature distributions fulfill the globally averaged radiation balance, i.e. the globally emitted IR radiation amounts to 280 W/m^2. Using a planetary albedo for the Moon of a_M = 0.178 would provide

(1 – a_M) S/4 = 280W/m^2 (3)

Consequently, the globally averaged (near-)surface temperature has no physical meaning. In principle, it is a nonsense quantity. But the x-degree goals of the Paris climate agreement of 2015 are based on this nonsense quantity. The globally averaged (near-)surface temperature can vary even though the globally averaged energy flux budget at the interface Earth-atmosphere does not change.

What is the reason for this conclusion? In their textbook “Fundamentals of Atmospheric Radiation” from 2006, Bohnen & Clothiaux stated:

“In general, energy (or power) is a more relevant physical quantity than temperature. Energies are additive, temperatures are not; energy is conserved, temperature is not. Energy fluxes drive atmospheric processes. But W/m² is banned from American newspapers, both because it is an SI quantity and because it is much too scientific for readers of even the most pretentious newspapers in the land. Similarly, in-stead of energy fluxes we get the wind-chill temperature, which obscures the fact that energy fluxes, not temperatures, kill people by hypothermia.”

This statement is correct because energy is an extensive quantity, but temperature is an intensive one. And this difference is known for more than 100 years (see Planck, 1897, Tolman, 1917).

• ### PetterT

|

The main error of the so called “energy budget” is that it is a budget for only 1 second (!) in Watt/m^2 =
Joule/sm^2. Joule is the unit for energy, and in one second the radiation from the sun hits only half of the earth, and not even all over, but 1362 W/m^2 at equator and 0 at the poles (during equinox). The outgoing radiation will be from the whole sphere though. The rest of the calculation will carry this error, and so the “energy budget” will be erroneous.

• ### John Salamito

|

PetterT…that is not the main error. the main error is that radiation is not the only form of energy, and this is the unwritten assumption behind the so called Energy Budget. When Work is done it changes Energy levels. Work equals Force x Distance. The atmosphere of planet earth has Work done it by the Force = Gravity. It applies over the depth of troposphere, more work done the deeper (ie lower in altitude) you get. The Energy Budget should therefore include Work Energy as well radiative Energy. If you do this the need for inventing back radiation disappears. What Trenbert et al did was calculate the amount of solar radiation energy, work out it is not enough, and then invent new radiation that doesn’t come from the sun but comes form the air itself. However, if you understand that Total Energy = Work Energy + Radiative Energy, the need for this invention disappears. The reason mountains are colder than valleys is because there is less work energy up there – it has nothing to do wth radiation or greenhouse gases.

• ### Herb Rose

|

Hi John,
The main error in all climate theories incorrect data. The definition of temperature as the mean kinetic energy of the molecules is wrong. The reason a steam engine does work is because of the utilization of the 540 calories/gram energy needed to convert 100 C water to 100 C steam. Temperature is not an accurate indication of the kinetic energy of a gas. The great majority of the energy in the troposphere is contained in the water in the atmosphere not the gases.
The reason the atmosphere is a gas is because of the kinetic energy of the gas molecules doing work against the compression of gravity. The greater the kinetic energy of the gas molecules the greater their altitude and the greater their volume (universal gas law). The reason a valley is warmer (more total kinetic energy) than a mountain top is not because the molecules have more kinetic energy but because there are more of them transferring energy to an object. It is the same as a 100 C oven and 100 C pot of water. The molecules in the oven have more kinetic energy (greater velocity) than the molecules in the water but there are far fewer of them transferring that energy resulting in the water containing more total kinetic energy and cooking food faster than the oven.
Herb

• ### John Salamito

|

Hi herb
I believe I agree with you. PV=nRT, and P decreases with attitude. Like myself you are drawing attention to the overwhelming importance of convection/conduction in a real atmosphere as opposed to radiation (which is important in a vacuum). My point to PetterT is the main error in the energy budget is what it entirely ignores obsessed as it is with radiation alone.
John

• ### Herb Rose

|

Hello again John,
Actually P (pressure) does not significantly decrease with altitude. Atmospheric pressure (which is the weight of the molecules in the atmosphere) decreases with altitude but the P in the universal gas law refers to the pressure which confines the atmosphere and resists it expansion. This pressure is gravity and since it is measured from the center of the Earth the added distance of the atmosphere does to significantly change the pressure holding the atmosphere on the Earth.
You are correct in pointing out that radiation of energy is not signifiant in the troposphere but only comes into play after the temperature of the atmosphere exceeds the boiling point of water. (Use the universal gas law to determine the correct temperature (kinetic energy) at different altitudes or see my article in PSI THE TEMPERATURE OF THE ATMOSPHERE.)
Herb

• ### John

|

Dear Herb
Thank you for directing me to your article and explanation of pressure as used in the ideal gas law and atmospheric pressure. You have disabused me of a misconception and I am thankful. Fortunately I think the main just of my response to to PetterT remains true in that the obsession for radiative energy transfer in the troposphere overlooks important other factors.
Again, many thanks
John

• ### FauxScienceSlayer

|

“Yes Virginia, Colder Objects Can Make Warmer Objects Warmer Still”

• ### FauxScienceSlayer

|

Roy posted his ridiculous “Cold Makes Hot” in July 2010, znd my reply >
“Rocket Scientists Need Not Apply” at CanadaFreePress. July 2014 i met Roy at the Heartland ICCC-9 Lukewarmist Love Fest, still spouting his back radiation warming non sense, my reply

“Mommie, Can We Play Obombie Truth Origami” > FauxScienceSlayer

I met Roy again at the Heritage Summit, Sept 2014, still BS, my reply

“Spencer Sorcery on Magic Gas” > FauxScienceSlayer

• ### Gerhard Kramm

|

In his textbook “Die mechanische Waermetheorie” from 1887, Rudolf Clausius stated:

“Die Wärme kann nicht von selbst aus einem kälteren in einen wärmeren Körper übergehen.”

Then, he continued:

“Die hierin vorkommenden Worte „von selbst”, welche der Kürze wegen angewandt sind, bedürfen, um vollkommen verständlich zu sein, noch einer Erläuterung, welche ich in meinen Abhandlungen an verschiedenen Orten gegeben habe. Zunächst soll darin ausgedrückt sein, dass durch Leitung und Strahlung die Wärme sich nie in dem wärmeren Körper auf Kosten des kälteren noch mehr anhäufen kann. Dabei soll dasjenige, was in dieser Beziehung über die Strahlung schon früher bekannt war, auch auf solche Fälle ausgedehnt werden, wo durch Brechung oder Reflexion die Richtung der Strahlen irgend wie geändert, und dadurch eine Concentration derselben bewirkt wird.”

Finally, he pointed out:

“Der von mir zum Beweise des zweiten Hauptsatzes aufgestellte Grundsatz, dass die Wärme nicht von selbst (oder ohne Compensation) aus einem kälteren in einen wärmeren Körper ühergehen kann, entspricht in einigen besonders einfachen Fällen des Wärmeaustausches der alltäglichen Erfahrung. Dahin gehört erstens die Wärmeleitung, welche immer in dem Sinne vor sich geht, dass die Wärme vom wärmeren Körper oder Körpertheile zum kälteren Körper oder Körpertheile strömt. Was ferner die in gewöhnlicher Weise stattfindende Wärmestrahlung anbetrifft, so ist es freilich bekannt, dass nicht nur der warme Körper dem kalten, sondern auch umgekehrt der kalte Körper dem warmen Wärme zustrahlt, aber das Gesammtresultat dieses gleichzeitig stattfindenden doppelten Wärmeaustausches besteht, wie man als erfahrungsmässig feststehend ansehen kann, immer darin, dass der kältere Körper auf Kosten des wärmeren einen Zuwachs an Wärme erfährt.”

This means that the claim “that colder objects can make warmer objects still warmer” has no basis in physics.

• ### Gerhard Kramm

|

Here are the translations of the paragraphs mentioned before. They are taken from Clausius’ textbook “The Mechanical Theory of Heat” published in 1879:

“Heat cannot, of itself, pass from a colder to a hotter body.”

“The words ‘of itself,’ here used for the sake of brevity, require, in order to be completely understood, a further explanation, as given in various parts of the author’s papers. In the first place they express the fact that heat can never, through conduction or radiation, accumulate itself in the warmer body at the cost of the colder. This, which was already known as respects direct radiation, must thus be further extended to cases in which by refraction or reflection the course of the ray is diverted and a concentration of rays thereby produced.”

“The principle assumed by the author as the ground of the second main principle, viz. that heat cannot of itself, or without compensation, pass from a colder to a hotter body, corresponds to everyday experience in certain very simple cases of the exchange of heat. To this class belongs the conduction of heat, which always takes place in such a way that heat passes from hotter bodies or parts of bodies to colder bodies or parts of bodies. Again as regards the ordinary radiation of heat, it is of course well known that not only do hot bodies radiate to cold, but also cold bodies conversely to hot; nevertheless the general result of this simultaneous double exchange of heat always consists, as is established by experience, in an increase of the heat in the colder body at the expense of the hotter.”

• ### jerry krause

|

Hi Roy,

It does not matter whose equations you are using. Your model is completely unrealistic. Most of us know that the sun usually rises and sets and between sunset and sunrise there is no sun visible. You and NASA use this model because it’s the only way you both can justify the measurement of an average temperature measured from a satellite.

If you would study the USCRN projects data you would find that the soil (whose temperatures at five depths are measured and reported hourly) stores the solar radiation which is absorbed by the soil’s surface during the daytime and thermal. The surface is observed to get very hot near midday, especially so near the summer solstice because it is not being warmed by a solar radiation whose maximum value is a constant 342 W/m2. At these maximum times many USA locations the incident solar radiation is about a 1000 W/m2 for several hours. And this incident solar is actually measured . NOAA’s SURFRAD project measures, near the surface,the foundament upwelling and downwelling solar and infrared radiations,. And the influence of cloud upon these radiations can be directly seen from this directly measured data.

So take a look at these two links to see what actual data, which has been averaged for no more than a hour, looks like. (https://principia-scientific.org/the-corvallis-or-uscrn-site-a-natural-laboratory/) and (https://principia-scientific.org/the-corvallis-or-uscrn-site-a-natural-laboratory-part-two/)

Have a good day, Jerry

• ### jerry krause

|

Hi Roy and those who have made comments to this point,

You have just proven than you are not scientists. A real scientist cannot ignore data. A real scientist knows that averaged data is not actual data. During a 24 hour period the downwelling solar radiation will have a value of 342 W/m2 for a brief time period, depends upon cloud so I assume an apparent cloudless atmosphere, twice a day. Which is why the air temperature during a 24hr period is usually not constant for the entire 24hr period.

Real scientists should not argue about what they think, they should only try to understand (explain) what is actually seen (observed, measured).

Have a good day, Jerry

• ### Denis Ables

|

The proponents of anthropogenic-caused global warming invariably, (and ironically) DENY that the Medieval Warming Period (MWP, 1,000 years ago) was global and also likely warmer than it is now. These alarmists acknowledge only that Europe experienced the MWP. (They had no choice – climate in that region is too well documented!) They apparently take this unjustifiable position because their computer models cannot explain a global, warmer MWP. Their computer models require an increasing co2 level, plus depend even more egregiously on yet another ASSUMPTION that water vapor feedback is the actual culprit, causing 2 to 3 times the temperature increase brought on by the increase in co2. However, co2 did not begin increasing until about the mid 1800s.

The global temperature increase during the MWP could not have been influenced by co2 because there was no increase in co2, not during the MWP, nor for thousands of years before the MWP. The danger for alarmists is that it then becomes plausible that our current warming (such as it is) might instead also be due to NATURAL climate variation. That, of course, conflicts with Mann’s hockey stick graph as well as with the other usual suspects, all of whom claim that our current warming is mostly due to increased co2 level brought on by human activity.

However, it’s easy to show that the MWP was both global and at least as warm as now. While that proves nothing about the cause of our current warming (such as it is) it speaks loudly about the credibility of the folks who DENY that the MWP was global and at least as warm as now.

A brief meta-analysis, in effect a global study, follows, which makes use of numerous peer-reviewed studies, as well as other easily accessible data. The analysis demonstrates that the MWP was global and at least as warm as it is now.

First, the MWP trend is conclusively shown to be global by borehole temperature data. No controversial models needed, the data speaks for itself. The 6,000 boreholes scattered around the globe are not constrained to locations where ice core data has been used. A good discussion of the borehole data can be found at Joanne Nova’s website.

http://joannenova.com.au/2012/11/the-message-from-boreholes/

Next, the receding Mendenhall glacier (Alaska) recently exposed a 1,000-year-old shattered forest, still in its original position. No trees (let alone a forest) have grown at that latitude anywhere near that site since the MWP. It was obviously significantly warmer at that latitude anywhere near that site. Alaska is quite distant from Europe.

Finally, there have been hundreds of peer-reviewed MWP studies around the globe, with investigation results showing each site to have been warmer during the MWP than at the time of the study, and that result was reflected in earlier IPCC reports. Since then confirming research continues to show up regularly, although apparently also ignored by the usual suspects. The MWP studies were carried out around the globe by investigators and involved organizations representing numerous countries. It’s curious that Mann and his cohort did not give more consideration to the existing studies at that time before presenting their conflicting “hockey stick” claim, particularly given the controversial process employed in Mann’s “analysis”. One of the well-known alarmists, Phil Jones, admitted publicly that if the MWP was global and as warm as now then it’s a “different ballgame”. (But apparently neither Jones nor Mann, nor other alarmists, have bothered to review that data.) Peer-reviewed MWP studies continue to regularly show up, confirming the earlier studies, that the MWP was at least as warm as now.

The numerous MWP studies have been cataloged by the co2science.org website. Dr. Idso, the proprietor of that website, is a known skeptic. However, the peer-reviewed studies were independently performed by numerous researchers who not only represented many different countries but also used a variety of temperature proxy techniques. Dr. Idso is merely operating as a librarian.

One such example, the Greenland MWP Temperature (gisp2) study (which can be googled) shows, among other things, that Greenland was warmer during the MWP than it was at the time of that relative recently study. Note also that Greenland is distant from both Europe and Alaska. Another separate link to that study follows:

https://junkscience.com/2018/06/study-ancient-greenland-was-much-warmer-than-previously-thought/

Interested readers who are skeptics should be able to satisfy themselves by going to co2science.org and choosing (say) a half-dozen regions (all should be remote from each other and from Alaska, Greenland, and Europe). Focus on the subset of the MWP studies which directly address temperature. Choose at least one temperature study from each selected region. (Idso provides brief summaries but you can also review the original study.) You will find that each of the selected study sites was found to be warmer during the MWP than at the time of the study. Furthermore, these study results are consistent with the temperature trend exhibited by the borehole data. Conversely the peer-reviewed studies, in aggregate, confirm the global borehole data trend.

There are also other confirming observations which include such things as antique vineyards found at latitudes where grapes cannot be grown today, old burial sites found below the perma-frost, and apparently Viking maps of most of Greenland’s coastline. The link below is to a separate recent report, which references various studies, showing that South America also experienced the MWP.

http://notrickszone.com/2018/11/03/new-study-medieval-warm-period-not-limited-to-north-atlantic-but-occurred-in-south-america-as-well/

The meta-study presented here is an aggregate of straightforward peer-reviewed studies, any of which can be replicated and the research results do NOT require the use of controversial “models”, nor dubious statistical machinations.

One of the “talking points” posed by alarmists attempting to “rebut” the global, warmer MWP is their claim that warming in all regions during the MWP must be synchronous. Obviously the MWP studies were generally performed independently, so the start and end dates covered by each MWP study will likely vary.

However, anyone foolish enough to accept that “synchronous” argument must be prepared to admit that our current warming would also not qualify as a global event. For example, many alarmists make reference to the 1800s when talking about the total global warming temperature increase. However, that span ignores a three decade GLOBAL cooling period from 1945 to 1975. In fact, that globally non-synchronous period is much more significant than just a region or two showing little or no temperature increase.

There are also other good reasons to exclude consideration of temperature increases during the 1800s. There was a significant NATURAL warming beginning around 1630 (the first low temperature experienced during the Little Ice Age), according to Dr. David Evans, (Joanne Nova website) and that period of naturally increasing temperatures continued up to (and beyond) 1850, at which time co2 began increasing. But it would have taken many subsequent decades, possibly more than a century, for co2 increase after 1850, at an average 2 ppmv per year, to accrue sufficiently before having any impact on temperature measurements. Neither is there any reason to expect that the two centuries of natural and significant warming beginning in 1630 ended abruptly, after 2 centuries, merely because co2 level (a trace gas) began increasing in 1850 at a miniscule 2ppmv per year. Also, how much, and for how long was the temperature increase after 1850 due mostly to the continuing natural climate warming beginning in 1630?

In regard to the “synchronous” argument, any current considerations about global warming must be constrained to a starting point AFTER the 1945-1975 cooling. The global temperature began steadily increasing in 1975 and that increase basically terminated during the 1997/98 el Nino. Even the IPCC (a bureaucracy which cannot justify its mission if our current warming is NATURAL) has acknowledged a GLOBAL “hiatus” in temperature increase after 2000. This admission conflicts with the well-known fact that co2 level has steadily increased since around 1850. Where did that missing heat go?

So, our current “global warming” controversy involves basically two decades, (1975 to 1998) and that warming has been followed, by almost another two decades of no further statistically significant increase in temperature. But wait … ! It turns out that even the period from 1975 to 1998 apparently does not qualify as a global warming period because there were numerous “out of synch” regions and/or countries which experienced no additional warming over durations which are included in the 1975-1998 span.

http://notrickszone.com/2018/02/18/greenland-antarctica-and-dozens-of-areas-worldwide-have-not-seen-any-warming-in-60-years-and-more/#sthash.5Hq7Xqdh.JsV4juVL.dpbs

https://wattsupwiththat.com/category/hiatus-in-global-warming/

Another alarmist attempt at rebuttal is that the MWP studies cataloged by co2science.org have been cherry-picked. (Dozens of independently peer-reviewed studies spanning several decades, all cherry-picked? And what about the confirming borehole data? And the other supporting data? Readers can satisfy themselves by searching for credible peer-reviewed MWP temperature studies which support alarmist claims and supposedly were not cataloged by Idso at co2science.org. But, keep in mind that a few stray conflicting studies will not likely be sufficient to rebut the global, warmer MWP because, as the previous link demonstrates, there are a number of regions during 1975-1998 which show no increasing warming.

There is another question regarding the assumptions used in the alarmist computer models. The greenhouse gas theory, if applied to the open atmosphere, carries with it a critical caveat: for the GHG theory to “hold water” there must also be an accompanying warmer region about 10km above the tropics.

Despite decades of radiosondes that “hot spot” has never been found, and this is not a matter of missing data. The radiosonde temperature data covers various altitudes, both above and below 10km.

Occasionally some proponent of anthropogenic catastrophic warming claims to have found that required and missing “hot spot”. (Alarmists apparently do not otherwise bring up that subject.) But the folks making such a claim stretch their credibility beyond the breaking point by (1) ignoring the existing radiosonde data, and (2) replacing that ignored/denied data with nothing more than speculation about the missing hot spot.

There is yet another issue. The alarmist computer modelers insist on including the water vapor feedback assumption when the applicability of GHG theory to the open atmosphere is itself in question (no “hot spot” detected, also satellites detect heat escaping to space). Without water vapor feedback, even if one assumes that co2 is still capable of influencing warming, the potential warming threat is greatly diminished. (But beware: co2 supposed capability to warm the planet diminishes quickly as its level increases.) Ironically, the alarmist egregious claims are currently also rebutted by their own computer models, namely the widening difference between computer model projected global temperature and the subsequent actual recorded global temperature. Recently NOAA has also admitted that a significant number of surface station temperature recordings have been influenced more by the UHI effect than acknowledged. If/when corrected this will exacerbate the already widening discrepancy.

• ### Christopher Marshall

|

That was an excellent presentation. However these guys are also claiming and I’ll just quote:

” Yes, May 31st, 1934, and the rest of that year, WAS very hot in the US. At the time the entire year was the hottest year in US recorded history. However, 1934 is now only 6th on the list, eclipsed by 2012, 2016, 2015, 2006, and 1998 (all US only). This alone is sufficient to say your cherry-picked example is irrelevant, but when combined with the facts that the US comprises only 2% of the Earth, and GLOBALLY the year 1934 was cooler than the 20th century average”

How would you respond to that since you clearly studied this more than I have. I’m sure you’ve seen this argument in many forms but ideally the same pitch. Thank yo for a response and something to study would be helpful.

• ### Matt

|

Hi Christopher
An appropriate source of helpful study may be found at realclimatescience.com .
May I recommend you read “who is” the author of the site at the bottom of the page.
At the bottom left of the “home” page is the direction to “older posts” which if explored should directly answer your question on the 1934 heat record. The other postings at the site are self explanatory and generally difficult to challenge.
To differentiate fact from fiction is pretty simple. Every honourable person makes an accidental challengeable statement or error but with intentional deception you will discover recurring falsities. Recurring patterns.
After having assimilated the pattern of corruption in association with climate science you may wish to look at “inconvenient lie day one-dr tim ball” on youtube.
That gives an insight into the old saying “follow the money”.
Dr. Ball got into climatology partly for the noble and honourable motives of keeping air force pilots alive through improved weather forecasts. At one time in his career he worked with a gentleman who did weather forecasts during world world two and the surviving pilots would come back after a raid and state “your weather forecasts are killing us”.
Matt

• ### Matt

|

Of course I meant World War Two. I must improve my proof reading.
And of course the corrupt science in climate and the imposition of taxes is already killing some of us.

• ### Me again

|

Christopher
I just checked “realclimatescience.com” and spotted a whole section entitled Heatwave Of May-June 1934 on the cover page. Within this section is a copy of an article from the LA TIMES; December 30th; 1934. The headline reads, Hand of Nature Falls Heavily On Whole World in Freak Weather Year of 1934. The whole 1934 news paper article is there to read.
This contradicts “GLOBALLY the year 1934 was cooler than the 20th Century average”. Intentional deception!

• ### Christopher Marshall

|

Thanks I got it helped a great deal in clearing up his “word salad”.

• ### John Salamito

|

Joe is really saying that believing in back radiation is as silly as believing in a flat earth. He asks do the Laws of Physics even say back radiation from GH gases can exist? Joe says ‘No, Not At All, and It is Totally Insane to Imagine they could be as high 342W/m2’. Roy says ‘Yes a Bit, But Alarmists Exaggerate’. Joe is correct, not Roy, because he correctly applies the Laws of Thermodynamics, the Stefan formula etc. His flat earth ranting is just a colourful thought experiment to help people without undergraduate level thermodynamics to understand the nonsense of it. He does this, cleverly, by showing that you get the same result holding true to flat earth-ism.

I admire both Postma and Spencer. Spencer is a rare voice of climate reasonableness – even if he does get thermodynamics wrong – saying these emperor clothes are not so good as everyone says they are. Postma is a first class physicist who has the courage to call out the emperor is completely naked! Postma is correct but I wish they stopped feuding because the real enemy is elsewhere and has claimed the ‘consensus’. In Postma and Spencer we have the top-notch astrophysicist versus the top-notch climate scientist.

The problem with astrophysicists generally is they obsess about radiation (as is sensible in studying stars) and downplay the boring fact that the reality on low temperature planet earth is that convection and gravity dominate. And I do mean dominate – a CO2 molecule will pass on its energy by colliding with another molecule one billion times as often as it will do so by emitting a photon in radiation. The problem with climate scientists generally is that lacking a first principles understanding of radiation they come up with whimsical notion of ‘back’ radiation to explain a Gap that doesn’t even exist if you took gravity into account first. My friends, the problem is not a belief in a flat earth but the refusal to believe in gravity! All alarmists are making that error, and many sceptics do as well.

• ### Matt Holl and Toto's fan

|

Hi John Salamito,

Thank you for your dignified and dignifying, informative comments.

I notice pumping a tyre creates heat. Is that heat from compression similar to the heat from the compression by gravity?
Also, with air movement, is any heat generated by friction from the movement of air, the movement being “work done”?
Thank you again.
Matt

• ### John Salamito

|

Hi Matt
Work done by a pump will create heat in a constrained volume and is captured in the ideal gas law which is PV=nRT. You can apply that formula to a planetary atmosphere as well and it works perfectly – this for example explains the temperature on Venus or Titus whereas ‘climate energy budget’ can’t (because it doesn’t give due reference to the effect of pressure created by work which is created by gravity). Movement of air does absorb energy but the biggest factor – which I did not mention above – is the effect of the water cycle. If you bear with me…in a dry atmosphere the impact of gravity creates a temperature gradient equal to the gravitational constant of 9.8. That is, for every km of depth the temperature changes by 9.8 degrees. But this is for dry air. For moist air, like our real atmosphere, the temperature gradient reduces to 6.5 degrees. This is because of latent energy absorption – it takes a lot of energy to change the state of H2O between gas to liquid to ice. So the counter intuitive truth is that the greenhouse gas H2O is an enormous coolant. If we had no H2O then the atmosphere under gravity would generate about 11 x 9.8 = 107 degrees. In reality because there is H2O it only generates 11x 6.5 = 72 degrees. So the greenhouse gas H2O reduces our temperature by 35 degrees. Now, if we take this one step further…using the 342.4W that Roy Spencer uses above as the average radiation of the Sun, and allow for 30% albido (reflection back into space that doesn’t get absorbed by earth biosphere) there is 240W absorbed and therefore radiated away at the top of the troposphere – being just like in the diagram half up and half down, ie 120W in all directions. A theoretical blackbody emitting 120W according to the Stefan Boltzmann formula will be 215K. This is pretty much exactly what the temperature is 11km above earth at the point where the troposphere begins. So theory = reality which is a good check! Now add in 72 degrees due to gravity on a most atmosphere and we get 287K for surface temperature. This is close enough to the accepted value of 288K given the back of envelope effort here. So…it is all about radiative energy from the Sun (=240W on average) plus gravity energy (induces 107 degrees) minus energy lost in the H2O cycle (subtracts 35 degrees). And guess what? I didn’t mention CO2 once…!

John

• ### Matt

|

Hi John.
I will continue to ask “dumb questions” because if the simple man on the street (non scientists) can have these relationships and interactions of entities explained in comprehensible English then the ability to tweak the helm of the ship, Climate Consensus, becomes a little more available and the ship can begin to alter course.
90% of an informed society will make good decisions and of course the current cycle of low sunspot numbers may in fact sink the ship “Climate Consensus” and send many a scientist back to their drawing board with the reminder of the old saying, “stick to your knitting”.
Kind Regards
Matt

• ### Gerhard Kramm

|

You stated:

“The problem with astrophysicists generally is they obsess about radiation (as is sensible in studying stars) and downplay the boring fact that the reality on low temperature planet earth is that convection and gravity dominate. And I do mean dominate – a CO2 molecule will pass on its energy by colliding with another molecule one billion times as often as it will do so by emitting a photon in radiation.”

This is incorrect. There are not only collisions of second kind (super-elastic collisions) between molecules and atoms, ions, or electrons, but also collisions of first kind (inelastic collisions). In case of local thermodynamic equilibrium, the number collisions of first kind and those of second kind are balancing each other in a statistical sense. I suggest to read Milne (1928), “The effect of collisions on monochromatic radiative equilibrium”.

• ### William Walter Kay

|

Solar irradiance per area (“solar constant”) is given at 1.36 kilowatts per square meter. This would be the full complement of solar light/heat output striking a square meter kite, sailing atop Earth’s atmosphere and directly facing the Sun. If, over the course of a day, that kite rotated along with the Earth then the sunlight striking it would become more diffuse until the kite was on the dark side of the Earth receiving no solar irradiance at all. Its solar irradiance exposure averaged over a 24-hour period would 1.36 divided by four or 0.34 kilowatts per square metre.

Likewise the calculation for the gross solar irradiance striking all of the Earth’s atmosphere begins with a circular cross-section of the Earth (area = 127 million square kilometres) receiving 1.36 kilowatts per square metre; AND THEN factoring in Earth’s spherical, rotating nature (area = 510 million square kilometres) resulting in a division by 4; again yielding 0.34 kilowatts per meter squared.

Documents using 0.34 kilowatt per meter squared are clearly contemplating a spherical Earth. Documents using 1.36 kw/m2 might be erroneous, or they may be referring to a particular spot in the atmosphere during an instant in time.

Postma seems to be basing his “flat-earth” accusations on a few over-simplified college text sketches. If Postma has examples of current climate computer models predicated on flat-earth formularies then the onus is on Postma to: a) explicitly name which computer models he is referring to; and b) explain how he knows they are relying on flat-earth physics.

• ### olav ankjær

|

Hi William
Think most understand the math by dividing by four. But many do not agree that this type of mathematics is valid for a rotating globe.
Question and Claim:
Will this kind of mathematics not lead to this conclusion:
A non-rotating globe with the influence of 0.340 k-watt radiation all over (or rotating – not required) will reach the same temperature as a rotating (completely required) globe that receives 4 * 0.340 k-watt = 1360 from a distant point.

Outgoing infrared radiation is also not equal over 24 hours. Where is the mathematics of this variation?

• ### Gerhard Kramm

|

This claim is incorrect. It is also valid for obliquely rotating globe.

• ### olav ankjær

|

Hi again William
I forgot:
Back radiation may well not be equal for 24 hours.

• ### William Walter Kay

|

Olav – Let’s not lose focus.

This particular debate is about whether or not contemporary, mainstream Climatology relies on flat-earth models. The general literature on the amount of solar energy reaching Earth seems well-informed that Earth is a sphere. Postma disputes this but the only evidence he produces are two super-simplified first university textbook sketches wherein Earth’s surface is a straight line.

If a text discussing rainfall uses a diagram wherein land is depicted as a straight line this cannot be taken to mean the entire science of Hydrology is based on flat-earth models. This is Postma’s logic.

The debate here is not about back-radiation or the Medieval Warm Period etc. This specific debate is about Postma’s lack of evidence for his accusation that mainstream computer climate simulations are predicated on flat-earth models. He has been banging on about this for years without evidence.

Focus, Olav focus!

• ### jerry krause

|

Hi William,

You just wrote: “This particular debate is about whether or not contemporary, mainstream Climatology relies on flat-earth models.”

I consider the words “flat-earth models” do not refer to models which actually assume the earth’s surface is literary flat. Instead I consider the words refer to a previous idea that did literary assume that the earth’s surface was flat and therefore if one sailed or walked to far one was going to fall off the edge of this flat surface. Obviously this previous idea about the earth’s surface has been observed to be false by multiple literal observations. A model (idea) which divides the incident solar radiation upon the earth’s by 4 is similarly observed by actual observations to be false. So, why do Ray and Harvard scientists and Penn State scientists continue to use an observed false idea (which has nothing to due with an assumption that the earth’s surface is literally flat)?

Have a good day, Jerry

• ### William Walter Kay

|

The issue here is not how Jerry Krause interprets “flat earth.” The issue here is what Postma has repeatedly, explicitly stated i.e. that contemporary climate science is based on flat earth physics.

Postma claims current climate models do not involve sunlight hitting a rotating sphere. He is claiming all these models presume a force equal to one forth the maximum solar irradiance is simultaneously striking all parts of the globe.

Upon what does Postma base this extraordinary accusation? Upon two super-simplified, un-legended sketch diagrams from college textbooks. Spencer is correct when he states: “Just because someone draws a diagram using a flat surface representation of the Earth doesn’t mean the calculation is for a flat earth.”

If someone drew an aeronautics diagram depicting aircraft landings using a straight line indicating Earth’s surface, that would not mean they thought Earth was flat. The 340 W/M2 figure is OBVIOUSLY an average of energy input over a period of time exceeding 24 hours.

Where is Postma’s evidence that current climate simulation models presume a flat Earth? Where, Jerry?

• ### Herb Rose

|

Hi William,
If you go out in the sun in the morning or evening the energy striking you is not uncomfortable. If you go out at noon the energy can be oppressive. This is not a result of a change in the output of energy from the sun but from the curvature of the Earth. In the morning the energy is being spread over a larger area and because of the angle of incidence the amount being absorbed by the surface and the amount being reflected changes. The flat Earth models show a uniform amount of energy striking the Earth over the entire surface which cannot happen on a sphere where the surface is always curved and never flat. By applying the average energy to the entire surface of the Earth you are creating a flat Earth model. A correct diagram would show less energy striking the Earth as you moved away from the center compensating for the larger area receiving the light and the reduction in the amount being absorbed.
Herb

• ### Zoe Phin

|

This what I wrote at Dr Spencer’s blog:

Dr Spencer,

You claim it is legitimate to divide solar INPUT by 4, i.e. spread it over the whole earth. But the sun shines on 1/2 the Earth, while the OUTPUT is over the whole Earth. The output is 2x the input.

We can test out your theory by putting a 1 m^2 ice cube onto a 1 m^2 hibachi grill set to 300F. According to your “science”, the ice cube never melts. Why? 300F -> 1800 W/m^2, Divided by 6 sides -> 300 W/m^2 = <0C.

This is exactly what you’re claiming, though you will deny it.

Peace. -Zoe

• ### Squidly

|

Fascinating. That’s about all I can contribute. Just fascinating.

I have now spent several hours reading all of the posts over at Spencer’s website. Fascinating! I am amazed at how difficult it is for some people to envision the problem at hand. In my view, Joseph Postma nails this problem squarely on the head, presents the issue in an extremely simplified and understandable way, one that a 3rd grader ought to fully understand. However, I am witnessing dozens of seemingly “intelligent” people, rip themselves apart in a ballet of mental gymnastics to refute Joseph’s simple demonstration.

Absolutely fascinating. I can see why the whole AGW meme can be so successful in some arenas. Once someone grabs hold of some of these things, they can put up one heck of a fight to defend their positions, no matter how absurd they may be. Reminds me of Spencer’s whole “Yes Virginia …” nonsense, or Eschenbach’s “magical spheres” nonsense.

Fascinating…

• ### Squidly

|

Spent some more time reading comments at Spencer’s blog. OMG! .. some seriously stupid people over there. wow!

• ### jerry krause

|

Hi Roy and PSI readers,

I have just submitted this comment on your website, relative your article there and here. Which there has now generated 418, almost ten times the number here. But because John O’Sullivan posts so many of my essays, for which I am thankful, I concluded that the following should also be posted here.

In the 16th Century there was a Swiss naturalist who saw evidence that glass windows allowed (caused) the temperature of whatever interior space to warm above the temperature (ambient temperature) of the exterior environment. So he concluded that glass traps the energy of solar radiation. So based on this idea he began to construct a device to see to what extreme temperature that glass could trap the energy of solar radiation.

He insulated a box, as best as he could, and initially glazed its window with 5 spaced glass panes. After observing the maximum temperature that this box reached shortly after midday when the atmosphere appeared cloudless, he began reducing this glazing one pane of glass and observing what the new maximum temperature might be. It seemed he tested this modification and until the double glazing resulted in maximum temperature less than that he had observed with the previous triple glazing. And the maximum temperature he observed, by pointing this devise toward the sun, was 230F. Which he obviously did not know is the maximum surface temperature that has been observed for the moon which has no atmosphere.

We should not ignore that Horace obviously had reasoned, or observed, what the 5 spaced glass panes would accomplish. I can imagine the Horace, a ‘real’ experimentalist might have started by placing one pane of glass upon another, without spacing, using the logic that if one pane glass traps the solar radiation, 2 panes might trap it better. And, if he did, we cannot know what he might have observed. For, unless we actually do this; we cannot know what the result might have been. Regardless, of the preliminary constructions of his ‘hot box’, Horace reported what design produced the maximum temperature and what this maximum temperature was.

Did his observation prove that glass traps the energy of solar radiation?

I ask: When do you imagine that Horace stopped monitoring the temperature of his ‘hot box’? My answer: When he observed that the temperature was decrease beyond any ‘shadow of doubt’. Pun intended. Because I have observed, because I finally constructed a ‘hot box’ triply glazed with 3 panes of glass, what happens when a cloud casts its shadow on the hot box. The temperature being observed begins to decrease. And because better insulating matter, and experimentation which caused me to modify the dimensions of my hot box, which I prefer to call a very simple radiometer, my radiometer achieved a temperature of 230F, without pointing it at the sun, as the Styrofoam insulation began to melt.

So, to use my radiometer to measure the solar radiation during a variety of atmospheric conditions, I began to cover the glass with a sheet of Mylar when the temperature increase to 212F, and observed that the temperature decreased from 212F to about 140F in 10min. From which I conclude that glass does not trap the energy of solar radiation, it only slows the rate of the longwave IR radiations transmission through the glass. And for comparison purposes, I have constructed another radiometer with the same dimensions which is glazed with three films of polyethylene (food wrap). It requires a significantly greater time to acquire a temperature of 212F, because the polyethylene, which does not strongly absorb longwave IR radiation, does hindered this radiation’s transmission (loss) through the window. But when the temperature does reach 212F and the polyethylene film is cover with a sheet of Mylar, it cools at the same rate as the radiometer with a glass window. Because I have a little trouble ‘explaining’ this observed fact, I have repeated this cooling experiment several time and it is reproducible. So whether I can explain it or not, is not important. What is important in science is that which is observed.

Have a good day, Jerry

• ### Herb Rose

|

Hi Jerry,
Are you sure your plastic wrap is polyethylene? Polyethylene has no cross bonding and is very slippery. It allows for the passage of air which is not good for wrapping food or keeping food fresh.
I would expect from your results that the mylar has greater insulating properties than either the glass or the food wrap and it is those insulating properties that are determining the rate of heat loss in both boxes
Have a good day,
Herb

• ### Geraint Hughes

|

Food wraps are thin, they have a lower thermal resistivity than glass and so will conduct heat across them quicker. Food wraps are also supposed to be IR transparent (as are black bin bags.) You are most likely witnessing the effects of restricted convective cooling, which is exactly how greenhouses work. This can be tested by simply removing all the air using a vacuum pump from a glass box. The plate on the bottom of the box will reach its maximum temperature quickly. Adding the air, will cool it slightly, extending the height of the greenhouse, you will then witness more and more cooling as it gets taller and taller as convective cooling effects increase. This sounds so interesting I might add this to my build list. 😀

• ### T L Winslow

|

So, you can cook a turkey at 350F (450K) for 4 hours, or -258F (112K) for 16 hours? 🙂 Just kidding, they’re talking about power not temperature.

Speaking of Buterball turkey, Spencer’s basic mistake is that he forgot about the T to the 4th power law P=T^4. If you quarter the power of the Sun, which is a Planck Blackbody Radiator, its effective temperature T doesn’t quarter with it.

(P2/P1) = 1/4 => (T2/T1)^4 = 1/4 => T2 = T1((1/4)^(1/4)) = T1(the fourth root of 1/4)= T1*0.707. (Actually, T1/sqrt(2)). For comparison, if you halve the power instead (1/2), you get .841.

That flat earth trick turns the Sun into a different Planck radiator with a 30% lower temperature. No wonder it can’t warm the Earth hotter than the Ice Ages 🙂 Not only that, but a lower effective temperature skews the power curve towards longer wavelengths, meaning less visual wavelength energy, red butter on the Butterball. What a blunder all these so-called climate scientists have been making, showing their collective intelligence to not even be equal to one smart person. 🙂 If they even took 2nd year calculus they should know how to integrate instantaneous solar flux over the 3-D surface of the rotating Earth for 24 hours like a turkey on a rotisserie and calculate the total energy deposited on each point of the Earth’s upper atmosphere, then assume no clouds and use the heat capacity of water and rock/soil to find the max surface temperatures reached without any radiation, just for starters before adding conduction, convection and radiation. Since their turkey is flat as a pancake because they’re stuck at 5th grader math, I bet I’ll still be waiting 5 years from now for these PhD’s to finally pass 2nd year calculus 🙂

Not that it matters how much visual wavelength power the Sun deposits on Earth’s surface per se, because it is all taken away by the atmosphere to the infinite heat sink of space and never returns, and only the Sun drives the climate system, not the miniscule fraction of CO2 in the atmosphere, which could double and not affect surface temperatures. The Earth’s climate control knob is the sun, no wonder they try to invent a dragon in the sky by turning its temperature knob down.

CO2 is not capable of heating the Earth’s surface, only cooling it. A balloon filled with CO2 can be heated by an infrared lamp, and all it will do is rise towards space, taking the heat energy with it, i.e., cooling the surface. All the gases in the atmosphere cool as they rise via the lapse rate formula g/h (gravity divided by heat capacity), meaning that it’s brrr cold up in the sky, and if you can show me the patent for your ice cube-powered flamethrower I might listen to your b.s. about the hot hot atmosphere warming the surface. The reason that the surface isn’t as cold as the Moon despite getting the same sunlight is due to the great mass of the atmosphere, which substitutes conduction and convection for radiation, slowing down the cooling process and raising the average temperature, i.e., a capacitor not a battery. For the same reason you can stick an iron poker in a fire and turn the tip red while your handle stays cool, anything with mass takes time to conduct heat. This is the real greenhouse effect.

Of course, the atmosphere is constantly redistributing all that surface heat on its way to space via winds, which with water added makes for unpredictable weather. But CO2 is not the magic climate control knob, sorry. The whole climate science outfit totally fails to understand that the Earth isn’t flat, which in this case means that Earth’s atmosphere isn’t a giant greenhouse it’s a giant chimney, hence the whole field needs revamped from the er, ground up, send me a billion and I’ll set up an academy to produce a brand new course like they did with BSCS biology 🙂

In short, CO2 greenhouse warming theory is b.s., and an entire generation of so-called climate scientists should demand their tuition back. Dopes like Spencer are literally educated beyond their intelligence, look at all them diagrams full of T^4s. Instead, they can learn some real climate science from moi by reading my free online essay and join the winner’s circle that knows that CO2 greenhouse warming theory is a political hoax for the scientifically illiterate to bilk them of huge sums and foist world govt. And I’m being kind to say hoax, because they all just can’t be this dumb.

Here’s my devastating essay that nobody can refute because it doesn’t treat the Earth as flat to push a hoax but tells the truth no matter whose income or ego it hurts.

• ### Herb Rose

|

Hi T L,,
The only problem I have with your comment is your contention that rising hot gases are taking heat from the surface and transferring into space. Temperature is not an accurate indicator of the kinetic energy a gas. 100 C steam has far greater kinetic energy (540 calories/gram) than 100C water. If it were not for the kinetic energy of the gases in the atmosphere they would be a layer of liquid on the surface of the Earth. The greater the kinetic energy of the gas molecules, the greater the volume of the atmosphere (universal gas law). The majority of the energy from the sun is heating the atmosphere not the surface of the Earth. The sun will heat a surface orbiting the Earth to 250 F while the same surface at sea level will be heated to 50 F.
The gases in the atmosphere are transferring heat to the surface of the Earth and radiating heat into space at night. The reason cloudy nights are warmer than clear nights is not because the water droplets in the clouds (at -50C) are reflecting heat back to the surface but because the water droplets are more effective in transferring heat from the hotter gases higher in the atmosphere than just the radiation from those gas molecules.
Herb

• ### T L Winslow

|

The only problem you have it my contention is that rising hot gases are taking heat from the surface and transferring into space? Duh, the entire temperature profile of the atmosphere is based on heat, else it would freeze and fall to the surface. The atmosphere is Earth’s blanket, acting like a capacitor slowing the removal of heat from the surface long enough to keep it livable, but it can never heat it more than the Sun did. Once heat has left the surface, it can’t return because if it did the gas would have to cool down again, but it loses its heat energy automatically as it rises via adiabatic expansion (trading heat for work), and doesn’t have any left to send back down. This is known as the lapse rate. Claiming that chilly air up in the sky can “transfer” any kind of useful heat to the surface is like claiming a block of ice can heat your kitchen in the winter.

Temperature is not an accurate indicator of the kinetic energy of a gas? What gas are you talking about? The kinetic energy is always directly proportional to the temperature. You’re right and everybody else’s wrong? Quick, edit the Wiki article and see how long you last: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_theory_of_gases I quote: “The average molecular kinetic energy is proportional to the ideal gas law’s absolute temperature.” Duh, steam has “far greater kinetic energy than water” because it’s HOTTER 🙂 What are you trying to say? Water at the triple point? 🙂

The majority of the energy from the Sun is heating the atmosphere not the Earth?
Sorry, we’re talking about the surface where we live, not the atmosphere where we don’t. The Sun’s visible light makes it through and heats the Earth’s surface, not the gases in the atmosphere, check out what happens in the path of an eclipse. Once the atmosphere removes heat from the surface, the lapse rate ;aw forces the temperature to drop with height, so how is there any heat to “transfer” to the surface?

An object orbiting the Earth where there’s no atmosphere? Zonk, irrelevant.

What do you mean by “transfer”? That’s fifth grader science. Did the heat apply for a transfer at the principal’s office? 🙂 The reason the gases are in the sky in the first place is that they are being kept up there by their heat, which they mostly got from the surface., and they stay up there because they’re not transferring any heat. It’s the great mass of the atmosphere that creates a gravity field that forces heat up toward space in an orderly manner, similarly to the way air bubbles are forced from the bottom of an aquarium to the top. Yes, water vapor might absorb some sunlight directly, but that only makes it rise more. Eventually it gets so cold that it lets go and dumps the water back on the surface, cooling it even more, check back with me when hot rain becomes the norm instead of a pathological condition 🙂

CO2 has no role in any of this, sorry. The hoax is that it’s a special magic dragon in the sky that sends massive quantities of infrared heat down to the surface. Duh, if it did that, it would sink and we’d all choke to death 🙂 Does CO2 absorb infrared and heat up like they say they’ve observed in a laboratory, or reradiate it at jet speed and stay cool and “transfer” heat to blocks of ice outside the jar? It’s so silly to believe you can heat a CO2-filled balloon with infrared energy and not have it start rising to space, taking the heat with it, for a net cooling. Come back here pesky hot air balloon, we need you to transfer your heat back down to melt some Arctic ice so we can keep our hoax going. Speaking of hoax, I just exposed the sham Trenberth diagram for switching the Sun from one Planck radiation curve to another without telling us in order to make it seem like CO2 warming is needed to make up the difference. The real question is why believe in CO2 warming in the first place? It’s a hoax with political motives, and nothing more. I wish it were true and I could use a CO2 fire extinguisher as a blow torch 🙂

I wish you’d take the time to read my essay before commenting on it next time, because I spent a lot of work anticipating all objections and don’t want to repeat myself.

• ### Herb Rose

|

Hi T.L.
“Duh.Steam has “far greater kinetic energy than water” because it is hotter” What you are saying is that steam has more kinetic energy (heat) than water but if both the water and steam have the same temperature (100 C) then they have the same “mean kinetic energy” You can’t have the kinetic energy of things with the same temperature being both equal and different.
According to the universal gas law if you add heat to an unconfined gas its volume will increase. (Pressure referred to in the universal gas law is the pressure that confines the atmosphere (gravity) not atmospheric pressure (weight of molecules in the atmosphere)).The reason hot air rises (whether in a balloon or not, is because it is less dense and is displaced upwards by denser (cooler) air. With increased altitude the gases in the atmosphere become less dense or are hotter. If these molecules are receiving heat from the surface of the Earth how can they gain heat the further they are from that surface?
All the gases in the atmosphere absorb heat (energy). If that were not true you could not heat your home. CO2 also emits energy in the infrared spectrum. The contention that CO2 is a greenhouse gas is utter nonsense. On this we agree. Where we disagree is that you believe that the energy of the sun (limited to the visible spectrum) is passing through the atmosphere without transferring heat to it and heating the surface of the Earth which then heats the atmosphere. I content that the sun’s energy (less the visible spectrum) is heating the atmosphere (equivalent to layer of water 10 meters thick at sea level) and most of the energy is contained in that atmosphere, not striking the surface of the Earth. This kinetic energy in the atmosphere is radiated both into space and transferred (what I mean by transferred is not only radiation of heat but includes convection and conduction) to the cooler surface of the Earth (primarily by water droplets not water vapor).
The contention that the surface of the Earth is hotter than the atmosphere above is wrong. The temperature of the surface may be higher but this is because there are fewer molecules transferring (by collision ) heat to the thermometer in a gas than in a solid or liquid (100 C oven versus 100 C water). The greenhouse gas theory is invalid because it violates the second law of thermodynamics.
Herb

• ### T L Winslow

|

You claim: [[The contention that the surface of the Earth is hotter than the atmosphere above is wrong. The temperature of the surface may be higher]] Zonk! Self-contradictory. “Hotter” means higher temperature. What’s your problem? Are you confusing temperature with heat capacity, the number of joules of energy it takes to raise the temperature by 1K?

Experimental data giving the graph of the lapse rate of the Earth’s atmosphere shows the temperature steadily dropping with height, despite all the pesky CO2. This is because the Sun starts out depositing light energy on the surface, building up its temperature via its heat capacity, after which the heated surface begins radiating via the Planck Law and “transfers” its heat to the air via a combo of conduction, convection, and radiation (and evaporation, but I’m just talking about dry land in the desert for simplicity). Once the air has heated, it begins rising while expanding and trading heat for work, thus cooling as it goes. Why doesn’t it start sinking back? Usually because the air below it is denser and holds it up, indeed, it’s all a gravy train of air that takes the surface heat to space in an inescapable manner as long as the surface keeps feeding it.. CO2 is just part of the train, no special role.

The lapse rate formula is g/h, where g is gravity and h is heat capacity. CO2 may have a slightly different heat capacity than oxygen or nitrogen, but it obeys the same law. Dimensional analysis checks out (using Newton’s formula F = mg):
g/h = (N/kg) / (J/(kg
K)) = (N * kg * K) / (J * kg) = (N * K) / J = (N * K ) / (N * m) = K/m

The Wiki article on lapse rate says:

[[The temperature profile of the atmosphere is a result of an interaction between radiation and convection. Sunlight hits the ground and heats it. The ground then heats the air at the surface. If radiation were the only way to transfer heat from the ground to space, the greenhouse effect of gases in the atmosphere would keep the ground at roughly 333 K (60 °C; 140 °F), and the temperature would decay exponentially with height.]]

[[However, when air is hot, it tends to expand, which lowers its density. Thus, hot air tends to rise and transfer heat upward. This is the process of convection. Convection comes to equilibrium when a parcel of air at a given altitude has the same density as the other air at the same elevation.]]

[[When a parcel of air expands, it pushes on the air around it, doing work (thermodynamics). Since the parcel does work but gains no heat, it loses internal energy so that its temperature decreases. The process of expanding and contracting without exchanging heat is an adiabatic process. The term adiabatic means that no heat transfer occurs into or out of the parcel. Air has low thermal conductivity, and the bodies of air involved are very large, so transfer of heat by conduction is negligibly small.]]

[[The adiabatic process for air has a characteristic temperature-pressure curve, so the process determines the lapse rate. When the air contains little water, this lapse rate is known as the dry adiabatic lapse rate: the rate of temperature decrease is 9.8 °C/km (5.38 °F per 1,000 ft) (3.0 °C/1,000 ft). ]]

So, the Wiki article is saying that the existence of a lapse rate proves that most of the surface heat is removed via convection not radiation. This is just the opposite of the big lie pushed by the CO2 greenhouse warming hoaxers.

Check out this little essay by Gary Novak out that brings out the radiation swindle and adds some interesting points.

It’s tiring to keep beating this dead horse. The challenge is moving the pile of ignoramuses who fall for the line that since we’re emitting billions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere each year, the Earth is going to eventually melt 🙂

• ### Herb Rose

|

Hi T.L.,
“Zonk! Self-contradictory. “Hotter” means higher temperature.” Hotter does not just means greater temperature. I will put my hand in an oven preheated to125 C and you can put your hand into a pot of 100 C water for the same time period. The ovens has a higher temperature (hotter) but my hand will suffer no burns. Yours will be cooked by the cooler water. Temperature and kinetic energy are not the same thing even though temperature is defined as the mean kinetic energy. The molecules in the oven will have greater kinetic energy but since there are fewer of them that energy will be dispersed to a greater number of molecules on my hand. The molecules in the water have lower kinetic energy but every molecule on your hand will receive that energy. Hotter not only means higher kinetic energy (temperature) but also more total energy (heat).
In a gas when you add energy the gas expands and fewer (less mass) transfers energy to a thermometer therefore it takes more energy to raise the temperature of a gas 1 K than a solid or a liquid where the number of molecules (mass) transferring kinetic energy to the thermometer is constant. The greater the kinetic energy (t) of a gas molecule the greater the volume (V) and the smaller the mass (nR) transferring energy to the thermometer. In order to get an accurate measurement of the kinetic energy of the molecules in a gas you must use the universal gas law (PV=nRt). If you have a gas in a constant volume you can use the change in pressure to determine the kinetic energy of the gas molecules.
In an unconfined gas, like the atmosphere, (P is the force of gravity on the molecules and is constant) you can determine the kinetic energy of the molecules by using the volume of a constant number of molecules (inverse of density). If you take the temperature of the atmosphere and multiply it by the inverse of the density (divide) at that altitude you will see that the kinetic energy (temperature) of the atmosphere increases with increasing altitude and the ridiculous graph of temperature versus altitude turns into a continually increasing curve. The temperature recorded by a thermometer does not give an accurate indication of the kinetic energy of a gas and object radiate energy not temperature. The sun’s energy (not just visible light) transfers energy to all molecules it encounters whether those molecules are gas molecules in the atmosphere or water molecules in the ocean.
The molecules higher in the atmosphere absorb energy, reducing the energy from the sun as it passes through the atmosphere and striking the surface of the Earth.
Herb

• ### Dimity

|

Hot Oven vs. Boiling Water. Please excuse what I suspect may be silly questions. Because there are fewer conducting molecules touching your hand in the oven, isn’t it just the rate of transfer of the thermal energy that is lower in the oven? If you left your hand in the oven long enough, would it not eventually reach a higher temperature and cook more than Thomas’s hand left in the water? And doesn’t each molecule in the oven have more kinetic energy than those in the water?

• ### T L Winslow

|

[[“Zonk! Self-contradictory. “Hotter” means higher temperature.” Hotter does not just means greater temperature. I will put my hand in an oven preheated to 125 C and you can put your hand into a pot of 100 C water for the same time period. The ovens has a higher temperature (hotter) but my hand will suffer no burns. Yours will be cooked by the cooler water.]]

Sorry, your understanding of basic thermodynamics is cracked and your mind is stuck on stupid. I don’t run a baby physics class, so go take one then check back with me. Start by learning the difference between temperature and thermal conductivity.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_conductivity

• ### Herb Rose

|

Hi Dimity,
Yes. What I have been trying to convey to T.L and others is that temperature is not an accurate measurement of kinetic energy. It can compare the kinetic energy between different gases or liquids but not between liquids, solids, and gases because it doesn’t include the energy of crystallization (80 calories in water) or the heat of evaporation (540n calories in water). Of the 720 calories/gram needed to convert 0 C ice.to 100 C steam there is only 100 calories (14%) registering as temperature change.
T.L response when you say 100 C steam has more kinetic energy than 100 C water is it is because it is hotter. Then he responds that temperature is defined as the mean kinetic energy and hotter means something has a higher temperature. He believes in definitions and doesn’t think. He shouldn’t be teaching babies or anyone else physics.
Herb

• ### T L Winslow

|

[[What I have been trying to convey to T.L and others is that temperature is not an accurate measurement of kinetic energy. It can compare the kinetic energy between different gases or liquids but not between liquids, solids, and gases because it doesn’t include the energy of crystallization (80 calories in water) or the heat of evaporation (540n calories in water).]]

