Deducing Geothermal

I used to be a fan of Joseph Postma before I realized he’s very stubborn and on the wrong track headed for a dead end. I hope he turns around.

I highly recommend that everyone read his great series … The Fraud of the Greenhouse Effect (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19). You will learn a lot!

Today I will be critiquing Joseph Postma’s paper A Discussion on the Absence of a Measurable Greenhouse Effect in light of what I know about his current view. I take no issue with his central proposition that there is no Greenhouse Effect, but I do take issue with his current personal conclusion that the sun, and the sun alone, is enough to explain the surface temperature. His latent heat doesn’t occur until there’s energy to evaporate water first, and the only energy he has is from the sun. My goal is to show that in fact the sun is not enough, and Postma’s implicit hypothesis is in error, though his paper is still very good and highly recommended reading.

We will use some basic data from NASA:

Solar irradiance (W/m2): 1361

Bond albedo: 0.306

Average temperature: 15°C

Diurnal temperature range: 10°C to 20°C

NASA’s Earth Fact Sheet

See code in the addendum. To run first part of analysis:

> source && require && download && justsun

Sphere     ... Hard Way: 236.1329 W/m^2 , Easy Way: 236.1335 W/m^2
Hemisphere ... Hard Way: 472.2659 W/m^2 , Easy Way: 472.2659 W/m^2

The hard way performs the actual integration (approximation), while easy way just uses divisor (1/2 for sphere and 1/4 for hemisphere). The hard way is needed to create data of average of insolation across all latitudes as a function of local time. An average location on Earth will see this kind of daily insolation, averaged for the year. Keep in mind that this is an average value for a typical year and therefore my code purposefully disregards the math for Earth’s tilt and resulting seasonal daylight variation. It’s just not necessary. Resulting graph:

Global Average Insolation, using standard Albedo of ~0.3

It should be noted that we can’t use the standard albedo of ~0.3, because this albedo is an average for the entire surface+atmosphere ensemble. We need to know the actual portion of solar radiation that reaches the surface. This is different from the official standard albedo.

> absorbs
Surface Absorption: 0.4874

Flux data from NASA’s ISCCP Project (1983-2004 data here), yields a surface absorption of 0.4874, while NASA’s “official” energy budget [2008] shows: 163.3 / 340.3 = 0.4799. I am just going to choose an “albedo” of 0.52 (1-0.4799). We re-run with an ALB parameter set to 0.52:

> ALB=0.52 justsun
Sphere     ... Hard Way: 163.3196 W/m^2 , Easy Way: 163.3200 W/m^2
Hemisphere ... Hard Way: 326.6392 W/m^2 , Easy Way: 326.6392 W/m^2
Daily Insolation @ Surface for Average Location, Annually Averaged

Now we’re ready to move on to serious analysis. Postma has provided the only formula we will need:

Equation 11 (Page 13)

where C(t) is literally a climate term which could be either positive or negative (adding heat or taking heat away) in total, or composed of several unique contributions depending on if there is an additional heat source such as the “greenhouse effect”, or chemical and geologic sources, etc.

A.d.o.t.A.o.a.M.G.E, Page 13

emis = 1.0; % emissivity, using 1.0 for surface” [ I will use the same ]

— Same, Page 63

The following code snippets (see addendum) summarize this formula (emis = 1):

$1+ADD                          # As in Current Flux += ADD  # ADD = C(t)
T = T + ($1 - SIG*T^4)/TAU      # As in Tnew = Told + (Current Flux - SIG*Told^4)/TAU

We must choose a value for τ (TAU) that will produce a diurnal difference of 10°K (or °C) as shown in NASA’s Earth Fact Sheet above. The needed TAU equals 12940.

> TAU=12940; ADD=0; manydays; lastday

24HR  Sun ... 163.32 W/m2	
Day   Sun ... 326.64 W/m2	
Day   Max ... 236.64 K    -36.52 C	
Night Min ... 226.64 K    -46.52 C	
Max - Min ...  10.00 K     10.00 C	
24HR  Avg ... 231.59 K    -41.57 C	
24HR Flux ... 163.10 W/m2

We start off at T=0, and after 40 days we get to a stable typical day:

Note the result: Max – Min … 10.00 K. We have satisfied one of the criteria, but notice that our 24HR average is : 41.57°C. That’s not the 15°C we need. Obviously the sun is not enough! And the diurnal temperature does not go from a night average of -46.5°C to a day average of -36.5°C. We must satisfy all 4 temperature criteria in NASA’s Fact Sheet shown above, not just 1.

Postma spends a part of the paper analyzing a “C(t)” value of 324 W/m² (what is claimed for GHG backradiation) along with arbitrary (though intelligently guessed) τ values. He then dismisses the results for fairly good reasons. However he missed the crucial point: the sun is not enough. I’m going to show you what values he should have used. I have a parameter in my program (ADD) that is equivalent to C(t). I have found the necessary parameters to be TAU=12895, ADD=227.66. ADD is what I believe to be the radiative component of geothermal.

> TAU=12895; ADD=227.66; manydays; lastday

24HR  Sun ... 390.98 W/m2	
Day   Sun ... 781.96 W/m2	
Day   Max ... 293.21 K     20.05 C	
Night Min ... 283.21 K     10.05 C	
Max - Min ...  10.00 K     10.00 C
24HR  Avg ... 288.11 K     14.95 C	
24HR Flux ... 390.67 W/m2	
Geothermal (Green) + Solar (Yellow)
Geothermal (Green) + Solar (Yellow)

Notice that we satisfied all criteria set forth in NASA’s Earth Fact Sheet (with only 0.05°C error):

Day Max … 20.05 C
Night Min … 10.05 C
Max – Min … 10.00 K
24HR Avg … 14.95 C

But we’re not done. ADD is just the radiative component of geothermal. Let’s add Sensible and Latent Heat from NASA’s “official” energy budget [2008]:

227.66 + 18.4 + 86.4 = 332.46 W/m²

This result is not much different than the 335.64 W/m² result I got here: Measuring Geothermal, using NCEP Reanalysis data.

332.46 vs 335.64 ! What’s the significance of this? I was able to approximately get the same geothermal emergent radiative flux from a very simple model! I don’t know about you, but I’m impressed.

How about Postma? Where’s his mind today?

Yah…that’s definitely my Zoe…one of my most attractive stalkers for sure [Zoe: How sweet, TY] . She thinks that the flat Earth theory model is all totally fine [Zoe: strawman; no one presents an actual flat earth model, including those that print maps on flat paper rather than globes]…but backradiation isn’t from the atmosphere “because that’s impossible, but it is from geothermal.”

So…she wants to keep the flat Earth theory [Zoe: Two hemisphere 24hr heat capacity theory, actually] accounting where the Sun can’t heat the Earth or create and sustain the weather/climate, and where there’s some additional energy source which provides twice more energy than the Sun…but instead of it being “backradiation” she wants it to be geothermal….providing twice the energy than the Sun. She went on about this here for months…finally banned her…because the heat from geothermal is known and measured…and flat Earth theory would be the WRONG way to try to incorporate it anyway!

These people are sick, sick demented freaks, and they seem to really want to keep their flat Earth theory no matter what mechanisms need to change to make it work.

Joseph Postma

Stalker means you are criticizing a public scientist for their ideas. I agree with him that there is no Greenhouse Effect, but he goes too far – way too far. As you can see he still thinks the sun, and the sun alone, is enough to explain surface temperatures and their diurnal variation – and everyone who disagrees is a flat earther!

One thing from his publication I found very interesting:

Solar forcing acts directly only on the top few millimeters of surface soil itself (the penetration depth is larger for ocean water and some heating occurs directly in the atmosphere via extinction), and this is where the incoming short wave radiant energy performs work and raises the temperature. This heat energy will then conduct its way down into the subsurface until it merges with the geothermal temperature at a depth of somewhere around, say, 5 to 10 meters and temperature of approximately 5°C to 10°C [Zoe: I found 0 to 10] … and this much larger thermal-mass system will respond much more slowly, in aggregate, to the solar variation. This low-frequency [Zoe: Goes to nil frequency] aggregate response will provide a baseline upon which the daily variations will oscillate at the top

A.d.o.t.A.o.a.M.G.E, Page 16

A baseline you say? Maybe this baseline would exist without the sun? Maybe this baseline is capable of its own thermal action and emission? Too bad he did not pursuit this line of thought. But thanks for reaffirming my intuition at the time.

I hope you’ve enjoyed this article.

Love, -Zoe


Guys I just had several dozen notifications come through of Zoe trying to link to my blog from what is apparently her new blog.

WHAT A FN STALKER! [Zoe: You made yourself a public scientist so stop playing the victim]

“Zoe’s geothermal insights” or some retardation.

“Flat Earth is OK! [Zoe: usual strawman]. We just need to use geothermal to make up the temperature instead!”

Basic bitch. [Zoe: How lovely]

— Joseph E Postma says:2020/02/25 at 8:24 AM

Nice! Joseph, your solar-only theory can’t explain observations. It would be great if you could rejoin reality and continue to make contributions to science, as you did in the past.



# source
# Zoe Phin, 2020/02/20

plothead="set term png size 740,550 font 'arial,12'; unset key
	set xtics 360 out nomirror; set mxtics 6; set grid xtics ytics
	set xtics add ('0h' 0,'6h' 360,'12h' 720,'18h' 1080,'24h' 1440)
	set yrange [0 to 800]; set ytics 100,100,800

require() { sudo apt-get install gnuplot; }

download() {
	wget -O sdn.bin -c
	wget -O sup.bin -c

absorbs() {
	od='od -An -f -w4 --endian=big'; $od sup.bin > .sup; $od sdn.bin > .sdn
	paste .sdn .sup | awk '{S+=$1-$2} END { 
		printf "Surface Absorption: %.4f\n", (S/NR)/(1361/4) }'

justsun() {
	[ -z $ALB ] && ALB=0.306
	seq -89.875 0.25 89.875 | awk -vA=$ALB 'BEGIN {pi = atan2(0,-1); r=pi/180} {
		CONVFMT="%.8f"; if ($1 < 0) $1 = 0 - $1
		a = sin(r*($1+0.125))-sin(r*($1-0.125))
		for (m=0; m<1440; m++) {
			y = cos((m-720)*pi/720)
			print m" "$1" "a/2" "1361*(1-A)*cos($1*pi/180)*((y<0)?0:y)
	}' | awk '{ M[$1]+=$3*$4 } END {
		for (i in M) print M[i]
	}' | tee solar.dat | awk -vA=$ALB '$1>0 { S+=$1 } END { CONVFMT="%.4f"
		HW = S/720; EW = 1361*(1-A)/2
		print "Sphere     ... Hard Way: " HW/2 " W/m^2 , Easy Way: " EW/2 " W/m^2"
		print "Hemisphere ... Hard Way: " HW   " W/m^2 , Easy Way: " HW   " W/m^2" }'

	echo "$plothead set title 'Solar Flux (W/m²)'
	plot 'solar.dat' u (\$1==0?-1:\$1) w filledcu above fc 'yellow',\\
	     513.085*cos((x-720)*pi/720) w lines lc rgb 'orange' lt 8 lw 3
#	     741.835*cos((x-720)*pi/720) w lines lc rgb 'orange' lt 8 lw 3
	" | gnuplot > justsun.png

manydays() {
	[ -z $ADD ] && ADD=0; [ -z $DAYS ] && DAYS=15
	for n in `seq $DAYS`; do cat solar.dat | awk -vADD=$ADD '{ 
		printf "%7.3f\n", $1+ADD }'
	done | awk -vTAU=$TAU 'BEGIN { SIG=5.67e-8 } { 
		printf "%10.6f %10.6f %10.6f\n", $0, T, SIG*T^4
	}' > many.dat

	echo "$plothead set key samplen 0; set title '$DAYS Days of Flux (W/m²)'
	set xtics format ''; set xtics 1440 in mirror; unset mxtics
	plot 'many.dat' u (\$1==0?-1:\$1) title '' w filledcurves above y=$ADD fc 'yellow',\\
	$ADD t '' w filledcu above y=0 fc 'dark-green' fs solid 0.8 border lt 2 lw 4,\\
	'' u 3 t 'τ = $TAU' w lines lw 2 lc 8" | gnuplot > many-t${TAU}.png

lastday() {
        tail -n 1440 many.dat | nl | tee last.dat | awk 'BEGIN { MIN=999 }
                   $3 > MAX { MAX=$3 }
                   $3 < MIN { MIN=$3 }
                        $2>0 { S+=$2 }
        NR >360 && NR <=1080 { D+=$3 }
        NR<=360 || NR > 1080 { N+=$3 }
        END { SIG=5.67e-8; D24 = (D+N)/1440; C=273.16
                printf "24HR  Sun ... %6.2f W/m2        \n", S/1440
                printf "Day   Sun ... %6.2f W/m2        \n", S/720
                printf "Day   Max ... %6.2f K %9.2f C   \n", MAX, MAX-C
                printf "Night Min ... %6.2f K %9.2f C   \n", MIN, MIN-C
                printf "Max - Min ... %6.2f K %9.2f C   \n", MAX-MIN, MAX-MIN
#               printf "Day   Avg ... %6.2f K %9.2f C   \n", D/720, D/720-C
#               printf "Night Avg ... %6.2f K %9.2f C   \n", N/720, N/720-C
#               printf "D-N Delta ... %6.2f K           \n", (D-N)/720
                printf "24HR  Avg ... %6.2f K %9.2f C   \n", D24, D24-C
                printf "24HR Flux ... %6.2f W/m2        \n", SIG*D24^4

        echo "$plothead set key samplen 0
        set ylabel 'Flux (W/m²)'; set y2label 'Temperature (K)'
        set ytics out 50 nomirror; set mytics 5; 
        set y2tics 210,10,800; set my2tics 2
        set link y2 via (y/5.67e-8)**0.25 inverse 5.67e-8*(y**4)

        plot $ADD t '' w filledcu above y=0 fc 'dark-green' fs solid 0.8 border lt 2 lw 4,\\
        'last.dat' u 1:2 t '' w filledcu above y=$ADD+1 fc 'yellow' fs solid 1 border lt 5 lw 4,\\
        '' u 1:3 t 'Surface T (τ=$TAU)' w lines lw 3 lc 8 axes x1y2" | gnuplot > last.png

Published by Zoe Phin

30 thoughts on “Deducing Geothermal

  1. Hello Zoe- just wanted to say that you rock! or you geothermal! Ha! 🙂 Keep giving them hell. No one or no thing can shade the radiative power of the free mind unencumbered of the darkness of Dogma. A totally eternal truth.

    Liked by 1 person

  2. Clear thinking Zoe. In the end there is a big unknown in the whole story and that is the average k-value of the mantle and crust of the earth. If we knew this value, we could calculate the ADD. (if we assume that the other values ​​are fairly certain)

    It is already clear that the CHF of an average of 92 mW / m2 (see wikipedia) cannot possibly be a valid value. It would lead to an impossible temperature.

    By the way, is it allowed to add Sensible and Latent Heat to the ADD? Do these values ​​also depend on ADD? How do you see that?

    See also my calculation on CG.

    24 Feb 2020 at 13:39


    1. “Earth Heat Flux” (CHF) is imagined as near the surface as possible. It is 92 mW/m2. CHF is not enough information to determine CSR (the only number you can fairly compare to insolation).

      We need to know Thot, k, and L near the surface, and we are not given this information easily.

      We can’t add Sensible and Latent Heat to ADD because these have no effect on Temperature, but they are still energy fluxes. Geothermal must provide them but they don’t raise T, and I can’t use them in my program.

      Liked by 1 person

  3. T = T + ($1 – SIG*T^4)/TAU # $1 = Current Temperature , T = Previous Temperature

    So the Earth *does* cool radiatively, after all? I’m getting a headache.


    1. Earth’s surface warms the atmosphere, thereby cooling. My analysis is for the surface.

      The Earth as viewed from space only warms OBJECTS in space and not space itself, thereby cooling a very tiny negligible amount.


  4. @Zoe: Here my insights, largely inspired or taken from your insights. Can you comment on this.

    Let’s summarize where we are now. We have seen that it is not so strange to assume that the sun and the hot earth together are responsible for the pleasant earthly climate.

    Mainstream science makes a huge mistake by comparing the terrestrial heat flux (CHF: 0.092 W/m2) with the solar flux (324 W/m2). This is because the CSR must be used, which belongs to the surface temperature. The thus obtained surface temperature leads Stefan-Boltzmann law to the CSR heat flux: this can be compared with the solar flux.

    However, this surface temperature is almost impossible to calculate, because we need to know not only the temperature trend from core to mantle / crust, but also the associated – constantly fluctuating – ‘k values’.

    Due to the lack of data, I have to admit that the theory presented above is certainly not proven. I limit myself to the observation that the ‘mainstream vision’ makes a mistake in determining the ‘rival fluxes’ between earth and sun. Let me put it this way: the conclusion that the earth flux represents almost nothing compared to the solar flux (0.092 and 324 W/m2 respectively) is based on quicksand.

    Mainstrean science assumes that photons are emitted in all directions by the radiation body. Two radiant objects therefore radiate to each other, in other words there is two-way radiation, BUT where the heat always flows in only one direction, namely from warm to cold. So far, the prevailing paradigm.

    Although in the context of the Earth’s energy balance, the one-way or two-way approach makes no difference, it is nevertheless important to get a better understanding of this mechanism.

    And for the following reason:
    Zoe states: I see ‘photons’ as 100% waves. Waves can ONLY form between objects. Boltzmann used statistics to find out how many waves (and in which wavelengths) fit into a cavity. Boltzmann did not recognize two-way “photons”, only one standing wave per wavelength, between two opposite walls. As I see it, they are electromagniketic ‘ropes’ that are ‘tied’ between every object in the universe. The ether is their propulsion mechanism, but the ether itself is not sticky enough to slow down (cool) matter.

    “Photons as electromagnetic ‘ropes’ that are ‘tied’ between every object in the universe”.

    This particularly interesting idea has quite a few implications for our climate topic. After all, if space is to be seen as a predefined landscape in which all matter is connected, it also implies that photons cannot exchange their energy with the space itself, but only with matter in that space.

    “Matter exchanges energy with matter.” If no matter is present, no energy is exchanged either. In this perspective, the “atmosphere” around the earth is a “perfect matter circle” to which the earth can give off its excess heat. This atmosphere therefore works rather “cooling” than “heating.”

    Every photon that is not absorbed by the molecules in the atmosphere is dependent on a wire to some object in our immeasurable space. In the absence of wires, no energy is exchanged and this energy is retained in the earth. The atmosphere can therefore be considered as a medium inherently connected to the surface with which energy is exchanged. It acts as an extension of the earth’s surface. If the atmosphere were missing, the ‘energy delivery options’ would be considerably limited. The surface temperature of the earth would increase. Due to the excessive presence of gas molecules in our atmosphere, the earth can therefore nicely distribute its heat over the atmosphere, so that the surface temperature remains within the limit that is viable for humans.

    The energy that eventually reaches the TOA has reached such a low temperature that there are enough ‘strings with extraterrestrial matter’ to be able to be radiated. The Earth has achieved – within our solar system and beyond – a unique ’emission / absorption balance’ with all its surrounding matter.

    The latter notion deserves some explanation. If the earth indeed maintains a ‘unique thermal equilibrium’ with the matter surrounding us THEN it also implies that a disturbance of that equilibrium has thermal consequences. If the surrounding matter – planets, comets, star dust, etc. – were not there (or disappeared), that would immediately lead to an unlivable earth. In other words, our dependence on what surrounds us goes far beyond the sun alone.

    “We have seen that matter exchanges energy with matter. The inherent connectedness of all matter runs through metaphorical strings through which the energy is transmitted through a vibration.

    However, a number of conditions are attached to this energy transfer. First, the vibration emitted by the matter must match the vibration that the receiving matter can process, fully in accordance with the emission spectrals that we know of the various substances.

    In addition, distance also plays a major role. See matter as an object located in a three-dimensional space. We imagine the photon as a string connecting our object with the other object. As the distance between the two objects increases, the chance of a rope connection also becomes smaller. If the distance exceeds the so-called ‘quantum value’, the energy cannot be transferred. The rope bridge is not formed. Photons cannot transfer their energy at an infinite distance.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Mostly excellent!

      “However, this surface temperature is almost impossible to calculate, because we need to know not only the temperature trend from core to mantle / crust, but also the associated – constantly fluctuating – ‘k values’.”

      We don’t have to go that far into the Earth. We just need to know what geothermal provides to the place where sun has no effect. If we knew the global average temperature at 10-20 meters below the surface, and the k-values between 0-20m depth, that would be enough.

      We can also figure out what geo provides by using logic. The energy budget claims ~395 W/m^2 emerges from the surface and claims ~325 W/m^2 is caused by Magic Gases. But the Magic Gases are dependent upon the 395. There’s a dependancy loop with no origin. Geothermal breaks the loop!

      There is no Magic Gas heating. The surface is fed by Geo. The scam is easy to see.

      You did a good job of summarizing things.


      1. Zoe, first of all I want to state that I am very impressed with your ideas. I consider you one of the most brilliant thinkers at the moment. I am honored to exchange ideas with you.

        In addition, thank you very much for your comments. I will adjust your valid comments in the summary. I intend to formulate a kind of theoretical framework. I have more ideas, explanations and hypotheses that I am still working on. I’ll keep you informed.

        A subject that I am particularly interested in – and which fits perfectly into the theory – is the absence of ‘temperature’ in space. Only matter has a temperature, the space itself does not. Are you familiar with the work of Alberto Miatello?

        Liked by 1 person

    2. So the leaking of energy from TOA into space is problematic?
      One lovely concept I enjoy going to sleep with is the fact photons don’t experience time, or space really; infinitely dilated time, and infinitely shrunk space at the speed of light. The ‘string’ connecting matter is the shrunken space! And in an Einstein deterministic universe, only matter exchange particles, so the photons you are seeing from Alpha Centauri were always destined for your retina since the birth of the universe.
      But that is a flight of fancy.

      Boy am I going to have to dig a bit deeper into this quantum shedding into space.
      There has got to be an equilibrium of sorts between the incoming sunlight and the outgoing …… (? – radiation?!)
      I was wondering what the emissivity of the TOA into space was ….

      Liked by 1 person

      1. I assume emissivity to space would be the outgoing radiation divided by the surface radiation.

        I think every particle in the universe is aware of every other particle in the universe. They are all connected. That’s why even the densest matter is mostly space … for the connecting strings.


        1. How many particles in the Universe
          How Many Particles Are in the Observable Universe?

          “So how many are there? 3.28 x 10^80”
          “Padilla takes his thought experiment one step further to estimate how long it would take humans, given the current rate of population expansion, to absorb every particle in the universe. For that, you are going to have to watch the video above, and the answer might surprise you.”
          I didn’t watch it.
          Another one:
          “The commonly accepted answer for the number of particles in the observable universe is 10^80. This number would include the total of the number of protons, neutrons, neutrinos and electrons.” And
          Now most of the photons in our universe are the photons from the cosmic microwave background radiation and it is estimated that there are 10^9 photons for every particle in the universe so that would make 10^89 photons in the universe.”
          Now, if don’t count the dark matter {maybe dark matter is the gravity of all the strings:}
          And just consider 10^80 particles all connecting to all particles.
          There is a lot strings just in your galaxy.
          I am not good with math, but if just count strings connecting to stuff on Earth, that got to make the big number of 10^80, look small.


        2. “If there are 3.28 x 10^80 particles in the universe, that means there is only about one particle per cubic meter. The majority of space is, after all, empty space.”


  5. I’m not sure where you’re getting your info, but good topic.
    I needs to spend some time learning much more or understanding
    more. Thanks for excellent info I was looking for this
    info for my mission.

    Liked by 1 person

  6. Hi there! I simply wish to give you a huge thumbs up for your great info you have got right here on this post. I am returning to your website for more soon.

    Liked by 1 person

  7. I am very impressed Zoe – your approach is shocking and so brilliant at the same time. And makes a whole lot of sense. Thanks. I only need to go back a study a bit of thermodynamics again….it was too long ago.

    Liked by 1 person

  8. I still need to read more of your work and ideas, but very glad to have stumbled over your blog while looking for an estimate of Lunar Average Surface Temperature. Your blog was handy in demonstrating average Insolation and SB Law approach for planetary body temperature without atmosphere is not even close. And then many other interesting threads to follow.

    So far, some very insightful and interesting angles. Keep up the good fight…!!

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Thank you very much!
      Indeed, the sunshine gets dissipated into the subsurface. The SB equation would work if the moon was INTERNALLY already at equilibrium with the sun, for a 24 hr average. But it’s not. The moon provides some internal heat (~105K), but not much. The sun boosts that up to ~200K. I will write an article deducing lunar thermal energy very soon.

      The SB equation doesn’t care about 3-dimensional objects and conductive dissipation. So most climate scientists don’t understand why the surface doesn’t reach their prediction.

      Mainstream climate science is rooted in sophisticated pseudoscience. Its acceptance creates physical paradoxes with real science. So I rejected it, and started from scratch.

      Glad to have a fan in South Africa! Please share, if you can 🙂

      Love, Zoe

      Liked by 1 person

  9. “The SB equation doesn’t care about 3-dimensional objects and conductive dissipation. So most climate scientists don’t understand why the surface doesn’t reach their prediction.”

    I am baffled at how nobody is even attempting (to my knowledge) of creating a viable atmospheric temperature equation.

    Yes I know they have the lapse rate but that’s just the start of the calculations, so much more needs to be added. With a working equation they could easily calculate the temps on planetary atmospheres by depth and heat source.
    Such as Earth the average middle Troposphere is -19C currently, same as the effective black body of Earth, however following the heat patterns is very different. The Temperate Tropical Zone is much warmer than the rest of that part of the atmosphere delivering constant temps from 0 to -50C.


    1. “the average MIDDLE Troposphere is -19C currently, same as the effective black body of Earth.”

      I used to think this was significant a long time ago, but it turns out to be a complete coincidence.

      1st) Pattern doesn’t repeat on any other planet

      2nd) US Standard Atmosphere is for mid latitudes. Troposphere is not really 11000 meters tall, but more like ~14500 averaged for whole globe.


  10. The SB Equation is for 2 dimensional flux, Wien’s Law for a radiating blackbody, neither is for the atmosphere and the only plausible equations we have only work a 1 ATM.


  11. The average would not be the same for each planet because rotation, gravity and temperature effects the cell distribution and that changes the average location. Like Venus has I think one massive Hadley cell. The troposphere on our planet changes constantly, one side mushrooms on under direct solar irradiance while the other collapses under the cool of the night.

    Averages are really worthless.

    The average person has only one testicle. LOL.


  12. Well, one could say broadly, is that rest of world doesn’t warm the tropics.
    Or what commonly said, tropical ocean heats the world,
    Let’s see what happens if ignore rest of world {or what is being warmed by tropical ocean]
    And can simplify by focusing on tropical zone, or about 40% of the world’s surface, so consider/count that the 60%
    doesn’t exist.
    I don’t know if you got how much sunlight reaches the surface of Tropics. Though I thought you might have had graph
    indicating how much it was {somewhere in this site}. But roughly I believe it’s over 300 watts as compared to 163 watts global average. And it’s generally said more than 1/2 of all sunlight reaches the tropics {40% of entire surface} as compare to rest of the surface of world.
    Also not sure including angle earth relative to sun. Or one tilts solar panels outside of tropics, but in tropics one have them level with surface. So if just do tropics it also gets rid of that complication.


  13. I thought of a new proposition:
    Geothermal energy does not significantly warm the tropics.
    It’s not really new, as was saying geothermal energy is mostly about polar regions. Or mostly important
    because we have a cold ocean.
    All same thing, but presently going to look at idea that geothermal energy does not significantly warm the tropics.
    [[And tropics applies to any planet and defined by tilt of planet, And Earth tilt changes, and so the Earth’s tropics changes. And Mars tilt is 25.19 degrees, Mars tropics being 25.19 degrees latitude both north and south. And with Moon is a bit more complicated, the tilt and orbit, but it as small tropical zone. Or if want to be fancy it’s the
    “Obliquity to orbit (deg) : 6.68”]]
    Why doesn’t geothermal heat significantly warm the tropics? Or why does geothermal energy heat 60% of planet’s, surface, more.
    Well, I think mentioned that 15 C average temperature is a bit of illusion. Sort of like having 60% class are poor students and 40% are good students, and the class has passing grade- class score is 15.
    And when claim average sunlight reaching the surface is 163.3 watts per square meter, the 60% of rest world is
    receiving a lot less than the average of 163.3 watts.
    163.3 watts times 24 hours is 3,919.2 or 3.9 Kw hours per day.
    And Germany gets 2 kw hours per day, which also a bit illusion if think you are going to get any electrical power in winter {when one might want lit lightbulb in all that darker time period}.
    Is doing 163.3 watts, but it’s not a 163.3 watts average for 60% of rest of world.

    Other aspect is 80% of tropical surface is ocean. And tropical ocean has slabs of warmer surface water. Now, perhaps geothermal energy makes these slabs of warm water, thicker. But issue is warmer water from Geothermal heat, would be prevented from rising by same or warmer water above it. And then may tend to go, where it can rise- perhaps mostly outside of tropical ocean.

    Or perhaps Joseph Postma is imagining warmer world than we have. It seems to be a common mistake.
    Or seems to me the tropical creature known as Homo Sapien tends to be overly optimistic.
    I know, that I am wildly overly optimistic.


  14. I just re-read this and your idea about the earth only warming objects in space is so super-weird, but blumin’ difficult to refute, isn’t it?

    1. What about ‘objects’ in deep space? Aren’t we circumambulated with matter in one form or another (maybe?). Just because we can’t yet see them, doesn’t mean they are not there? Or – what is the average arc-density of deep-space matter ..?
    2. Just for interest, is this your idea, or have other’s shared similar? (I think I have heard it expressed elsewhere..)

    Whatever, get’s the grey matter going !

    Liked by 1 person

    1. It’s hard to disprove because it’s only philosophically different. An object may not emit to empty space, but an object can still cool because the processes making it hot are not perpetual.

      Cooling still happens. Some prefer to model it with photon emission.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: