Paranoia Induced Stubborn Stupidity of Joe Postma

Allow me to help you. First let’s delineate the two different meanings of the concept of heat associated with radiant transfer between objects:

1) To absorb energy and have the molecules of the entity excited as a result

2) To have the measurable temperature of an entity increased as a result of an influx of energy.

Only the second of these two has any relevance to the laws of thermodynamics. The first does not.

Using #1 heating goes both ways, because energy goes both ways.
Using #2 heating only goes one way, from hotter to cooler.

You misunderstood something and you’ve been trying to force the square peg of #1 into the round hole of the second law of thermodynamics. Try putting the round peg of #2 into the round hole of the second law and you will find it works much better. And then you won’t have to embarrass yourself pretending to understand something you don’t.

Don’t waste too much time beating yourself up about this, Joe. You made an honest mistake. Apologize and forget about it. It doesn’t change the fact that global warming is still nonsense. Nor does any of this substantiate concerns that CO2 increases back radiation.

Jim McGinn
Solving Tornadoes

Where do severe storms get their energy from?

Doswellian Lunacy Prevails in the Cult of Meteorology/Tornadogenesis

8 responses to “Paranoia Induced Stubborn Stupidity of Joe Postma”

  1. Tom OregonCity says :

    Joe has a lot invested in his defense of the “slayer” view. It can be hard to let go of those connections, and the arguments they represent. I’ve had numerous debates with different folks in the slayer community, all centered around the idea that radiative Physics itself is the enemy. Even the best educated can be tempted to declare that a physical property of matter can be ignored, if a construction can be presented that seems to correctly model the energy in and out. My point is that you can’t work backwards from a proposed model to a point where radiative behavior is no longer important, if from the outset your model does not quantify the radiative component. It’s always possible to construct a limited model that “looks” good while ignoring data. Nuts, that’s what the warmists do.

    So, we keep at it, arguing on two fronts, for now.

    • solvingtornadoes says :

      I think it’s the anonymity of the internet that brings people to pretend they understand something even when it is plainly obvious that they don’t.

      The slayers have conflated the concept of flux with the concept of relative temperature measurement. In casual parlance these two different concepts can be referred to as “heat, heating, an/or heated.” This is the source of their ambiguity.

      Only if we can get them to stop using the ambiguous words, (“heat, heating, an/or heated” ) and get them to employ more scientifically concise teminology, such as “flux” or “temperature measurement” is there any chance for them.

      And, in my experience, once a consensus has established the perceived validity of ambiguous terminology they never abandon it. Never.

      So, it’s pretty hopeless — for them.

      • Tom OregonCity says :

        LOL! And, as if on cue, Joe has tossed three recent comments from me, in response to Joe and others, off his page. For a fellow who claims all sorts of “rationality”, his emotions ride right on top of the page.

        You might be right about the slayers as a group. One PhD/Astrophysics friend of mine used to counsel patience with the slayers, while I was mentioning the latest silly paper. Finally, he’s come around: “They are making all skeptics look bad!”

        Oh, well. Their ranks are being depleted. So many out of their depth, like Robitaille (radiologist), O’Sullivan (no formal education in the applicable fields), Alker (ditto; a UK precision glass worker), and others I’ve had direct debates with. Joe Postma is an enigma, because with a MS/Astrophysics he ought to display a little more clarity, instead of dancing around the facts with obscuring descriptions, like declaring that downwelling emission energy is not lost to space without being honest that it is absorbed by lower molecules, thusly (in an exchange with one Fred Little on Derek Alker’s “There is no greenhouse effect” Facebook page:


        Joseph Postma 7:13pm Dec 5
        ” Yes, I know that energy is only “lost” when emitted to space, but there’s still the question I asked in the beginning: if thermal emissions go every direction, why do you say that energy only goes “up”? ”

        I said that energy is only lost to outer space. Internally the heat energy transfers from the warm ground, through the cooler atmosphere, then out to space.

        ” If a certain amount of energy X is sent from the sphere to the shell, isn’t the energy then emitted from the shell with 1/2 X going inside, and 1/2 X going outside? ”

        The shell radiates according to its temperature, fully. However, internally, no energy is lost, because it is an enclosure. Hence, energy only leaves the shell on its exterior, to outer space.

        Colder sources emit at lower frequency than warmer sources. Colder sources can’t emit the higher frequencies that hotter objects do.


        See? Acknowledging that energy is lost when emitted “up”, but not owning up to the destination of downward emissions, except to wave the “2nd law!” flag, as if photons knew any better….

        Fred eventually got banned. Derek got tired of him and another guy.

        • solvingtornadoes says :

          LOL! And, as if on cue, Joe has tossed three recent comments from me, in response to Joe and others, off his page. For a fellow who claims all sorts of “rationality”, his emotions ride right on top of the page.

          Jim McGinn:
          There was another post that you (to the best of my recollection) posted on Joe’s website yesterday (Sunday) afternoon. It was available for about and hour and then, conspicuously, it just disappeared. It was, in my estimation, the most pertinent, probitive, and intelligent post on the whole thread.

          Any chance you saved a copy and can post it here?

          Also, feel free to post the other two conspicuously deleted posts here.

          Thanks in advance.


          • Tom OregonCity says :

            (Sigh) Alas, I did not. I really thought we were moving in a positive direction, and I did not expect the Postma Circumcision machine to be wheeled my direction. Do you not get the notifications by email, then? I guess I should have “subscribed” under an alias email address, to get copies sent to myself.

            Thanks for the compliment, though. I try to be clear and thorough, although it keeps me up too late….

  2. solvingtornadoes says :

    mikejacksonauthor says:
    2015/06/08 at 11:41 AM
    “The relationship between heat and temperature is linear.”

    Jim McGinn of Solving Tornadoes:
    Well stated, Mike. However, in order to remove any possibility for ambiguity I think it would be better to state it as such, “The relationship between flux and temperature is linear.” (if it wasn’t then temperature measurements would not be very useful as a proxy for flux.)

    The slayers are confused. They think the second law refers to flux. It doesn’t. It refers to relative temperature measurement over time from the warmer and cooler objects. Then, using the laws of thermodynamics, conclusions about flux are inferred based on the fact that, as you stated, the relationship between flux and temperature is linear. And their interpretation that flux only takes place on the cooler of the two objects is nonsense.

    The slayers would, eventually, get beyond their misinterpretation if they would stop using terminology like heat and warmth which are ambiguous in that they can refer to either or both flux and temperature measurement.

  3. solvingtornadoes says :

    Tom OregonCity says : June 9, 2015 at 12:00 am
    I really thought we were moving in a positive direction, and I did not expect the Postma Circumcision machine to be wheeled my direction. Do you not get the notifications by email, then?

    Jim McGinn:
    He has always struck me as being somewhat childish. But I have found there is a lot of churlishness in science. Many are extremely sensitive to anything that does not support what they chose to believe.

    • Tom OregonCity says :

      It is ironic — and hypocritical — that Joe in many settings condemns “god” behavior and calls for rational thought, while praising the purity of mathematics as the ultimate Truth, and yet lashes out with name-calling, dehumanizing (“they” can’t be saved, etc.), banishment (his version of intellectual condemnation to Hell, I suppose), superiority of intellect (if you can’t understand this, I can’t help you, etc.), and all the while presents false mathematical structures (like his recent “infinite amplification” of heat by layers of the atmosphere because omnidirectional dispersion of energy emissions is mis-understood, and like a past argument I read on “No Greenhouse”, where he was busy trying to support Derek Alker, who himself was convinced “a watt = a watt per second = a joule = a joule per second”, and was berating a calculus tutor (teacher?) who was trying to talk sense to both of them. The idea of a watt being a rate, without “time” in it, was beyond Derek, and Joe just would not correct that silliness. Quoting the standard units to them was completely useless, and Derek actually devolved into using the expression “watt per second” (as I noted above).

      Anything for the cause, it seems.

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 )

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: