• Home
  • Current News
  • Alan Siddons: NASA’s 3rd Retreat on a Global Warming Energy Budget

Alan Siddons: NASA’s 3rd Retreat on a Global Warming Energy Budget

Written by Derek Alker

What an amazing and pleasant surprise, an email from Alan Siddons posted at WUWT by Anthony Watts himself.
NASA revises Earth’s Radiation Budget, diminishing some of Trenberth’s claims in the process, posted on January 17, 2014 by Anthony Watts.
Watts has been very strong in his previous comments/actions/derogatory opinions about the Slayers (founders of Principia Scientific International), yet Siddons is widely acknowledged as the leading Slayer.

This story is obviously too big for Anthony not to post.

I have tried to comment on the thread but the comment simply vanished, no awaiting moderation, it just vanished. So, it appears Slayers work can be posted by Anthony Watts, but Slayers can not comment on the threads (?).

May be things will change at WUWT, because of this thread. One thing is for certain; there are many, many comments expressing similar to, and supportive analysis of, the Slayers thinking/reasoning. I doubt Anthony can ignore that for much longer.

Ok, that aside, the subject Alan raises is almost predictable. Trenberth et al are having to redraw the global energy budgets. Why? To get less warming…..

ONE…..

First NASA budget

TWO…..

KT Energy Budget
and now, THREE…

Latest NASA Budget

There will be more redraws, I confidently predict, if they are not all just thrown in the bin first, because every version of the global energy budgets is based upon a false paradigm, dereknamely the greenhouse effect (GH) paradigm that current “man made global Warming” fears are also based upon, and the result of.

Alan first noticed me because of my pdf and thread in this forum about global energy budgets that was also posted at the Climate Realists blog. The subject has not gone away, and it will not. The above thread at WUWT may well mark a turning point, I for one have my fingers crossed.
Good riddance to GH “theory”.

Tags: , , , , , , ,

Comments (6)

  • Avatar

    Allen Eltor

    |

    You and Watts believe it’s possible to place insulating reflecting gas between light from a fire and a rock,

    and make the temperature of that rock rise due to additional heat coming from the rock due to there being less light going into it.

    Until you can count you will be the equivalent of a “pot is like heroin” government science groupie.

    There is a fire.
    Light comes from the fire to heat a sphere.
    The insulating molecules reflect 20% E in
    from ever arriving at heat sensors on surface.

    Your claim is that act created temperature rise of 91F/33C.

    You will not ever: not ever make that happen in reality.

    Another thing you will not ever do
    is show where someone immersed a sensor covered sphere that had been heated in vacuum
    into cold nitrogen
    making that object get hotter than without it.

    Not once Weinstein, not ever. Which is why Watts and yourself lock up at the spectre of predicting which way a thermometer will move.

    [quote name=”Leonard Weinstein”]I, along with Watts, and many others, do not disagree with all the claims and positions of the slayers, but some specific ones. In particular, all claims that there is no back radiation effect that increases temperature. When reasonable statements are made, they will be supported. THE BACK RADIATION DOES NOT HEAT THE SURFACE, IT IS A RESISTANCE TO NET OUTGOING RADIATION (IT REDUCES THE NET), AND ACTS LIKE RADIATION RESISTANCE, BUT CONVECTION AND EVAPORATION CARRY THE EXCESS HEAT UP. As long as you do not understand the physics of radiation, you will be sidelined.[/quote]

  • Avatar

    Greg House

    |

    [quote name=”Leonard Weinstein”]THE BACK RADIATION DOES NOT HEAT THE SURFACE, [/quote]

    Thank you, Leonard.

    The only problem is that the IPCC states the opposite in their reports. They call it back radiation from “greenhouse gases”: http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/faq-1-1-figure-1.html. Their back radiation from “greenhouse gases” allegedly heats the surface and that by twice as much power as the Sun provides.

  • Avatar

    Leonard Weinstein

    |

    I, along with Watts, and many others, do not disagree with all the claims and positions of the slayers, but some specific ones. In particular, all claims that there is no back radiation effect that increases temperature. When reasonable statements are made, they will be supported. THE BACK RADIATION DOES NOT HEAT THE SURFACE, IT IS A RESISTANCE TO NET OUTGOING RADIATION (IT REDUCES THE NET), AND ACTS LIKE RADIATION RESISTANCE, BUT CONVECTION AND EVAPORATION CARRY THE EXCESS HEAT UP. As long as you do not understand the physics of radiation, you will be sidelined.

  • Avatar

    Jan-Ove Pedersen

    |

    It’s still a way to go for NASA as they stick to the claim that the so called back radiation is heating the surface way more than the Sunlight is.
    It’s Beyond me.

Comments are closed