Welcome • User Guide
ToS • Privacy • Canary
Donate • Bugs • License

©2025 Poal.co

In this video we will learn how the ancient Greek astronomer Ptolemy can be used to solve climate change, by demonstrating that modern climate theory is based on a completely false conception of reality with the Sun NOT at the center of the solar system or the climate. This solves climate change because it means that our modern conception and science of the climate is based on completely false principles, and thus, the prognostications of climate change from climate science's non-existent greenhouse effect are entirely erroneous. Climate science's "greenhouse effect" is nothing more than a Ptolemaic epicycle! https://climateofsophistry.com/2021/01/07/ptolemys-epicycles-solve-climate-change/

In this video we will learn how the ancient Greek astronomer Ptolemy can be used to solve climate change, by demonstrating that modern climate theory is based on a completely false conception of reality with the Sun NOT at the center of the solar system or the climate. This solves climate change because it means that our modern conception and science of the climate is based on completely false principles, and thus, the prognostications of climate change from climate science's non-existent greenhouse effect are entirely erroneous. Climate science's "greenhouse effect" is nothing more than a Ptolemaic epicycle! https://climateofsophistry.com/2021/01/07/ptolemys-epicycles-solve-climate-change/

(post is archived)

[–] • 1 pt

Global warming is purely a scam, even the main ice core argument that has been cited since Gore's "film". The main criticisms of 'alignment' should have been strong enough, but as I learned more physics and calculus, I realized that while the data DOES have a correlation it actually disproves the possibility of causation. When CO2 is high the temps peak and begin to drop and when CO2 is low is when the temperatures begin to rise. IOW, the correlation is negative.

It was only in the past years that I came across the fact that the models ARE a flat earth model with a depth map. The craziest part is bringing that up to normies have seen only a few variations of rebuttals.

First was Venus, if we calculate the differences in incoming energy, reflectivity AND pressure differences, it actually confirms that the temperature differences are due to 'gas laws' and proximity to the sun AND NOT CO2, literally a rounding error of difference.

Then they would try to explain that the model is flat for simplifying explanation; asking why there isn't a sin / cos / tan portion of the equation to account for where on earth is 'hit' is enough to prove that the models are at best over simple.

They don't care. Math and critical thinking among normies is so close to dead that I'm not sure what portion of them have a chance at rehabilitation.

[–] • 0 pt

Very good.

The reason Venus is so hot is because it atmosphere is 93 bar and it has molten lava and active volcanoes all over it's surface. Not because of the "greenhouse effect".

[–] • 1 pt

Well, TBH, I was making many assumptions, but they were reasonable. (It was some time ago and repeating from memory, not an exercise I would like to repeat).

From memory, it has 60% more solar energy in, but less after reflection at the edge of the atmosphere. That different lower energy input on a higher pressure of gas by default accounted for almost all of the temperature differences.

Other factors I've raised was enthalpy (in air, not for HVAC) the charts consider temperature, humidity and altitude (air density) CO2 is irrelevant to where in high co2 environments like mines they will have the chart adapted for the difference at the expected co2 levels.

And when CO2 can be up to 10k ppm before any breathing difficulties begin, 400ppm is hardly like "drinking too much water is bad" like normies often bring up.

[–] • 0 pt

This climate model.

https://static.skepticalscience.com/pics/layer.jpg

and shown here

https://climateofsophistry.files.wordpress.com/2020/02/foundation-of-climate-science.jpg

Under the auspice of conservation of energy, climate alarmist have created this model.

What that model actually represents is a flat earth under a frozen sun.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/Screen-Shot-2019-01-18-at-1.25.45-PM-flat-earth-550x758.png

They have taken the sun's energy and divided it by 4 and spread it over the entire surface area of the earth at once. Making it a useless model with no basis in reality whatsoever.

When the sun actually hits one hemisphere at a time and has a focal point of energy where the sunlight is most intense.

That would be like cooking a turkey at 1/4 the temperature for 4x as long and expecting the same results, ridiculous.

This is what the model should look like, if you want to draw any conclusions that will actually play out in reality.

https://climateofsophistry.files.wordpress.com/2020/02/model-atmo-b.jpg

Basically they've removed the ability for the sun to create the climate, which is what actually happens, and concocted this pseudo science were the earth's climate creates itself. The earth somehow gets hotter(has more energy) than the heat(energy) provided. If that were the case actual greenhouses would also demonstrate this runaway heating feedback loop. A greenhouse can not have more energy than the sun provides. This is taught in every college, complete junk science.

They stole the name green house because what happens in a green house has nothing to do with their made up greenhouse effect. (check out bonus vid at the bottom)

If you want to understand more watch this. It's Canadian astrophysicists Joseph Postma explaining that there is no such thing as a radiative greenhouse effect.

https://youtu.be/G5bwaf9QXroYouTube

Also Watch Dr. Willie Soon to learn more about the IPCC and the fake political science that has infested the field.

https://youtu.be/aYAy871w9t8YouTube

Carbon is one of the 3 main ingredients for life. When there is more C02 in the air life is more abundant and stronger. We breath it out with every breath.

Their climate GHE should be able to be experimentally confirmed in real greenhouses, but it isn’t. This is an empirical disproof. 2) Their climate GHE necessitates recycling and reverse flow of heat, which is of course a violation of theory. Hence it is theoretically invalid which goes with the empirical disproof. 3) The origin of their climate GHE is in their flat Earth models where the Sun cannot create the climate, and thus their GHE is then postulated to make up for what their flat Earth cold sunshine cannot do in such a model. In reality of course the Sun does do it all, but their empirically invalid starting point for deriving their GHE explains why they then run into the theoretical problems as above which of course has its own lack of empirical support.

Answer this, in a actual green house being hit by 960 W/m2 (88°c) will the inside of the green house exceed 88°c?

Answer= NO

An ice cube emits 240wm2, boiling water emits over 1000wm2.

If you add the 240wm2 ice to boiling water, what happens to the energy of the water?

Does it get hotter or colder?

According to that model the water would get hotter! Do not confuse energy and heat!

How an actual greenhouse works.

https://youtu.be/OXg4AEO6suwYouTube

Postma's debunk of Skeptical Science

https://principia-scientific.org/postma-debunks-skeptical-science-greenhouse-gas-defense/

A Breakdown I made to help people who can't understand the alarmist model.

https://i.imgur.com/nS783AD.jpg

Where do Climate Alarmist Numbers Come From?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=62_QwN9vg9sYouTube

Postma goes through some peer review by the American Meteorological Society.

https://youtu.be/kUNQTyH76j0YouTube

Postma's blog.

https://climateofsophistry.com/

What is Heat? Using the Laws of Physics for Climate Rationalism

https://youtu.be/Wcb_vcEVd6w

What is Heat Transfer? (And what happened to Academics?)

https://youtu.be/PtE0nzKCocc

[–] • 0 pt

Here is more relevant info that commonly comes up in my rebuttals to alarmist.

Their model has no basis in reality.

The earth's atmosphere doesn't operate like a green house at all.

A green house traps warm air. That's it. It prevents the hot air from rising and cooling.

"Answer this, in a actual green house being hit by 960 W/m2 (88°c) will the inside of the green house exceed 88°c?

Answer= NO"

The absolute maximum the temp inside the greenhouse could be is 88C

There is no reason why that model should not be applicable to real green houses.

If the model WERE correct, the inside of the green house would generate ANOTHER 960w/m2.

which gets added to the suns 960w/m2.

The earth's atmosphere limits the temperature spectrum on earth.

If the earth had no atmosphere, it would be like the moon, extremely hot on one side, extremely cold on the other. The temperature spectrum is very wide.

On Earth the atmosphere blocks a portion of the suns energy, dispersing it.

Preventing us from feeling the full force of the sun.

Imagine if the earth had a at least 100ft deep ocean across it’s whole surface, and no atmosphere.

Take the temperature of the sea floor of the side of the earth facing the sun, and the temperature on the sea floor on the opposite night side. Same distance underwater of course. These two temperatures will be quite close together.

Now remove all the ocean and do the same temperature measurements again, the temperatures will be on completely opposite sides of the spectrum.

The atmosphere has substance, mainly water vapor. It retains and transfers heat from the sunny side, to the night side.

The same thing happens in places with very little water. I'm sure you've heard how deserts can be below freezing at night, and blisteringly hot during the day. Because there is little substance(water) to propagate heat flow.

Conductive heat transfer Q = k* (Thot – Tcool)

Huh look at that heat flow from hot to cool. Now we should find something remarkably different for radiation, as per their claims. Let’s see:

Radiative heat transfer: Q = s*(Thot4 – Tcool4).

Also from hot to cold.

Facts:

Climate science and its greenhouse effect ARE flat Earth theory.

Heat flow is one way, and the cooler atmosphere does not heat the warmer surface.

The Sun heats the Earth, not the atmosphere at twice the power of the Sun.

Refer to the AMS video. And don’t forget these textbook quotes:

“Heat is defined as any spontaneous flow of energy from one object to another caused by a difference in temperature between the objects. We say that “heat” flows from a warm radiator into a cold room, from hot water into a cold ice cube, and from the hot Sun to the cool Earth. The mechanism may be different in each case, but in each of these processes the energy transferred is called “heat”.” – Thermal Physics “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 are therefore said to be irreversible.

“Heat is defined as the form of energy that is transferred across a boundary by virtue of a temperature difference or temperature gradient. Implied in this definition is the very important fact that a body never contains heat, but that heat is identified as heat only as it crosses the boundary. Thus, heat is a transient phenomenon. If we consider the hot block of copper as a system and the cold water in the beaker as another system, we recognize that originally neither system contains any heat (they do contain energy, of course.) When the copper is placed in the water and the two are in thermal communication, heat is transferred from the copper to the water, until equilibrium of temperature is established. At that point we no longer have heat transfer, since there is no temperature difference. Neither of the systems contains any heat at the conclusion of the process. It also follows that heat is identified at the boundaries of the system, for heat is defined as energy being transferred across the system boundary.” – Thermodynamics [3]

“The temperature of a body alone is what determines whether heat will be transferred from it to another body with which it is in contact or vice versa. A large block of ice at 00C has far more internal energy than a cup of hot water; yet when the water is poured on the ice some of the ice melts and the water becomes cooler, which signifies that energy has passed from the water to the ice.“When the temperature of a body increases, it is customary to say that heat has been added to it; when the temperature decreases, it is customary to say that heat has been removed from it. When no work is done, ΔU = Q, which says that the internal energy change of the body is equal to the heat transferred to it from the surroundings. One definition of heat is:Heat is energy transferred across the boundary of a system as a result of a temperature difference only.” – Classical and Statistical Thermodynamics [4]

“How and why does heat energy flow? In other words, we need an expression for the dependence of the flow of heat energy on the temperature field. First we summarize certain qualitative properties of heat flow with which we are all familiar:

If the temperature is constant in a region, no heat energy flows.

If there are temperature differences, the heat energy flows from the hotter region to the colder region.[…]” – Elementary Applied Partial Differential Equations [5]

All of this describes what is occurring with the thermodynamic states of the system and heat flow. And heat flow is summarized in those equations. One way only.

-Postma

The second law of thermodynamics.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/seclaw.html

also bonus thermodynamics video

https://youtu.be/VnbiVw_1FNs

[–] • 0 pt

Even more, The blanket argument.

What you describe as insulation with a sweater, the mechanism involved there, is the retardation of convection. The warmth of your skin, relative to the cooler air, generates tiny little eddies that wick heat away from your skin. The same thing happens to the surface of the Earth itself. Real greenhouses, and sweaters, STOP convection – they stop the air from circulating and from wicking the heat away either from the surface (greenhouse) or your skin (sweater). You heat up the sweater to closer to your skin temperature than the air is, and then you feel warmer. The sweater can be heated up by your body because it is a small mass, whereas you can’t warm up the open air because it is effectively an infinite sink/mass compared to the heat that you put out.

Incoming solar radiation is capable of heating the surface to scalding temperatures. This induces air circulation because as the air, in contact with the surface, is heated by conduction/diffusion/convection/radiation from the surface, and warm air is less dense and so the warm air rises away. Since the warm air rises away, then this keeps the remaining air cooler. Witness the inside of your vehicle with windows closed on a sunny day where the air was stopped from rising away, compared to air just outside the vehicle: the vehicle interior air is much much warmer than the air just outside the vehicle. The inside of your car is the same thing as a real greenhouse: it stopped convection, stopped the air from being able to rise away or be exchanged, and thus the air inside your car or greenhouse rises to the temperature at which it is being heated – which is quite hot, from the sun, easily 120F and more. Raw solar power is actually up tp +121C, or 286F.

In radiative terms, and these are the terms of the greenhouse effect of climate alarm (the greenhouse effect of climate alarm is not about convection as per how an actual greenhouse functions, but is about radiation), then insulation is called emissivity. The poorer that a surface or object or substance can radiate thermal energy, the lower its so-called emissivity. Thus if a fixed amount of energy must be radiated, then an object with a lower emissivity must attain a higher temperature in order to be able to pump out the necessary energy. Vice versa, a substance with higher emissivity can emit the same amount of radiant thermal energy at a lower temperature.The existence of CO2 in the atmosphere:

does not change the ground/physical surface’s emissivity, since the emissivity of a substance is a property of the substance/surface itself, not a property of something else nearby or touching the object. CO2 in the atmosphere does not change the emissivity of the physical surface, hence does not alter the radiative ability of the surface, hence cannot change the temperature of the surface this way.

increases the emissivity of the atmosphere, because the entire point of so-called “greenhouse gases” is that they emit. The atmosphere is 99% nitrogen and oxygen which do not emit thermal radiation…so 99% of the atmosphere has very low emissive power, i.e., low emissivity. This means that 99% of the atmosphere already very efficiently holds on to thermal energy, to its temperature. But now we add CO2, which is emissive, and thus we’ve given the atmosphere a vector by which it can emit thermal radiation to space where it couldn’t at all before. So adding emissivity to something which had low emissivity previously is going to allow the substance to cool, or equilibrate at a cooler temperature then before. So the actual physics of radiation insulation would indicate that adding an emissive substance (CO2) into a non-emissive substance (N2 and O2 99%) is now going provide a vector by which the non-emissive substance can shed thermal energy, because obviously the N2 and O2 physically bumb into CO2 and give CO2 their energy, and then the CO2 radiatively emits that energy. CO2 is collisionally-dominated with N2 and O2 – for every photon CO2 emits, it is bumped physically by N2/O2 something like a billion times. So N2/O2 are constantly dumping their energy into CO2, and occasionally CO2 emits that energy whereas without CO2 that energy wouldn’t have been able to escape.

The point is that the entire scheme and premise of the climate alarmist radiative greenhouse effect contradicts basic physics theory, notwithstanding, and perhaps as a result of, it being based on false modeling premises in the first place.

Lastly, the scheme of the radiative greenhouse should actually then also explain how a real greenhouse functions, and it should predict the temperature inside a greenhouse. However, the temperatures predicted by the climate alarmist radiative greenhouse mechanics are not observed inside a real greenhouse, and the only temperatures measured inside a real greenhouse are those expected from the stoppage of convection only…there is no additional effect from “radiation insulation”. So this is empirical proof to go along with the existing theory which demonstrates that the climate alarmist radiative greenhouse effect does not exist or function.

Thermodynamics took hundreds of years to solve for a reason. It is still one of the most difficult fields…really. A comment from my favorite thermodynamics textbook (Schroeder, 2000):

“Much of thermodynamics deals with three closely related concepts: temperature, energy, and heat. Much of students’ difficulty with thermodynamics comes from confusing these three concepts with each other.”

temperature, energy, and heat – it is crucial to understand that these are not all the same thing…for one thing anyway

[–] • 0 pt

https://files.catbox.moe/i4xah6.png (Fig. 2.3)

As I discussed in that debate(https://youtu.be/BzzLuTTo76k)…the main issue here is the interpretation of that downward arrow in that Figure 2.3. In climate alarm physics that arrow is interpreted as a temperature-increasing function, as a temperature-increasing mechanism. One must ask: what is the mechanism, in physics, that could perform this function? Well, we refer to the first law of thermodynamics: to increase a body’s temperature, you require work and/or heat. The scenario isn’t about work being done here, and so, the only possibility of that downward arrow to act as a temperature-increasing mechanism is if that downward arrow is heat. That downward arrow has to be heat.

However, we then must refer to the known definitions and mathematical expressions for heat – well, heat is not something that can flow from the colder atmosphere to the warmer surface. And so that downward arrow cannot be interpreted as heat. Thus there’s no way that that downward arrow could serve to increase the temperature of the warmer surface.

We should then consider that the only reason why that downward arrow is interpreted as heat by climate alarm, is because they treat the solar input as equal to the terrestrial output, at -18C or 255K. They begin their model of the climate under the premise that the sun cannot heat the Earth to above -18C…that the Sun cannot and does not create the climate or temperatures above -18C! So under that premise, they then desire to interpret that downward arrow as being able to heat the surface further even though heat could never flow in that direction.

And YES, in their peer-reviewed literature, they do indeed state and believe that the atmosphere must heat the Earth at TWICE the power and ability of the Sun. And YES, indeed, they do literally believe that the Sun DOES NOT heat the Earth or create Earth’s climate.

-Postma