Postma BAMS Article Submission – Review of the Reviewers

Written by Robert Kernodle

I am aware of the recent (Jan 2020) article, “‘An Alternative Global Mean Energy Budget Model Which is Incompatible with Existing Ones” submitted to BULLETIN OF THE AMERICAN METEOROLOGICAL SOCIETY by Joseph Postma. My understanding is that two reviewers participated in the jury process for possible publication of this article.

Because Reviewer 2 displayed a seemingly genuine interest in giving constructive criticism, I can only offer a positive assessment there. My impression of the editor and my review of Reviewer 1, however, are not so positive.

To present my review, my convention (where needed) is to bold-italicize relevant text in Postma’s submitted article, followed by only-italicized comments from Reviewer 1 associated with the relevant text, followed by my own plain-text comments about Reviewer 1’s comments.

Let’s begin:

POSTMA, L 9 Abstract: A question then arises out of this incompatibility as to whether or not global energy budget models should be consistent with the Laws of Thermodynamics and Physics and empirical reality, or if there is no requirement of such criteria within science in general.

EDITOR: Of course the answer to the posed question is that the energy cycle must be physically consistent and explain observations. The proposed cycle is incomplete and quite wrong in so many ways, see below.

ME: This comment says nothing about the traditional model that Postma challenges, which is even more incomplete and more wrong than the proposed model by him. As can be seen later, the editor appears to closely mirror the judgment of Reviewer 1, as he completely discounts Reviewer 2.

[referring to the 1997 Kiehl & Trenberth energy-budget diagram] REVIEWER 1: L 21. There are updated versions of this.

ME: One of these “updated versions” appears in a 2009 article by the same authors, located here: http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/staff/trenbert/trenberth.papers/TFK_bams09.pdf

Here is the updated diagram: https://www.periodni.com/pictures/earth_global_energy_budget.png

Notice the following:
Absorbed by surface from the sun = 161
Absorbed by surface from back radiation = 333

The “updated” diagram, therefore, re-states and even strengthens what Postma clearly points out, namely that back radiation from Earth’s atmosphere is represented as providing over twice the energy as the sun, which is even more than the 1997 version of the diagram showed. The fact that the updated diagram makes an even stronger case for Postma indicates that Reviewer 1 does not understand what the diagram shows to begin with.

POSTMA, L 32: One main point of consistency between these three figures is that solar power is averaged over the surface of the Earth, …

REVIEWER 1: This is not quite correct. The figure depicts the global and annual average, and as such it fully accounts for all of the geometry and rotation of the planet as well as the seasonal cycle.

ME: The figure most assuredly depicts average annual solar radiation arriving at the top of the Earth’s atmosphere — this point is not in question, in the least. Stating this obvious, accepted point, in no way, “fully accounts for all the geometry and rotations of the planet as well as the seasonal cycle.” Postma uses the term, “solar power”, which is the same thing that Reviewer 1 refers to as “global and annual average”. Solar power IS global and annual average. Merely using different terms for the same thing, then, in no way supports how this figure is presented. This “global and annual average” or “solar power” is, as Postma says, “averaged over the surface of the Earth”. Reviewer 1 seems not to know what solar power means. Reviewer 1 also seems not to understand the point at all about how averaging this quantity over the whole Earth results in a meaningless average.

[referring to Harvard and Penn State traditional, simple models]REVIEWER 1: L 37 and 43. Figs 2 and 3 are redundant with each other and work fine in their limited setting. It is easy to show that without the one-layer atmosphere the surface temperature is a lot colder that with. The greenhouse effect works. A key point is that the sun adds heat and is external to the system.

ME: Figs 2 and 3 are examples, used together to help establish a factual basis for the claim that the models are ubiquitous (in certified, professional, learning institutions, as well as in popular accounts). This is how evidence of multiple appearances is presented — as a listing or partial listing of separate instances. The statement about redundancy, thus, suggests that REVIEWER 1 does not understand the device of listing multiple instances as a standard practice of introducing evidence.

Merely stating that the figures “work fine” is a statement of belief. Merely stating that “it is easy to show” or “the greenhouse effect works” is a statement of belief. Reviewer 1, then, is substituting mere statements of belief for what should more appropriately be facts or references to counter the claims that Postma makes. Reviewer 1 is not offering rational counter arguments. He is offering dogmatic statements of belief.

POSTMA, L 45: … greenhouses actually function by limiting convective cooling.

REVIEWER 1: this is partly true but there is glass which has a full greenhouse effect.

ME: What does Reviewer 1 mean by a “full greenhouse effect”? Reviewer 1 is not clear about the terminology, and so it is not possible to know what such terminology means in relation to what Postma says. The comment, then, should be deemed of no value in determining the acceptability of Postma’s article.

POSTMA, L 60: … Figure 4 which differs in that it does not average sunshine over the whole surface of the Earth as an input.

REVIEWER 1: as such it does not depict a mean state. If it depicts an equilibrium state then the temperature on the night side goes to absolute zero. It is absurd to ignore the connectivity of the atmosphere and also the thermal capacity of the oceans and land.

ME: Figure 4 certainly does not depict a “mean state” for the whole globe based on a hemispheric input. That is the very strength of the figure. That is the precise intent of the figure. What the figure does depict is a “mean state” for the hemisphere — a “mean state” of how energy enters the planet. It does depict an equilibrium state, where equilibrium is established by a hemispheric input of power intensity that transforms, through the many physical Earth processes, to become the output required, over the whole sphere, to establish equilibrium.

There is no indication in the figure whatsoever that “the temperature on the night side goes to absolute zero.” Reviewer 1 clearly does not understand color gradients as graphic representations of a temperature field that varies via latitude and rotational displacement of a globe. If Reviewer 1 did understand such gradients, then the progression of temperatures from pole to equator and from night to day would be recognized in Postma’s Figure 4.

POSTMA, L 72: Certainly the surface of the Earth is rotating…

REVIEWER 1: now has the Earth rotating, but still no atmosphere.

ME: A rotating Earth is an obvious assumption that Postma always depicted. When was Postma’s Earth not rotating? Reviewer 1’s statement here indicates a misunderstanding about this, in the beginning — a misunderstanding that suggests reasoning difficulties on the reviewer’s part. Visual logic, graphic comprehension, a little time spent scrutinizing the figure, and contextual assessment of all statements, at a basic level, are required in order to understand Postma’s presentation. Reviewer 1 seems less than up to this task.

POSTMA, L 78-95: In the standard global energy budget, with solar power being diluted over a total surface area it never actually spreads upon (the entire spherical surface at once), solar power is thus reduced to 168 Wm-2 (per Figure 1) which is an equivalent temperature forcing via the Stefan-Boltzmann Law on a blackbody of 233K (-40C, -40F). In other words, whole-surface-averaged solar power is extremely feeble, and we wouldn’t expect a climate let alone possibly even a gaseous atmosphere at such a low heating potential supplied by the Sun. On the other hand, this alternative global energy budget supplies solar power over only a hemisphere which sunlight ever falls upon, giving an average forcing of 480 Wm-2 or temperature forcing of +303K (+30C, 86F), but which maximizes around the zenith at 960 Wm-2 or 360K (87C, 188F). And so, solar power is capable of performing and producing very different physical responses between these two energy budgets, particularly in the examples of, say, being able to melt ice, or the ability to generate cumulonimbus clouds, etc.

REVIEWER 1: This is quite wrong. Where does the author think the energy goes? As depicted in Fig. 1 most goes through to the surface and heats the ground and oceans.

ME: This short, terse statement about a detailed passage seems to indicate that Reviewer 1 failed to understand any of those details, since no references to the various power or temperature figures were even mentioned by this reviewer. Merely stating that something is “quite wrong” indicates little more than the reviewer’s cognitive dissonance, rather than a reasoned consideration of the facts presented.

What does Reviewer 1 mean by, “most [energy] goes through to the surface and heats the ground and oceans”? Does the reviewer mean the energy on the hemisphere goes through the solid Earth to rise into the ground and oceans on the other (dark) side of the Earth sphere? I do not understand the choice of word, “through”. The comment is not clear enough, therefore, to count as valid, constructive criticism. In fact, it raises serious questions about Reviewer 1’s basic understanding.

POSTMA, L 99-110: “If a physical process increases the total entropy of the universe, that process cannot happen in reverse since this would violate the second law of thermodynamics. Processes that create new entropy 101 are therefore said to be irreversible. […]
“Perhaps the most important type of thermodynamic process is the flow of heat from a hot object to a cold one. We saw […] that 104 this process occurs because the total multiplicity of the combined 105 system thereby increases; hence the total entropy increases also, 106 and heat flow is always irreversible. […]
“Most of the process we observe in life involve large entropy increases are therefore highly irreversible: sunlight warming the Earth […].” – Thermal Physics (pg. 82) (Schroeder 2000)

REVIEWER 1: One needs to be very careful about quoting things like this out of context. In particular the Earth is not a closed system. And perhaps another principle that should be stated is that all bodies radiate related to their absolute temperature. Hence even very cold bodies radiate heat energy toward warmer ones. This is different than conduction of heat which is down gradient. The author needs to frame all of this in terms of energy, not heat.

ME: The caution about quoting passages out-of-context is misplaced, because further context is not required to understand the overriding weight of independent facts within these quotes. The stated facts within the quotes apply directly to the current context in which Postma cites the quotes.

Furthermore, a strong argument can be made that Reviewer 1’s assertion about Earth’s not being a closed system is false:

http://tech-know-group.com/essays/Greenhouse_Effect_Sleight_of_Hand.pdf

For the purposes of determining planetary thermodynamic equilibrium, a clearly-defined, Earth/atmosphere system is properly considered a closed system. Second, there are no exceptions to the laws of thermodynamics. Ever. If “heat” is defined as an energy transition (exchange) from hot to cold, and if no such actual energy transition can occur from cold to hot, then no energy exists (from cold and hot) that can be properly called “heat”, since the direction of temperature change from cold to hot prevents any such energy transition. This fact is what Postma’s selection of quotes demonstrate. Reviewer 1, thus demonstrates little grasp of fundamental knowledge necessary to criticize Postma’s paper, and, therefore, should be disqualified.

POSTMA, L 114-130: The point being here that the standard global energy budget model depicts 324 Wm-2 of “Back Radiation” flowing to the Earth surface from the atmosphere, a quantity nearly two-times larger than the solar input of 168 Wm-2. This implies that the atmosphere heats the surface with a far greater power than the Sun does. However, since the origin of energy and specifically heat is the sunlight and its initial absorption into terrestrial matter, then it is implied that energy originally from the Sun has a second and a third go-around at heating the surface. And this multiple go-around process of “Back Radiation” has the peculiarity that it is from the cooler atmosphere acting upon the warmer surface, given that general relationship. On the other hand, the alternative global energy budget in this paper would require only a unidirectional flow of heat down the temperature gradient, which seems more consistent with physics. That is, incoming sunshine of high intensity flux is capable of directly producing climatological effects as a response to heat flow from the Sun, and this flow should step down in intensity as heat flows down temperature gradients through the system as manifest climate, without requiring reversibility of heat flow.

REVIEWER 1: It is easy to compute the infrared radiation from the surface of the Earth, given its temperature. Indeed that is where the 390 W m-2 comes from. Moreover, the atmosphere is in contact with the surface and has only a slightly lower temperature in the lowest layers where most of the back radiation comes from.

ME: Postma’s focus here is not on 390 W/m^2 going out from the Earth. Rather, his focus is on 324 W/m^2 of back radiation coming towards the Earth. In other words, Reviewer 1 is focused on output, while Postma is focused on input. Output over the whole sphere is not input over the half sphere, and Reviewer 1 seems to fail at making this distinction. The reviewer’s comment, therefore, has no bearing on Postma’s focus — it does not even address Postma’s focus.

POSTMA, L 117: This implies that the atmosphere heats the surface with a far greater power than the Sun does.

REVIEWER 1: This is wrong: it uses only one piece of the flow of energy. The back radiation is less.

