On the Flat Earth Rants of Joe Postma

Reposted from Dr. Roy Spencer’s weblog

June 4th, 2019 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.

Willis Eschenbach and I’ve been defending ourselves on Fb in opposition to Joe Postma’s claims we now have “flat Earth” beliefs in regards to the radiative vitality price range of the Earth. The man is clearly passionate, as our dialogue ended with expletive-laced insults hurled my manner (I believe Willis determined the dialogue wasn’t well worth the effort, and withdrew earlier than the fireworks started).

Joe advertises himself as an astrophysicist who works on the College of Calgary. I don’t know his stage of training, however his claims have appreciable affect on others, which is why I’m addressing them right here. He has quite a few writings and Youtube movies with reference to Earth’s vitality price range and greenhouse impact, and the supposed errors the local weather analysis neighborhood has made. I get emails and feedback on my weblog from others who invoke his claims, and so he’s tough to disregard.

Right here I wish to handle simply one in all his claims (repeated by others, and the idea of his accusation I’m a flat-Earther), not too long ago described right here, relating to the worth of photo voltaic flux on the high of the environment that’s discovered in lots of simplified diagrams of the Earth’s vitality price range. I’ll use the identical two graphics utilized in that article, one from Harvard and one from Penn State:

Joe’s declare (so far as I can inform) is that that the photo voltaic flux worth (typically quoted to be round 342 W/m2) is unrealistic as a result of it’s for a flat Earth. However as an astrophysicist, he ought to acknowledge the division by four (“Fs(1-A)/four” and “S/four”) within the upper-left portion of each figures, which takes the photo voltaic fixed on the distance of the Earth from the solar (about 1,370 W/m2) and spreads it over the spherical form of the Earth. Thus, the 342 W/m2 worth represents a spherical (not flat) Earth.

Simply because somebody then attracts a diagram utilizing a flat floor representing the Earth doesn’t imply the calculation is for a “flat Earth”.

Subsequent in that article, Joe’s (mistaken) worth for the photo voltaic fixed is then used to compute the ensuing Earth-Solar distance implied by us foolish local weather scientists who imagine the photo voltaic fixed is 342.5 W/m2 (moderately than the true worth of 1,370 W/m2). He will get twice the true, identified worth of the Earth-Solar distance, just because he used a photo voltaic flux that was off by an element of four.

Now, I discover it laborious to imagine an precise astrophysicist may make such an elementary error. I can ignore Joe’s profane private insults, however he finally ends up influencing many individuals, after which I’ve to take care of their questions individually. Typically it’s higher if I can simply level them to a weblog put up, which is why I wrote this.

Like this:

Like Loading…