Monday, March 12, 2012

Joe Romm shuns open debate of climate science

The Joe Romm attack on meteorologist Joe Bastardi prompted the following comment by astrophysicist Joe Postma. Needless to say, the comment became yet another casualty of Romm's censorship and was not published:
Despite the alarmist monkey jumping and screeching going on here (we'll not mention the throwing), there really is a very rational, calm, scientifically valid, interesting problem to discuss at the heart of climate theory: the so-called greenhouse effect (GHE).
Did you know that climate science and the GHE bases all of its science on a model of the Earth which is flat?  You probably didn't, or you do but don't appreciate the problem there is in that.  It's a sort of well-kept but out-in-the-open secret.  Yes, they literally treat the Earth as if it is flat, from the simple models used to teach the theory, to the advanced computer programs which calculate atmospheric currents.  They treat the Earth as flat.  It is literally flat Earth science.
But does it make a difference?
Well, can you bounce a pancake?  Are we in the dark ages?
Yes it does make a difference.  Mathematically, in order to treat the Earth as flat, you have to reduce the power of sunlight - this is how it works out mathematically (explanatory links below).  If you want to treat the Earth as a flat disk instead of a spherical ball in order to make the math easier via that approximation, then mathematically it works out that you have to reduce the power of sunlight...to MINUS 18 degrees Celsius.  And it is also isotropic in that approximation: -18C worth of sunlight over the entire Earth at once.
"BUT WAIT", goes the standard theory based on this approximation, "it feels warmer than -18C!".  So they invent the Greenhouse Effect, and alarmingly scare you and tell you it's going to kill you if it increases in power by a negligible percentage.  In their alarmist theory, their supposed greenhouse effect, which they say allows all life to exist on the planet - a good thing, because it would keep the planet from freezing - is now suddenly going to destroy the planet and all life.
Of course, the truth is, the Earth is NOT flat, and Sunshine is NOT cold.  The Earth IS round and Sunshine IS hot.  Sunshine is actually +121C worth of hot.  Wow hey?  I bet climate science never told you that!  And obviously that really does make a difference: -18C worth sunlight can't melt ice.  How do you explain liquid water when sunshine has nowhere near the power to melt ice?  But they ignore that.  Wow...I guess the greenhouse effect is what gives me sunburns, and what sustains the entire oceans from freezing.
And this changes everything.  Now, sunlight CAN melt ice all by itself and sustain a liquid water planet.  And then given the latent heat of fusion of ice, you also have a temperature plateau (O Celsius) below which it is very difficult to ever drop below due to the simple gargantuan mass of ocean water.  Especially when you consider that said ocean water is heated with the REAL power of sunlight of around 100C, rather than the wrongly-approximated flat-earth-model power of -18C.
This link will lead you to my latest paper briefly explaining this problem in a way which is easy to understand:
It is called "Copernicus Meets the Greenhouse Effect".  Within that paper is a link to my previous much more technical and lengthy paper called "The Model Atmosphere".
I am an independent researcher with many published papers in astrophysics and I have not received, nor have I ever desired or seeked to receive, financial compensation from anyone for the research and papers I have written on climate science and the greenhouse effect.  Any assertion to the contrary is an uninformed lie.
Another paper is coming which I hope will finalize the creation of a new real-time mathematical/physical model which uses the REAL value of hot sun-shine falling on a spherical Earth.  This model is shown as a diagram in the papers I mentioned above.  You can think of the diagram as a "mind-object" which, by its necessity of representing what actually physically exists (i.e. NOT a flat Earth and cold Sun, but a round rotating Earth and hot Sun), queues the physicist's mind into a mathematical paradigm which will correspond with reality.  A flat-earth model can't do that, by definition.
Mr. Bastardi has every prerogative to kindly and openmindedly question any particular facet of his field of expertise that he wishes.  Often times, the best science comes out of questioning what we believe are the most basic facts.  This is such an example.  -18C sunlight is a well-held assumption but it is also an approximation, and you will see that it is actually a faulty one.
As far as CO2 - there's never been any evidence it causes warming in any case.  The ice-core records show that CO2 is driven by temperature with no indication of feedback, and the modern record shows that temperature increased by itself at the end of the little ice-age with anthropogenic CO2 being insignificant until 100 years after that already started.  CO2 is plant food, and the most reasonable scientific conclusion on its presence in the atmosphere is that we need MORE of it.

Related: