The last post of this series was a formal disproof of the atmospheric greenhouse theory. It is an a-priori mathematical truth of reason, not merely a truth of theory or contingency, that a spherical rotating Earth with real-time sunshine can induce the physical responses all by itself that a flat-Earth model with diluted sunshine can only do by adding in a manufactured greenhouse effect.
Hence, the greenhouse effect is false. QED. Do you understand? Did you understand that last post?
There is no more confusion on the logic, it has been perfectly clarified: The greenhouse effect is false.
It is an a-priori mathematical truth of reason based on physics, not merely a truth of theory or contingency, that a spherical rotating Earth with real-time sunshine can induce physical responses on the surface of the Earth all by itself that a flat-Earth model with diluted sunshine can only do by adding in a manufactured greenhouse effect.
Q
E
D
Well, almost all of my posts have enough to expose the greenhouse effect for the fiction that it is, but the last post was the most concise and easy to understand, and got to the rational heart of the matter clearly.
Now this will be a short post, just pointing something out.
A few weeks ago Roy Spencer, great friend and scientific adviser to the man who doesn’t understand how a light-bulb works, Anthony Watts, and who incidentally doesn’t understand how a greenhouse works, and who incidentally doesn’t understand what a time-dependent differential equation is even though he somehow got a PhD, spoke to the US Congress from a “skeptical” position waylaying the fears of climate alarm.
Now, this latter seems all well and good. What great guys Roy Spencer and Anthony Watts that they are such skeptics, right?
However, despite being asked to consider the difference between a flat Earth and a round Earth, to which both Roy and Anthony will spit, hiss, growl, and get very angry about, both of these men have told me in personal correspondence that they simply want to choose to believe that carbon dioxide “has some forcing via the greenhouse effect”, to quote. They said they WANT this. They simply choose to not want to consider the physics, science, and mathematics of the reality of a spherical Earth vs. that of a flat Earth, because if they did, they would no longer get to satisfy their “want” of believing that “CO2 has to have some forcing effect, just smaller than the alarmists say”, to quote!
So, Roy Spencer and his mustached bulldog, Anthony Watts, say all of these things appearing to be the best skeptics out there, doing such a great job for the skeptic cause. What remarkable fellows eh? Glad they’re on our team! So good that Roy gets to speak to congress!
But then, right when they’re walking out the door, they peak their little heads back in to the alarmist muddle, and with a wink and a smile, say:
“But we’re going to leave in place all of the theoretical apparatus you’ve manufactured upon which climate alarmism is based.“
Don’t you guys get it?! Don’t you see?! It is all a put-on job! It’s all fake. It’s all bull! When Roy Spencer is in there talking to politicians who want alarmist politics to benefit the rich and enslave the poor with carbon taxes, it is FAKE, it’s all spectacle, it is scripted TV, in one way or another! IT’S NOT REAL!
It’s designed to manufacture the appearance! They’re feigning skepticism while back-handing the entire theoretical apparatus to support climate politics, via the Greenhouse Effect. Do you all not see that?
They are setting up the apparatus for future use. They have always been willing to lose significant aspects and a large part of climate alarm – that’s why they were so ridiculous and their science was so obviously flawed and stupid…so that some of it could fail, so that some skepticism could look like it made a difference, while the subtler “fundamentals” they actually wanted stayed in place for future use – the Greenhouse Effect. It was all set up to create the appearance of something legitimate, but none of it was. And even with so much atrociously poor science, they still had a large majority of society (read here why such people fell right in to the alarmist religion) believe in it all.
This is how political intrigue and subterfuge works, and it is a wonderful example. This whole thing also goes by the name of the manufacture of a “simulacra”, as I wrote about here. You simply pretend to have expertise in a field of concern which you manufactured; you pretend to do science and you manufacture the appearance of doing science, and you manufacture the support from the public by injecting the simulacra with fear and frightening consequences of “not believing”. FLOODS! Literally…a flooding of the entire world was one of the fearful talking points. Where have we heard that before? To make it appear legitimate, you set it all up to lose some ground, to make it appear that the critics have had some success, to make it appear that compromises have been met and that you lost some territory.
Meanwhile, the only thing they needed to stay in place is the manufactured theoretical apparatus, and because you’ve created so much fear and smoke and so many particular issues of questionable science, no one ever gets a chance to look at the fundamental theoretical apparatus – and if someone does, you attack them mercilessly with both sides of the manufactured “debate”: the alarmists and the controlled skeptical opposition.
Roy Spencer and Anthony Watts both told me that they will not talk about the Earth being spherical. Do you get it? They will not acknowledge the factual irrefutable content of the last post of this series. A spherical Earth is taboo.
And so now, what do we see Roy Spencer doing this week? This problem that a real greenhouse doesn’t actually function as the atmospheric greenhouse models pretend, even though the math and physics should be directly equivalent to one another, needs to be covered up. Because if anyone is out there who might comprehend the paradox between a real greenhouse and the pretended Greenhouse Effect, they might start to ask the right questions.
Roy Spencer is the front man on this, so this week he’s initiated an intrigue and line of subterfuge to pretend that a real greenhouse does function like the atmospheric greenhouse effect. His reasoning? Because the atmospheric greenhouse effect works like a greenhouse! It is yet more incestuous tautology…the forte of climate alarm and the greenhouse effect. In the comments of his article, Roy Spencer literally says that he is “not sure what causes the air to heat up in the greenhouse in the first place”, and therefore tries to imply that it must be the infrared radiation inside the greenhouse causing the heating -the IR which is a result of the heating! Dr. Roy Spencer, the air inside a real greenhouse is heated by contact conduction with the surfaces inside the greenhouse…surfaces which have been heated by THE SUN. But of course, the Sunshine is only -18C, right? The Sun can’t heat anything?
Roy knows full well that PSI already did a physics experiment looking for the type of heating that is postulated from their greenhouse effect models. We used the atmosphere’s very own theorized greenhouse effect to check for the heating from back-radiation/imbalanced radiation output/heat retention or whatever label they want to obfuscate with to pretend the process. It doesn’t exist. Real-world data does not show any hint of any form of the postulated greenhouse effect.
Not only is it experimentally disproven, the entire concept is already disproven on simple theoretical and basic conceptual grounds. The Earth isn’t flat – and therefore any form of thought or memes which come from mathematically thinking such a thing, are ipso-facto wrong. All this stuff about IR scattering via CO2 and radiative transfer “proving” that a cold gas heats a warmer surface “via some method”, is subsequent, not antecedent, to the flaw of the flat-Earth cold-sunshine model. An absorption spectrum, such as that from CO2, is created by a cold gas in front of a warmer background source of radiation.
The cold gas is not the cause of the warmer background.
Climate of Sophistry 
As the Slayers have been saying for sometime now the supposed main stream skeptics are the main defenders of GH “theory”. In my opinion this is so the “consensus” can continue as if nothing is wrong. Manufactured – spot on Joseph. The greenhouse effect “theory” simply CAN NOT be allowed to be questioned, yet the earth is NOT flat.
Great article, hits the nail on the head, but what to do???? The “game”, and it is most definitely a game, not science, has always been rigged for the benefit of the few over the many. One does not need scientific training to any great degree, if at all, to know and understand that GH “theory” is a con, but no one with any amount of public clout will admit it openly. At every level this is plainly a rigged “game”, and it is a “game” that will cost us all dearly.
Joe, you are the AGW dogma slayer! This dogma’s principles are derived from prostituted science paid for by authorities with political agendas, and declared incontrovertibly true. They must make sure it is never denied or disputed. They are losing that fight. Slowly but surely. I share your frustration. But you and your colleagues are winning. Keep it up!
Petrus.
More low climate sensitivity, continues its weary journey down the road to zero and beyond:
When will they finally remove the manufactured apparatus entirely? Will they at all? How low are they willing to go to save the apparatus? If they get to zero, will it still be there at all?
Your posts are a always refreshing and inspirational read Joe. your drive to simplicity and clarity is always a good one, so why such ‘revered’ folks as Spencer & Watts cannot see this simplicity of GHG disproof beats me. Keep it up, as their (increasingly fragile) glass wall of ‘GHG must be true’ pretense must not just be broken, even smashed, but obliterated. Thanks Joe. Keep it up.
@ilma630,
I believe that Spencer and Watts not only see the disproof, they also fully well understand that the GHE is disproved. The evidence of this can be clearly seen when you string together their post history on the subject. Their incessant determination to keep the lie going is what drives them as can be seen by posts, increasing in ridiculousness in each iteration. If you frequent WUWT you can see how Watts is more concerned with viewership than anything else. If the GHE and AGW meme’s came to a close, what would Watts post about? Would anyone read his site anymore? No, they wouldn’t, and Watts’ gravy train would come to a screeching halt. Now, at this point, Watts and Spencer have painted themselves into a corner. For them it has now become a do-or-die situation. They no longer have a choice. All of this is becoming rather comical to watch. At some point they are going to crash and burn, and burn very brightly. Their desperation is clearly illustrated by Spencer’s latest post (that Joe describes). After reading it, I became astounded that Spencer is able to prefix his name with a “Dr.” … Did he buy his PhD online? … Just astounding stupidity in my view, but it is going to come to bite him hard in the ass eventually (Watts too).
Greenhouse Effect, Genetically Engineered Organisms, Geo Engineering – (NSA. WTO, AEC, D or R , TV, ELF, DEA, CIA, and so many more were) all conceived for command and control, built by lies and propagated by generations dumbed down with increased visual imagery, vaccines, glyphosate, fluoride and sugar intake, ( and so much more. ) May the lying liars of these kingdoms be revealed and the people set free. thanks for the great posts, Joe.
I haven’t been going over to Spencer’s place because every time I have to trim the heads of some weeds I have to pay attention to make sure everybody laughs in their faces and I have other things going besides blogging; but, I did go over to Watts’ place and say my piece about that scam they demean the rest of us with, by calling is scientific or science.
Nobody cares enough about the bullshoot I spam to go find out it’s relevant & I do indeed speak every word, with a whole lot of people beside myself in mind. If I may, if I might; repeat what I already said tonight:
“Quote of the Week: the Aye’s have it…” at Electric Tony’s Magic Gais Outlet:
Richard Vada says:
August 14, 2013 at 7:07 pm
This is ABOUT terror. It was a terror campaign when Al Gore said we had to install his energy and environmental policies or fear for our lives.
=====
Txomin says:
August 12, 2013 at 5:19 pm
“…surveyed their members…”
I have wondered about that modus operandi before. It is strange considering the official line of absolute confidence in a scientific consensus. Do they naively assume agreement among members or are they simply terrorized by any form of disagreement? Also, every single scientific institution and society with AGW agenda all acting alike? It’s not just peculiar, it’s bizarre.
Richard Vada says:
August 14, 2013 at 7:09 pm
It’s about terror for being made a public spectacle on the internet by people claiming magic gas turned the gases that act as atmospheric refrigerants into heaters. The infrared resonant gases’ main component by far is water and water is the phase change refrigerant that refrigerates, the atmosphere. There’s no such thing as the “heating component” to the calculations for a phase change refrigerant, it’s a scam a sham and always was one, and anyone who has any scientific education at all knows it could be found if there was one.
Richard Vada says:
August 14, 2013 at 7:44 pm
People lost their jobs: real jobs – and were vilified and remain having been unrestored to their reputations by the hundreds. Entire fields were gutted of people who simply refused to say they saw potential for a whole new field of math to develop out of the refrigerant in your air conditioner having a calculable heating component. That’s how evil Al Gore and all who endorse this eco wacko insanity are. “Admit you believe refrigerant is a heater or I’ll destroy your career and your reputation.”
=====
Same essential deal:
“What if you put on a presidential…” What’s Up Tony’s:
Richard Vada says:
August 14, 2013 at 6:51 pm
I was never laughing at all this criminal scamming, ever. I’ve seen people referring to the ones doing it as “our friends” and “our esteemed adversaries” and I’ve seen people told s.t.f.u. and let the scammers keep talking, because “you’re not being a ‘nice’ citizen.”
The only people who say things like that about criminals are people making money off those criminals’ existence. There’s never been anything respectable or even remotely real about this from the beginning: and when you look around at the climate wars and see who’s still standing, remember: the people who said this was all a scam from the beginning, have been wiped off the political and social map by the collaborators who helped the scam stay afloat so they themselves could stay ‘relevant’ somehow.
Richard Vada says:
August 14, 2013 at 7:14 pm
“It’s real science, it’s just that you all don’t understand,” was the cry around the world from those who sold their souls in order to stay in the climate publicity game. There’s no such thing as “the amount of heating done by the refrigerant” in a phase change refrigeration system, and earth’s atmosphere is a frigid gas bath, of nitrogen and oxygen, phase change refrigerated, using water.
Not maybe or maybe thursday – that’s the way it is and that’s why nobody on earth but people in the climate publicity business claim they believe in that crap even remotely.
Literally from the beginning even your local air conditioner repair man would have been able to tell this is all fake, and thousands of people, hundreds of professionals, told everyone, from the beginning. It was about crime from the start. Energy markets manipulation by Al Gore, policy sway through terror by all those involved who claimed they believed it was possible to heat the atmosphere with it’s refrigerants; grants scamming – that’s how the whole thing got kicked off before Gore aired it out in his “lost the election make my money back” come back tour.
====
You young people who don’t believe it can possibly be as crooked as we, as these people here, are saying ?
Ya know what scientist Pielke Jr. said TO CONGRESS the other day regarding climate scientist’s claims?
“SENATOR….* * *THERE ARE A LOT OF DISHONEST PEOPLE IN THIS* * * FIELD.”
I paraphrased it but he said AS much STRAIGHT up. That’s a guy I don’t even KNOW.
I know OF him, but I don’t even KNOW that man, and he says it: and I’M telling ya, TOO.
ALL those guys are crooks and are feeding at the hog trough.
ALL.
N.O.N.E. of them believe in it
N.ot
O.ne
N.ot
E.ver.
They SOLD their and their NATIONS’ SOULS to GET a PIECE of
NATIONAL SOCIALISM’S
CRIMINAL-CREAM-of-the-CROP PIE.
GIVE to YOUR SELF
SCREW EVERYBODY HONEST
SCREW LEGACY
SCAPE GOAT the HONEST
GET rich TODAY.
They’re criminals pure and simple, and people who aren’t in law enforcement can’t imagine them all knowing yet willing to spend your LIFE to stay on the merry-socialism-go-round.
It’s called SCAPE GOATING
to DIVERT from the LARCENY.
it’s NOTORIOUSLY effective in properly set up criminal rings, such as those orchestrated by National Socialism movements.
If possible please Joseph could you put a space in, like this:
it’s a scam a sham and always was one, and anyone who has any scientific education at all knows it could be found if there was one.
====
Richard Vada says:
August 14, 2013 at 7:44 pm
(Thank You. If it’s too long to leave up I understand.)
These people are those who simply see what’s easiest for them to do. Al Gore used the fact the whole country had it’s hatches battened down and everyone was in a very edgy mood to ENCOURAGE his THUG HICKS to BRUTALLY DRIVE their POLITICAL OPPONENTS out of PUBLIC LIFE.
People have been driven out of University jobs and every kind of employment in government they can be. Al Gore told HIS FOLLOWERS that – “WE DON’T HAVE the TIME to WASTE with the OLD WAYS ANYMORE it could be the END of CIVILIZATION as YOU KNOW it if you don’t DRIVE the OPPOSITION OUT using what EVER MEANS YOU CAN ABSORB INCLUDING ARRESTS.”
HE was TELLING people this, for y.e.a.r.s. AND SO WERE OTHERS IN HIS COTERIE of FRIEND-FRAUDS.
After the election was lost, Al Gore’s own W.I.F.E. I say to you, L.E.F.T. HIM amid a FLURRY of hostility in which SHE SAID IF HE DIDN’T GET A GRIP ON HIMSELF SHE’D TELL THEIR STORY in her “UPCOMING, TELL-ALL BOOK.”
She had HER publicity team deliver THOSE WORDS to I.N.T.E.R.N.A.T.I.O.N.A.L. media, girls.
INTERNATIONAL
media.
The reason we Anglos don’t get more wind of Al Gore’s pure EVIL dealings with the ENORMOUS energy markets S.C. A. M. readmylipsplural S. – energy market scamS. ScamS with S at both ENDS
is because AL GORE SET ALL THAT up primarily with his friends in G.E.R.M.A.N.Y.
So HE’S been able to keep ANYTHING he wants fairly well insulated from prosecution because his friends in American government revere him as God incarnate because he simply tells them ‘COMMIT CRIMES, IT’S OKAY, if that’s what you HAVE to DO to GET EVEN’.
Gore is one insane evil son of a b***h. I don’t mean that with any levity at all. He’s an evil assed human being who sold the whole WORLD’s soul down the pipe because HE was MAD
he LOST
an ELECTION.
Peace hippies.
Don’t take any wooden nickels from these criminal tramps.
Allen Eltor
Of course we all broadly agree here with your general points. So why do you feel obliged to bomb this thread ? Most thread bombing is a complete bore, but usually it is due to dogged defense of a minority point of view within a blog.
Anyway I’ve just done a simple word count and would point out that your comments on this thread to date are TEN WORDS SHORT OF JOE’S POST ! You say that you have “other things going besides blogging” – but one does wonder…
By the way, I have a beard and fairly long hair. Not close-cropped anyway. I also think that AGW is a monstrous scam and am unconvinced by the GHE. So how would you categorise me ?
Let’s not leave out Maurice Strong and the others who co opted an honest environmental movement and turned carbon into a commodity that must be controlled, i.e., human based carbon life. Interesting article here from Canada Free Press about Obamanation connection with Strong and Gore.
http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/9629
Samm
Thanks Joe, keep pushing reality because it will bite them on the bum soon. (especially that stupid dog Watts pushes as a skeptic).
Excellent post J Postma. I would also add Lord Monckton to the list of controlled opposition.
though I am sure that you have likely come across this already.
Oh yes had extensive comms with him too. Get the impression he really just isn’t smart enough. Although he is also in a good position to be controlled opposition playing his part. Thanks for the link and the nod towards Monckton.
Samm Simpson says 2013/08/15 at 8:03 AM: “an honest environmental movement”
=========================================
I am not sure if the word “honest” is applicable to any movement that puts animals and plants over people.
Roy Spencer blocks this reply to Vaughan Pratts current post at Roys site.
Roy and Vaughan seem to be the only folk on the planet that believe in finding a greenhouse effect in a shoebox sized enclosure.
I think even Skeptical Science are a bit more sophisticated than that.
………………………………………………………….
Vaughan
Problems with your experiment.
1. The three lids have widely different thicknesses
Polyethylene film 1
Glass 156
Acrylic 625
Compare with Woods equal thickness glass and rocksalt.
2. Realising this, you have a second series where you try a double thickness film and double thickness Acrylic block
The film is supported on 48 acetate pillars 6mm wide cut from OHP slides.
No mention is made as to how these pillars stay vertical.
Sharp edges and thin film begs trouble of puncture.
3. The film lid is evidently quite floppy as can be seen from the photographs.
I suppose it is to be expected as any attempt to get a tight lid might result in puncture.
Anyway it is in clear contrast to the totally rigid double Acrylic 312mm thick lid.
As the temperature increases the floppy film lid will “bow out” significantly increasing the volume inside that box.
The formula T2 = T1xV1/V2 predicts the new temperature T2 will drop because of that effect.
There is no such problem with the Acrylic lid box as the volume stays content throughout.
3. No starting temperature given.
4. No time for duration of experiment given.
5. No attempt to vary box,box lid, box position,thermocouples to see if some component had a problem.
6. Why not use 3 mercury thermometers(like Wood) it would save all connecting and disconnecting the single multimeter used.
Sadly there are no conclusions that can be drawn from this experiment.
Your latest work stopped at August 2010 (three years ago) and is still incomplete
Huge budgets are given to climate science and the massive dislocation to the world economy is intended.
You would think that obtaining a rigid 10mm Polyethylene plate,10mm glass plate and 10mm Acrylic plate and redoing Woods experiment would be a very small price to pay for testing Woods experiment.
In the meantime these experiments confirm Woods work.
Prof Nasif Nalhe
Click to access Experiment_on_Greenhouse_Effect.pdf
“Falsification Of the atmospheric CO2 greenhouse effects within the frame Of Physics” by Gerhard Gerlich and Ralf D. Tscheuschner; International Journal of Modern Physics B, Vol. 23, No. 3 (2009) pages 275-364.
Click to access 0707.1161v4.pdf
This paper comes from a source with no “spin” on the AGW debate.
This experiment is in line with R W Wood and contradicts your conclusions.
The project was to find if it made any sense to add Infra Red absorbers to polyethylene plastic for use in agricultural plastic greenhouses.
Polyethylene is IR transparent like the Rocksalt used in Woods Experiment.
The addition of IR absorbers to the plastic made it equivalent to “glass”
The results of the study show that( Page2 )
…”IR blocking films may occasionally raise night temperatures” (by less than 1.5C) “the trend does not seem to be consistent over time”
In fact if you study the graphs at times there is a small anti-greenhouse effect.
Click to access penn_state_plastic_study.pdf
Perhaps you would like to comment on these more recent experiments?
They have no clue how to do science, control variables, etc. The shoddines is what allows them to say whatever they want without actually having done any science at all..like Watts with his light bulb. We did that experiment with the atmosphere itself accounting for all variables…there was no GHE.
Bryan,
Pardon my ignorance but what is OHP?
That said, blocking this reply is quite shameful.
John in France says
“what is OHP?”
Over Head Projector sheets
Old pre-powerpoint method of presenting material to a class of students.
Clear acetate sheets that you can write on.
Thanks Bryan, I’ve used them. I even made my presentations in prose!
The problem with the references to experiments is that there are a few fakes around claiming back radiation warming, so it might be difficult for unprepared readers to decide.
The most obvious to them is in my humble opinion the “mirror experiment” everyone can conduct: just standing in front of a mirror not too close to it and wondering where the back radiation heat is.
It really isn’t more complex than that!
On the theoretical level I would suggest the kind of argumentation James Goodman presented on the recent “greenhouse” thread: http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/08/does-a-greenhouse-operate-through-the-greenhouse-effect/
Similar “energy balance” crap can be easily found in the 2nd IPCC report, I mean the Trenberth graph. It would be difficult for climate liars to account for such a simple “mistake” they committed. Even the most stupid unbiased politician could realize, how shameless they have been fooled by the IPCC&Co.
Joseph E Postma says 2013/08/18 at 2:08 PM
“It really isn’t more complex than that!”
===========================================
Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D. said on his blog : “Yes, you could increase the temperature of your skin if you stood in front of an IR mirror, which would reflect your skin temperature back toward you, rather than emit at the mirror’s cooler temperature. The effect would be small, but measurable.” (http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/04/how-can-home-insulation-keep-your-house-warmer-when-it-cools-your-house/#comment-75956)
The more I think of Roy Spencer’s and Vaughan Pratt’s belief that a glass greenhouse explains a 33K so called greenhouse effect the sillier it becomes.
Take a glass greenhouse to the Moons equator.
It must work the same magic there
The 390K maximum would then increase to 423K.
Since there is a vacuum inside and outside the greenhouse there is no convection to confuse the issue.
ITEM 1:
The absolute amount of CO2 in the Martian atmosphere is 8 times larger than in Earth’s atmosphere. On top of this, it is crammed together in a volume about 2.5 times smaller. That means the IR-absorbing CO2 molecules lie 20 times denser on average above the Martian surface than they do here on Earth.
And how much surface warming does this cause? How high up is the Martian ERL (effective radiating level) raised by its atmospheric CO2?
Zero degrees. And zero kilometers.
In fact, the answer might very well be negative in both cases. The latest tentative estimate of the global mean surface temperature on Mars, evened out across the annual cycle, is -63C (210K). This is exactly the same value you get when calculating the planet’s emission temperature as seen from space (equal to our 255K, -18C).
But if looking at actual measurements from the surface of Mars, there is evidence to suggest that the actual mean global temperature is a fair bit lower than 210K. Even around the equator in summer the mean temperatures lie around -50C. The Viking 2 lander at 48N measured an annual mean of -78C! The Phoenix at 68N measured only during the height of summer and recorded a mean around -56C!
So there is no trace of a CO2 warming effect on Mars. In fact, the CO2-saturated atmosphere rather tends towards having a net cooling effect.
ITEM 2:
Comparing tropical/equatorial rainforest regions and tropical/subtropical desert regions on Earth, what do we see?
If allowing for differences in altitude, the deserts are consistently warmer on an annual basis than the rainforests, by 3-5 degrees Celsius. And this is in spite of the rainforests being astronomically positioned (between 10N and 10S) to get a fair bit more insolation during a yearly cycle than the deserts would (between 30-15 N and S).
But what is the most striking difference between these to biomes, considering the postulated radiative GHE? It is of course the content of GHGs in the atmosphere above them. The atmosphere above the rainforests carries much, much more GHGs than the desert atmosphere does. The H2O in the rainforest air holds the heat coming out from the surface (and, significantly, in from the Sun). In other words, the rainforest atmosphere keeps the absorbed heat in place near the surface while the desert atmosphere releases it quickly back to space.
This is the perfect setup for a GHErad experiment. Everything’s in place. According to the hypothesis, the rainforest surface should be much, much warmer on all counts than the desert surface. It is the atmospheric retainment of surface heat trying to escape to space that is supposed to be the GHErad mechanism for surface warming. Isn’t it?
So why are the deserts still warmer?! We of course know the answer. We of course know that this has got nothing to do with ‘back radiation warming’. Quite the opposite. Hence the observational evidence.
But I really do wonder if the GHErad proponents do …
Great posts, Bryan and Kristian. Exactly.
I have the unpleasant feeling that we are going to see another fake (or mistake if you wish) soon: http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/08/revisiting-woods-1909-greenhouse-box-experiment-part-i/.
And they’ll bungle it and misinterpret the results again…hehe
This is a comment Roy Spencer did not want the readers to see on that thread:
“Dr.Spencer says: “Glass is seldom as much as 90% transparent, so it is not the best choice, in my view. The issue is important because, assuming direct sunlight, you might have 800 W/m2 of solar heating available, but a 10% difference in transparency will result in 80 W/m2 difference in how much sunlight is entering the box. … In other words, two boxes might produce the same interior temperatures (seemingly contradicting greenhouse theory) if a glass covered box is “trapping” 80 W/m2 more IR, but the Saran Wrap covered box is letting in 80 W/m2 more visible sunlight.”
Dr.Spencer, this would effectively kill the greenhouse effect.
Assuming there is one and using http://calculator.tutorvista.com/stefan-boltzmann-law-calculator.html, 80 W/m2 of “trapped IR” by glass would be responsible only for 10C difference in temperature and not for 33C..
Besides, greenhouse gases are less opaque to IR than glass, I guess, so the difference would be even less than 10C. Isn’t it too little for a greenhouse effect?
It seems you will need 350 W/m2 of “trapped IR” for the 33K difference and 44% difference in transparency.”
Joe, I have just tried to post something twice, but it won’t appear.
Maybe spam filter got it for some reason…give me a bit to get to a PC…can’t check it on mobile.
We already did this experiment using the atmosphere’s very own postulated greenhouse effect. We used the exact equations Spencer uses to calculate the magnitude of the greenhouse effect. And we used standard physics equations. The standard physics equations WORKED, they matched the temperature precisely, and the greenhouse effect equations failed to match observation.
The funny thing in that Spencer’s quote is that he has no problem with assuming a much lower “greenhouse effect” from the much more opaque glass than they ascribe to “greenhouse gases”, just to “explain” the Wood experiment. Who cares about logic anyway? Just cook something and hope people would buy it.
Greg House says:
2013/08/24 at 5:30 PM
I have the unpleasant feeling that we are going to see another fake (or mistake if you wish) soon: http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/08/revisiting-woods-1909-greenhouse-box-experiment-part-i/.
======
I addressed them at the level I figure their average reader is looking to learn up to:
air conditioning fundamentals.
“Allen Eltor says:
August 24, 2013 at 7:21 PM
Magic Gais boils down to the claim that a frigid gas bath, nitrogen and oxygen,
phase change refrigerated by a one percent shot of water,
warms the rock warming the bath, as the bath cools the rock,
and that the refrigerant is the primary source of the heating.
Every word which drizzles from you peoples’ befuddled brains,
has been proven untrue so many times and by so many people
your own scientist Peilke Jr told the Senate TO their FACE:
“[t]here are a lot of dishonest people in this field.”
Do any of you admit you’ve never showed up with the book from the refrigeration field showing how you calculate the heating done by the refrigerant?
Or are you all still claiming there’s no instrument which can measure the giant infrared light on in the sky 24/7/365.25, which is influencing climate by making it warmer, as it emits from the refrigerant?
“As the heat emits from the refrigerant, global temperature is expected to grow warmer and warmer” is your “message”.
“The more refrigerant in the air, the warmer we as Magic GAiSSers expect it to get.”
Isn’t this the place where the guy got caught pointing a thermometer at the sky claiming he was getting water/CO2 readings and the company had to issue an urgent “explanation of the technology”
because people believed their thermometer was measuring the temperature of gaseous co2 and water,
and they explained to the guy who made the claim, that he COULDN’T be measuring that, because they intentionally took their measurements from a different band of infrared light precisely so that couldn’t happen?
Yes that’s this place, and that’s the man who runs this blog who got caught doing that.
You people really do need to give up the deception of anyone who’ll come by and listen to your falsehoods.
Even a man who studies refrigeration knows there’s no way your claim can be true.
The earth’s oceanic basins are awash ten thousand feet deep in phase change refrigerant so cold it’s liquid. In some places like the poles and mountain tops it’s solidified: frozen solid.
While the temperature of the big warm rock just six feet below the surface, average, is sixty five degrees F.
You people are clowns. You need to grasp just because there’s an internet to tell lies to strangers on,
you don’t have to get on and do it.”
Apparently, Spencer did not block that comment intentionally, it was his spam filter too, I guess. Acquitted 🙂 .
Allen Eltor says 2013/08/24 at 7:27 PM
“Isn’t this the place where the guy got caught pointing a thermometer at the sky claiming he was getting water/CO2 readings and the company had to issue an urgent “explanation of the technology” because people believed their thermometer was measuring the temperature of gaseous co2 and water, and they explained to the guy who made the claim, that he COULDN’T be measuring that, because they intentionally took their measurements from a different band of infrared light precisely so that couldn’t happen?”
================================================
This is a good one, Allen. I vaguely remember reading something like that. Could you please post a link to that explanation, if you still have it?
That is in the thread’s comments, itself. A reader came into the comments and asked Spencer, what Spencer had to say, about a link he brought with him – of ANOTHER reader, on ANOTHER blog, who reading Spencer’s ignorant and bombastic claim, EMAILED the MIKRON company with a LINK to SPENCER’s claim.
The reader on the OTHER blog, said “they directed me to THIS” and that link, was the now FAMOUS, MIKRON explanation of infrared thermometer design.
Roy Spencer said to the person in his own thread there, that the people building the instrument don’t know shit about climate, and he tried to move on.
Several people took him to task measuring the likelihood of censoring against telling the truth to Spencer’s own face.
=====
* * *LATER* * * another thread put up by Spencer where he claimed his VIDEO infrared camera was “lookin at thim backerdisms” and as * * *S.O.O.N.* * * as Spencer posted it, a matter of just a couple of HOURS, someone came into THAT thread and said “Aren’t you the person who got caught thinking an over the counter thermometer was measuring back radiation?”
Spencer’s reply, wasn’t “yes but I was right.” His reply was “THIS OPERATES DIFFERENTLY than that.”
A few middling posts later, I personally came in there, and said “Don’t you think, Mr. Spencer, that if an instrument has to look through gas to differentiate the temperature of objects, they designed this one to look through the gas and not come back with false signals, TOO?”
No reply.
However he did come in and try lamely to support his stupid bullshoot for about six replies’ worth, then split as he typically does to let the comments and readers hash things out among themselves.
ALL you have to do is send someone over to Roy’s two threads to see the whole thing played out. He got caught RED HANDED, lying through his TEETH.
I have found the explanation by the Mikron Instrument Company Inc.: http://www.omega.com/techref/iredtempmeasur.html. They say “Whereas the early IRT’s required a broad spectral band of IR to obtain a workable detector output, modern IRT’s routinely have spectral responses of only 1 micron. The need to have selected and narrow spectral responses arises because it is often necessary to either see through some form of atmospheric or other interference in the sight path, or in fact to obtain a measurement of a gas or other substance which is transparent to a broad band of IR energy. Some common examples of selective spectral responses are 8-14 microns, which avoids interference from atmospheric moisture over long path measurements; 7.9 microns which is used for the measurement of some thin film plastics; and 3.86 microns which avoids interference from CO2 and H2O vapor in flames and combustion gases.”
Apparently they avoid the interference with CO2 only when measuring temperature of flames and combustion gases. A usual IR thermometer does not need to do that, so the counter argumentation does not seem valid to me. At the same time the fact that they do not care about CO2 is an indication that the radiation from CO2 is negligible.
Besides, and this is the most important thing, it absolutely does not matter what Spencer measured or not, because no back radiation warming is possible, either from CO2 or from glass or whatever. This is easy to demonstrate by just counting energy.
Precisely Greg.
This is about John O’Sullivan and Alan Siddons, the thermometer thing, guys. Isn’t Alan Siddons a guy who posts here sometimes or something, are you guys all members of PSI?
In any case here’s the John O’Sullivan report on the work, of Alan Siddons.
I just found this in my links.
http://co2insanity.com/2011/09/26/thermometer-manufacturer-destroys-greenhouse-gas-warming-myth/
The Alan Siddons guy is an instrumentation person or something, and I think he’s the one who asked Mikron.
This is interesting. Spencer talked about “wavelengths from, say, 8 to 14 microns,”, where the interference with CO2 is negligible: http://www.meteor.iastate.edu/gccourse/forcing/images/image7.gif. If his IR thermometer was calibrated for those wavelengths, he could not have possibly measured the radiation from CO2.
I didn’t know it was Joseph whose blog this is, who was part of the team that backhanded their evil faces with that one.
Good GOIN’ dude! WoW LoL. No wonder those effing hicks hate you.
Write those hicks an open article telling them you have been telling people they believe in a light bulb that pumps 168 watts into a mirror then due to it’s own reflection, becomes a 390 watt bulb.
Some quote action from the article, “The air has to emit SOME radiation though, because any ensemble of particles with a temperature higher than absolute zero (0 degrees Kelvin) emits thermal radiation.
Siddons, Postma, Nahle and their Slayers think tank colleagues have a point; Mikron Instrument Company Inc. has thrown into the mix an important caveat for consideration for those who misinterpret the readings from IR thermometers.
So it is the company that builds IR thermometers that destroys another cornerstone of the religion of the ‘greenhouse gas effect.’
For further compelling examples of how the indomitable ‘Slayers’ have debunked IPCC junk science visit here. http://www.slayingtheskydragon.com/
Yes hi Allen 🙂 Oh don’t worry…I’ve spoken directly with them and informed them precisely the limits of their bs…hehe…that’s why I refer to them sometimes on here…
Great going Joseph, just a smoking shot right through the guts of their bullshit routine.