ME: Clearly, without question, the diagram shows 169 from the sun is absorbed by the surface, while 324 from the atmosphere is absorbed by the surface. Reviewer 1, then, is in error — the figures are right there on the diagram to prove this, which raises the question, “Does Reviewer 1 understand how to read the diagram?”

POSTMA, around L 121: And this multiple go-around process of “Back Radiation” has the peculiarity that it is from the cooler atmosphere acting upon the warmer surface, given that general relationship.

REVIEWER 1: How does the author think the atmosphere gets heated? For the most part it is transparent to incoming radiation and most heat is from latent heating (condensation of water) plus sensible heat from eddies. Almost none from conduction.

ME: To establish how the atmosphere gets heated, it is necessary to resolve how the atmosphere does not get heated, which is what Postma’s article addresses. He makes clear that a “greenhouse effect”, as presented in traditional diagrams, is a highly questionable model to describe such a heating process. Reviewer 1 here is not addressing this line of discussion, but rather diverting attention to details of a separate, although certainly related line of discussion, the minutia of which, as Postma states, is not the main focus of his paper.

POSTMA, L 126: … the alternative global energy budget in this paper would require only a unidirectional flow of heat down the temperature gradient, which seems more consistent with physics.

REVIEWER 1: the atmosphere is compressible, not a solid. Temperature depends upon pressure. So there can be a huge difference between the energy vs heat. Relatively cool temperatures at low pressure may contain more energy than higher temperatures at high pressure. It is not correct to assume flows of energy based upon temperature alone!

ME: Postma clearly understands the compressible, gaseous nature of Earth’s atmosphere. He also understands the relationship between temperature and pressure in gases — in fact, this very relationship goes a long way in explaining Earth’s temperature, while discrediting the idea of a “greenhouse effect”.

Postma also understands the difference between energy, heat, and temperature. The reviewer’s broad statement about more energy in cool temperatures than in high temperatures is just that, a general statement with no qualifying boundaries relating it to Earth’s atmosphere.

This knowledge leads anyone to realize, for example, that while the Artctic ocean certainly has more total energy than a glowing ember of coal, the Arctic ocean certainly cannot make the ember hotter. It is unclear, then, what the reviewer is trying to say here. Is the claim that Earth’s upper atmosphere has more molar mass than Earth’s lower atmosphere, and this somehow would cause the cooler temperature with greater total energy to make warmer an already warmer lower atmosphere with a higher temperature? Does Reviewer 1 believe that the Arctic ocean could make a glowing ember of coal warmer still?

Consequently, it is equally not correct to assume exchanges of energy from cooler temperatures to warmer temperatures that cause warmer temperatures to be even warmer!

POSTMA, L 129: That is, incoming sunshine of high intensity flux is capable of directly producing climatological effects as a response to heat flow from the Sun, …

REVIEWER 1: But it can’t actually, as described above.

ME: Remarkably, Reviewer 1 here categorically denies that high intensity flux from Earth’s sun directly produces Earth’s climate.

POSTMA, L 132: … and this flow should step down in intensity as heat flows down temperature gradients through the system as manifest climate, without requiring reversibility of heat flow.

REVIEWER 1: You confuse heat flow with energy flow.

ME: Higher-energy intensity transferred to a lower-energy-intensity arrangement is heat, by definition. Lower-energy intensity transferred to a higher-energy-intensity arrangement is simply unreal, non-existent, and absent from any correct understanding of thermodynamics. There is no confusion, therefore, but proper understanding of when to use the terms correctly.

POSTMA, L 149 on (to the end of the article): In the alternative model presented in Figure 4 with sunlight falling upon the Earth in a realistic fashion, one would immediately identify that the climate is the result of solar heat flow through the atmosphere. …

REVIEWER 1: This is all nonsense. None of it has been demonstrated and the principles upon which it is based are wrong. For instance, what about the hemisphere in the dark?

For a more complete view of the Earth system flows of energy I suggest you look at
Trenberth, K. E., and D. P. Stepaniak, 2004: The flow of energy through the Earth’s climate system. Symons Lecture 2004. Quart. J. Roy. Meteor. Soc., 130, 2677-2701
Available from Trenberth’s web site:
http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/staff/trenbert/trenberth.papers/QJRMSenergyflow04.pdf

ME: This is Reviewer 1’s comment on the entire remaining portion of Postma’s article, from L 149 to the end, reducing it to one word, “nonsense”, not even trying to comprehend the summation and recollection of the facts presented, merely protesting that nothing has been demonstrated and that Postma’s principles are “wrong”.

Amazingly, Reviewer 1 then directs Postma to study the very material, whose shortcomings his whole article focused on, indicating that Reviewer 1 is oblivious to the fact that Postma has already addressed this exact material, and harbors extreme bias that prevents coherent, rational assessment of any questioning of this material.

Any questions for Joe Postma should be directed to him at his blog at climateofsophistry.com


PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX. 

Please DONATE TODAY To Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method.

Comments (70)

  • Avatar

    Andy Rowlands

    |

    Excellent analysis of Joe’s paper and the responses. Reviewer 1 seems to have no idea what he’s talking about. Claiming the Sun has no influence whatsoever on our climate, and 100% of our climate is produced by the so-called ‘greenhouse gases’ is both ludicrous in the extreme, and as Joe has pointed out, violates the laws of thermodynamics.

    • Avatar

      Matt

      |

      Hi Andy

      Alternative is witness 1 is being deliberately vexatious and as such is a “hostile witness”.

  • Avatar

    Zoe Phin

    |

    Not a fan of Reviewer 1, but he did get one thing definitely right:

    “If it depicts an equilibrium state then the temperature on the night side goes to absolute zero.”

    Exactly right.

    Postma’s responses:

    “What the figure does depict is a “mean state” for the hemisphere — a “mean state” of how energy enters the planet. It does depict an equilibrium state”

    Yes, Postma, you are depicting the dayside hemisphere at 30C, and claiming there’s an equilibrium. 480 W/m^2 over 12 hours IN and 480 W/m^2 over same 12 hours OUT. You have no energy left over for the night. None.

    “There is no indication in the figure whatsoever that “the temperature on the night side goes to absolute zero.” ”

    Indeed! You don’t indicate it, but that’s what your model results in.

    “Reviewer 1 clearly does not understand color gradients as graphic representations of a temperature field that varies via latitude and rotational displacement of a globe.”

    I’m sure he understands that, but you don’t get a cooling gradient from 30C to -18C. You have 0 W/m^2 left over for the 12 hours of night – if you want your daytime 30C. If you settled for -18C at daytime, then you could have your -18C at night as well. You emitted all the incoming hemispheric radiation to get your 30C, and now you have nothing left.

    There is no color gradient. Your math doesn’t allow it. The fact that you show it doesn’t mean it can exist.

    -Zoe

  • Avatar

    geran

    |

    Zoe, you still don’t get it.

    The “cold sun” model, from Institutionalized Pseudoscience, uses 960/4 = 240, for the entire energy from the sun. That produces the bogus 255 K! Using their own pseudoscience, Postma shows the more realistic figure is 960/2 = 480.

    Joseph’s model is much more realistic than the one from IP. So, you choose to attack the one closer to reality.

    • Avatar

      Zoe Phin

      |

      Geran,
      Postma’s hemisphere gets between 0 and 960, with 480 being the average. He then emits all 480 during 12 hours to get his 30C. If he stored 240 for 12 hrs of night, and emitted 240 during 12 hrs of days, he would get -18C during the day and -18C during the night. He wants his 30C in the day, and so he has 0K left for the night.

      He thinks he’s debunking flat earth physics, but he’s really mocking 2-hemisphere-12/24-hour physics.

      • Avatar

        geran

        |

        Wrong Zoe. The 960 is the constant flux to the disk. That flux, averaged over a hemisphere is 480, since the area of the hemisphere is twice the area of the disk.

        You really need to put in the effort to study the issues. You just want to comment without having a clue about the relevant physics. There’s no need for you to continue to demonstrate your incompetence. We’re already convinced….

        • Avatar

          Zoe Phin

          |

          Geran,
          “The 960 is the constant flux to the disk.”
          Great, but irrelevant.

          “That flux, averaged over a hemisphere is 480.”

          Exactly. Then Postma emits 480 in the same 12 hours – thereby having 0 left for 12 hours of night.

          • Avatar

            geran

            |

            Wrong Zoe, it’s NOT irrelevant. It’s reality.

            That’s why you want to ignore it.

          • Avatar

            Zoe Phin

            |

            The disk is not the surface.

            You need to explain why it’s 15C on average at the surface on both hemispheres.

            Quit fronting.

          • Avatar

            geran

            |

            Now THAT is irrelevant!

            Which means you are down to the bottom of the barrel, again.

          • Avatar

            Zoe Phin

            |

            The disk is half the area of the hemisphere.

            The disk can give 960 W/m^2 to HALF the hemisphere, or 480 W/m^2 to the full hemisphere.

          • Avatar

            geran

            |

            As indicated by Postma’s model, which you are unable to understand.

    • Avatar

      Zoe Phin

      |

      GHG, N&Z, and Postma theory fails to account for Venus. Only my theory explains Venus, and by common sense, Earth too.

      Get on the Zoe train. Become the Zoe train because she doesn’t want to lead.

      • Avatar

        geran

        |

        Sorry Zoe, I usually try to avoid train wrecks.

        • Avatar

          Zoe Phin

          |

          Then why are you on the Postma train?

          • Avatar

            geran

            |

            I’m on the “Reality” train.

            You missed it, a long time ago.

          • Avatar

            Zoe Phin

            |

            If it’s possible to miss the “reality” train, it wasn’t the reality train.

          • Avatar

            geran

            |

            Wrong again, Zoe. You missed the “Reality” train a long time ago.

            That doesn’t mean it will run you over at some point. You can only run from reality for a short time. It will always catch up to you.

  • Avatar

    CD Marshall

    |

    My basement is cold even in Summer. I’ve explored dozens of caves (absolute darkness is no joke) and all near surface caves and even some slightly deeper caves are cold (native Americans used caves for cold storage even in the hottest seasons). I stand out in the Sunlight even on a cool day and I can feel the warmth on my face. Abandoned mines (been in a few) with any water is freezing cold. Caves warm with depth not the other way around unless a deeper source is available, that’s why nearly all spring water is frigid, hot springs being from a deeper source.

    No one is denying some contribution of geothermal and it would vary from location, justifying that for the 15C instead of the lapse rate, pressure, gravity…seems a bit of a stretch even from a former dancer or in my case a martial artist. Not to mention compression of moving air as it descends down a system.

    I would be wary of trains, even when it seems all is perfectly aligned this could happen to your theroy:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UeT0m-hpD_4&feature=emb_logo

    • Avatar

      Zoe Phin

      |

      Solar shortwaves can and do add to Earth longwaves.

      • Avatar

        geran

        |

        Wrong again, Zoe.

        Solar short wavelengths OVERRIDE Earth’s long wavelengths. Different fluxes do not simply add.

        “Simply adding” implies the Communitive Law. That would mean that after the sun warms a spot on the ground, you could warm it more with ice cubes.

        That would be pseudoscience, as in the GHE nonsense.

        • Avatar

          Zoe Phin

          |

          Where’d you get that idea?

          Boltzmann and Planck said different standing waves add up, but according to you, the shortest wavelength overrides them all.

          “Different fluxes do not simply add.”
          Stupid Geran, what do you think the integral in the derivation is for?
          LMAO

          • Avatar

            geran

            |

            Wrong again, Zoe.

            Boltzmann and Planck never said that.

            And the integration results in the adding of energy. Energy can be added, but different fluxes can NOT be simply added.

            You don’t have a clue about the physics, as usual.

          • Avatar

            Zoe Phin

            |

            Yes, B & P said that. Their respectove formulas relies upon it.

            If energy can be added then so can energy per time per surface area.

          • Avatar

            geran

            |

            Wrong again, Zoe.

            That’s YOUR interpretation of what they said. You don’t have the background to correctly interpret.

            And energy and flux are different. Energy is conserved, but flux is not conserved. You don’t have the background to understand the difference.

            But your incompetence is hilarious.

            More please.

          • Avatar

            Zoe Phin

            |

            Conservation is irrelevant. We’re only talking IR emitted at the moment. Standing waves add up.

          • Avatar

            geran

            |

            Wrong again, Zoe.

            See my previous comment.

          • Avatar

            Zoe Phin

            |

            Geran,
            Solar panels lose efficiency the hotter it gets. Why do you think that is. According to your junk ideas it shouldn’t matter.

          • Avatar

            geran

            |

            Wrong again little girl. Solar panels losing efficiency as they get hotter validates established physics.

            If only you were smarter, you could aspire to be a dumb blonde….

          • Avatar

            Zoe Phin

            |

            Geran,
            I got you arguing in the same fashion as climate alarmists.
            Who’s the dummy?

    • Avatar

      Zoe Phin

      |

      Descending air does not warm the surface, they simply become the temperature at the surface. Also, for every descending there must be an ascending. Not net warming of the surface.

      The atmosphere is a heat sink, not a heat source.

  • Avatar

    Jerry Krause

    |

    Hi CD,

    Very simple and common observations. Good job.

    But … There has been Old Faithful at Yellowstone Park well above sea level. There had been and are volcanoes which erupt ‘slowly’ and volcanoes which blow their tops very rapidly.

    Your observation force us to conclude that the earth’s crust is a poor conductor of energy (heat). It forces us to admit that a somewhat thick ‘surface’ layer has been and is being cooled by radiating energy toward space as a very shallow surface layer is being variably heated by the sun during a day and during the days of a season.

    Your observations and these cannot be questioned.

    Have a good day, Jerry

    • Avatar

      Zoe Phin

      |

      I only claim “radiative” geothermal so that I can match the official energy budget which shows Earth emitting 398 W/m^2, while receiving 163 W/m^2 from the sun. In this case, geothermal is EQUIVALENT to 235 W/m^2, not including evaporation and official conduction/convectiob. Frankly I do think conduction plays the key role, but I’m forced to use radiation equivalents, so that some sense can be made.

      • Avatar

        geran

        |

        Zoe, two “wrongs” don’t make a “right”.

  • Avatar

    CD Marshall

    |

    Thanks Jerry,

    I did say, “unless a deeper source is available,” meaning deeper source moving to the surface, naturally.

    No dispute geothermal plays some part, but in Yellowstone we are referring to a deeper fixed hot spot in the mantle , the lithosperic plate moves over it (I believe that hot spot originated in the Pacific as far as the upper crust is concerned). I’m sure a geologist could explain that in greater depth. Some places where the outer crust is thinner, geothermal would play a greater part in near surface temperature. According to some researcher (claims) the surface would be around 200 degrees Celsius if it were not for the outer installation preventing it.

    • Avatar

      Zoe Phin

      |

      Chris, my argument is that geothermal on average delivers a dull ~230 W/m^2.

      Why must people bring up exotic things like volcanos, hotsprings, geysers, hydrothermic cents, seismicity, etc. ?

      DULL ~230 W/m^2

      • Avatar

        CD Marshall

        |

        Zoe I was replying to Jerry.

        So you however, believe in geothermal heat creep? That’s fine but you still need an exhaust and the average insulation of the outer crust isn’t supplying you one.

        If you want to do a “reverse heat flux” as it were from the crust to the surface where the outer crust is the “atmosphere” and the insulation clouds, show me where this heat is breaking through other than key hotpots and geothermal activity such as hot springs, lava flow and volcanoes.

        My basement is still cold.

        Look at satellite measurements from 5cm above ground
        https://www.ventusky.com/?p=5;-30;2&l=temperature-5cm&w=off

        Just the equator area is hot, the main pipeline for direct solar irradiance.

        So are you saying 240 W/m^2 for the entire planet in 24hrs? Including on top of the 910-980 W/m^2 provided by the Sun? Are you saying that without the Sun you believe the Earth would still emit 240 W/m^2 to space? The effective blackbody of the Earth without the Sun?

        I’m just asking the questions anyone else would be asking. I’m just curious on where you are going with this and where you are willing to reaccess if need be.

  • Avatar

    Jerry Krause

    |

    Hi CD,

    Have no idea where you live and what you have read. I recently got a book titled North Dakota’s Geologic Legacy with the subtitle Our Land and How It Was Formed by John B. Bluemle, who studied North Dakota’s geology in the field during summers for his entire career (more than 40 years). But also clear from the book is that he also read a lot about the geology and weather of the region. And he reviewed how the Missouri River abruptly divides the Dakotas into very different east-west geological land forms.

    What he did not directly write is something I have long pondered. Western North Dakota has large deposits of fossil fuels beneath its surface and not far to the south in South Dakota none have been yet discovered. But in South Dakota and a little west of ND many dinosaur bones have found on the surface and only a few feet below the surface. Not sure if these bones have been found directly above the fossil fuel deposits. But clearly these bones are absolute evidence that the surface has not been greatly disturbed since the time of the dinosaurs.

    And the Missouri River’s gradient is very slight as see by the great lengths of its now reservoirs from eastern Montana down to nearly Sioux City, Iowa. So the western ‘edge’ of the Midwest gradually slopes upward to the ‘foothill’ of the Rocky Mountains over a significant distance. So I consider this gradual slope might be a factor in this regions weather and climate.

    And a fact is that Bluemle, the field geologist, explains the cause of ‘terrible’ winter blizzards of the Dakotas and western Minnesota by a mechanism of the jet stream which I have yet to read about in any meteorology or climatology textbooks. And I checked out what he wrote, which I did not believe, by looking at the atmospheric sounding data, only begun after WWII, and found what he wrote was fully supported by the sounding data.

    I share this information to possibly make you and other readers curious.

    Have a good day, Jerry

  • Avatar

    CD Marshall

    |

    Hi Jerry,

    Interesting concept I do know how the plates are moving in the West is creating weird changes over millions of years, such as part of the plate moving over the hot spot from the south west and along a nw line (millions of years) and the other part being folded or moved south. Really weird how the plates interact with the surface, part could be nearly untouched while other parts are folded miles deep.

    Something that was found in Dakota now may have died in Northern Canada a million years ago.

