• Home
  • Current News
  • Skeptical Arguments that Don’t Hold Water –Joe Postma’s Rebuttal

Skeptical Arguments that Don’t Hold Water –Joe Postma’s Rebuttal

Written by Joseph E Postma

Roy Spencer’s post on “Skeptical Arguments that Don’t Hold Water” is all about defending the basis of alarm.  Every single one of his points is in defence of the basis of alarm, and it might have been copied directly from an alarmist source such as Gavin Schmidt or Michael Mann.

Postma v Spencer  Let’s go through his sophistry:

1. THERE IS NO GREENHOUSE EFFECT. Despite the fact that downwelling IR from the sky can be measured, and amounts to a level (~300 W/m2) that can be scarcely be ignored; the neglect of which would totally screw up weather forecast model runs if it was not included; and would lead to VERY cold nights if it didn’t exist; and can be easily measured directly with a handheld IR thermometer pointed at the sky (because an IR thermometer measures the IR-induced temperature change of the surface of a thermopile, QED)… Please stop the “no greenhouse effect” stuff. It’s making us skeptics look bad. I’ve blogged on this numerous times…[].

Roy, a colder source of heat does not heat up a warmer source of heat.  And the surface atmosphere stays warm overnight because of its large thermal mass and that of the ground.  It is basic physics…things do not cool down instantaneously.  And it is a simple calculation to perform. Empirical data demonstrates that the radiation from the colder atmosphere does not warm up the warmer surface, and the reason it is this way is because of the laws of thermodynamics – cold does not heat up hot.  An IR thermometer operates on the principles of a differential – if the target is cooler then the voltage differential on the thermopile is negative and the response curve is calibrated to report a corresponding temperature.  Cold does not heat up hot.  It doesn’t matter if you blog about it – cold doesn’t flow heat to hot.

2. THE GREENHOUSE EFFECT VIOLATES THE 2ND LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS. The second law can be stated in several ways, but one way is that the net flow of energy must be from higher temperature to lower temperature. This is not violated by the greenhouse effect. The apparent violation of the 2nd Law seems to be traced to the fact that all bodies emit IR radiation…including cooler bodies toward warmer bodies. But the NET flow of thermal radiation is still from the warmer body to the cooler body. Even if you don’t believe there is 2-way flow, and only 1-way flow…the rate of flow depends upon the temperature of both bodies, and changing the cooler body’s temperature will change the cooling rate (and thus the temperature) of the warmer body. So, yes, a cooler body can make a warm body even warmer still…as evidenced by putting your clothes on.

This is classic sophistry.  A “two-way flow” of energy results in a one-way flow of heat only, with heat flowing only one way, from hot to cold.  The cold does not heat up the hot while the hot is heating up the cold.  It is only heat flow from hot to cold, with the balance of the energy flow, the differential between the hot and cold temperatures, determining the intensity or rate of heat flow, which determines how quickly the cold object changes temperature.  When the cooler object warms up, this does not require the warmer object to warm up also.  The cool and warm object come to equilibrium and energy then flows through the cold object to its other extremities.  Putting your clothes on traps air between the skin and clothes, and this air then gets heated up by your skin, which then makes youfeel warmer.  The clothes are not responsible for creating heat, or adding heat energy or temperature to you.  Your oven doesn’t get hotter because the turkey gets cooked.

3. CO2 CANT CAUSE WARMING BECAUSE CO2 EMITS IR AS FAST AS IT ABSORBS. No. When a CO2 molecule absorbs an IR photon, the mean free path within the atmosphere is so short that the molecule gives up its energy to surrounding molecules before it can (on average) emit an IR photon in its temporarily excited state. []  Also important is the fact that the rate at which a CO2 molecule absorbs IR is mostly independent of temperature, but the rate at which it emits IR increases strongly with temperature. There is no requirement that a layer of air emits as much IR as it absorbs…in fact, in general, the the rates of IR emission and absorption are pretty far from equal.

CO2 can’t cause warming because it isn’t a source of heat.  Only sources of heat can cause cooler objects to warm up.

4. CO2 COOLS, NOT WARMS, THE ATMOSPHERE. This one is a little more subtle because the net effect of greenhouse gases is to cool the upper atmosphere, and warm the lower atmosphere, compared to if no greenhouse gases were present. Since any IR absorber is also an IR emitter, a CO2 molecule can both cool and warm, because it both absorbs and emits IR photons.

If CO2 emits radiant energy, as you claim, then this means that it has a high emissivity. 99% of the atmosphere, oxygen and nitrogen, has little to no emissivity.  As temperature is inversely proportional to emissivity for a given required radiant flux, then oxygen and nitrogen are warmer than CO2.  The atmosphere stays warm overnight because oxygen and nitrogen can’t shed their heat.  CO2 can lose heat.

5. ADDING CO2 TO THE ATMOSPHERE HAS NO EFFECT BECAUSE THE CO2 ABSORPTION BANDS ARE ALREADY 100% OPAQUE.First, no they are not, and that’s because of pressure broadening. Second, even if the atmosphere was 100% opaque, it doesn’t matter. []

There is indeed an effect.  Adding CO2 to the atmosphere supplies plants with their fundamental natural organic fertilizer.  In real greenhouses we put the CO2 level to aboutfour times what it is in the outside air, because this is what plants like best, and lets them grow the best and produce the most food.  More CO2 in the atmosphere is a boon for life.  As far as spectral absorption, this only occurs when you have a cold gas in front of a warmer source.  This proves that CO2 can’t be heating up the surface.

6. LOWER ATMOSPHERIC WARMTH IS DUE TO THE LAPSE RATE/ADIABATIC COMPRESSION. No, the lapse rate describes how the temperature of a parcel of air changes from adiabatic compression/expansion of air as it sinks/rises. So, it can explain how the temperature changes during convective overturning, but not what the absolute temperature is. Explaining absolute air temperature is an energy budget question. You cannot write a physics-based equation to obtain the average temperature at any altitude without using the energy budget. If adiabatic compression explains temperature, why is the atmospheric temperature at 100 mb is nearly the same as the temperature at 1 mb, despite 100x as much atmospheric pressure? []

The lapse rate formula demonstrates precisely that the bottom of the atmosphere must be warmer than the top.  It does not take a logical genius to thus understand that the average numeric temperature will be found neither at the bottom nor at the top, but in the middle of the atmosphere.  Thus, the bottom of the atmosphere must be warmer than the numeric average of the atmosphere, and it is only the average which corresponds with the average energy balances.  The lapse rate does indeed directly specify that the lower atmosphere must be warmer than the average.  It is basic mathematics.  And Roy, that the temperature begins increasing again above the troposphere where non-ideal and plasma behaviour of the gas takes over is very well known, and has absolutely nothing to do with the adiabatic processes in the lower “ideal gas” atmosphere and those equations.  You’re starting to sound like Gavin Schmidt…just like him in fact.

 7. WARMING CAUSES CO2 TO RISE, NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND The rate of rise in atmospheric CO2 is currently 2 ppm/yr, a rate which is 100 times as fast as any time in the 300,000 year Vostok ice core record. And we know our consumption of fossil fuels is emitting CO2 200 times as fast! So, where is the 100x as fast rise in today’s temperature causing this CO2 rise? C’mon people, think. But not to worry…CO2 is the elixir of life…let’s embrace more of it!

In all past geologic records, it was indeed warming that preceded, and thus likely caused, the subsequent increase in CO2.  Strange that you would talk around this fact and avoid it…being a “skeptic” and all.

 8. THE IPCC MODELS ARE FOR A FLAT EARTH I have no explanation where this little tidbit of misinformation comes from. Climate models address a spherical, rotating, Earth with a day-night (diurnal) cycle in solar illumination and atmospheric Coriolis force (due to both Earth curvature and rotation). Yes, you can do a global average of energy flows and show them in a flat-earth cartoon, like the Kiehl-Trenberth energy budget diagram which is a useful learning tool, but I hope most thinking people can distinguish between a handful of global-average average numbers in a conceptual diagram, and a full-blown 3D global climate model.

The greenhouse models are produced with a flat Earth, and thus they are devoid of any actual physics that speaks to anything about reality.  These flat-Earth models are the only way the greenhouse effect meme can be created. The Kiehl-Trenberth energy budget is not a useful tool, it has nothing to do with reality whatsoever…because it is based on a flat Earth. A flat-Earth cartoon, which is where the greenhouse effect meme comes from, has nothing to do with reality, because the Earth isn’t flat.  Do you really not understand the difference? It is a fundamental mathematical, physical, geometric, energy flux, difference.

 9. THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A GLOBAL AVERAGE TEMPERATURE Really?! Is there an average temperature of your bathtub full of water? Or of a room in your house? Now, we might argue over how to do the averaging (Spatial? Mass-weighted?), but you can compute an average, and you can monitor it over time, and see if it changes. The exercise is only futile if your sampling isn’t good enough to realistically monitor changes over time. Just because we don’t know the average surface temperature of the Earth to better than, say 1 deg. C, doesn’t mean we can’t monitor changes in the average over time. We have never known exactly how many people are in the U.S., but we have useful estimates of how the number has increased in the last 50-100 years. Why is “temperature” so important? Because the thermal IR emission in response to temperature is what stabilizes the climate system….the hotter things get, the more energy is lost to outer space.

A bathtub full of water generally has an isotropic temperature (the same throughout), and so yes, it does have a sensible average temperature.  Same with a room.  This is nothing like the Earth or any other object which has variations in temperature all over it.  Temperature is an intrinsic quality of matter that corresponds only with the specific place of measurement.  The numeric value of an average can be used to track changes, but it doesn’t correspond with any actual physics that might be occurring in any specific area.  The Earth can only emit more energy to outer space if it is receiving more energy from the Sun.

10. THE EARTH ISN’T A BLACK BODY. Well, duh. No one said it was. In the broadband IR, though, it’s close to a blackbody, with an average emissivity of around 0.95. But whether a climate model uses 0.95 or 1.0 for surface emissivity isn’t going to change the conclusions we make about the sensitivity of the climate system to increasing carbon dioxide.

The only atmospheric sensitivity to carbon dioxide that matters in regards to temperature is how CO2 might change the emissivity.  This is a high school equation.  No evidence has ever been produced that shows that the Earth’s climate is sensitive to carbon dioxide, other than it improves plant growth.  The only thing CO2 could do is increase the atmosphere’s sensitivity and thus help the atmosphere cool, since the atmosphere’s emissivity is already non-existent due to oxygen and nitrogen which make up 99% of the atmosphere.

 ———————–

The above is an edited version of Postma’s article. To read the full version visit: climateofsophistry.com

 

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Comments (78)

  • Avatar

    BigWaveDave

    |

    The average solar flux that the Earth’s surface receives is calculated correctly, but it is of no value in calculating the Earth’s surface temperature since it removes from consideration; the intensity of the incoming solar radiation, which warms part of Earth’s surface and the time between that and the release of that heat by the warmed surface at night.

    A big part of the problem is that this is more difficult to describe than the simplistic average that results in a uniform low intensity input as a starting point, and opens the door for the greenhouse gas based explanation of reality.

    The oft cited warming by clouds as an example of greenhouse gas warming is merely the release of latent heat as water that was vaporized during the intense insolation of day, condenses.

  • Avatar

    slktac

    |

    Pat: Quite interesting. There are a lot of things in climate science that do no appear to have been measured properly, or if done, were not reported due to the lackluster of the measurement. It’s a clue as to how imprecise a decline that decrees .8 degrees change in temperature is. Precise only counts when you can scare someone, it seems.

  • Avatar

    Andy Hurley

    |

    not being a mathematician why is that calculation expressed so that the average comes down on a zero point?
    Would 4*pi*R^2.-1 (1 being the unit of area being used)

  • Avatar

    Allen Eltor

    |

    If doing the math correctly makes you uncomfortable you don’t have to take the correct answer,

    you just have to be prepared for everyone who actually ever worked at a job where measuring things for money meant be right or being gone

    to laugh in your befuddled face when none of YOUR calculations actually resemble anything that happens.

  • Avatar

    Allen Eltor

    |

    Your inability to grasp the critical difference

    between energy averaged till it won’t melt ice,

    and energy capable of not only melting ice and running an entire climatic circulation system refrigerated by water that’s melted,

    is perfect offset to actual, physically possible outcome demanded by someone using scientifically credible explanation for his thoughts.

    You’re another one of those ‘if the free radiation approaches it, it must absorb it’ amateurs who never actually measured anything for money, that you didn’t get fired from.

    [quote name=”Joel Shore”]slktac: The equation is simply that a disc of radius R has an area of pi*R^2 and a sphere has a surface area of 4*pi*R^2.

    I have no idea where you are going with your whole complaint about homogenizing and averaging and statistics. All one is doing here is computing the total amount of energy that the Earth is receiving from the sun and then one is computing an average over the surface area of the Earth by dividing by 4*pi*R^2. If that makes you uncomfortable, you don’t have to take the average, although the total amount of energy incident on the Earth and the total amount emitted are more unwieldy numbers than the “averages” that you get by dividing both by 4*pi*R^2.[/quote]

  • Avatar

    Pat Obar

    |

    [quote name=”slktac”]My understanding is that for the solar constant, you need measure only at a point perpendicular to the earth’s surface—as you describe. Then, because the earth is not flat, you do the math and figure out how much energy is landing on the rounded parts (very scientific terminology….). Now, I would hope that the solar incoming energy was measured at some points around the globe and a formula obtained via those measurements for correcting for slope, not just what “physics” or a “model” said it would be. Perhaps I hope for too much?[/quote]
    Such has never been measured and correctly reported on any square meter of any part of the Earth’s surface, The measurements were indeed done since 1950 by dedicated engineers, in both the USA and the Soviet Union. Unfortunately the measurements had no political influence for either side. All result remain classified, as the result was so boring, that neither side wished to reveal the wealth discarded on very expensive but uninteresting measurement. I was part of that, sorry, the pay was very attractive. Have I violated any of the States Secrets Act? I are so retired that I do not give a shit.
    From the Sun with high temperature and vast solid angle. Solar irradiatance in only electromagnetic “noise” always varying in time intervals from microseconds to millions of years. Any plus or minus variance in radiant power integrated over a million years is a huge change of energy.
    This planet with its fine control of aqueous vapour in the atmosphere has always moderated and limited any change due to energy change in sensible heat i.e. temperature of any part of the surface or atmosphere.
    Your , Arrogant Academic so called Climate Scientists have again clearly
    demonstrated their total lack of understanding of how this Earth’s atmosphere physically works!
    High time to “shitcan” each and every Arrogant Academic so called Climate Scientist

  • Avatar

    slktac

    |

    My understanding is that for the solar constant, you need measure only at a point perpendicular to the earth’s surface—as you describe. Then, because the earth is not flat, you do the math and figure out how much energy is landing on the rounded parts (very scientific terminology….). Now, I would hope that the solar incoming energy was measured at some points around the globe and a formula obtained via those measurements for correcting for slope, not just what “physics” or a “model” said it would be. Perhaps I hope for too much?

  • Avatar

    Greg House

    |

    [quote name=”slktac”]Yes, and we should be using the half a sphere with appropriate mathematical calculations instead of a “reflecting disk” that isn’t real.[/quote]

    You are partly right, but climate liars have a very good reason to jump from a flat disk directly to a sphere, as I demonstrated in my previous comments here.

    As for disk-hemisphere relationship, the point is that according to various sources the solar constant was measured using a flat area, not a hemisphere. So, the 1368 W/m² is meant for a flat area perpendicular to the straight line Sun-Earth.

  • Avatar

    slktac

    |

    If there is a mental block in my understanding, perhaps caused by a strong desire to believe that there is something incorrect that is being done, it would be because so often there is something incorrect that is being done. The area of a circle does not equal the area of a sphere, there is no reason I can see for the “reflecting disk”.
    This is what Philip said: “Yes the sunlight on the Earth is spread over half a sphere at ground level, but the intensity of light falling on the lit surface depends on the angle of the sun in the sky. Sunlight at ground level is therefore much less intense at the dawn and dusk terminator compared with its strength at the solar zenith.”
    Yes, and we should be using the half a sphere with appropriate mathematical calculations instead of a “reflecting disk” that isn’t real.

  • Avatar

    Claudius Denk

    |

    [quote name=”Joel Shore”]slktac: Go back and re-read what I wrote (not just the last sentence). I don’t know how else to explain it to you (and Philip Mulholland tried to).

    You seem to have some mental block in your understanding, perhaps caused by a strong desire to believe that there is something incorrect that is being done.

    Claudius: I am not saying that I am particularly smart. I just avoid silly mistakes that Pat Obar, for example, seems to make in thinking he is smarter than everyone else and therefore he can just ignore all the science that has been understood by scientists before him. Pat Obar is the one who apparently thinks he is so brilliant that he does not need to “stand on the shoulders of giants”. As for your discussion of moisture in the atmosphere, I don’t even know what thread you are referring to. (I also think my time might be more productively spent in places where at least some basic scientific facts are acknowledged. It is kind of hard to have discussions with people if you don’t have any accepted scientific basis to start from.)[/quote]
    I hope you are content being a good person because you will never be a good scientist.

  • Avatar

    Joel Shore

    |

    slktac: Go back and re-read what I wrote (not just the last sentence). I don’t know how else to explain it to you (and Philip Mulholland tried to).

    You seem to have some mental block in your understanding, perhaps caused by a strong desire to believe that there is something incorrect that is being done.

    Claudius: I am not saying that I am particularly smart. I just avoid silly mistakes that Pat Obar, for example, seems to make in thinking he is smarter than everyone else and therefore he can just ignore all the science that has been understood by scientists before him. Pat Obar is the one who apparently thinks he is so brilliant that he does not need to “stand on the shoulders of giants”. As for your discussion of moisture in the atmosphere, I don’t even know what thread you are referring to. (I also think my time might be more productively spent in places where at least some basic scientific facts are acknowledged. It is kind of hard to have discussions with people if you don’t have any accepted scientific basis to start from.)

  • Avatar

    slktac

    |

    Joel: Wow, asking for clear, precise language in science is “picking nits”? I was not aware of that—in fact, for some unknown reason, I thought science was about being precise and cautious. If the flat circle is unimportant and misleading, then why was it put in? To fill space? Come on. And are you saying that a square earth would absorb the same amount of radiation as a spherical one, because in that case all sunlight would hit one side at a perpendicular angle and hit none of the others, unlike the spherical earth where half the sphere gets energy? You’re not making any sense. None of this is really about science, is it? (Your use of the term “denier” was my verification of that.)

  • Avatar

    Claudius Denk

    |

    [quote name=”Joel Shore”]
    have fun making yourself (and your fellow skeptics) look as scientifically-ignorant as possible.[/quote]

    Joel,
    Instead of continually telling us how dumb we are and how smart you are why not do something useful and not boring. Read other threads on this blog. Myself and Pat Obar have a discrepancy about the nature of moisture in the atmosphere. Why don’t you give us your expert opinion.

  • Avatar

    Joel Shore

    |

    [quote name=”Pat Obar”][quote name=”Joel Shore”]Pat,

    Are you aware of the fact that physics has advanced since the middle of the 18th Century?[/quote]
    Please show in any way that the understanding of what “is or what may be” has advanced since the 18th century. Understanding has been subverted by those ” Arrogant Academic Scientists” into belief of we know all! Understanding by the cattle, is irrelevant, we need only to control the way of the vote, which has absolutely nothing to do with any understanding.
    [/quote]

    Never mind. I didn’t realize I was dealing with a physics denier. If you deny modern physics, then yes, you can pretty much claim the world works any way that you want and have fun making yourself (and your fellow skeptics) look as scientifically-ignorant as possible.

  • Avatar

    Joel Shore

    |

    slktac says:

    So for incoming radiation, the earth is flat? The sphere is only considered when outgoing radiation is discussed. This still makes no sense. The sun does hit the earth all over the half of the sphere, not a circle.

