Oops Anthony Watts did it Again – Introducing the Greenhouse Alarmist

Anthony Watts is a Jester

So Mr. Watts posts a “guest article” from a person named Stephen Wilde, a person who has nothing to do with me or any of the Slayers, and who’s physics musings neither I nor the Slayers have ever promoted, and goes on to associate Mr. Wilde with us and calls Wilde’s musings “Slayer physics”.

Well, this is how this guy Anthony Watts operates – cheap lies.

In a later comment, Watts claims that the Slayers send him articles every week hoping he’ll post them.  This is another lie, we don’t send our own writing to Watts (this is Watts thinking himself a gatekeeper, it would appear), and never have, except when requested.  And when requested, look at how Watts responds:

http://climateofsophistry.com/2013/06/05/slaying-watts-with-watts/

It’s worth re-reading that article if you already have, just to remind yourself of what Anthony Watts believed he could engage in and get away with of sophistry and abuse of science.

So the guy challenges us to demonstrate the physics we’re talking about – essentially that cold doesn’t heat up hot! (seriously, this is what Anthony Watts has a difficult time understanding…) – and when we produce for him exactly what is requested, he ignores it and goes on a rant about light bulbs being able to produce more power than you put into them by having them shine on themselves, because we had had a picture of a light bulb in our article answer to him:

http://climateofsophistry.com/2013/05/13/slayers-putting-up-not-shutting-up/

Anthony Watts thought he could just ignore the physics and text of our response, and so he  just says “you guys have a picture of a light bulb in your article, so, if I turn on the light bulb and it gets hot, then it debunks your article”.

No that doesn’t make any sense at all and it doesn’t address the actual physics of the article, but do you think Anthony wants to care about that?  When pressed on the issue that in science experimentation, and pedagogy, it is important to understand the actual underlying physical principles at work in order to properly quantify the results of an experiment, Anthony Watts replied:

And yet, in the diagram proposed in the essay by Postma, such fine details were not mentioned nor required. Demanding them now post facto doesn’t fly.

So according to Anthony Watts’ understanding of how science works, demanding scientific accuracy after someone botches an experiment is not legitimate.  So in fact, according to Anthony Watts, if you botch an experiment, any subsequent criticism of it is invalid.  The experimenter wasn’t wrong, it is the person pointing out that the experiment was done incorrectly who is wrong. (!) I don’t think even a child would invent such a scheme.  Well, an insecure bully child would.

As you’ll see in the review of the article links, not only did Anthony Watts botch a very basic experiment, he and Curt Wilson didn’t even quantitatively analyse their results to see if more power was being produced than was being put it.  I mean the whole thing was a rather embarrassing expose of the bully mindset and its insecurities, and it would be embarrassing for Anthony Watts if he wasn’t just such a complete idiot.  That’s the advantage of being that stupid: you just don’t know when you’re making a fool of yourself.

Here, I’ll put in order the sequence of events and other articles I’ve had the misfortune of having to write involving Anthony Watts:

http://climateofsophistry.com/2013/05/13/slayers-putting-up-not-shutting-up/

http://climateofsophistry.com/2013/06/05/slaying-watts-with-watts/

http://climateofsophistry.com/2013/06/17/closing-with-watts/

http://climateofsophistry.com/2013/10/18/burning-watts-with-watts/

http://climateofsophistry.com/2013/11/08/anthony-watts-and-robert-brown-are-liars-or-at-least-very-stupid-idiots/

The Maths and Physics of Heat Flow

The simplest equation under the simplest geometry (two plane parallel walls with unit emissivities and absorptivities) for radiant heat flow is:

1.            q_dot = σ(Th4 – Tc4) = σTh4 – σTc4

- ‘q_dot’ is the flow of heat energy per unit time per unit area, unit Joules per second per square meter (J/s/m2)

- ‘σ’ is the Stefan-Boltzmann constant which governs how thermal energy is converted into radiant energy on a surface (5.67 x 10-8 J/s/m2/K4)

- ‘Th‘ & ‘Tc‘ are a hotter temperature and a cooler temperature, respectively.

It is the most basic statement of thermodynamics that heat flows from hot to cold.  Given that Th is a higher numeric value (i.e. a number) than Tc, then the right hand side of the equation is positive and it indicates that heat is flowing (q_dot) from the larger number (hot) to the smaller number (cold).  The heat flow is that quantity which corresponds between the two relevant parameters and their geometry.

 Alarming Greenhouse Physics

Sophistry is a simple thing: you simply say things which appear to have meaning because they follow the accepted rules of grammar and syntax, but without having any ontologically (i.e. “in reality”) meaningful content.  For example:  “This sentence is a lie”.  It is easier to detect a simple sentence of sophistry, whereas if the sentence is strewn with scientific words whose definitions are overly technical and of which very few people are knowledgeable on and especially if the statements are mathematical, then detecting such “Gödelian Incomplete” sentences of sophistry becomes very difficult.  Indeed, one can brainwash entire populations with such sentences.

And so this is what proceeds with the above equation.  Simple as it is to someone like me, for most other scientists and lay-people, it can be mistranslated into physically meaningless sophistry.  This has been the work of many people, but Anthony Watts’ friend Robert G. Brown of Duke University is one of the worst offenders.  The following is precisely how the sophistry develops, in regards to the basic heat flow equation from above, and is essentially a direct quote from Dr. Brown:

“Since ‘q_dot’ is a fixed quantity because it is the heat energy from the Sun, then if the colder temperature increases, the warmer temperature subsequently has to also increase in proportion in order to keep the equation (‘q_dot’) constant.  Hence, if the atmosphere rises in temperature (which is Tc), then the ground surface (Th) has to increase in temperature as well, in order to keep ‘q_dot’ constant, since ‘q_dot’ is the heat energy from the Sun.  Hence we see that cold does indeed warm up hot”

So mathematically what they then do, once these sentences have been stated, is to rearrange equation 1 into

2.            Th = (q_dot/σ + Tc)1/4

at which point they claim proof that cold can heat up hot since if Tc increases on the right hand side, then Th must increase on the left hand side.  So now, should we believe that cold can heat up hot and that thermodynamics has been making erroneous statements all this time about heat flowing from hot to cold only, or, should we go back and check Anthony’s and Robert’s (and all other greenhouse alarmists who’s beliefs depend on this exact same interpretation) work?  Let us check their work!

First, they say that ‘q_dot’ is the heat energy from the Sun, and that this is fixed.  Then they say that the hot and cold temperatures in the equation are that of the Earth’s ground surface (TG) and Earth’s atmosphere (TA), respectively.  Let us specify these assertion in the actual equations then:

1b.            q_dotSun = σTG4 – σTA4

So now the first equation says that the heat flow from the Sun depends on the difference between Earth’s ground temperature and Earth’s air temperature.  Question: Why would the heat that the Sun produces be dependent on the difference between some things which only have to do with the Earth?  That is simply illogical and nonsensical.  The heat which the Sun produces is constant and does not have anything to do with what is happening on the Earth – the Sun is an actual nuclear source of energy and the Earth is only a tiny, tiny passive receiver, 150 million kilometres away.

So that’s it.  Robert Brown and Anthony Watts (and all related greenhouse alarmists) just made up a reinterpretation of the heat flow equation using sentences which, while appearing to be meaningful, were fundamentally devoid of logic and ontology.  The heat produced by the Sun is not determined by the temperature difference between Earth’s surface and atmosphere!

Remember what we said about the heat flow equation above: “The heat flow is that quantity which corresponds between the two relevant parameters and their geometry.

So let us try to meet the greenhouse alarmists half way and say that if the left hand side is the heat flow from the Sun, then it must have to refer to the heat flow between the Sun and the Earth as a whole for the equation to be meaningful.  Then if we have the temperature of the Sun (TSun) and Earth (TE),

1c.            q_dotSun = σTSun4 – σTE4

which then rearranged according the greenhouse alarmists logic, results in

2c.            TSun = (q_dotSun/σ + TE)1/4

Does this help them out at all?  Well now the equation says that the temperature of the Sun will increase if the temperature of the Earth increases.  Talk about a positive feedback mechanism!  Imagine that – the Sun heats up the Earth, then the Earth heats up the Sun, then the Sun must heat the Earth some more, etc etc., ad infinitum.  Well, the temperature of the Sun doesn’t depend on the temperature of the Earth.  That’s that.

So not only was all of their logic wrong, half of their logic was too!  That’s really quite funny.

