Singer Converges on ZERO Climate Carbon Forcing

Written by Anthony Bright-Paul

I don’t care much for Facebook which is filled with trivia, nevertheless some eminent Skeptics have made use of it. Singer and Latour So I must admit that I was both amused and flattered to be invited to be a Friend with Jim Peden, the Astrophysicist, and one of my absolute heroes. So two days ago I was lead by Jim on Facebook to an essay in Climate Change Dispatch by his colleague at Principia Scientific International, Dr Pierre R Latour.

What were the headlines?

Fred Singer closing in on Fact: CO2 Doesn’t Affect Global temperature!

Here is the link and I hope and pray that all Skeptic Professors and sincere sceptic writers and so on and so forth will read this article by Dr Latour. I immediately passed it on to Hans Schreuder since it vindicates his well-known essay that Greenhouse Gases cool the Planet. This essay by Hans Schreuder is central to what I call my book – Climate for the Layman – but which is, in fact, a compilation of articles and essays.

For too long many of us Skeptics have been fighting on marshy ground – that is on the same marshy ground as the Warmists, with just a light variation. While the Warmists declared and still declare every day that the Globe is warming dangerously by virtue of the Greenhouse Gases, some Skeptics have conceded that Greenhouse Gases warm the atmosphere but only a little, not dangerously.

That is what I mean by fighting on marshy ground, by fighting on the same ground as the Warmists. No wonder they stand their ground – it is as if the Skeptics are fundamentally in agreement with them, only differing in scale.

Luckily for us all Dr Latour does not have that false modesty that afflicts so many Englishmen brought up in Public Schools to play cricket. His American lack of modesty is entirely refreshing – I would have said ‘music to my ears’ but that would be to mix metaphors.

Singer reveals he assumes CO2 warms Earth because it is called a greenhouse gas, which does not make it so. 

 How many other sincere Skeptics have made that same assumption? Latour goes on: –

I discovered in 2012 introducing radiating gases like H2O and CO2 to the atmosphere actually cools the Earth slightly…

My way is physics, the Stefan Boltzmann Law of radiation intensity from all matterproportional to its temperature and emissivity. 

Some years ago now Professor Bob Carter visited with me in my garden on the occasion of the publication of his first book. For some reason he was intrigued to meet a completely independent non-scientist writer writing in the Skeptic cause. As we walked around my garden Bob was at pains to explain to me that molecules of CO2 radiated every which way including downwards, thus warming the lower atmosphere. This is pretty precisely what Dr Helen Czerski also wrote to me.

The theory is that the Earth radiates out a low grade infrared which activates the CO2 molecules and they in turn radiate back to Earth thus warming or increasing the warmth of the lower atmosphere.

Now Bob Carter is a very polite person and considers it absolutely infra dig to disagree with another Skeptic scientist all on the same side. But let us face the facts. The Skeptic cause is not making headway, in spite of the efforts of Lord Lawson and the GWPF and many others.  We are just treading water, while the Warmists continue with their propaganda day by day.

So let me declare now that in no way would I want to upset those who have worked for years in the climate Skeptic cause. However we have to admit that we have made scarcely a dent on the public mind – on the public conception.

That is why it is so important that Fred Singer has now publicly declared that CO2 does not affect Global temperature, and Pierre Latour has helped him along the way by providing an ‘algebraic proof.’

He has been wandering around in the swamp of atmospheric feedbacks, positive or negative, proclaiming it is all too complicated and controversial. Like esteemed MIT Professor Richard Lindzen and other meteorologists, he is trapped in his feedback swamp and can’t get out.

Now where is the error? Where is the error both in logic and in Physics? I believe that what Bob Carter said to me was fundamentally correct – that is to say that all molecules radiate every which way including downwards, but he omitted

proportional to its temperature and emissivity. 

Pierre Latour goes on to discuss ‘back radiation’ and repeats the fundamental 2nd Law of Thermodynamics with the words ‘Heat does not flow from cold matter to hot matter, heating hot further; only from hot to cold.’

Gee! I knew that all along and I have no degrees of any kind, only an entirely aggravating desire to be logical and to think in a straight line. Here now is Latour once again with his characteristic and charming immodesty: –

If non-radiating O2 is exchanged for absorbing/emitting CO2, emissivity, e, of planet to space must increase.

I = σ e (T/100)4

If e increases with CO2 at constant I, T goes down. Therefore CO2 causes global cooling.

Get that my fellow Skeptics? CO2 causes Global Cooling. This is the high ground – this is the ground from which we should be fighting, not in the swamps of positive and negative feed backs.

Let us have a truly Happy New Year, where we rout the Warmists with their phoney science.

Comments (72)

  • Avatar

    DJ Cotton

    |

    [b]I will post comments on numerous climate blogs pointing out errors in PSI articles that continue to promulgate the IPCC hoax that radiation alone determines planetary temperatures.[/b]

  • Avatar

    DJ Cotton

    |

    To those who genuinely want to understand planetary core and surface temperatures:

    At least within our Solar System we know that …

    (1) All planets and satellite moons have an effective radiating temperature that reduces with distance from the Sun.

    (2) All planets and satellite moons that have a significant atmosphere exhibit a troposphere in which temperatures increase downwards with a temperature gradient closely related to (and usually between 65% and 95% of) the quotient of the acceleration due to gravity and the weighted mean specific heat of the gases in that troposphere. Temperatures exceed the effective radiating temperature below a particular altitude.

    (3) However, solar radiation is attenuated as it enters the troposphere and so, at lower levels its intensity is often insufficient to raise the existing temperatures. Thus one might expect cooler temperatures at lower levels, not warmer ones.

    (4) Much, if not all of the energy required to maintain the temperature gradient (which is built from the top down, not the opposite) gets down there from regions that can be warmed by the Sun, and it is convective heat transfer that is the process which achieves this in accord with the Second Law of Thermodynamics, as explained [url=http://whyitsnotco2.com]here[/url].

    (5) All planets and satellite moons have core temperatures well above the maximum temperatures at the base of their tropospheres or at their solid surfaces if any. It is the same thermodynamics working in solids and liquids which explains the temperature gradient and energy flows beneath any solid surface. Internal energy generation or long-term cooling off does not explain planetary core and surface temperatures, nor the temperature gradients and profiles which get down to the radiating temperature at just the right altitude. This is not a coincidence.

    Earth’s climate has nothing to do with carbon dioxide and its surface temperature cannot be explained with radiation calculations.

  • Avatar

    Mervyn

    |

    Hans Schreuder got it right in “Slaying the sky Dragon” when he stated:

    Can anybody explain to me how such an insignificant quantity of a gaseous substance can possibly heat up the entire column of air . . . by re-radiation . . . when air does not react to radiation in the first place – check your microwave oven for proof of that. The air inside is heated off the food, not the microwaves. Just like the real world!

    Too right!

  • Avatar

    DJ Cotton

    |

    [b]
    To those who genuinely want to understand planetary core and surface temperatures:[/b]

    At least within our Solar System we know that …

    (1) All planets and satellite moons have an effective radiating temperature that reduces with distance from the Sun.

    (2) All planets and satellite moons that have a significant atmosphere exhibit a troposphere in which temperatures increase downwards with a temperature gradient closely related to (and usually between 65% and 95% of) the quotient of the acceleration due to gravity and the weighted mean specific heat of the gases in that troposphere. Temperatures exceed the effective radiating temperature below a particular altitude.

    (3) However, solar radiation is attenuated as it enters the troposphere and so, at lower levels its intensity is often insufficient to raise the existing temperatures. Thus one might expect cooler temperatures at lower levels, not warmer ones.

    (4) Much, if not all of the energy required to maintain the temperature gradient (which is built from the top down, not the opposite) gets down there from regions that can be warmed by the Sun, and it is convective heat transfer that is the process which achieves this in accord with the Second Law of Thermodynamics, as explained [url=HTTP://WHYITSNOTCO2.COM]here[/url].

    (5) All planets and satellite moons have core temperatures well above the maximum temperatures at the base of their tropospheres or at their solid surfaces if any. It is the same thermodynamics working in solids and liquids which explains the temperature gradient and energy flows beneath any solid surface. Internal energy generation or long-term cooling off does not explain planetary core and surface temperatures, nor the temperature gradients and profiles which get down to the radiating temperature at just the right altitude. This is not a coincidence.

  • Avatar

    DJ Cotton

    |

    [b]Those who only think in terms of radiation and the Stefan Boltzmann Law will never be able to explain planetary core and surface temperatures.[/b]

    You need to think outside the square – consider a completely different paradigm based on [b]thermodynamics[/b] and the laws thereof.

    [b]You will only understand why when you study http://whyitsnotco2.com
    [/b]

  • Avatar

    DJ Cotton

    |

    [url]whyitsnotco2.com[/url]

    In the above website (being visited by over 100 each day) you will see a plot derived from planetary orbits. There is a very strong correlation between world temperature data and the 934-year and superimposed 60-year cycles in this plot. I postulate that magnetic fields from the planets affect the Sun and cosmic ray intensities, and the latter can affect cloud formation and thus climate on Earth.

    The whole debate lies firmly within the science of physics in which I am well versed. Most people don’t understand thermodynamics, let alone radiative heat transfers. I have written about the latter in my paper “Radiated Energy and the Second Law of Thermodynamics”published on several websites in March 2012 and easily found with Google. That paper demolishes the false conjecture by James Hansen that back radiation can be added to solar radiation when calculating surface temperatures using the Stefan Boltzmann equation. All it can do is slow that portion of surface cooling which is itself by radiation, whilst having no effect on most of the cooling, which is not by radiation.

    But the more important issue is the physics (based on the Second Law of Thermodynamics) which does explain all temperature data in tropospheres, surfaces, crusts, mantles and cores of all planets and satellite moons, and also explains the required energy flows to maintain the existing temperatures. Very, very few are aware of this physics, yet it is valid and correctly derived from the laws of physics which have stood the test of time.

    Unless we attack the false physics in the greenhouse conjecture and present valid physics that does gel with reality, we don’t have a hope of quashing the hoax.

    I believe we can present the correct physics, and such is in my book “Why It’s Not Carbon Dioxide After All” available from Amazon. If we don’t satisfy the world that the physics in the GH conjecture is false, and that other correct physics does explain everything, then there will be more of the same when the 60 year cycle rises again between about 2028 and 2059.

    Hopefully Australia can lead the world,for I believe there could be a class-action sponsored by major companies against the Government for all the costs which such companies incur because of the false claims regarding carbon dioxide. If the Government lost such a case they would be forced to act and take notice of the correct science, and it would get global attention. I am confident that I could defeat any scientist the Government might use as a witness in such a case. Many of you will know that I have argued with hundreds on climate blogs and never been proven wrong regarding the content of my book. I’ve even offered $5,000 if proven wrong.

    So, if anyone has any suggestions, or knows someone in an Australian law firm who may wish to take this on, let me know.

    Doug Cotton
    email: its.not.co2@gmail.com

  • Avatar

    DJ Cotton

    |

     

    [b]Administrator! cum Censor:[/b]

    It’s starting to look like I’ll have to add a page “PSI errors” (as I have for WUWT and Hockey Schtick errors) on my new site http://whyitsnotco2.com which was visited by over 1,000 people in just the last 4 days.

    I’ll start the page …

    [b]”How ironic it is that PSI, the flag-bearer of [i]”Peer Review In Open Media”[/i] is guilty of deleting numerous reviews of their own articles, as you can see in all the deleted comments I posted on these threads.”[/b]
     

  • Avatar

    DJ Cotton

    |

    Once again the “Administrator” deletes valid science which PSI members have yet to understand – see http://climate-change-theory.com

    Sad.

  • Avatar

    WhyItsNotCO2.com

    |

    [i]”The law that entropy always increases holds, I think, the supreme position among the laws of Nature. … if your theory is found to be against the second law of thermodynamics I can give you no hope; there is nothing for it but to collapse in deepest humiliation.”[/i]
    —Sir Arthur Stanley Eddington, T[i]he Nature of the Physical World[/i] (1927)

    Until PSI people and others recognize that all forms of energy (including gravitational potential energy) play a role in entropy and thus in determining the state of thermodynamic equilibrium (which the Second Law tells us will evolve) then you are barking up the wrong tree with radiative heat transfer theory as your only concept in your beliefs about temperatures on all planets and moons.

  • Avatar

    WhyItsNotCO2.com

    |

    Perhaps one day Mack and others will come to grips with the fact that someone with a lifetime of physics education behind him fully agrees with the physics I present in the book and whyitsnotco2.com … I quote him:

    [i]”Doug Cotton shows how simple thermodynamic physics implies that the gravitational field of a planet will establish a thermal gradient in its atmosphere. The thermal gradient, a basic property of a planet, can be used to determine the temperatures of its atmosphere, surface and sub-surface regions. The interesting concept of “heat creep” applied to diagrams of the thermal gradient is used to explain the effect of solar radiation on the temperature of a planet. The thermal gradient shows that the observed temperatures of the Earth are determined by natural processes and not by back radiation warming from greenhouse gases. Evidence is presented to show that greenhouse gases cool the Earth and do not warm it.”[/i]
    John Turner B.Sc.;Dip.Ed.;M.Ed.(Hons);Grad.Dip.Ed.Studies (retired physics educator)

    Over 1,000 people have visited whyitsnotco2.com just in the last 4 days. You’re missing out on important breakthrough science if you haven’t studied the content.

  • Avatar

    Pierre Latour

    |

    Greg House 2015-01-11 17:54

    So I responded to you after all. I just forgot. You are welcome.

    I still don’t understand your question. And I don’t see how it relates to my essay. I do not accept any responsibility for that.

    And you avoided answering my question. Or disclosing your credentials. Which is ok.

    Be careful not to live in a glass house.

    • Avatar

      Greg House

      |

      [quote name=”Pierre Latour”]
      So I responded to you after all.[/quote]
      Of course you did. I did not say you did not. I said it did not trigger any SCIENTIFIC response.

      Since you still “do not understand the question”, as you put it, let us go step by step.

      So, does adding CO2 to air change its temperature by equal energy input from the specific heat perspective? More specific, does it increase or decrease the temperature?

      • Avatar

        WhyItsNotCO2.com

        |

        You people are not seeing the woods for the trees. You are barking up the wrong tree.

        Until you can explain temperatures in the nominal troposphere of Uranus, you cannot explain what happens on Earth, because the physics is the same everywhere. You are working within the wrong paradigm.

        There’s no solar radiation reaching the base of the Uranus troposphere, but it’s hotter than Earth. You can’t explain it within any internal energy generation or long-term cooling off. Nor can you blame anything on carbon dioxide or water vapor. And there’s no surface there either.

        I can’t do more than encourage you to think about these other planets like Venus and Uranus. There’s more detail at http://whyitsnotco2.com

    • Avatar

      Pat Obar

      |

      [quote name=”Pierre Latour”]Greg House 2015-01-11 17:54

      So I responded to you after all. I just forgot. You are welcome.

      I still don’t understand your question. And I don’t see how it relates to my essay. I do not accept any responsibility for that.
      And you avoided answering my question. Or disclosing your credentials. Which is ok.

      Be careful not to live in a glass house.[/quote]

      Good God Dr.Latour, temperature itself is but an abstract construct. Trying to apply such to another abstract concept such as mass with specific heat is true insanity.

      When, all is correct for planting, plus the planting, crops must occur! Your energy stuff is but major fantasy!

  • Avatar

    WhyItsNotCO2.com

    |

    Why is it that people like Pierre and geran fail to understand that the new 21st century paradigm in climate science is based on the gravito-thermal effect and the energy flows are explained by the Second Law of Thermodynamics?

    The whole hypothesis (now summarised on http://whyitsnotco2.com) is developed from first principles directly from the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Yet geran makes a hand waving statement that it disobeys that law. He hasn’t a clue why, and can’t possibly prove that it does when in fact it is derived from that very law.

    Why is it that people like geran think they should air their clumsy school-boy “fissics” and then gloss it up by assuming all the physicists they know (if any) would disagree with an hypothesis developed rigorously from the Second Law? There are so many people without any qualifications in physics who think they can communicate intelligently about atmospheric physics, thermodynamics, entropy and the Second Law etc on climate blogs. Frankly it’s laughable, but it contributes to public confusion and the continued prominence of false GH science.

    • Avatar

      Mack

      |

      “public confusion” says Doug Cotton,
      I’m not confused my friend. Reading some of the stuff you’ve written here confusion reigns supreme with you.
      For example, you seem even confused between radiative heat transfer and conductive/convective heat transfer in the atmosphere. The first travels at the speed of light, and the other two by a slower “mechanical” process. Conduction can be virtually discounted as a means of heat transfer (in the atmosphere.)
      So you’ve got watts travelling at the speed of light striking an object and becoming measureable in time, ie converted into joules, which then waft mechanically ,undetected and unmeasured, into a “heat sink” or “space”.
      Quite QED eh Doug,
      Hope that cures your confusion bright boy.

      • Avatar

        WhyItsNotCO2.com

        |

        I wonder why it is that Mack feels obliged to comment on my hypothesis in my book and the new website http://whyitsnotco2.com when he hasn’t read either, let alone understood such. His wild assertions about what he thinks might be in the book about the role of convective heat transfer (and conduction beneath a planet’s surface) are laughable. As to what I’ve said about radiative heat transfer, well that’s been in my PSI paper since March 2012 [url=http://principia-scientific.org/publications/psi_radiated_energy.pdf]here[/url].

        I don’t expect people to understand the physics without reading the websites or the book. What I write in comments is just there to whet their appetite for finding out the truth, and why it is the truth regarding temperatures in tropospheres, surfaces, crusts, mantles and cores of all planets and satellite moons.

      • Avatar

        WhyItsNotCO2.com

        |

        “striking an object”

      • Avatar

        WhyItsNotCO2.com

        |

        What “object” Macky boy in the troposphere of the planet Uranus?

        • Avatar

          Mack

          |

          “I don’t expect people to understand the physics without reading the websites or the book” says Doug Cotton.
          “people”, as in the general public, wouldn’t get past the first one or two paragraphs of your dissertations without lapsing into a stupour of boredom,induced by being drowned in a miasma of stultifying physics nomenclature.
          “people”, as in those with physics degrees, and with a good grasp of physics, judge you for what they read, constantly,on and on, like a broken record, here.
          “What “object” Macky boy…” says Doug Cotton.
          Er, do I have to get a dictionary definition for the word “object”?
          Maybe I should have used “thing”..as in some”thing” and no”thing”. A “thing” such as an atom, a molecule, a cloud, a surface of a planet. Every”thing”. Everything radiates “energy.” Energy… that stuff coming from the sun.
          “stuff”, now there’s another alternative word for you ,Doug.

          • Avatar

            DJ Cotton

            |

            My point about “what object” is that the solar radiation has nothing to strike after it is all absorbed in the very upper atmosphere of the planet Uranus in a methane layer there which is in radiative balance with the Sun and at a temperature of about 59K.

            So what you cannot explain then is how the thermal energy gets down into the hotter regions below and even maintains the temperatire of the core at around 5,000K.

            Remember, you cannot explain the temperature of the Uranus core or its troposphere based on any internal heat generation or long term cooling off.

            There’s nothing hard to understand about what’s happening. It’s all at http://whyitsnotco2.com which was visited by over 1,000 people just in the last 4 days.

          • Avatar

            Mack

            |

            As far as the planet Uranus is concerned..isn’t it very cold.?
            As far as Venus is concerned…isn’t it very hot? Something to do with the proximity to the sun, I was taught in school. Did you teach that Doug?
            Now, you keep wanting to discuss core temps of the planets which, by and large, are very hot. So with a bit of curiosity about this, I googled and discovered that 1/2 the Earth’s core temperature is maintained by nuclear fission.
            http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/2011/07/18/nuclear-fission-confirmed-as-source-of-more-than-half-of-earths-heat/
            This is pretty recent and sketchy stuff,and demonstrates just how little we know about even the Earth. But it would not, to my mind, be over presumptuous to say that the cores of all the other planets would be nuclear reactors also. So how is it that Encyclopedia D. Cottonia understands the sizes,compositions and ages of all the planets core nuclear reactors?
            And what this has got to the science of climatology on this Earth, beats me.
            Don’t keep pestering us with Uranus Doug, see a proctologist.

          • Avatar

            DJ Cotton

            |

            [i]”How is it … ?”[/i]

            Because I have done thousands of hours of research, including quite a bit on Venus and Uranus.

            Uranus [i]”very cold”[/i] Uhhh? Even Wikipedia could help you out of that delusion …

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranus#Troposphere

            Nuclear energy generation in Uranus? The evidence is very strongly against such my friend. Your hand waving does not impress one iota.

            Others can read the real physics at http://whyitsnotco2.com

          • Avatar

            DJ Cotton

            |

            So it’s hotter than Earth’s surface at the base of the nominal troposphere of Uranus, where it’s 320K as you would have read in Wikipedia and elsewhere.

            But Uranus is nearly 30 times further from the Sun, and radiation is attenuated with the square of the distance.

            [i]”Something to do with the proximity to the Sun”[/i] you say? Well, partly correct actually, but not the full story.

            You’re a beggar for punishment, but you’re the one who wanted to take me on.

          • Avatar

            Mack

            |

            It’s apples and oranges. You’re considering strange and odd planets with temperatures that are truely out of this world. You’re considering planets where the concept of “surface temps” cannot be even properly defined, because the “surfaces” themselves are just arbitrarily chosen. It’s where the gas becomes a liquid,.. no, hang on ,.. it’s where the liquid becomes a solid.
            Things are down to earth , here on Earth, we have this narrow band we can call the “surface”..it extends from the bottom of the deepest ocean to the TOA. That is the Earth’s surface in reality when it comes to defining the global temps….notice it’s where the liquid becomes solid.

          • Avatar

            DJ Cotton

            |

            The laws of physics apply universally. I have explained a universal, valid physical process based on the Second Law of Thermodynamics. My response to your childish “explanation” is at http://whyitsnotco2.com where you will learn that the Earth’s lower troposphere also gets warmed by convective heat transfer (not much by direct solar radiation) just as is the case for Venus, Uranus and all planets with a significant atmosphere.

          • Avatar

            Mack

            |

            “The laws of physics apply universally”
            Sure they do Doug, We can all see that what you say does nothing to break the laws of physics. It’s just that you’ve got yourself terribly confused and that your calculations are wrong. For instance you seem to randomly chose parts of things,(say the troposphere, or layers thereof, for eg.)and look at it’s temperature in isolation.; you don’t get the total picture. I mean look at that wiki link you’ve sent us to..
            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranus#Troposphere
            Just over in that right hand column giving all the stats for Uranus they say ..Surface temp. (1 bar level) (tropopause) Min 49-53K Mean 76k (- 197.2 deg. C) Max 57k.
            Cold enough for you Doug?
            Are you just cherry picking something, some region, some “surface” to get this 320K you’re rabbiting on about?
            As you keep telling everyone else…see the bigger picture.

          • Avatar

            DJ Cotton

            |

            The only solid surface on Uranus is at a temperature of about 5000K and it is thousands of kilometers further down, being kept hot due to thermodynamic processes explained in the [url=http://whyitsnotco2.com]website[/url] about which you haven’t a clue. In fact I explain all temperatures from a planet’s tropopause (above its troposphere) down to its core – not just certain layers.

            You continue to make a fool of yourself to those silent readers who are among about 1750 who have read the website and thus realize you have no idea of what the hypothesis is all about.

          • Avatar

            Mack

            |

            ..”and thus realise you have no idea of what the hypothesis is all about”
            Yes I do. It’s a thermal pressure gradient theory…simply the higher the pressure the hotter. The further into a planet, the higher the pressure, therefore the hotter.
            This ,my friend, may apply nicely and is totally applicable to the physics of everything below a planets surface., but you’ve cherry picked a portion of the atmosphere(s)ie the troposphere(s)which closely mimics this thermal gradient and simply included that into your global atmospheric temperature hypothesis.
            What happens further up in Earth’s atmosphere Doug? Well, we get into a thermal gradient which goes in opposition to your hypothesis. We get up into the thermosphere where the pressure is bugger all and yet temperatures can reach almost 2500deg C.
            Whoops..confusion about those “surfaces” ..again Doug?

          • Avatar

            Mack

            |

            Also Doug, you might now be thinking in terms of what sort of watts/sq.m. of incoming solar radiation at the TOA would cause this thermosphere to reach these temps. in excess of 2000deg C. What sort of watts/sq.m. would cause the thermosphere, from the newer outer satellites,to be actually seen to glow. (the nitric oxides and CO2..Saber study)
            It’s got to be more than that 340-342w/sq.m to which you subscribe by geometric calculation. Can you see your mistake Doug.? If so, don’t dismay, you’re certainly not alone. Myself, I think your physics is superb and your endeavours honest. You have tried (unfortunately, starting at the very first, using figures associated with the AGW deception)to provide some alternative explanation for global temps.other than just the null hypothesis,for which, your efforts should be commended.
            (I hope I’m not posting this too quickly)

          • Avatar

            DJ Cotton

            |

            The temperature of the Venus surface has nothing to do with radiation into that surface. This comment is continued at [url=http://whyitsnotco2.com]whyitsnotco2.com[/url] where over 1,800 have read it ion just over a week since publication.

          • Avatar

            DJ Cotton

            |

            Your 340W/m^2 would only support a true black body’s temperature at about 5C. The Earth’s surface is not a true black body, so neither you nor I know how much colder it would be, but it would be significantly colder than 5C. Hence your conjecture that 340W/m^2 is what warms the surface to existing temperatures is proven incorrect by empirical evidence.

          • Avatar

            DJ Cotton

            |

            Until you can point out “confusion” (using valid physics) in what is written in http://whyitsnotco2.com your comments are water off a duck’s back.

          • Avatar

            Mack

            |

            I guess I was posting too quickly
            “water off a duck’s back”
            Quack, quack Cotton
            Quack as in the “Greenhouse” effect,
            And Quack as in your Gravitational Thermal Hypothesis.

          • Avatar

            DJ Cotton

            |

            As I expected, you can’t find any errors in the physics explained in that website that about 1,850 have now visited in just over a week. Word is getting around.

          • Avatar

            DJ Cotton

            |

            I gave you a link regarding the troposphere of Uranus. It reads …

            [i][b]”Troposphere[/b][/i]

            [i]”The troposphere is the lowest and densest part of the atmosphere and is characterized by a decrease in temperature with altitude.[12] The temperature falls from about [b]320 K[/b] at the base of the nominal troposphere at −300 km to 53 K at 50 km.”[/i]

          • Avatar

            DJ Cotton

            |

            You really don’t know what you are talking about. The Earth’s surface is not considered to be the bottom of the ocean (where it’s colder than 4C) and the base of the Uranus troposphere is not a surface. There’s thousands of kilometers of gas further down to the small solid core of Uranus which has about 55% the mass of Earth and is at about 5,000C, the reason for which I have explained, even though no one else has done so correctly to my knowledge.

          • Avatar

            Mack

            |

            “The Earth’s surface is not considered at the bottom of the ocean”
            Yes it is Doug…when it comes to defining the total global temps. At some stage, water from the ocean depths circulates up to reach the ocean surface. The one you’re thinking of. Therefore the place “(where it’s colder than 4C)” does play a part, at some stage, in determining global temperatures and climate.
            But everybody will allow you, Doug , to run up and down the planets between their TOA’s and cores like a headless chook.

          • Avatar

            DJ Cotton

            |

            My response to your garbage is at [url]http://whyitsnotco2.com[/url]

          • Avatar

            DJ Cotton

            |

            Well you agree then that the temperature of the surface layer of the oceans (which has a significant effect upon nearby land temperatures) is not caused by the solar radiation that mostly passes through that layer. You think it is heat transfer from the colder depths of the ocean back up to the warmer surface, contrary to the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Oh, perhaps you think its upward ocean currents warming the cold water by friction or somehow generating energy out of nothing. /sarc

          • Avatar

            DJ Cotton

            |

            It is you who promulgates the IPCC hoax that radiation alone determines planetary temperatures who belongs at the bottom of the ocean. You are just so gullible to be fooled by James Hansen et al. (LOL)

            y

          • Avatar

            DJ Cotton

            |

            Was it 340W/m^2 you said? Bad luck! That’s only going to make a black body 5 degrees C, not 15C. Sadly Earth’s surface doesn’t meet the definition of a black body so your fictitious 340W/m^2 won’t raise it above freezing point..

          • Avatar

            DJ Cotton

            |

            As I expected, you can’t explain Uranus energy flows or refute the physics in that website. That’s because your ideas of “fissics” are not universal.

      • Avatar

        DJ Cotton

        |

         
         

         

         
        [b]THE IMPORTANCE of CONVECTIVE HEAT TRANSFER[/b]
         

        Convective heat transfer plays a major role in determining planetary tropospheric and surface temperatures. On a planet like Uranus there is virtually no solar radiation penetrating far into its atmosphere. Even the Venus surface receives only about 10% of what Earth’s surface receives.

        [i][b]Direct solar radiation striking a planet’s surface is obviously not the primary determinant of the temperature thereof.[/b][/i]

        You need to understand how the process described in statements of the [i][b]Second Law of Thermodynamics[/b][/i] leads to a density gradient and a temperature gradient in a planet’s troposphere.

        [b]This is the fascinating new physics about which over 1,000 people have been eager to learn just in the last 4 days by visiting http://whyitsnotco2.com [/b]

         

         

        • Avatar

          Mack

          |

          “This is the fascinating new physics about which over 1,000 people have been eager to learn just in the last 4 days by visiting….”
          Do you also get a free set of steak knives with that?

          • Avatar

            DJ Cotton

            |

            No, but the first in the world to prove the physics substantially wrong and to produce a study showing water vapor warms would win the $5,000 reward that’s been on offer since March, 2014.

  • Avatar

    Pierre Latour

    |

    Greg House 2015-01-11 10:20
    I am so sorry to disappoint you, but replacing O2 with CO2 does make the air slightly colder because increased emissivity allows a radiating body to radiate at same intensity at lower T.

    While molar specific heat capacity, Cp, of CO2 > O2 (32.5% greater at standard conditions), that is irrelevant to my conclusion. You just need to understand S-B physics to understand what I mean.

    “I told Pierre the same, but it does not trigger any scientific response unfortunately.”

    I have no obligation to respond to every blogger; particularly when I have already addressed this point publicly. I am unaware of when, where and what you told me.

    “Some people simply should not engage in science. This is one thing to be a good student and learn to apply some secure knowledge others have collected, but actually making science is a completely different thing. This non-reaction to argumentation is very unfortunate.”

    I agree. I also deplore GHGT promoters’ reaction to argumentation with name calling, threats, vitriol, and law suits. I practiced chemical engineering based on physics, chemistry and mathematics professionally since 1958.

    “Now, back to the CO2, according to climate “scientists” and the IPCC the “greenhouse effect” works just like that: the “greenhouse gases” intercept the IR from the surface and send it almost DOUBLED back! It does not require a degree to understand what an unbelievable nonsense it is. This is what the climate scam is based on. This is what we need to focus on, instead of producing additional nonsense.”

    I agree and addressed that in Nov 2013: http://www.principia-scientific.org/no-virginia-cooler-objects-cannot-make-warmer-objects-even-warmer-still.html

    So GHGT has been roundly falsified, and now corrected.

    • Avatar

      Greg House

      |

      [quote name=”Pierre Latour”]I have no obligation to respond to every blogger; particularly when I have already addressed this point publicly. I am unaware of when, where and what you told me.[/quote]
      I told you that in my comment on your article “The Four Known Scientific Ways Carbon Dioxide Cools Earth’s Climate” published on this site. Here is that comment again:

      [i]”Pierre, ever thought of contradiction between your discovery and the well known property of CO2 called specific heat?

      One can likewise discover four factors explaining why elephants can fly so well: the can wave their ears, they are very strong etc.”[/i]

      http://www.principia-scientific.org/the-four-known-scientific-ways-carbon-dioxide-cools-earth-s-climate.html#comment-7958

      You answered by “do not understand what you mean” kind of answer: [i]”What contradiction is that?
      I fail to see the validity or relevance of your elephant analogy claim.”[/i]

      Too little for a person who [i]”practiced chemical engineering based on physics, chemistry and mathematics professionally since 1958″[/i].

    • Avatar

      WhyItsNotCO2.com

      |

      I am so sorry to disappoint you, Pierre, but radiation to the surface is not the primary determinant of a planet’s surface temperature. How could it be on Venus? How could it cause the Venus temperature to rise by 5 degrees in 4 months? It’s time you read and understood the correct thermodynamics that works throughout the Solar System and no doubt beyond.

  • Avatar

    Pierre Latour

    |

    P. Tuvnes 2015-01-11 07:31

    I addressed your issue at
    http://www.principia-scientific.org/fred-singer-closing-in-on-fact-co2-doesn-t-affect-global-temperature.html
    and
    http://www.principia-scientific.org/physics-proves-radiating-gases-decrease-global-temperature.html

    In short, using First Law of Thermodynamics, input rate = output rate, and neglecting negligible fossil fuel combustion heat release compared to solar input as GHGT does, it is easy to show
    I = (1 – alb) S/4 = σ e (T/100)**4
    Dividing by σ e: (T/100)**4 = (1 – alb) S/4 σ e = I/σ e

    This relationship gives Earth’s temperature from reflectivity (albedo), solar intensity and emissivity alone. So all you need to do to confirm your hypothesis is prove CO2 affects alb, which I doubt has been done because it doesn’t. So I is indeed independent of CO2 and the contrary GHGT claim is false; according to S-B, conservation of energy and algebra. QED.

    I agree with your conclusions and respect Prof Claes Johnson.

    • Avatar

      WhyItsNotCO2.com

      |

      “This relationship gives Earth’s temperature from reflectivity (albedo), solar intensity and emissivity alone.”

      No it doesn’t. How hot would a polished silver spoon get in the Sun? How hot does the thin transparent surface layer of the oceans get?

      And if the physics were correct, then it could be used to explain why a spot on the Venus surface rises in temperature from 732K to 737K during 4 months of sunlight.

      The correct physics is here: http://whyitsnotco2.com

    • Avatar

      DJ Cotton

      |

      Pierre Latour

      I’m glad you respect Claes Johnson who acknowledged (when I published [i]”[url=http://principia-scientific.org/publications/psi_radiated_energy.pdf]Radiated Energy and the Second Law of Thermodynamics[/url]”[/i] that I was one of only a few who really understood his work on black body radiation.

      However, it is one thing to calculate the effective radiating temperature of the whole Earth + atmosphere system, but quite another thing to calculate the mean surface temperature, because the surface does not meet the definition of a black body.

      Indeed, no planetary surface temperature can be calculated from direct solar radiation absorbed, and, as Claes Johnson would agree, back radiation cannot be added to the solar.

      [b]So I trust you agree that you have no explanation for the surface temperatures of Earth, let alone Venus.[/b]

      Personally I found that to be an unsatisfying dilemma, and so I applied valid physics and was able to explain, not only surface temperatures, but also those beneath the surface of planets and satellite moons.

      It’s all at http://whyitsnotco2.com

       

  • Avatar

    Greg House

    |

    Anthony, I am so sorry to disappoint you again, but things are sometimes not what they appear to be. Replacing O2 with CO2 does not make the air colder. You just need to look at the specific heat values for air and CO2, if you understand what I mean.

    I told Pierre the same, but it does not trigger any scientific response unfortunately.

    Some people simply should not engage in science. This is one thing to be a good student and learn to apply some secure knowledge others have collected, but actually making science is a completely different thing. This non-reaction to argumentation is very unfortunate.

    Now, back to the CO2, according to climate “scientists” and the IPCC the “greenhouse effect” works just like that: the “greenhouse gases” intercept the IR from the surface and send it almost DOUBLED back! It does not require a degree to understand what an unbelievable nonsense it is. This is what the climate scam is based on. This is what we need to focus on, instead of producing additional nonsense.

    • Avatar

      WhyItsNotCO2.com

      |

      And, Greg, we need to focus on presenting the correct physics which, unlike the radiative forcing hoax, does explain all temperatures in tropospheres, surfaces, crusts, mantles and cores of all planets and satellite moons. That physics is at http://whyitsnotco2.com

  • Avatar

    P. Tuvnes

    |

    A problem with your simple reasoning at the end is that you assume that I is constant (I is outgoing radiating energy intensity in W/m2). However the climate alarmists assume I is reduced with increasing CO2, thereby trapping heat, and T increases.
    You have 3 variables (I, e, T), not 2, and the equation is not solved by only changing 1 variable.
    Recent measurement have shown, however, that I has increased with increasing CO2 (ref. Changes in global net radiative imbalance 1985-2012, Richard P. Allan, et al.). http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2014GL060962/abstract
    Analyses supporting Allan et al.:
    Analysis shows the “missing heat” has gone to space & less “heat trapping” from increased greenhouse gases http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.no/2014/10/analysis-shows-missing-heat-has-gone-to.html and
    An Empirical Review of Recent Trends in the Greenhouse Effect av Robin Pittwood, Kiwi Thinker http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/11/08/an-empirical-review-of-recent-trends-in-the-greenhouse-effect/
    The two primary findings of this empirical study are:
    • Outgoing radiation has not declined over this period as expected by IPCC models. In fact it has increased. The missing heat has gone back to space – as usual and in the quantity as per Stefan Boltzmann’s law, via OLWIR, and
    • The increasing greenhouse effect expected by IPCC models, is not evident in the measurements. It appears there has been no increased greenhouse effect over this period.
    This study analysed two important factors directly associated with the greenhouse effect, atmospheric temperature and outgoing radiation, and finds that the trends observed, along with an empirical derivation of the Stefan Boltzmann relative emissivity factor directly contradicts the greenhouse theory built into the IPCC models.

    The global temperature and climate mechanisms are much more complicated than you have described in your post. Regarding radiation, I recommend prof. Claes Johnson; Mathematical Physics of Blackbody Radiation http://www.csc.kth.se/~cgjoh/ambsblack.pdf and debunking the AGW dogma here: CO2 Climate Alarmism Debunked by Mathematics, 2011. http://www.csc.kth.se/~cgjoh/climatemathematics.pptx

    • Avatar

      WhyItsNotCO2.com

      |

      Yes the radiative forcing conjecture was debunked years ago in papers like “[url=http://principia-scientific.org/publications/psi_radiated_energy.pdf][i]Radiated Energy and the Second Law of Thermodynamics[/i][/url]” but you need to understand the new 21st century paradigm shift based on the thermodynamics explained in http://whyitsnotco2.com – a website being visited by over 300 a day because the word is getting out that it’s correct physics.

  • Avatar

    John A Marshall

    |

    [quote name=”geran”]CO2 does not “cause” warming.

    CO2 does not “cause” cooling.

    We have to be careful with our terminology, as there are too many folks out there with no clue about radiative physics.

    CO2, like ALL of the other gases in the atmosphere absorbs and emits IR energy. It can speed up (or slow down) heat transfer to space, as needed, based on ambient temperatures. If you want a simple one-line description, use this one: “Atmospheric CO2 helps to regulate Earth’s temperature.”[/quote]
    CO2 and water vapour are very goog adsorbers and emitters of IR. The gasses a O2 and N2 are not so warm up by diffusion and very slowly emit IR. One reason why night temperatures do not plunge as on the Moon is this thermal inertia. CO2 etc emit immedaitely they adsorb so cooling.

  • Avatar

    geran

    |

    CO2 does not “cause” warming.

    CO2 does not “cause” cooling.

    We have to be careful with our terminology, as there are too many folks out there with no clue about radiative physics.

    CO2, like ALL of the other gases in the atmosphere absorbs and emits IR energy. It can speed up (or slow down) heat transfer to space, as needed, based on ambient temperatures. If you want a simple one-line description, use this one: “Atmospheric CO2 helps to regulate Earth’s temperature.”

    • Avatar

      WhyItsNotCO2.com

      |

      And there are too many people (like geran) who think radiation is what determines planetary temperatures in tropospheres, surfaces, crusts, mantles etc, whereas these temperatures are explained [url=http://whyitsnotco2.com][b]here[/b][/url].

      • Avatar

        geran

        |

        Hi Dug!

        Now surely you are have not sunk so low that you would say things about people that aren’t true! Let’s just chalk it up to your being terribly confused about just about everything…

        • Avatar

          geran

          |

          Each planet/moon is different, but in all, as far as we know, temperatures are determined by the specific heating and cooling effects, according to the laws of thermodynamics.

          For example, on Earth, the Sun is the major heat source. Effects such as the rotation of the Earth, albedo, the layers of atmosphere, and the massive bodies of water serve to maintain the average temperature within a fairly narrow range. Most folks agree that average temperature is about 288 K.

          On the Moon, which has no atmosphere, or large bodies of water, yet receives, on average, the same solar radiation, the average temperature is quite different, as are the temperature extremes.

          But, the differences are not violations of the laws of thermodynamics. We do not expect the laws of physics to be violated in this solar system.

          I know of no respected scientist that believes Earth’s core is heated by the Sun. For you to claim that some people believe that is, at best, a “red herring”, or at worst, delusional.

          • Avatar

            WhyItsNotCO2.com

            |

            Then you, geran, need to get your respected physicists to read http://whyitsnotco2.com (being read by 300 a day now) and submit their claim for the $5,000 reward I’ve offered for the first in the world to prove the physics substantially wrong and to produce a similar study showing that water vapor warms by 25 degrees rather than, as I showed, cools by a few degrees.

            By the way, geran, the Moon’s surface receives about twice as much solar radiation as does Earth’s surface, but the Moon’s average temperature is of course far cooler because it does not have an atmosphere.

            The Sun keeps the core of the Moon at about 1,300C. You have no other explanation. Your respected physicists also have no explanation as to why the base of the nominal troposphere pf Uranus is hotter than Earth. You yourself haven’t even got off Square One and have not got your facts right, so don’t waste my time. I have no idea why you bother to comment here when you obviously have no relevant knowledge of the physics I have presented, nor any desire to learn or check it out, nor any explanation of the energy flows which support Earth’s mean surface temperature. You are just a load of assertive statements without a word of physics to support them, let alone any valid physics to refute what is in my book and summarised in the above website.

          • Avatar

            DJ Cotton

            |

            The average temperature of the Moon’s surface is well below freezing point, yet its surface receives about twice as much direct solar radiation per square meter as does Earth’s surface, because it has no atmosphere absorbing and reflecting about half the insolation.

            The core of the Moon has a temperature over 1300C and you might well think it would have cooled off by now. But the Second Law of Thermodynamics can be used to explain why it hasn’t, as in [url]http://climate-change-theory.com[/url] That valid physics will help your “respected scientists” learn about the real science involved.

  • Avatar

    Mack

    |

    Anthony Bright-Paul,
    I had a good look at the inside of your book Anthony and what you say is excellent. The only one thing you should have done…and maybe it could be possible with a reprint…is putting quote marks every time you say Greenhouse gases. It’s “Greenhouse” gases…not.. greenhouse gases.

  • Avatar

    WhyItsNotCO2.com

    |

     

    IMPORTANT BREAKTHROUGH

    It’s time that all who realize that James Hansen was wrong about back radiation come to grips with the correct physics now being discussed in this 21st century. The Hockey Schtich blog has run articles on the gravito-thermal effect, as has Clive Best and Tallbloke’s Talkshop. They give sound and correct reasons as to why it must be what is determining planetary temperatures – simply because the data stacks up. However, as explained in a critique of the Hockey Schtich articles [url=http://climate-change-theory.com]here[/url], they have not yet understood why and how the correct physics is based on the Second Law rather than imaginary parcels of air that in fact have nothing to hold them together and don’t just “fall” when they supposedly run out of kinetic energy.
     

  • Avatar

    Al Shelton

    |

    PSI…
    I am looking forward to your answer to Pat Obar above………………

    • Avatar

      Pat Obar

      |

      [quote name=”Al Shelton”]PSI…
      I am looking forward to your answer to Pat Obar above………………[/quote]

      Thank you, Perhaps we can get the Dept of Justice to investigate this sale of incompetence
      for profit and/or political gain.

  • Avatar

    Pat Obar

    |

    Anthony Bright-Paul on 10 Jan 2015

    “My way is physics, the Stefan Boltzmann Law of radiation intensity from all matter (is) proportional to its temperature and emissivity.”

    I take it that this is from Dr. Latour!

    What is a “Stefan Boltzmann Law”? Where does the Stefan Boltzmann equation refer to mass? Where does this equation refer to anything but the “maximum” broadband thermal radiative flux between a flat surface and its hemispherical environment at a different temperature? If the the surface and environment temperature are equal how is any flux possible? Where in this equation is anything “proportional” to temperature?
    Please define “radiation intensity”? Radiative intensity is defined as the “force in watts”, (potential for power transfer), from a unresolvable source/sink in one particular direction. The S-B equation deals with flux. you conflate that with a potential vector, why?

    “I believe that what Bob Carter said to me was fundamentally correct – that is to say that all molecules radiate every which way including downwards…”

    Why the belief? Such has never been detected. All EM radiative flux, at any frequency is only in the direction of lower radiance, and proportional to the difference in opposing radiance potential vectors.

    How can the fraud of ClimAstrologists be corrected if all that is offered is “opposite” but still the same incompetent nonsense?

    • Avatar

      WhyItsNotCO2.com

      |

      “All EM radiative flux, at any frequency is only in the direction of lower radiance”

      It should be “all transfers of thermal energy are only into targets that are cooler than the source of any spontaneous incident radiation” because radiation goes in all directions. See “Radiated Energy and the Second Law of Thermodynamics” in the PSI publications menu.

  • Avatar

    Al Shelton

    |

    “If non-radiating O2 is exchanged for absorbing/emitting CO2, emissivity, e, of planet to space must increase.

    I = σ e (T/100)4

    If e increases with CO2 at constant I, T goes down. Therefore CO2 causes global cooling.”

    Please be more explicit. Define “I”
    and describe the process in an easier to follow description for the benefit of the layman.
    Thanks.

    • Avatar

      Dtris

      |

      The definitions of terms are in the original article by Latour which is linked. I is intensity.

      • Avatar

        Pat Obar

        |

        [quote name=”Dtris”]The definitions of terms are in the original article by Latour which is linked. I is intensity.[/quote]

        Intensity of what? The expression,
        [I = σ e (T/100)4] has no meaning whatsoever.

Comments are closed