    Look, we are just calculating how much radiation from the sun the Earth intercepts and absorbs. That doesn’t mean that we are assuming the Earth is flat. We don’t need to even consider the shape of the Earth in order to determine how much radiation it absorbs from the sun. If we know its radius and know its albedo, we can calculate the amount of energy it absorbs.

    If you don’t want to express that as an average over the actual surface area of the Earth, you don’t have to.

    You are just picking nits.

  • Avatar

    slktac

    |

    “We will now extend our model slightly further. The incoming solar radiation finds its way down onto the surface of the planet. We have to consider the area that this affects, and this is pi times the radius squared– the area of a circle.
    We can ask ourselves why this is not 4 pi times the radius squared– the area of a sphere. The reason is that the Earth’s surface, when facing the sun, looks like a circle with the radius of the planet. In other words, the sun’s rays do not make their way down on the complete surface of the planet, but instead,
    just the circle surface that is facing the sun.”
    (from MIT)

    “This output of energy is equal to the intensity of energy being put out times the area. We can understand this intensity through the Stephan-Boltzmann equation, where we have the emissivity
    (epsilon), sigma, which is the Stephan-Boltzmann constant, times the temperature of the planet to the fourth power.
    The area, in this case, is 4 pi times the radius squared. This is because the entire Earth is emitting energy back into space– not just the circle that’s facing the sun.” (MIT)

    So for incoming radiation, the earth is flat? The sphere is only considered when outgoing radiation is discussed. This still makes no sense. The sun does hit the earth all over the half of the sphere, not a circle. Now, if it is considered that the actual intensity of the radiation is actually half of what it appears to be because only the radiation that is perpendicular to the surface of the sphere is actually 100%. then yes, it appears to yield the same answer. But it is NOT the same mechanism whatsoever. The circle is not relevant and is deceptive as far as I can see.

    The reason I don’t like “averages” is because it’s impossible to tell what actual data is used. Big numbers are fine—they convey exactly what is being done.

  • Avatar

    Pat Obar

    |

    [quote name=”Joel Shore”]Pat,

    I don’t have time to tutor you on essentially all of 20th Century Physics. There are plenty of good textbooks out there. I suggest that you read one if you want to learn about the physical world rather than just making up stuff.

    Are you aware of the fact that physics has advanced since the middle of the 18th Century?[/quote]
    Please show in any way that the understanding of what “is or what may be” has advanced since the 18th century. Understanding has been subverted by those ” Arrogant Academic Scientists” into belief of we know all! Understanding by the cattle, is irrelevant, we need only to control the way of the vote, which has absolutely nothing to do with any understanding.

    Please beware! the total available energy of 7 billion earthlings, In terms of total pissed off ness! may be more than anything, Gaia, or the those “Arrogant Academic Scientists”, can ever produce!

    Beware, in the next instant you may be falling into the Volcano with all the stupid Bliovating of those that refuse to ever learn! 🙂

    Shall I play with Momma, or have another beer?

  • Avatar

    Claudius Denk

    |

    [quote name=”Joel Shore”]Are you aware of the fact that physics has advanced since the middle of the 18th Century?[/quote]

    Are you aware that Star Wars is just a movie.

  • Avatar

    Joel Shore

    |

    Pat,

    I don’t have time to tutor you on essentially all of 20th Century Physics. There are plenty of good textbooks out there. I suggest that you read one if you want to learn about the physical world rather than just making up stuff.

    Are you aware of the fact that physics has advanced since the middle of the 18th Century?

  • Avatar

    Pat Obar

    |

    [quote name=”Joel Shore”][quote name=”Pat Obar”]
    Joe Postma never claimed such. His claim
    is only that a surface, or cross sectional area at a lower thermometric temperature refuses to transfer any energy in any direction of a higher thermometric temperature, (higher electromagnetic radiance or a higher electromagnetic intensity)! the lower temperature can only absorb, never emit. [/quote]

    That would be an even stupider and completely unsupportable claim if Joe were to make it. (It is interesting that even his own supporters can’t figure out what he is saying.) And, it would have the further disadvantage of being completely irrelevant, since it would still fail to deliver the desired result. (And, let’s face it, for you guys, it is all about the desired result, no matter how badly you have to torture the laws of physics to try to derive it.)[/quote]

    Please demonstrate any detection, observation, or measurement of what you falsely claim?. The transfer of any atmospheric energy IN THE DIRECTION toward, the the earth’s surface that has a higher thermometric potential. 🙂 Playing with the kiddies momma was enjoyable. At this point, I believe I will have another beer!

  • Avatar

    Joel Shore

    |

    [quote name=”Pat Obar”]
    Joe Postma never claimed such. His claim
    is only that a surface, or cross sectional area at a lower thermometric temperature refuses to transfer any energy in any direction of a higher thermometric temperature, (higher electromagnetic radiance or a higher electromagnetic intensity)! the lower temperature can only absorb, never emit. [/quote]

    That would be an even stupider and completely unsupportable claim if Joe were to make it. (It is interesting that even his own supporters can’t figure out what he is saying.) And, it would have the further disadvantage of being completely irrelevant, since it would still fail to deliver the desired result. (And, let’s face it, for you guys, it is all about the desired result, no matter how badly you have to torture the laws of physics to try to derive it.)

  • Avatar

    Pat Obar

    |

    [quote name=”Joel Shore”]
    [Joe has sometimes made what appears to be a narrower claim than this, but isn’t really: I.e., he has wrongly computed a maximum temperature that the Earth can be at given what it receives from the sun and then argued that a colder body can’t cause the Earth to get warmer than this imagined maximum temperature. However, this maximum temperature once again has no source in correctly discussed physics, because such a maximum temperature does not exist. Instead, what he has actually described is the temperature the Earth will be at if it is in a steady-state situation where it is receiving energy from the sun and emitting the energy back out into an environment that is at absolute zero (or effectively at absolute zero because it is radiatively-inactive).]

    All of Joe’s sophistry is a result of elementary physics errors that those of us trained in the field can easily spot, which is why you can’t find a reputable physicist, be they a “warmist” or “skeptic” who supports such nonsense.[/quote]

    From continued -maybe- [quote name=”Joel Shore”][quote name=”Joel Shore”]

    (2) A colder body cannot in any way influence the temperature of a hotter body no matter what else is going on: Incorrect and never claimed to be true in any statement that I have ever seen of the Laws of Thermodynamics from a reputable source.
    [/quote name=”Joel Shore”]

    Joe Postma never claimed such. His claim
    is only that a surface, or cross sectional area at a lower thermometric temperature refuses to transfer any energy in any direction of a higher thermometric temperature, (higher electromagnetic radiance or a higher electromagnetic intensity)! the lower temperature can only absorb, never emit. Religious zealots like Joel will claim this is only semantics. YEST! this is always true, any difference in semantics is a clear intent to deceive. What we all wish here is partial understanding of what is physical or may be.!!! The zealots of the Church of the Arrogant Academic Scientests will always display “no clue”!
    HELP 🙂 maybe continued with help!

  • Avatar

    Claudius Denk

    |

    [quote name=”Joel Shore”]I have in fact quoted and addressed your words directly. [/quote]Strawman tactics and quoting out of context are propaganda tactics.
    [quote name=”Joel Shore”]And, I have addressed Joe’s words directly, pointing out exactly where they are ambiguous. [/quote]I pointed out the ambiguity. Not you.
    [quote name=”Joel Shore”]Of course, it is necessary to go beyond his words precisely[/quote]No. That’s dishonest. Honest scientists strive for conceptual clarity. Propagandists strive to preserve or create confusion.

  • Avatar

    Pat Obar

    |

    [quote name=”Joel Shore”][quote name=”Claudius Denk”]So, all you have is a strawman argument based on what you imagine Joe imagines. You deceptive twerps won’t address anything I said[/quote]

    [quote]The fact that you won’t direct address my words or Joe’s words tells the whole story.[/quote][/quote]
    Jim,
    Sorry to butt in, I agree with your above description of “Joel Shore”. I have this opportunity to destroy the fake claims of “Joel Shore”. I have no goal of changing Joel’s religious beliefs! For all the rest, I will attempt to destroy false claims, that are but the sputtering of a religious zealot. I invite any suggestions on how I may be more effective.
    [quote] I have in fact quoted and addressed your words directly. And, I have addressed Joe’s words directly, pointing out exactly where they are ambiguous. Of course, it is necessary to go beyond his words precisely because they are so ambiguous. He tends to avoid defining precisely what he means by “Cold does not heat up hot” and I have clearly explained that he could mean one of two things:[/quote].

    Joe is trying to get to meaning, rather than proselytizing about your religious belief.
    Please define Cold and Hot, and the precise scientific difference between the two? Then define the verb phrase “heat up”? Does this phrase necessarily have anything to do with “your” definition of Cold and Hot? Does that phrase “heat up” have only to do with “adding energy to the object of up”, with no reference at all to Cold or Hot? Example: boiling water. Joel, you are indeed well trained in the process of brain washing, to convert to your religion. You, at every opportunity, Distort to the vernacular, with “intent to deceive”! Let the silly cows try to learn anything!

    [quote name=”Joel Shore”]
    (1) Heat does not flow from a hotter body to a colder body: True, but irrelevant in discussions of the greenhouse effect since all models of the greenhouse effect, whether they be simple “flat Earth” models as Joe (mistakenly) refers to them or full-blown
    GCM’s, have heat flowing from hotter to colder.[/quote]
    Joel, This is your complete reversal of anything Joe Postma has tried to express!
    I can discern no meaning in your verb form “flowing”! The SECOND law of thermodynamics by Clausius, allows, but does not demand, a spontaneous transfer of energy in any form to a lower thermal potential. The concept of spontaneous is that that allows, but does not demand, thermodynamic equilibrium, a condition or state wished for, but never observed in this Earth’s atmosphere.

    Countering Dogma takes much effort. This may be continued. At present I am going to play with the babes’ momma!

  • Avatar

    Joel Shore

    |

    slktac: The equation is simply that a disc of radius R has an area of pi*R^2 and a sphere has a surface area of 4*pi*R^2.

    I have no idea where you are going with your whole complaint about homogenizing and averaging and statistics. All one is doing here is computing the total amount of energy that the Earth is receiving from the sun and then one is computing an average over the surface area of the Earth by dividing by 4*pi*R^2. If that makes you uncomfortable, you don’t have to take the average, although the total amount of energy incident on the Earth and the total amount emitted are more unwieldy numbers than the “averages” that you get by dividing both by 4*pi*R^2.

  • Avatar

    slktac

    |

    “The easy way is to recognize that you just have to convert between the area of a circle of radius R and the surface area of a sphere of radius R.”
    I need an equation and a better explanation–it’s not that simple as you seem to believe it is. Are we using the surface area of a sphere or a circle? The diagrams I have seen seem to indicate we are using the area of the circle. If we are converting, why are we not just using the area of the sphere?

    It seems that if you take the earth as a whole, you level out all the differences and get a nice number. But what evidence is there that is correct? I know anamolies are used, allowing the “average” to just be an arbitrary line from which change is measured. But what evidence is there that all of this statistical homogenization isn’t actually creating something that is not really there? Does anyone actually take the data and find out if things really are changing worldwide, or is it just assumed that the averaging and integrating yield the correct answer? I guess I have seen too many data manipulations that bear no resemblance to the real world and wonder if this is one of them. Statistics can be useful, but they can also misdirect and mischaracterize data. Homogenizing the entire planet into one number just seems a bit of a stretch. Perhaps that what makes some people skeptic.

  • Avatar

    Joel Shore

    |

    [quote name=”Claudius Denk”]So, all you have is a strawman argument based on what you imagine Joe imagines. You deceptive twerps won’t address anything I said[/quote]

    [quote]The fact that you won’t direct address my words or Joe’s words tells the whole story.[/quote]

    I have in fact quoted and addressed your words directly. And, I have addressed Joe’s words directly, pointing out exactly where they are ambiguous. Of course, it is necessary to go beyond his words precisely because they are so ambiguous. He tends to avoid defining precisely what he means by “Cold does not heat up hot” and I have clearly explained that he could mean one of two things:

    (1) Heat does not flow from a hotter body to a colder body: True, but irrelevant in discussions of the greenhouse effect since all models of the greenhouse effect, whether they be simple “flat Earth” models as Joe (mistakenly) refers to them or full-blown
    GCM’s, have heat flowing from hotter to colder.

    (2) A colder body cannot in any way influence the temperature of a hotter body no matter what else is going on: Incorrect and never claimed to be true in any statement that I have ever seen of the Laws of Thermodynamics from a reputable source. [Joe has sometimes made what appears to be a narrower claim than this, but isn’t really: I.e., he has wrongly computed a maximum temperature that the Earth can be at given what it receives from the sun and then argued that a colder body can’t cause the Earth to get warmer than this imagined maximum temperature. However, this maximum temperature once again has no source in correctly discussed physics, because such a maximum temperature does not exist. Instead, what he has actually described is the temperature the Earth will be at if it is in a steady-state situation where it is receiving energy from the sun and emitting the energy back out into an environment that is at absolute zero (or effectively at absolute zero because it is radiatively-inactive).]

    All of Joe’s sophistry is a result of elementary physics errors that those of us trained in the field can easily spot, which is why you can’t find a reputable physicist, be they a “warmist” or “skeptic” who supports such nonsense.

  • Avatar

    Joel Shore

    |

    slktac: Yes, the hard way to get that divide by 4 answer is to note that the sun only illuminates half the sphere and then integrate the solar intensity over the half-sphere, accounting for the angle that the sun makes with the normal to the Earth’s surface at each point.

    The easy way is to recognize that you just have to convert between the area of a circle of radius R and the surface area of a sphere of radius R.

    “Perhaps some of the reasoning why averaging extremely varied values has any value and why integrating values is necessary.”

    The reasoning is that energy balance is best determined by looking at total energy in and total energy out of the Earth system. The reason it is less useful to look locally is that when you look locally, you have to account for all the energy transfer that is occurring, e.g., conduction, convection, and advection, so the local temperature is not constrained in any simple way by simple energy balance arguments. However, the global average temperature (or really the fourth root of the average of T^4) is constrained in a simple way because those other forms of heat transfer do not operate between the system and its environment if you take the system to be the entire Earth and its atmosphere. The only significant communication between that system and the environment is via radiation.

  • Avatar

    slktac

    |

    Okay, I finally found the reasoning behind the “divide by 4”. Dealing with a real sphere that is 1/2 light and 1/2 dark, where the sunlight decreases in intensity as it moves up from the equator was apparently too math heavy, so the data was thrown in a blender, homogenized, divided by 4 and declared “the answer”.
    Still working on the reflecting disk and how that equals half a sphere, especially since the “divide by 4” included the fact that sunlight energy affects the top and bottom of the sphere very differently, something that would not happen with the reflecting disk.
    It seems an equation and a drawing really help on this. While a drawing might be tricky, an equation would be nice. Perhaps some of the reasoning why averaging extremely varied values has any value and why integrating values is necessary. Most of this looks like basic geometry and basic math, if you don’t need to reduce the entire globe to one number. Therein lies the weakness, I think.

  • Avatar

    Claudius Denk

    |

    [quote name=”Joel Shore”]
    (1) The general inability to distinguish between the case of an object that does not have an internal heat source or is receiving energy from a hotter body (the sun) and the case where it is not. This whole “cool does not heat hot” meme is based on this confusion. The real 2nd Law of Thermodynamics says that heat does not spontaneously flow from hot to cold. It does not state, as Postma would have one believe, that a colder body can in no way ever affect the temperature of a warmer body even when there are other things going on (like interactions with still warmer bodies or an internal energy source). That is a total figment of the imaginations of Postma and his followers. You will never find any such claim in any textbook covering thermodynamics and anybody who has ever solved for a steady-state temperature in any sort of situation is completely amazed that such nonsense is actually convincing to anybody.[/quote]So, all you have is a strawman argument based on what you imagine Joe imagines. You deceptive twerps won’t address anything I said and
    [quote name=”Joel Shore”]

    (2) The whole “flat Earth” thing is another huge sophistry of Postma’s. He has taken a very elementary concept (that the Earth will go toward a state of radiative balance where total energy in = total energy out) and utterly confused the mathematically-ignorant with nonsense about not being able to average things[/quote]Aha. So, you’re a disciple of creative statistics that are so common among global warming advocates. It’s surreal that anybody would think you can calculate an average earth temperature from point data. Not only do you frauds do this but then you go ahead a plug these worthless numbers into a GCM and pretend it gives you useful results.[quote name=”Joel Shore”] or distinctions between power and energy and intensity, to the point that he has you guys believing that it is an illegal mathematical step to take an equation (Total energy in = Total energy out) and divide both sides by a constant (like one second or the surface area of the earth). It is kind of amazing to watch this sort of sophistry in action and to actually see that such nonsense convinces a certain segment of the population.[/quote]LOL. The fact that you won’t direct address my words or Joe’s words tells the whole story.

  • Avatar

    Pat Obar

    |

    [img]http://www.principia-scientific.org/images/Postma_v_Spencer.jpg[/img]

    Just look at this, I know looks can be deceiving, but look (with caution). Joe looks like one that will ask questions, around the table, like “wad jew tink?, or more importantly “who is buying the next round”, or most important, to the waitress, “wanna go somewhere an mess around”!
    Then look at Roy, a true member of “The Church of the Arrogant Academic Scientist.” Roy always looks as he is sucking in his teeth, as he knows that he has just spoken a lie. Please note that members of “The Church of the Arrogant Academic Scientist.” Only promote their Dogma Gospel, with a large effort to destroy any questions! 🙂

  • Avatar

    Greg House

    |

    [quote name=”Boris Winterhalter”]
    To spread the energy around the entire globe we have to divide the incoming energy 1366/4[/quote]

    This is absolutely wrong.

    You can only (conditionally, as I said) divide 1366 by 2 to account for disk-hemisphere relationship. The second division by 2 is wrong, because the Earth is spinning and therefore it is not so that only 1 hemisphere receives energy that is then spread over the 2 hemispheres. Again, BOTH hemispheres receive energy, the same amount of it. I hope that one day even the stupidest climate scientist will be able to get it.

  • Avatar

    solvingtornadoes

    |

    [quote name=”Joel Shore”][quote name=”Claudius Denk”][quote name=”Brian Daed”]Often temperature is confused with heat.[/quote]

    Global warming advocates fear nothing more that they fear conceptual clarity. They fight very hard to maintain their right to remain confused and create more confusion.[/quote]

    That’s a hoot! In fact, Postma is the one who is guilty of this. There are really too numerous examples to mention, but just a couple:

    (1) The general inability to distinguish between the case of an object that does not have an internal heat source or is receiving energy from a hotter body (the sun) and the case where it is not. This whole “cool does not heat hot” meme is based on this confusion. The real 2nd Law of Thermodynamics says that heat does not spontaneously flow from hot to cold. It does not state, as Postma would have one believe, that a colder body can in no way ever affect the temperature of a warmer body even when there are other things going on (like interactions with still warmer bodies or an internal energy source). That is a total figment of the imaginations of Postma and his followers. You will never find any such claim in any textbook covering thermodynamics and anybody who has ever solved for a steady-state temperature in any sort of situation is completely amazed that such nonsense is actually convincing to anybody.

    (2) The whole “flat Earth” thing is another huge sophistry of Postma’s. He has taken a very elementary concept (that the Earth will go toward a state of radiative balance where total energy in = total energy out) and utterly confused the mathematically-ignorant with nonsense about not being able to average things or distinctions between power and energy and intensity, to the point that he has you guys believing that it is an illegal mathematical step to take an equation (Total energy in = Total energy out) and divide both sides by a constant (like one second or the surface area of the earth). It is kind of amazing to watch this sort of sophistry in action and to actually see that such nonsense convinces a certain segment of the population.[/quote]

    . . . another tactic is to make vague, broad generalizations.

    All you warmies have is tactics. It’s brain dead easy to argue you into a corner. It’s just a matter of helping you understand the meaning of your own words.

  • Avatar

    Joel Shore

    |

    [quote name=”Claudius Denk”][quote name=”Brian Daed”]Often temperature is confused with heat.[/quote]

    Global warming advocates fear nothing more that they fear conceptual clarity. They fight very hard to maintain their right to remain confused and create more confusion.[/quote]

    That’s a hoot! In fact, Postma is the one who is guilty of this. There are really too numerous examples to mention, but just a couple:

    (1) The general inability to distinguish between the case of an object that does not have an internal heat source or is receiving energy from a hotter body (the sun) and the case where it is not. This whole “cool does not heat hot” meme is based on this confusion. The real 2nd Law of Thermodynamics says that heat does not spontaneously flow from hot to cold. It does not state, as Postma would have one believe, that a colder body can in no way ever affect the temperature of a warmer body even when there are other things going on (like interactions with still warmer bodies or an internal energy source). That is a total figment of the imaginations of Postma and his followers. You will never find any such claim in any textbook covering thermodynamics and anybody who has ever solved for a steady-state temperature in any sort of situation is completely amazed that such nonsense is actually convincing to anybody.

    (2) The whole “flat Earth” thing is another huge sophistry of Postma’s. He has taken a very elementary concept (that the Earth will go toward a state of radiative balance where total energy in = total energy out) and utterly confused the mathematically-ignorant with nonsense about not being able to average things or distinctions between power and energy and intensity, to the point that he has you guys believing that it is an illegal mathematical step to take an equation (Total energy in = Total energy out) and divide both sides by a constant (like one second or the surface area of the earth). It is kind of amazing to watch this sort of sophistry in action and to actually see that such nonsense convinces a certain segment of the population.

  • Avatar

    Claudius Denk

    |

    [quote name=”Boris Winterhalter”]. . . with the actual radiative processes connected with the role of greenhouse gases.[/quote]
    Boris,
    All gasses have radiative properties. The atmosphere does not operate anything like a greenhouse. So the phrase, “greenhouse gas” has no place in a scientific discussion. There is zero empirical evidence of any kind of thermal drama associated with CO2. Frauds use GCMs to hide these facts. Pedantry is hard to conceal.

  • Avatar

    Boris Winterhalter

    |

    I’ll try to elucidate the difference between a sphere and a disk. Looking from space (Sun) the Earth looks like a disk. OK? This disk is radiated by solar light (from UV > visible > Infra red) with a total energy of around 1366 W/m2 called Total Solar Insolation (TSI). According to one of NASA’s many global heat budgets, part of this energy is reflected by the atmosphere (6%) clouds (20%) and earth’s surface (4%) and radiated back to space (e.g. ozone – O3).

    Abut 51% is absorbed by land and oceans, causing the surface to warm up. Now the warming occurs only while lit by the incoming sunlight. Because maximum solar energy is absorbed when the light strikes the surface perpendicularly, which when averaging out may last a few hours and in the tropics. Elsewhere sunlight comes in an oblique angle which decreases to nil at sunset and sunrise and also at higher latitudes.

    What all this means is that the the energy balance of our planet (i.e. incoming energy and outgoing energy) has to balance out through time – and which it actually has done as long as there has been life as we know it.

    Now for proper calculations the amount of energy reaching the surface must be averaged out over the entire surface of our planet.

    To spread the energy around the entire globe we have to divide the incoming energy 1366/4 and we 341.5 W/m2. Of this 51%*341.5=174 W/m2
    or close to your 163.3 W/m2.

    The problem with climate models is that the surface being very variable (thermodynacally) it is not possible to calculate the energy balance for each square meter of the surface. Therefore modellers generally use averages as those mentioned above, because even the most powerful supercomputers can’t manage the enormous processing power needed for high resolution work as e.g. trying to cope with the actual radiative processes connected with the role of greenhouse gases.

  • Avatar

    Claudius Denk

    |

    [quote name=”Brian Daed”]Often temperature is confused with heat.[/quote]

    Global warming advocates fear nothing more that they fear conceptual clarity. They fight very hard to maintain their right to remain confused and create more confusion. And its regrettable that the efforts of so many naive skeptics do nothing but provide them ammunition.

  • Avatar

    Brian Daed

    |

    Here is a critical issue. Often temperature is confused with heat. The Earth and the Sun both provide heat energy, the Sun much more than the Earth. However this is heat energy, and has absolutely nothing to do with the temperature.

    If the flow of heat energy from a higher level to a lower level is blocked then the temperature will rise. The true temperature for reradiating out into space is only measurable at the top of the atmosphere, but this temperature is near -100 C which is close to calculations.

    -100 C is too low for the compexities of carbon-based life as +100 C is too high. This is temperature, not energy. The natural combination of direct radiation into space, indirect radiation into space, atmospheric conduction, and atmospheric convection is what determines the temperature.

    The entire discussion is focused upon a very minor variance of temperature within the habitability range, but a variance that effects the cultural lifestyles and the economic plans of humans. People do not like it when an “act of god” destroys something that they labored for years or centuries to build. However, in the natural world humans have a mind and a good pair of feet, birds have wings, fish have fins, etc..

  • Avatar

    Boris Winterhalter

    |

    I’ll try to elucidate the difference between a sphere and a disk. Looking from space (Sun) the Earth looks like a disk. OK? This disk is radiated by solar light (from UV > visible > Infra red) with a total energy of around 1366 W/m2 called Total Solar Insolation (TSI). According to one of NASA’s many global heat budgets, part of this energy is reflected by the atmosphere (6%) clouds (20%) and earth’s surface (4%) and radiated back to space (e.g. ozone – O3).

    Abut 51% is absorbed by land and oceans, causing the surface to warm up. Now the warming occurs only while lit by the incoming sunlight. Because maximum solar energy is absorbed when the light strikes the surface perpendicularly, which when averaging out may last a few hours and in the tropics. Elsewhere sunlight comes in an oblique angle which decreases to nil at sunset and sunrise and also at higher latitudes.

    What all this means is that the the energy balance of our planet (i.e. incoming energy and outgoing energy) has to balance out through time – and which it actually has done as long as there has been life as we know it.

    Now for proper calculations the amount of energy reaching the surface must be averaged out over the entire surface of our planet.

    To spread the energy around the entire globe we have to divide the incoming energy 1366/4 and we 341.5 W/m2. Of this 51%*341.5=174 W/m2
    or close to your 163.3 W/m2.

    The problem with climate models is that the surface being very very variable (thermodynacally) it is not possible to calculate the energy balance for each square meter of the surface. Therefore modellers generally use averages as those mentioned above, because even the most powerful supercomputers can’t manage the enormous processing power needed for high resolution work as e.g. trying to cope with the actual radiative processes connected with the role of greenhouse gases.

    When trying to solev

  • Avatar

    Philip Mulholland

    |

    [quote name=”slktac”]I don’t see why how it’s spread out over the earth does not matter and the hemisphere should still intercept more light than a circle does. In energy diagrams, there’s a calculation for how much the planet surface absorbs (163.3) which should require an accurate measurement/calculation of how much surface there is. Otherwise, how does one know that 163.3 watts per meter squared is correct? If you don’t use the half a sphere that is in the sun at any one point, but rather a flat circle, the calculation makes no sense.[/quote]
    slktac
    The formula allows us to calculate the total amount of sunlight energy that the whole planet intercepts at an instant of time.

  • Avatar

    slktac

    |

    I don’t see why how it’s spread out over the earth does not matter and the hemisphere should still intercept more light than a circle does. In energy diagrams, there’s a calculation for how much the planet surface absorbs (163.3) which should require an accurate measurement/calculation of how much surface there is. Otherwise, how does one know that 163.3 watts per meter squared is correct? If you don’t use the half a sphere that is in the sun at any one point, but rather a flat circle, the calculation makes no sense.

  • Avatar

    Greg House

    |

    [quote name=”Philip Mulholland”]In climate studies we want to calculate the total amount of direct light energy intercepted by the planet rather than how it is spread out over the surface area of the lit Earth.[/quote]

    I do not believe you, because the IPCC (the best climate scientists, right?) presented a fake calculation of that -18°C.

    If you had really wanted “to calculate the total amount of direct light energy intercepted by the planet”, you would have put together what BOTH hemispheres intercepted, one after the other, instead of fooling people by that “dividing by 4” trick.

  • Avatar

    Philip Mulholland

    |

    [quote name=”slktac”]Philip:
    I can’t see how half a sphere intercepts no more light than a flat disk. The area being bombarded is much larger than the disk. A two-dimensional circle absorbs no more than a three-dimensional half a sphere?
    Then we put back in the 3D sphere and divide by four. I just cannot see why we jump back and forth from two to three dimensions in all of this. Also, dividing by 4 to balance two surface areas makes no sense.
    I’ll continue researching this, but for now, I can’t see it.[/quote]
    slktac
    Think about how your shadow is formed. On a dull day we are surrounded by diffuse light but we do not see any shadow. However on a bright day when we stand in full sunlight our body casts a shadow.
    The Earth is always in full light that comes directly from the sun, it never experiences any diffuse light because it has the empty vacuum of space surrounding it. The solid Earth blocks the passage of the direct sunlight placing half of the planet in shadow. We call this shadow night time.
    The solid Earth cuts a disc out of the expanding sphere of light that leaves the sun and streams out into space. Yes the intercepted light spreads out over the Earth’s surface and to use your words “The area being bombarded is much larger than the disk” but the light is only coming from one direction, the sun, therefore it is the cross-sectional area of the planet that we use to determine the amount of energy collected.
    In climate studies we want to calculate the total amount of direct light energy intercepted by the planet rather than how it is spread out over the surface area of the lit Earth.

  • Avatar

    Greg House

    |

    [quote name=”slktac”]Also, dividing by 4 to balance two surface areas makes no sense.
    [/quote]

    It does make sense mathematically, but of course it is a complete nonsense physically. It is incorrect to derive average temperature from this value.

    Putting aside the problem of deriving average temperature from average radiation, it is only possible to determine the temperature of a hemisphere using the SB equation, which yields +30°C for a light side hemisphere (provided the warmists data is otherwise correct). The temperature of the other side would (+30°C – something), depending on the rate of cooling. This makes the +15°C as the average realistic.