  • Avatar

    CD Marshall

    |

    Sorry I meant the Southern part moving NE and the northern part moving SW makes a little more sense, yes?

  • Avatar

    Jerry Krause

    |

    Hi CD,

    I accept that no one can know what was occurring when God said, “Let there be an expanse between the waters to separate water from water.” So God made the expanse and separated the water under the expanse from the water above it. And I was so. God called the expanse “sky”. And there was evening, and there was morning–the second day.

    “And God said, “Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear.” And it was so. “God called the dry ground “land,” and the gathered waters he called “seas.” And God saw that it was good.” (NIV)

    I stop here even though it seems that God’s activities during the third day have not yet been completed. I stop here because what has been described in the previous paragraph seems very similar to Gondwanaland. About which I read: “Gondwanaland[2] was a supercontinent that existed from the Neoproterozoic (about 550 million years ago) until the Jurassic (about 180 million years ago). was a supercontinent that existed from the Neoproterozoic (about 550 million years ago) until the Jurassic (about 180 million years ago).” (Wikipedia)

    And I have seen evidences how the earth’s surface and crust has been folded and tilted, etc. so we cannot precisely know when and where all of this very violent action began occurring. But there is no question about that which can be seen and we have subscribed what we can see to be the result of continental drift (plate tectonics). Which is still being observed to be occurring today.

    I stop here because I believe have reviewed enough at this time for you to see my clear point and intent, irregardless of whether you agree with it. So I will wait for any comments before comparing further the Biblical account of Creation with the scientific (observed) evidence of creation.

    Have a good day, Jerry

  • Avatar

    CD Marshall

    |

    Jerry as you well know religion is a loaded topic and I try and avoid it in open forums for that reason. Everyone is entitled to their belief and no one is entitled to disparage one’s belief becasue it does not align with their belief. I find that attitude petty and childish, within reason. Naturally if your religion is to murder people then well that draws a line.

    The thing I don’t get however, is the odd belief that the Earth is 7,000 years old? I don’t recall anywhere that is stated in any religion. I think that is created from an assumption that all texts accounts are always linear and often accounts of events are never linear and it would stand to reason that most ancient texts were written in matter of importance often over linear accounts. How often does anyone account events in a linear form and it is a mistake to assume original works were practiced in that fashion. In other words, they would often jump from one period to another, time perhaps not being the essential accounting for events in much older stages of human development as we follow it.

    Even simple terms like a day or a week have been known to represent sets of periodic times not linear, for example a week of years, or a week of a war accounted for notable events not an actual week, we assume we understand ancient languages and interpretations but we might not conceive the intent of the writer and how peoples view the world in those times and events.

    For instance a day could represent a million years in ancient texts, we have no way of knowing. That’s just the philosophical part.

    The science part could be time itself does not exist in the universe as we account time on Earth. That subject is enough to give me a headache.

    • Avatar

      Zoe Phin

      |

      Chris,
      The average distance between galaxies is less than 7,000,000 light years. Big bangers claim the space in the universe expanded 1088 times.

      7,000,000 / 1088 = 6,400 years

      Just one of those annoying facts.

      • Avatar

        CD Marshall

        |

        Another annoying fact is that we cannot prove any galaxy still exists in real time.

        What would de worse? Finding we are the only galaxy left in the universe or that the the amount of newer galaxies has multiplied millions of times and we just haven’t seen the light from them yet?

        Gravity doesn’t necessarily mean the existence of other galaxies it means something is out there: Dark matter (I often think of it as space poop) , black holes, super black holes, maybe even galaxy eater black holes, new galaxies, or gravitational pulls from phenomena we haven’t identified yet.

        We struggle to understand the universe and know next to nothing outside our own solar system.

        • Avatar

          Zoe Phin

          |

          “we cannot prove any galaxy still exists in real time.”

          Only if you buy into Einstein’s speed limit.

          I don’t.

          http://www.alternativephysics.org/book/GravitySpeed.htm

          “This argument was put forward by the late Thomas Van Flandern and can be found here [1]. Based on this he calculated that, in order to explain the Solar System’s stability, gravity must propagate at at least 2×10^10c, i.e. 20 billion times faster than light. And for all we know it may well propagate at infinite speed allowing it to act instantaneously over any distance.”

          • Avatar

            CD Marshall

            |

            That’s the problem how do we know the laws of physics works exactly the same in every part of the Universe? Time, space, distance is all subjective to one perception: Our understanding of reality. We don’t venture far from it becasue it scares the crap out of most people to threaten their perception of reality.

            Time is irrelevant or we wouldn’t be looking at light from billions of years ago. Time is simply our human perception of reality that makes us feel secure.

  • Avatar

    Jerry Krause

    |

    Hi CD,

    You wrote: “The thing I don’t get however, is the odd belief that the Earth is 7,000 years old? I don’t recall anywhere that is stated in any religion.”

    I have written HISTORY is very important. Galileo was a devote Believer of of Creator God of the Old Testament. But he certainly was at ‘odds’ with the head of the ‘Church’ of which he was a member. For the Church had taken this prayer of Joshua “O sun, standstill over Gibeon . O moon, over the Valley of Aijalon.” So the sun stood still, and the moon stopped.” (Joshua 10:12-13 NIV) to support the idea of Aristotle that the Sun, Moon, and Stars all revolved about the Earth which did not move. Which idea the intellectual community had accepted for nearly 2000 years.

    I do not have time this morning to review this very important factual history about the relationship between science and the Jewish and Christian religions. I will continue what I have started tomorrow.

    Have a good day, Jerry

    • Avatar

      CD Marshall

      |

      Jerry,

      Decades ago I seem to recall astronauts doing a calendar track of the Earth and that missing time was accounted for in the Earth’s orbit. Exactly as it was described in the bible a day and an evening I believe it was. We simply don’t have answers to everything. Was it a hoax or was it true? I don’t know either way.

  • Avatar

    Pavel Moore

    |

    I too find it inexplicable that the opening words of Genesis 1[In the beginning God made the heavens and the earth — and the earth was formless] could be construed as being part of the listed days of creation spread over 7000 years; that alone just 7 24 hour days. For a start the 7th day of God’s rest is referred to in Hebrews 4, many thousands of years later, was still continuing. And as for the 24 hours mob, one wonders how they explain away the events recorded for the 3rd day where trees are stated to be started growing and then producing fruit.

    And finally; could we have less juvenile comments, from such as Geran, which, tediously, spoil the otherwise enjoyable ones from erudite members: Please!

    • Avatar

      CD Marshall

      |

      Ah that’s assuming the first verse and the second are in order. That’s my point on linear thinking. It’s been a while since I read the bible but this debate has come up many times and it made me curious.
      So I looked it and v1 and v2 sounds like they could literally be billions of years apart if not more.

      Why? Because from v2 “Earth” already existed and the “creation” that follows seems to be describing the Earth NOT the universe. I think the “7 thousand years” is based on that misconception.

      Just reasoning but if “death” didn’t exist in “Eden” then chronicles of life started afterwards. So “man” in Eden could also signify a very long time.

      We do know the type of human that prevails on Earth now appeared around 7 thousand years ago and that a type of humanoid has existed for millions of years according to present knowledge. Interestingly enough is why some people claim our version of human is not native to this planet, we were dropped off by aliens or something, just interesting theories out there or survived another world?

      The fact they made accurate depictions that could only be seen from space does raise some questions.

      All of this is very interesting to me, no real proof supports anything except that the Earth appears to be billions of years old, could in theory even be older than the Sun and the Moon. How’s that for a brain teaser?

    • Avatar

      Jerry Krause

      |

      Hi Pavel and CD,

      Even though I have directed attention to the first page of Genesis, I do not accept several ideas of what others have common concluded about these verses and other writings found in the book know as The Holy Bible. For it is obvious to me that it is not a religious book but instead it cannot be questioned that it is a history book of certain groups of people of the past.

      And we know that the leaders of a ‘modern church’ at the time of Copernicus and then Galileo had found a couple of verses in Joshua 10 which caused them to establish a church doctrine that the earth stood still just as Aristotle’s intellectual idea, which had been accepted as intellectual fact for nearly 2000, was that the earth stood still.

      There is no doubt that both these church leaders and Aristotle were wrong. And these history facts should make us cautious about what we accept as fact upon the basis of reason. Hence, I believe that only basis of scientific knowledge should be (must be) based upon actual observations (measurements) and not only upon rational reasoning.

      Now I believe we need to recognize the Copernicus and Galileo were ’employees’ of the Catholic Church and devote believers in the Creator God referred to at the beginning of this special history book. And we need to recognize that the Catholic Church officially established educational institutions of learning. A while I do not claim to be a historian, I must comment that I had not read that these Catholic educational institutions were not the first of recorded history.

      PSI was founded by John O’Sullivan and other men because they doubted the accepted idea of the greenhouse effect (GHE) established in an 1896 scientific article by Svante Arrhenius. They founded PSI (about 2013) because established science was censoring the publication of articles which questioned the validity of the GHE. And there were other blog-sites at this time which seem to question the idea of the GHE at the same time these other sites had authorities which would censor the ideas of John and these other men.

      So these men led by John established PSI. And for awhile, because of a lack of personal restraint by some commenters, John did make efforts to censor the comments of these people. But recently John seems to have recognized that no one is qualified to question the ideas of others, as long as the comments are civilly made. The result of this is John has been criticized for publishing articles with ideas that these critics find (judge) not ‘scientific’.

      And some now state they are uncomfortable with what they consider to be religion as they attempt to (???) censor which I write. But then they enter into discussion despite their discomfort. This is very good for we should have freedom to write what we write and a reader can exercise their freedom to not read what we (I) write.

      CD, you just wrote: “We simply don’t have answers to everything.” If you read what Richard Feynman stated in a 1955 public lecture to the National Academy of Sciences titled the Value of Science (“What Do You Care What Other People Think?”) you will find that his theme was that ‘We, as scientists, simply do not have an absolute answer to ANY IDEA, except that it is wrong, if it is wrong.

      Have a good day, Jerry

      • Avatar

        Jerry Krause

        |

        Hi Pavel and CD,

        I finally remembered that the Babylonian and the Egyptain ‘kings’ had educational institutions for some of their talented people (slaves even) well before the Catholic Church. And I could not let this mistake not be corrected.

        Have a good day,
        ,

      • Avatar

        CD Marshall

        |

        Jerry,
        “There is no doubt that both these church leaders and Aristotle were wrong.”
        In your mind, thus contradicting the “we don’t have the answers” reply.

        You allowed personal opinion cloud your judgement, bias and science does not mix but is easy for us all to do. Use “my opinion” or “as far as I can tell” to avoid these in the future, making it clear it is your personal feeling in the matter and not accessing a irrefutable fact. I would appreciate it if you looked out for me as well, we need to be careful in our speech in these times where anything can be taken grossly out of context even if that was not the intention.

        “God does not exist.” Many claim that but have no proof towards or agaisnt that argument.

        I do like discussing history and using the bible in that sense, avoiding the religious entanglements. For example, the idea that the Earth is 7k is a religious idea that has no known base in the Bible history.

        To assume, for whatever reason a planet could not become tidally locked even for a short term, yes it sounds impossible I agree, but not improbable. For example personally I don’t see the core heating the planet up as much as Zoe claims but to discount it entirely would be petty w/o further evidence. I can’t say it’s not true at all, I can say I don’t see it. Is that my limitations or hers? I don’t know.

        Cheers and I apolegise if this seemed confrontational for that was not my intention.

      • Avatar

        Jerry Krause

        |

        Hi CD,

        You began: ““There is no doubt that both these church leaders and Aristotle were wrong.”
        In your mind, thus contradicting the “we don’t have the answers” reply.”

        I must admit I cannot claim to understand these statements. Are you stating that it is my opinion that the church leaders and Aristotle were wrong?

        Until you answer this question, so I do not have to assume what you intended, it does not seem ‘fruitful’ to write more.

        Have a good day, Jerry

        • Avatar

          CD Marshall

          |

          Jerry,

          I think I was pretty clear it is possible however unlikely for an object in space to become tidally locked for a brief time, thus It is not impossible.

    • Avatar

      Zoe Phin

      |

      Pavel and Chris,
      Barry Setterfield has discussed the possibly observed decreasing speed of light. This could explain a young universe.

      https://youtu.be/QdTlOVTDbNU

      • Avatar

        CD Marshall

        |

        Black holes defy the speed of light which suggests any gravitational force strong enough can indeed manipulate light, so it would seem?

  • Avatar

    geran

    |

    Pavel, if God can make a tree, then he can certainly make a tree that is bearing fruit. Your reading of the Bible indicates a bias. That same bias is indicated by your ignoring all of the “juvenile comments” directed my way.

    It appears you interpret things based on your preconceived opinions, rather than all the facts.

    I’m used to such behavior….

  • Avatar

    Pavel

    |

    CD Marshall wrote:
    “So I looked [at] it and v1 and v2 sounds like they could literally be billions of years apart if not more.
    Why? Because from v2 “Earth” already existed and the “creation” that follows seems to be describing the Earth NOT the universe.”

    PM.
    My understanding as well since the earliest extant manuscripts word it as such. We are also not given to understand how long the human couple were in the garden of Eden before being driven out. But I would suggest that it could not have been very long as there is no reference to children being born in order to obey the command ” … be fruitful and fill the earth and subdue it”

    Geran wrote:
    “Pavel, if God can make a tree, then he can certainly make a tree that is bearing fruit.”
    PM:
    Agreed, Geran. But would you be good enough to cite which version/translation of the bible you obtained the understanding [?] from that the Creator planted trees already in fruit when my modern version, plus the ancient Septuagint transliteration, as well as Jerry Ks. New International Version, state that the Creator planted ‘seeds’ that eventually grew, from those seeds, to fruition [Gen.1:11-13]?
    And since I am quoting from the Scriptures, and not taking them out of context, I fail to understand how that can be construed as bias — please explain!

    • Avatar

      geran

      |

      Genesis 1:12 (NIV): “The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.”

      Genesis 1:12 (KJV): “And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.”

      Pavel, if you’re not “biased”, what would you call it, “inability to comprehend”, “incompetence”, “dishonesty”, “avoiding reality”?

      Pick your poison.

  • Avatar

    Pavel

    |

    I am curious, Geran, as to why you didn’t quote verse 11 where it states:
    11″ And God said, LET THE EARTH BRING FORTH the herb of grass bearing seed …” etc. etc
    And then in the following verse:
    12 “And THE EARTH BROUGHT FORTH the herb of grass bearing seed …” etc. etc
    [quoted from an English translation of the 3rd century BCE Greek Septuagint]
    Unfortunately I cannot quote from the findings in 1QGen of the Qumran caves as the first 16 verses of Gen.1have not, as yet, been found. But since, as stated in my first post, the days of Creation appear to have lasted some thousands of years, which would have allowed ample time for seeds to propagate and expand to fill a large enough area to feed the pending creation of birds, land animals and humans, I cannot see a logical reason why the Creator would need to cause the planting of fully grown fruit trees — that alone the two verses even inferring that He did so.
    Still, one must be thankful for small mercies; at least you haven’t, so far,suggested that Almighty God planted fully matured grasses ripe enough to be harvested as hay or silage.

    • Avatar

      geran

      |

      Pavel, have you ever noticed when clowns lose the argument they start rambling in circles?

  • Avatar

    Pavel

    |

    Is that what you have been doing; clowning? I would have much preferred you debated because in this instance the evidence argues for my claim. Where is yours?

    • Avatar

      geran

      |

      Sorry Pavel, but the evidence argues that you are either biased, unable to comprehend, incompetent, dishonest, or avoiding reality.

      Let me emphasis certain parts of the verses to see if you can understand:

      “The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.”

      Genesis 1:12 (KJV): “And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.”

      Now, if you want to deny that the first trees were not created with fruit, please continue. Everyone loves a clown.

  • Avatar

    Pavel

    |

    Geran
    In response to my initial query:-
    “… one wonders how they explain away the events recorded for the 3rd day where trees are stated to be started growing and then producing fruit”
    you replied:

    “Pavel, if God can make a tree, then he can certainly make a tree that is bearing fruit. Your reading of the Bible indicates a bias.”
    and followed it with the wording of vs.12 of Genesis ch.1 to make your point.

    After much toing and froing you then made your last statement:-

    “Let me emphasis certain parts of the verses to see if you can understand:”

    In the first instance you haven’t ’emphasis'[ed] anything – that alone ‘verses’ – only repeated the wording of verse 12 for probably the 4th time – even though I suggested, more than once, that you quote and comment about the wording of verse 11

    Your contentious reliance only on verse 12, whereby the results of verse 11’s instigated action is recorded, must, of necessity, show fully grown fruit trees but offers no support for your farcical contention that the Creator caused the instant appearance of fully matured fruit trees, rather than only seeds to develop into above ground plants.
    Of course it is possible that you do not understand the meaning of the verb phrase BRING FORTH as a predicate to the intended action. An English Lexicon describes it as: “Cause to come into a particular state or condition.” The ’cause’ being to grow into mature surface plants.
    Further the same Lexicon describes the use of the COMMA: “used to indicate the separation of elements WITHIN the grammatical structure of a sentence.”

    Since you, obviously, do not comprehend such nuances of English grammatics perhaps you should sign up for mature [sic] age English as well as Sunday School lessons.
    To help you I include another Bible version in simple English. Note the wording of verse 11:-

    Genesis Chapter 1 [ESV]
    11 Then God said, “Let the earth BRING FORTH grass, the herb that yields seed, and the fruit tree that yields fruit according to its kind, whose seed is in itself, on the earth”; and it was so.
    12 And the earth BROUGHT FORTH grass, the herb that yields seed according to its kind, and the tree that yields fruit, whose seed is in itself according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.”

    • Avatar

      geran

      |

      Yes Pavel, “bring forth” is present tense, and “brought forth” is past tense. That’s how we know the trees were created, already with fruit. It all happened on the third day.

      But your long rambling effort to claim otherwise is hilarious, as always.

      More please.

Comments are closed