This is such an ignorant statement I’m embarrassed to answer it. To, let’s say, evaporate water that’s at 100C one must input the heat (enthalpy) of evaporation, causing a phase change at constant temperature. Yes, temperature is an accurate measurement of kinetic energy, because you’re confusing kinetic energy and internal energy, which includes chemical bonds, etc. A phase change involves chemical bonds not just kinetic energy of the molecules involved. The thermal energy is based solely on temperature. Phase changes require free energy. Since you can’t even understand the basic concept of thermal conductivity, for instance, why putting your hand in hot water will heat it faster than placing it in hot still air, you’re stuck at the starting blocks and I recommend getting a basic education before exposing yourself publicly like this attempting to pontificate on advanced physics involving climate physics. Learn to walk before trying to run. Sayonara.

• ### Dimity

|

Herb, thank you so much for addressing and answering my questions. Here’s some more.

In my high school “baby” physics classes (I’m not sure if Thomas’s insult was intended for both of us), I was taught that temperature was a measure of kinetic energy, but that a gas, such as steam at 100C, could also contain “latent heat”, better described as “hidden” energy, because it was not actually heat. We learned that this hidden energy was originally converted from heat input and “absorbed” and “stored” as potential energy in molecular bonds. I always simplistically imagined this potential energy as being stored by the bonds in gas molecules being “stretched”, like an elastic band. Anyway, my limited imagination aside, we were taught that temperature didn’t include this potential energy and that it reflected only kinetic energy. So, while temperature may be an accurate measure of the kinetic energy of a gas (vibrations, rotations), but not necessarily a perfect measure (e.g., a fast moving volume of gas would have more KE than a slow moving volume at the same temperature, would it not?), could your dispute with Thomas and others have something to do with talking at cross purposes and perhaps forgetting about the potential of potential energy stored in (stretched?) molecular bonds to be converted into thermal energy and released as heat? In the case of steam at 100C, could it just be that the KE is the same as water at 100C but that the total amount of energy (KE + PE) available for conversion into heat is greater?

P.S. Keep posting. It may rile others but it makes me think, and possibly ask more silly questions.

• ### Herb Rose

|

Hi Dimity,
Potential energy is physic’s bookkeeping factor similar to the value accountants give to “good will”. It is a nebulous thing trying to keep the equations right. The first law of thermodynamics states that energy and matter cannot be created or destroyed. This means they cannot disappear for a period of time and then reappear when needed.but must be accounted for continuously.
In gravitational potential energy the energy is said to be converted into mass by some unknown means as an object ascends in the atmosphere. When an object falls there is another mysterious process that converts the mass back into energy. The problem is that this invention of potential energy does not account for objects that slow as they descend.
The atmosphere is a result of energy converting liquid nitrogen and liquid oxygen into gases. As more energy is added to these gases they gain kinetic energy and the atmosphere expands doing work against the pressure of gravity.. The molecules with the most kinetic energy are highest in the atmosphere (hot air rises and the ideal gas law) and have the greatest potential energy. When these molecules descend in the atmosphere they do not gain kinetic energy but lose kinetic energy, succumbing to the pressure of gravity and cooling become denser, so what happens to the potential energy?
As the Earth and asteroids orbit the sun the potential energy, to account for the kinetic energy produced by a collision between them, continuously changes as the distance and the force of gravity between them change. Since there are other objects (Mars, Venus, the moon) with which the asteroid could collide the potential energy stored in the asteroid must continuously increase and also decrease as its position changes relative to different targets. Potential energy is a bookkeeping item to make results conform to theory.
In the case of water as energy is added to the different states (ice or liquid) the energy breaks hydrogen bonds holding the molecules together. It is obvious that the molecules of a liquid have more movement (kinetic energy) than ice and that the molecules of steam have more movement than the molecules of water even though the temperature doesn’t change. The energy is not hidden it just doesn’t register on a thermometer, due to the fact that the thermometer is designed and calibrated for a liquid where the entire surface of the bulb is having energy transferred to it.. The bonds that hold these molecules together are a result of the structure of the water molecules and the distribution of charges on them not of stored kinetic energy. (If it was stored kinetic energy the breaking of the bonds would release energy making an exothermic reaction instead of an energy absorbing endothermic reaction.)
A covalent chemical bond is a result of the structures of the atoms from which it is made and energy is needed break these bonds. (In the upper atmosphere nitrogen and oxygen exist as atoms not molecules because of greater energy received from the sun.). When enough energy is added to molecules or atoms the vibrational energy of the parts break these bonds and that energy becomes kinetic energy of the parts.
There is no potential energy and the thermometer is not an accurate indicator of kinetic energy.
Herb

• ### Dimity

|

So, is the thermometer’s failure to accurately indicate the KE of atoms or molecules high in the troposphere essentially just a low numbers per unit volume conductivity problem?

• ### jerry krause

|

Hi Dimity,

Keep asking your silly questions. You are doing a very good job.

Have a good day, Jerry

• ### James McGinn

|

Dimity:
I was taught that temperature was a measure of kinetic energy,

JMcG:
Temperature is used as a proxy (approximate representation) of kinetic energy. But, in reality, it does not actually measure kinetic energy, neither directly or even indirectly. What it actually measures is the rate of energy flow from a substance and into another substance (and with a thermometer being the proxy of the “other substance”).

Dimity:
but that a gas, such as steam at 100C, could also contain “latent heat”, better described as “hidden” energy, because it was not actually heat.

JMcG:
The elasticity of H bonds in liquid water do conserve kinetic energy as movement that is captured by the highly elastic hydrogen bonds that exist between water molecules. This phenomenon/mechanism is extremely poorly understood by science. Part of the superstition that has emerged to explain what nobody understands is the concept of “latent heat.”

Meteorology is a paradigm that is desperately ignorant and perpetually confused about water. There is no gaseous H2O in the atmosphere (there is a lot of suspended liquid H2O that appears gaseous because it is just as invisible as gaseous H2O). “Latent heat,” in the atmosphere is the result of LIQUID H2O.

Dimity:
We learned that this hidden energy was originally converted from heat input and “absorbed” and “stored” as potential energy in molecular bonds. I always simplistically imagined this potential energy as being stored by the bonds in gas molecules being “stretched”, like an elastic band.

JMcG:
H bonds in water are the source of all of the thermal elasticity in nature. This fact has been blatantly misrepresented by the current chemistry paradigm. You are trying to understand something that is currently incomprehensible due to the fact that erroneous notions have been incorporated into the standard model and continues to find support from a consensus of stupid, stubborn, and arrogant assholes that populate academia.

Until water is understood there is no chance of getting resolution on any of these issues. And we are a long, long, way from that:
Are You Confused About Hydrogen Bonding In Water?

James McGinn / Self Declared Genius / Solving Tornadoes

• ### Herb Rose

|

Hi Dimity,
Yes the thermometer is inaccurate. In the 100 C oven and the 100C water the thermometers read the same temperature which means both thermometers are receiving the same kinetic energy, KEo = KEw. (The mercury in both thermometers are expanding equally so they receive the same total heat.) Kinetic energy is 1/2 mass of the molecules times the velocity of the molecules squared. The total heat is the result of the number of molecules striking the probe times their kinetic energy,. The number of gas molecules (Ng) times their kinetic energy (.5 time mass of gas (14 for nitrogen) times their velocity squared) is equal to the number of water molecules (Nw) times their kinetic energy (.5 time the mass of water (10) times their velocity squared. A cubic meter of air at sea level weighs about 1 gram while the mass of a cubic meter of water is 1 million grams so the number of molecules striking the thermometer in the oven (Ng) is equal to 1 time 10^-6 striking the thermometer in the water. Since the total energy striking the thermometers are the same the velocity squared of the gas molecules must be 7/5 times 1 million time the velocity of the water molecules. Confusing? Since the number of molecules (total mass) striking the thermometer in the oven is so much less than the number of molecules in the water (total mass) in order for the kinetic energies to be equal the velocity of the gas molecules must be far greater than the velocity of the water molecules.
If you use the search function of PSI to look up my article “THE TEMPERATURE OF THE ATMOSPHERE” it will show that by using the universal gas law to calculate the temperatures in the atmosphere the ridiculous graph the measured temperature turns into a smooth curve showing the sun is the source of heat for the Earth.
Herb

• ### pete melov

|

what holds the atmosphere against a vacuum of space
explain gravity..in your own words so someone else can understand it..who isnt a mathematician..

explain bird flight [south american condor flies at 36, 000 ft]

expalin gliders..
explain how the Sun and the moon can be in the sky at precisely the same time..all day..

explain the formula for curviture..

more to come..alot more..thanks..

explain dew on leaves..

• ### Dr Google

|

Pete, except for explaining gravity, which is what holds the atmosphere to the Earth, I think you’ve come to the wrong place to ask what are relatively simple questions with relatively simple answers. Just ask Google. For example, just type in Bird Flight.

• ### Herb Rose

|

Hi Pete,
Gravity is not a function of mass but of energy. (Search PSI for my article “A NEW THEORY OF GRAVITY”) The energy I am talking about is not the energy that is the property of an object (heat, kinetic, light) but a fundamental building block of objects, along with matter, and decreases with distance from the object. Any object within an energy field of another object will try to reach equilibrium with that field, hence asteroids orbiting other asteroids. (The planets are not being pulled towards the sun but are in equilibrium with the sun’s energy field (Energy of the sun equals the velocity of a planet squared times the distance the planet is from the sun (Kepler’s law)) Energy is attracted to positive matter (protons) and displaces negative matter (electrons). (Search for my article in PSI “HOW IT ALL WORKS”.) There are two forces that make up the universe: a force from matter (electric) and a force from energy (magnetic/gravity) and light is just the transmission of disturbances (change of strength) in the fields of these forces.
Herb

• ### Dimity

|

To James.
Looks like my elastic band analogy is a useful simile for H-bonds, but count me among the nobodies who appear not to understand the concept of latent heat. Doesn’t conserved KE (stretched bonds and higher frequency vibrations due to energy input) have the potential to heat, to release thermal energy (e.g., when the bonds shrink or vibrate less after condensation)? I can understand that it’s not stored as heat per se and that the term latent heat is a bit of a misnomer, but is it this conserved KE that the thermometer is allegedly missing?
Surely nobody thinks or believes that atmospheric water is anything but a liquid or precipitated as lumps of ice (hail)? That’s just plain silly. I was taught not to confuse steam with water vapour. Water vapour is just tiny droplets of water, right? Clouds, fog, mist, humidity, all water droplets. Steam’s a real gas. Simples!

To Herb.
So, am I correct in thinking that, in addition to a gas having stretched atomic or molecular bonds (see my questions to James above), they’re also whizzing around with greater velocity and that the thermometer is missing both these sources of KE?
But no PE of any kind? Hmmm. What about the energy stored in something like fossil fuels? Or nuclear energy? Isn’t fission and fusion the release of stored (“potential”) energy? Doesn’t fusion imply that even mass is just stored “potential” or “latent” energy, just “packaged”, “confined”, “constrained” or “integrated” energy, quantified by the m in E=mc2? As I recently asked after Kay’s Aether article (#comment-23992 – thank you Robert Beatty for your answer), could mass just be an illusion and it’s all just energy?

To Jerry.
Thank you for your encouragement. All I’m seeking is understanding. If my questions are silly, so be it.

• ### Herb Rose

|

Hi Dimity,
I think we have different definitions of terms. Potential energy I consider to be energy with no observable evidence. If you lift an object up in the air there is no change in the object such as KE that is observed. When the object is dropped the KE appears without any observable change in the object. Stored energy, like the in fossil fuels, become evident when there is a change in the object. Carbon and oxygen combine to form a more stable structure releasing energy as an exothermic reaction. Endothermic reactions form stable compounds when energy is added to form a stable compound. TNT is a stable molecule made by adding energy to its ingredients. If excess energy is added the molecule becomes unstable and releases all the stored energy exploding. Is the nucleus of an atom considered stored energy? The repelling forces between protons are bound together as a stable unit preventing the protons and neutrons from being released as an exothermic reaction. The addition or subtraction of neutrons from the nucleus result in it becoming unstable and releasing high energy particles. Where do we draw the line for stored or potential energy? A neutron outside the nucleus of an atom will spontaneously split into an electron and proton releasing energy as a gamma ray. Why does this reaction also occur in the nucleus of some atoms expelling an electron from the nucleus? Wouldn’t you expect the proton to be expelled by the force of the other protons and the electron retained by the attractive force f the protons? If the spontaneous splitting of a neutron is exothermic how can the combining of an electron and a proton also be exothermic wothout violating the first law of thermodynamics? If both fission and fusion produce energy shouldn’t it be possible to split a helium atom into two deuterium atoms producing energy and then combine two deuterium atom into a helium atom to produce more energy?
James can better explain how different hydrogen bonding in water produce different structures. The latent heat of crystaluzation of water means you must add 80 calories/gram to convert ice to water. Is this negative heat? This energy cannot disappear and since there is no change in the H2O molecules (as in a chemical reaction) it is evident as an increase in kinetic energy. (The liquid water has more motion than the ice crystals).It requires 540 calories/gram of added energy to convert water to steam again with no change in the H2O molecules. This energy is also observed as kinetic energy of the water molecules and is the energy utilized by steam engines to do work. In both these instances where energy is added and observed as an increase in kinetic energy there is no change register by the thermometer. I do not know if the reason for this is because when energy is transferred to the thermometer the hydrogen bonds reform causing a shift in the structure retaking the energy or what but I am sure that the thermometer is not giving an accurate picture of the kinetic energy of the molecules and the definition that the temperature is the mean kinetic energy of the molecules is wrong.
E does not equal mc^2. Energy and matter are two distinct components that combine to form objects. Matter gives an object substance while energy gives an object structure. There is very little matter in an atom just as thee is very little matter in our solar system. If you were to shrink the solar system down to the size of the Earth it would weigh less than 200 grams.
Herb

• ### James McGinn

|

To James.
Looks like my elastic band analogy is a useful simile for H-bonds, but count me among the nobodies who appear not to understand the concept of latent heat.

Anybody that claims they do understand “latent heat” is lying. It is a BS notion created to conceal greater confusion.

Doesn’t conserved KE (stretched bonds and higher frequency vibrations due to energy input) have the potential to heat, to release thermal energy (e.g., when the bonds shrink or vibrate less after condensation)?

Well, yes. But there is no phase change involved. Liquid water soaks up kinetic energy and conserves it as movement. This “conservation” is a consequence of the fact that H bonds self neutralize. One way to look at it is that the energy gets trapped as movement between H2O molecules and since H bonds self neutralize the leverage necessary to allow the energy to spread disappears.

I can understand that it’s not stored as heat per se

It is stored as movement. Water molecules in liquid water are all moving very rapidly to and fro. (This has been observed by Einstein and it has been labeled Brownian motion and mistakenly attributed to all of matter.)

and that the term latent heat is a bit of a misnomer, but is it this conserved KE that the thermometer is allegedly missing?

Yes. Conserved energy can’t be measured.

Surely nobody thinks or believes that atmospheric water is anything but a liquid or precipitated as lumps of ice (hail)?

Unfortunately the world is filled with morons who actually believe that clear, moist air contains gaseous H2O.

That’s just plain silly. I was taught not to confuse steam with water vapour. Water vapour is just tiny droplets of water, right? Clouds, fog, mist, humidity, all water droplets. Steam’s a real gas. Simples!

Right. Most people are too dull witted to have ever noticed that the belief in gaseous H2O blatantly contradicts the H2O phase diagram. Hydrogen bonds self neutralize. (This fact is hidden from science by a conceptual error made by Linus Pauling. See link below.)

To Herb.
So, am I correct in thinking that, in addition to a gas having stretched atomic or molecular bonds (see my questions to James above), they’re also whizzing around with greater velocity and that the thermometer is missing both these sources of KE?
But no PE of any kind?

Yes! You are exactly correct. (And your comprehension in this regard is very rare.) All chemical PE (ie. that associated with breaking/forming of covalent/ionic bonds) is really just conserved KE.

Hmmm. What about the energy stored in something like fossil fuels? Or nuclear energy? Isn’t fission and fusion the release of stored (“potential”) energy? Doesn’t fusion imply that even mass is just stored “potential” or “latent” energy, just “packaged”, “confined”, “constrained” or “integrated” energy,

Yes.

The most maligned subject in all of physics is H2O. Watch this video then read the discussion I had with two chemists:
Are You Confused About Hydrogen Bonding In Water?

James McGinn / Self Declared Genius / Solving Tornadoes

• ### Dimity

|

Thanks Herb & James for addressing my questions.

Herb:Yes, I think that we may well have different definitions of PE. I think I’m using the word “potential” to mean stored or conserved energy, any energy contained or constrained that has the potential to be “released”. Conceptually simpler and easier to understand, at least for me.

I guess we draw the line for stored energy at maximum entropy or when energy reaches infinite “dilution”, when all is still and dark to infinity and beyond.

It doesn’t matter to me if E = mc^2 or not, it’s all relative, ha, ha. I was just trying to suggest and contemplate that mass and energy may be equivalent and perhaps manifestations of the same thing: Mass = Structured Energy. There may be no matter (substance) in an atom or our solar system or the universe, just energy, like electromagnetic radiation or gravity (whence so-called gravitational PE), which in some configurations we perceive or detect as structure, which we call matter. Perhaps all those particle physicists are chasing electromagnetic ghosts.

James. I like your description of water soaking up KE. I will now think of water as a KE sponge. But not convinced that conserved energy, or whatever we choose to call it, can’t be measured. If something exists, surely, in principle, it can be measured, directly or indirectly? For example, Herb’s TNT. I imagine that the conserved energy released must be calculable before detonation and measurable after detonation. Same for all explosions, like a nuclear bomb.

• ### Matt

|

Hi T L Winslow.

I tried to read your devastating essay but Mr Google or who ever told me there was an error with the sight address and I should let you know. I am devastated.

Regards
Matt

|

• ### oldbrew

|

Add ‘l’ to the link i.e. html not htm.

• ### Matt

|

Thank you Oldbrew.

• ### TL Winslow

|

Oops. I meant that If you quarter the power of the Sun, which is a Planck Blackbody Radiator, its effective temperature T doesn’t stay the same 🙂