    The warmists “dividing by 4” trick is apparently designed to “create” a much low surface temperature (-18°C) thus helping people to swallow the non-existing IPCC “greenhouse effect”.

  • Avatar

    Greg House

    |

    [quote name=”Joel Shore”]Roy, Tim Folkerts, Robert Brown, myself have a stronger grounding in thermodynamics than he does. At least 3 of the 4 of us have taught it at the university level; I have published papers in statistical mechanics[/quote]

    A person can be a genius and a liar, a criminal etc. at the same time.

    You have been defending the non-existing IPCC “greenhouse effect” by all possible demagogic tricks, so it does not really matter who you are, what matters is what you have been doing.

  • Avatar

    Pat Obar

    |

    [quote name=”Oliver K. Manuel”][quote name=”Pat Obar”][quote name=”Oliver K. Manuel”]The basic problem is that we are each blessed with the ability to see the flaws in others and to overlook the flaws in ourselves.[/quote]

    Quite true,
    Only very few, less than 3 percent, with much personal integrity, are willing to admit,”I have tried but I do not know.” Such a critter would never be allowed as a member in “The Church of the Arrogant Academic Scientist.”[/quote]

    Pat, I was personally

    1. A proud, but rebellious member of “The Church Arrogant Academic Scientists” for many years, and even

    2. Proud of the scientific community in the early stages of the environmental movement,

    Until I witnessed the similarity of
    a.) Official responses to Climategate emails after Nov 2009 to
    b.) Official responses to fraudulent science in the old USSR!

    Oliver

    PS – I suspect that some you here will also appreciate the latest post on CJ Orach’s blog:

    http://orach24463.wordpress.com/2014/05/02/its-the-sun-stupid/comment-page-1/%5B/quote%5D

    Oliver,
    Thank you for the reference, while somewhat religious I cannot disagree!
    I am convinced that this planet, solar system, galaxy, universe, was not designed nor constructed by, in order of relevance, critters, creatures, varmants, roaches, humans, ugleness, earthlings, slime, bankers, polititions. Why does God have to put up with such shit!

    “Having blindly believed most official scientific dogma myself for many years, I cannot justify anger at others who do likewise.”
    I also have no anger of those that were intentionally scammed.

    I have almost uncontrollable anger toward
    the scammers. My anger is controlled by the possibility of sufficiant volcanoes, roadwork, logistics, so that “all” scammers will be dumpt into simultaneously. This of course brings up the engineering question. Does the concept of simultaneously exist? Why? 🙂
    Read my other reply to D.(hic) Shore

  • Avatar

    Pat Obar

    |

    [quote name=”Joel Shore”][quote name=”Claudius Denk”]They don’t have your background in thermodynamics.
    [/quote]

    Actually, those of us who have tried in vain to patiently explain Joe Postma’s elementary errors to him [/quote]

    Indeed Joe exhibits elementary errors in his quest to learn what is. Your fake “tried in vain to patiently explain” your religious nonsense to Joe Postma, has indeed failed. Joe is learning, gives an opinion of the clear nonsense of others!
    The best example of your non science, but instead religious belief, is the one about all mass radiates electromagnetic energy at a rate proportional to the absolute temperature of that mass raised to the fourth power, independent of the temperature or radiance of the surrounding necessary acceptors of such electromagnetic energy. Complete intentional attempt to deceive, as such effect has never once been observed, detected, nor measured.
    This is deliberate scientific FRAUD,

    [quote](Roy, Tim Folkerts, Robert Brown, myself) have a stronger grounding in thermodynamics than he does. At least 3 of the 4 of us have taught it at the university level; I have published papers in statistical mechanics (which underpins the modern understanding of thermodynamics) in what is considered to be the top physics journals (Physical Review Letters, …)[/quote]

    Wow! did you sprain your arm pontificating of your excellence, and that of the three other members of “The Church of Arrogant Academic Scientists”, who claim to know “everything”!

    [quote] But, we will never succeed in explaining the errors to Joe or his followers because you guys want to believe your own nonsense in place of real science. How sad.[/quote]

    That is true you will “never succeed” in brainwashing any that are trying to learn “what is”, and will reject your religious dogma.

  • Avatar

    slktac

    |

    Phillip:
    I can’t see how half a sphere intercepts no more light than a flat disk. The area being bombarded is much larger than the disk. A two-dimensional circle absorbs no more than a three-dimensional half a sphere?
    Then we put back in the 3D sphere and divide by four. I just cannot see why we jump back and forth from two to three dimensions in all of this. Also, dividing by 4 to balance two surface areas makes no sense.
    I’ll continue researching this, but for now, I can’t see it.

  • Avatar

    Philip Mulholland

    |

    [quote name=”slktac”]:
    When taking a class on climate change, I was very surprised to find that the models really do use a circle, not half a sphere. I noticed this when a sphere representing the earth showed incoming solar radiation landing on fully 1/2 the sphere. Then, for calculations, the energy was assumed to land on a circle and we ended up with that “divided by 4” thing. Even without the math, it’s obvious that using a circle greatly reduces the area that you are calculating the solar radiation to be landing on. (I understand that this is claimed to not be important and it’s a “good model”, but until someone explains how we went from half a sphere to a flat circle, I can’t see any use.)
    [/quote]
    Hi slktac
    The Earth has a shadow. Our round planet blocks solar radiation streaming out into space and creates a shadow equivalent in size to that of a masking disk. The round Earth intercepts no more sunlight energy than a masking disk of the same radius does. Yes the sunlight on the Earth is spread over half a sphere at ground level, but the intensity of light falling on the lit surface depends on the angle of the sun in the sky. Sunlight at ground level is therefore much less intense at the dawn and dusk terminator compared with its strength at the solar zenith.
    The spinning Earth however emits outgoing heat radiation over the surface area of a sphere. The surface area of a sphere is four times greater than the surface area of a blocking disk with the same radius. Hence we divide by 4 to balance the amount of incoming sunlight energy collected (surface area of intercepting disk) with that of the outgoing planetary heat expelled (the surface area of the emitting sphere).

  • Avatar

    Claudius Denk

    |

    [quote name=”Joel Shore”][quote name=”Claudius Denk”]They don’t have your background in thermodynamics.
    [/quote]

    Actually, those of us who have tried in vain to patiently explain Joe Postma’s elementary errors to him (Roy, Tim Folkerts, Robert Brown, myself) have a stronger grounding in thermodynamics than he does. At least 3 of the 4 of us have taught it at the university level; I have published papers in statistical mechanics (which underpins the modern understanding of thermodynamics) in what is considered to be the top physics journals (Physical Review Letters, …)

    But, we will never succeed in explaining the errors to Joe or his followers because you guys want to believe your own nonsense in place of real science. How sad.[/quote]

    The only mistake Joe makes is to think that any of you 97 percenters are educable. I learned a while ago that if you try to educate a believer and you are successful they will hate you for it.

  • Avatar

    Oliver K. Manuel

    |

    [quote name=”Pat Obar”][quote name=”Oliver K. Manuel”]The basic problem is that we are each blessed with the ability to see the flaws in others and to overlook the flaws in ourselves.[/quote]

    Quite true,
    Only very few, less than 3 percent, with much personal integrity, are willing to admit,”I have tried but I do not know.” Such a critter would never be allowed as a member in “The Church of the Arrogant Academic Scientist.”[/quote]

    Pat, I was personally

    1. A proud, but rebellious member of “The Church Arrogant Academic Scientists” for many years, and even

    2. Proud of the scientific community in the early stages of the environmental movement,

    Until I witnessed the similarity of
    a.) Official responses to Climategate emails after Nov 2009 to
    b.) Official responses to fraudulent science in the old USSR!

    Having blindly believed most official scientific dogma myself for many years, I cannot justify anger at others who do likewise.

    Oliver

    PS – I suspect that some you here will also appreciate the latest post on CJ Orach’s blog:

    http://orach24463.wordpress.com/2014/05/02/its-the-sun-stupid/comment-page-1/

  • Avatar

    Joel Shore

    |

    [quote name=”Claudius Denk”]They don’t have your background in thermodynamics.
    [/quote]

    Actually, those of us who have tried in vain to patiently explain Joe Postma’s elementary errors to him (Roy, Tim Folkerts, Robert Brown, myself) have a stronger grounding in thermodynamics than he does. At least 3 of the 4 of us have taught it at the university level; I have published papers in statistical mechanics (which underpins the modern understanding of thermodynamics) in what is considered to be the top physics journals (Physical Review Letters, …)

    But, we will never succeed in explaining the errors to Joe or his followers because you guys want to believe your own nonsense in place of real science. How sad.

  • Avatar

    Pat Obar

    |

    [quote name=”FauxScienceSlayer”]This is a rigged, three sided debate between the Darth BIG Warmists, the Luke LITTLE Warmists and the Obie NO Warmists. I too am a retired engineer who has researched and written extensively on this Chicken Little > ACORN > Sky is Falling hypothesis for over five years.

    “We cannot order men to see he truth, or prohibit them from engaging in error” ~ Max Planck

    In his new video “On the Validity of Kirchoff” by Dr Pierre-Marie Robitaille, Professor of Radiology and Physical Chemistry, based on extensive empirical, peer reviewed and published research, he shows that not only is there a critical error in Kirchoff’s Law, but by default with the corollary Laws of Planck, Stefan and Boltzman. Rewriting all the “Laws” of radiation Physics invalidates the photo-shopped hypothesis of AGW. [/quote]

    As another retired engineer, I agree with your frustration of the Climate Scam. But you have a problem:
    Your Dr. Robitaille,may be correct in his field of Nuclear or ionizing radiation. He demonstrates no concept of electromagnetic radiation as carefully studied and measured by Kirchhoff and his laws of thermal electromagnetic radiation. All in agreement with the learned opinion of Planck, Stefan, Boltzmann, and even the King, Jimmy Maxwell, generating all the “Needed equations for all electromagnetic radiation, in any universe, no matter if thermally induced, produced by cavity conversion of other electromagnetic or chemical energy, or directly produced by electromechanical means”.
    Your Dr. Robitaille, clearly a member of “The Church of the Arrogant Academic Scientist”, is not qualified to even silently carry the slippers of such Giants!!

    Electromagnetic energy is never “heat energy”. only at the “ultimate” absorber can electromagnetic energy be converted to sensible heat, chemical energy, or electromechanical energy, all doing work, and all increasing entropy.
    As Kirchhoff correctly stated no mass at thermodynamic equilibrium ever absorbs any electromagnetic energy, but simply passes that though in each direction with less radiance at each frequency. electromagnetic radiative energy from any higher temperature source is only part of the incoming energy from any other source. That total must exactingly equal all outgoing energy in all forms. All four laws of thermodynamics insist on this or this mass no matter how tiny must change temperature to compensate. Clearly demonstrating that “this” mass was not in thermodynamic equilibrium.
    Sounds circular, indeed it is. It is in this way that the earth, within an open and variable system of the Sun and Space, can remain in a stable condition. The Earth did not ask permission of “earthlings”, to do such. Please ask the above church for a “better?” way!

    It is the clear intent of “The Church of the Arrogant Academic Scientist”, is that no one part of the other 97% of all that “is” may ever understand something so obvious! Can anyone please give some hint at any way I may discover if I “are” part of the 3%, or part of the 97%, or just me, sitting alone on the fence giggling at the nonsense? I need no help giggling, Get your own damned fence.

  • Avatar

    dev

    |

    [quote name=”Rogueelement451″]Dev.
    Thanks for taking the time to reply,given the Geo-political implications , I think I will have to rethink my strategy!
    Now the rabid left call Sceptics right wing so which end of the political spectrum are you coming from?
    Sorry to taint the comment board with my ignorance.[/quote]

    Hi again, I dont hold faith in any political solutions.
    They operate under the pretence of authority which is diametrically opposed to rational individualism.

  • Avatar

    the Griss

    |

    Do people realise that more warmist CAGW mantra is allowed on WUWT than alternate sceptical arguments.

    Any alternate sceptical arguments have been shut down .. almost completely.

    I see Roy’s latest list appearing on
    WUWT as an attempt to establish [b]their[/b] ideas as a sceptical consensus.

    Doomed to failure, because they are mostly not very correct.

  • Avatar

    Pat Obar

    |

    [quote name=”Oliver K. Manuel”]The basic problem is that we are each blessed with the ability to see the flaws in others and to overlook the flaws in ourselves.[/quote]

    Quite true,
    Only very few, less than 3 percent, with much personal integrity, are willing to admit,”I have tried but I do not know.” Such a critter would never be allowed as a member in “The Church of the Arrogant Academic Scientist.”

  • Avatar

    Al Shelton

    |

    @Boris…
    So the CO2 in my window enhances cooling, but the CO2 in the atmosphere slows cooling?

  • Avatar

    Claudius Denk

    |

    [quote name=”Boris Winterhalter”]I read just the 2 first statements by Roy, and am sorry to have a different opinion fro Joe’s.

    Unfortunately Joe is wrong when criticizing Spencer’s 1. [i]There is no greenhouse effect[/i]. Joe has not been out during night time, otherwise he would have noted that a surface warmed by the Sun during the day will cool during the night, but the rate of cooling depends on the amount of water vapour in the air (CO2 is a weak greenhouse gas). [/quote]
    Here we go. If you leave the door open to misinterpretation there will always be somebody that do just that, as Boris is doing here.
    [quote name=”Boris Winterhalter”]

    The more moist the air is the slower the heat loss (cooling). [/quote]Boris, if you were paying attention you would have noticed that Joe, essentially, confirmed this exact point. So you really have no dispute with anything he’s saying.

  • Avatar

    Boris Winterhalter

    |

    [quote name=”Al Shelton”]@Boris……….
    Here is a question for you.
    If the CO2 slows down cooling at 400ppm, then if I put 99+% CO2 in my space between my double glazed windows is it going to slow down the cooling of my house this winter??[/quote]
    Al,
    It will not, because CO2 is also a good conductor of energy and thus more gas between the glass panes will probably enhance heat to escape. I suggest switching to triple glazing, like I have in cold Finland.

  • Avatar

    FauxScienceSlayer

    |

    This is a rigged, three sided debate between the Darth BIG Warmists, the Luke LITTLE Warmists and the Obie NO Warmists. I too am a retired engineer who has researched and written extensively on this Chicken Little > ACORN > Sky is Falling hypothesis for over five years.

    “We cannot order men to see he truth, or prohibit them from engaging in error” ~ Max Planck

    In his new video “On the Validity of Kirchoff” by Dr Pierre-Marie Robitaille, Professor of Radiology and Physical Chemistry, based on extensive empirical, peer reviewed and published research, he shows that not only is there a critical error in Kirchoff’s Law, but by default with the corollary Laws of Planck, Stefan and Boltzman. Rewriting all the “Laws” of radiation Physics invalidates the photo-shopped hypothesis of AGW.

    Based on the still valid Wien’s Law, all objects emit/absorb a frequency corresponding to their temperature. The Sun emits a broad spectrum based on it’s ~ 5,900C temperature and CO2 absorbs in the following frequencies and temperatures.
    2.7 micron [800C]…4.3 micron [400C] and 14.7 micron [-80C]
    It is clear that adding CO2 with a Specific Heat of 0.8 will absorb more incoming energy [cooling] than outgoing. But the critical point of Dr Robitaille is that CO2 VARIES with temperature and pressure and NEVER reaches the 95% assumed OLR absorption and likewise is never the zero assumed by AGW on TSI.

    youtube.com/watch?v=3Hstum3Uzw

    When the four “Laws” that you base your hypothesis on are invalid, they your hypothesis is INVALID.

  • Avatar

    Al Shelton

    |

    @Boris……….
    Here is a question for you.
    If the CO2 slows down cooling at 400ppm, then if I put 99+% CO2 in my space between my double glazed windows is it going to slow down the cooling of my house this winter??

  • Avatar

    Boris Winterhalter

    |

    I read just the 2 first statements by Roy, and am sorry to have a different opinion fro Joe’s.

    Unfortunately Joe is wrong when criticizing Spencer’s 1. [i]There is no greenhouse effect[/i]. Joe has not been out during night time, otherwise he would have noted that a surface warmed by the Sun during the day will cool during the night, but the rate of cooling depends on the amount of water vapour in the air (CO2 is a weak greenhouse gas). The more moist the air is the slower the heat loss (cooling). The same effect can be observed between a clear sky and an overcast (cloudy) sky.

    Joe might take a hike in a desert and note that in dry desert atmosphere and with no clouds to limit outgoing IR, it will be damned cold in the night. The night will, however, be less cold if there are clouds or the air happens to be moist.

    Joe is correct in noting that radiation from a colder atmosphere will not warm (increase) the temperature of the warmer surface. However, the rate of cooling will be slower.

    Roy is correct in stating that all surfaces warmer than 0 K radiate energy quanta (photons). The net heat escaping the surface (flowing out towards space) will be the difference between the cold and the warm surface. I do agree that the warm body will not become warmer from IR emitted by a cooler body, but the rate of cooling will be slower.

    The text on CO2 in blood is misleading. CO2 is a product of body metabolism, i.e like any “burning” process ultimately food is oxidized and one end product is CO2, which is transported by blood circulation to the lungs and expelled and the blood is again replenished with oxygen, etc. It should also be pointed out that it is the increased level of CO2 in the blood that stimulates the need for breathing, it is not the low level of oxygen, however, low oxygen in the blood will ultimately lead to blackout and death.

  • Avatar

    slktac

    |

    Lonny:
    Explaining the coat: I used to do reptile shows. We would always explain that you can’t put a coat on a snake to keep it warm. The snake gets its warmth from the environment and not internally. When we put on a coat, it traps the heat we give off. When a snake puts on a coat, there’s no change. The coat is neutral as far as keeping whatever/whomever is wearing it–the only thing that matters is if the wearer has an internal source of heat versus heating from the environment.
    As for the flat earth–I honestly had never considered this. Those diagrams of the energy balance–I just thought the earth was flat because it was easier to draw. When taking a class on climate change, I was very surprised to find that the models really do use a circle, not half a sphere. I noticed this when a sphere representing the earth showed incoming solar radiation landing on fully 1/2 the sphere. Then, for calculations, the energy was assumed to land on a circle and we ended up with that “divided by 4” thing. Even without the math, it’s obvious that using a circle greatly reduces the area that you are calculating the solar radiation to be landing on. (I understand that this is claimed to not be important and it’s a “good model”, but until someone explains how we went from half a sphere to a flat circle, I can’t see any use.)
    Perhaps the most simple argument against AGW is that no other scientific problem was ever solved by taxes and the UN. The solution always came from labratories with empirical findings.

  • Avatar

    Oliver K. Manuel

    |

    The basic problem is that we are each blessed with the ability to see the flaws in others and to overlook the flaws in ourselves.

  • Avatar

    Al Shelton

    |

    I am a retired Engineer.
    When I first heard about the GHE and CO2 [about 12 yrs ago] I was skeptical in a way, mainly from logic. How could a harmless gas that is vital for plant life be a “pollutant’ and cause AGW especially when its concentation is about 0.04%?
    After very much reading, I came to the decision that the GHE is a false hypothesis with no proof.
    [only computer models and political alarmism].
    If the measurements of the past, where CO2 LAGS global temperatures are true, then it must be true for the present.
    The whole man[n]-made global warming hypothesis then becomes redundant.
    The GHE is not logical; it is not measureable; its is not mathematically sound; and the recent rise in CO2 has had no effect.
    On top of that, the whole human induced global warming scare was a predetermined political agenda.

  • Avatar

    Lonny Eachus

    |

    [quote name=”Claudius Denk”]

    By avoiding words that your audience can interpret ambiguously you close the door to misinterpretation.

    Jim McGinn
    http://www.solvingtornadoes.org[/quote%5D

    While I am not certain that I agree with your specific example, this is the same basic idea I am trying to get across. We need to present the arguments in ways the layman can better understand.

    (Disclaimer: technically I am a “layman” too. But I do have a pretty solid science-oriented education.)

  • Avatar

    Lonny Eachus

    |

    While I accept the basic truth of what Joe says here, I think some of the arguments could have been made better. Because I also think that these arguments need to be presented to people who are not as scientifically literate as your typical audience on this blog.

    Take #2, for example, as Arfur has above. While what you say is true, Joe, it is not going to convince a lot of people. Why? Because they will say, “Nonsense! My clothes keep me warm! I know this from experience, so Joe is wrong!”

    All I mean there is that there should be a clearer distinction made here between “trapping of radiation” and “retention of heat via prevention of convective or conductive heat transfer”. Because this is central to getting people to understand the difference between a real greenhouse and “the greenhouse effect”. I know you have explained that elsewhere… but as much trouble as it may be, it needs to be repeated.

    Here is why: someone posts an argument online that the Earth is warming via trapping of radiation. I link them to this page showing Joe’s arguments. They say (incorrectly) “Aha! See? I KNOW #2 is wrong because clothes keep me warm! Therefore everything on the page is wrong!”

    You might well say that’s ridiculous, but I assure you that is how many of them think (and argue).

    Also I think #8 requires elaboration. In essence, you make the bald claim “greenhouse models are produced with a flat Earth” without explaining why you say so. I feel this needs further explanation, such as why an “average” temperature does indeed reflect a flat Earth rather than a dynamic system, and that such averages cannot account for even easily observed dynamic effects, much less subtle warming that they purport to be distinguishing from noise of greater magnitude.

    In summary: don’t forget the layman. It isn’t enough to convince scientists of this. The message has to reach people with little science background.

    One of the ways “warmists” have been effective is that their propaganda is couched in relatively easy to understand and convincing language… regardless of how wrong it is. I think there is great benefit to be had by making sure counter-arguments are explained in similarly easy-to-understand and convincing terms where possible.

  • Avatar

    Claudius Denk

    |

    [quote name=”Oliver K, Manuel”][quote name=”slktac”]There really seems to be a problem with a “unifying theory” in all of this. All camps come at the problem from different angles, insisting their use of energy, radiation, heat, averages,etc. are correct and often claiming all others are scientifically illiterate.[/quote]

    Yes, we skeptics are much like the story of the ten blind men that each describe the elephant by their own sense of feel.

    We can be as closed-minded as believers, but we may not see flaws in ourselves.

    That is a formidable problem![/quote]

    Many skeptics have only become skeptics recently and not for reasons that are scientific but for reasons that are political. It is incredibly easy, for example, to come up with a list of questions that you can ask a meteorologists–any meteorologist, regardless of AGW affiliation–and they become just as evasive and deceptive as the worst of the AGW advocates.

  • Avatar

    Oliver K, Manuel

    |

    [quote name=”slktac”]There really seems to be a problem with a “unifying theory” in all of this. All camps come at the problem from different angles, insisting their use of energy, radiation, heat, averages,etc. are correct and often claiming all others are scientifically illiterate.[/quote]

    Yes, we skeptics are much like the story of the ten blind men that each describe the elephant by their own sense of feel.

    We can be as closed-minded as believers, but we may not see flaws in ourselves.

    That is a formidable problem!

  • Avatar

    slktac

    |

    There really seems to be a problem with a “unifying theory” in all of this. All camps come at the problem from different angles, insisting their use of energy, radiation, heat, averages,etc. are correct and often claiming all others are scientifically illiterate. Plus, the science on both sides seems to be decreasing as time goes by–more and more claims that make no sense but fit a theory. Is it just me?

    I find the labelling of various groups as fascists a bit disturbing–clearly, this is all about politics and none about science. (Which may answer why the science is evaporating from the discussion.)

    If anyone can come up with a theory that somehow explains the earth’s climate in terms that make sense to all disciplines, we’d perhaps have something.

  • Avatar

    Rogueelement451

    |

    Dev.
    Thanks for taking the time to reply,given the Geo-political implications , I think I will have to rethink my strategy!
    Now the rabid left call Sceptics right wing so which end of the political spectrum are you coming from?
    Sorry to taint the comment board with my ignorance.

  • Avatar

    Oliver K. Manuel

    |

    The AGW conflict that now plagues society may be succinctly described as the result of [i]an ill-advised decision in 1945 to [b]forbid public knowledge[/b] of the source of energy that destroyed Hiroshima[/i].

    That happens to also be the source of energy that made our elements, birthed the solar system and sustains our lives.

    See this recent one-page message to the Congressional Space Science & Technology Committee:

    https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/10640850/Peace.pdf

    Suggestions, advice, comments would be appreciated for peacefully resolving this conflict.

    With kind regards,
    [i]- Oliver K. Manuel[/i]
    Former NASA Principal
    Investigator for Apollo

  • Avatar

    dev

    |

    Rogueelement451

    There is no question, there is no grey area.

    warmists are fascists clearly.

    luke warmists support fascist alarmism
    therefore they are in the same camp.

    They are fascist.

    Given the gravity of the political global changes we are about to see unfold over the next few years, the potential for untold harm in a myriad of ways. It is clear that there are 2 camps only.

    Alarmists and Realists.

  • Avatar

    Rogueelement451

    |

    As a non scientist , which numbers me amongst say 97% or more of the worlds population (that damned consensus again!)
    What I would like to know is this, given that I am a sceptic but that’s a minority and given my ignorance of the subject and that’s probably way over 97%, how on Earth am I supposed to educate friends and associates on the subject when there is such a huge disparity of views amongst the Sceptics?
    I have gone from quizzical to sceptic ,moved on to denier and now find myself lost between the luke warmers , some of whom I admire greatly ,Lord Monkton, Jo Nova etcetc and the Slayers view.
    I tend to go with the math but where there is a divergence between the likes of Roy Spencer and yourself ,it is extremely difficult for a lay person to deal with.Instinct says go with the slayers for a number of reasons , but some of those would make me equally as hypocritical as some of the Warmistas.
    Where to go for best advice?
    I have been researching a huge number of sites and particularly like that of Stefan the Denier ,but this fighting is counter productive.Someone please prove the Science so that we can throw peer review back in the faces of the sheep.

  • Avatar

    Steve C

    |

    Well, as there’s one “American Thinker” article reposted here already, let me reference another w.r.t. Dr. Spencer’s point no.5 above.

    The article is
    http://www.americanthinker.com/2014/04
    /global_warming_and_settled_science.html
    by Andre Lofthus, “a physicist with 40 years experience in aerospace and extensive knowledge of atmospheric physics”. Three paragraphs from the end, he makes reference to the U.S. Navy’s ‘Infrared Handbook’ and its measurements of atmospheric opacity at different wavelengths, expressed as transmission coefficients over a path length of 300 metres and measured back in the ’50’s, before human activities became so demonic. Quote:

    “In the LWIR absorption band of CO2 (center wavelength of 15 microns) the
    transmission [b]measured[/b] is 0.0 due to CO2 absorption.” (my bold)

    So, indeed, the CO2 absorption bands are already 100% opaque. Just as well “it doesn’t matter”, then, since whatever we do we can’t improve on 100% absorption.

  • Avatar

    Claudius Denk

    |

    Joe, when you use the concept of heat you are assuming a very different connotation than that AGW advocates. They don’t have your background in thermodynamics. For you heat involves excitation of molecules (measurable as temperature). For AGW advocates heat is radiation. These are two very different connotations. Radiation does go both directions. Increases in temperature, however, only go one direction (from hot to cold, as you indicate). There is in my mind (and, I suppose, in yours too) no excuse for their connotation, other than ignorance of thermodynamics. Nevertheless that is the way they interpret the concept of heat.

    There is a very simple solution. Avoid the ambiguity. Don’t use the word “heat.” Instead, of referring to “heat” “cool” refer to increases or decreases in measurable temperature.

    By avoiding words that your audience can interpret ambiguously you close the door to misinterpretation.

    Jim McGinn
    http://www.solvingtornadoes.org

  • Avatar

    Pat Obar

    |

    Please let me post a reply here to the claims of both Joe and Dr. Roy,

    Someone says: 2014/05/01 at 5:20 PM

    Joseph,
    I share your disdain for how Spencer presents his Bull Shit.
    Yours, of the same, is only slightly more scientifically correct: 🙂

    My reply on his blog:
    Dr. Spencer,
    On your blog you have:
    “Latest Global Average Tropospheric Temperatures” 🙁

    “Since 1979, NOAA satellites have been carrying instruments which measure the natural microwave thermal emissions from oxygen in the atmosphere. The intensity of the signals these microwave radiometers measure at different microwave frequencies is directly proportional to the temperature of different, deep layers of the atmosphere. Every month, John Christy and I update global temperature datasets (see here that represent the piecing together of the temperature data from a total of fourteen instruments flying on different satellites over the years.”
    How can you assert that you are measuring what you think you are measuring?:
    1) How do you confirm that you are measuring the radiance of atmospheric O2 at any altitude, rather than the higher radiance from the surface at frequencies near the actual O2 absorption at that pressure and temperature?
    2) What measurements have you made that show that variation in surface radiance cannot overwhelm any O2 radiance?

    “…. Contrary to some reports, the satellite measurements are not calibrated in any way with the global surface-based thermometer records of temperature. They instead use their own on-board precision redundant platinum resistance thermometers (PRTs) calibrated to a laboratory reference standard before launch.”:
    3) This is the best! You admit that your remote sensing radiometer measurements are in no way is corrected, to a remote thermometric temperature!
    How can you claim that your radiance measurement and your unknown calculation indicate any “temperature anomaly”? You have thousands of uncontrolled variables in any computation!
    Your March computation of +0.17 degrees Celsius is 1/4 of the error bars, most would put on such calculation of +/- 0.8 degree.
    Your effort is appreciated, and may lead to understanding of the atmosphere!
    Please, prease (Chinese), supply your best guess, but with all known “warts”, to be even more appreciated!! Most all including skeptics would accept your best guess for what it is, and like chickens, pruck onry at the weak points!

    Do satellites ever fry? 🙂 The Columbia was not a satellite, when it tried to fry, then significantly bulnt up! 😡

Comments are closed