It was Robert Brown’s very first statement which was the sophistry – the claim that ‘q_dot’ represents the energy from the Sun.  It does not.

1.            q_dot = σ(Th4 – Tc4) = σTh4 – σTc4

The energy from the relevant hot and cold sources are indicated on the right hand side of the equation, by the Th & Tc terms.  The Sun would be the hot term, the Earth the cool one.  The energy from the Sun is not ‘q_dot’ – this is only a dependent term called the rate of heat flow and it does indeed go to zero when the Sun and the Earth, represented in a planar geometry factored for scale, are in energy equilibrium; ‘q_dot’ is not a constant, it is a term which indicates the presence of thermal equilibrium which is when its value goes to zero.

So, these greenhouse alarmists are either really bad scientists, or they’re really good at lying to the unwary.

For a review of the simulacra of greenhouse alarmism and its relation to an ontological greenhouse, please see here:

http://climateofsophistry.com/2013/12/04/a-tale-of-two-versions/

The Greenhouse Alarmist

Let it be known that anyone who is a greenhouse alarmist, of the likes of Robert Brown and Anthony Watts, are indeed climate alarmists and they operate in full, 100% support of the climate alarm agenda of carbon vilification and productivity taxation designed to be the new cognitive control system of guilt and sin and monetary enslavement for the mass populace.  The whole thing operates upon the long-established cognitive archetype of (original) sin and guilt for being human (see the “Religion of Climate Change” category for more information).  This time, the original sin is for that of half of your breathing cycle – exhalation, which releases carbon dioxide.  As Anthony Watts and all of the other greenhouse climate alarmists will always tell you – “It’s not whether carbon dioxide causes heating (evil), it is simply a question of how much.”

Translation: “It is not a question of whether or not humans are evil, it is a question of how evil.”  Of course, they have never justified why heating should be considered evil, or that carbon dioxide can even cause any heating at all (it never has before in the geological record, so why would it now?), they have always ignored the fact that modern climate change is benign and negligible compared to the past when humans weren’t around, that we are in a millions-of-years-long ice age with characteristically lower temperatures than usual (yes, even now, still), and they of course ignore the tiny little fact that carbon dioxide is the very basis of life itself and is an essential, beneficial, green, and organic, natural atmospheric fertilizer no matter what source it comes from.

All of their alarm and their agenda rests specifically and exclusively upon the alarmist simulacrum version of the greenhouse effect, and so to defend it ipso-facto makes one a supporter of the climate alarm political agenda whether they admit it or not or realize it or not.

Ontological Climate Math

We saw above how greenhouse alarmists like Robert Brown and Anthony Watts attempt to make a statement about the energy from the Sun and that of the Earth, but they mix all of the terms of the heat flow equation up into things they don’t mean and use parameters which don’t match what the heat flow equation is intended to demonstrate.  They attempt to make a statement about conservation of energy but mess up the whole equation with the claim that the heat flow rate from the Sun is conserved between the Earth’s ground surface temperature and atmospheric temperature, which simply makes no sense at all since the energy from the Sun doesn’t depend on the temperature of the Earth!

The ontological thing to say, and mathematically write, would be:

“In conservation of energy, the radiant power from the Sun and absorbed by the Earth (PSun) would be equal to the radiant power output from the Earth itself (PEarth).”

Mathematically this would just be:

PSun = PEarth

However, the radiant power from the Earth can be broken up into multiple terms, for example ocean, land, and atmosphere.  If we just keep it relatively simple for demonstration we can write down a total contribution from the Earth’s physical surface and one for its atmosphere, so that

PSun = PSurf + PAtmo

It is more interesting to break up the atmospheric terms into the components of the atmosphere theoretically able to emit radiant power.  The main components of the atmosphere are molecular oxygen & nitrogen, water vapour, and carbon dioxide, with characteristic emissivities (ε), and so

PSun = PSurf + PO2 + PN2 + PH2O + PCO2

and expanding the terms in general

PSun = PSurf + σ[εT4]O2 + σ[εT4]N2 + σ[εT4]H2O + σ[εT4]CO2

In radiative physics, a substances emissivity ‘ε’ is a measure of it radiant efficiency – the higher the ε, the easier it is for the substance to radiate heat energy, and hence the lower the substance’s temperature.  If a substance has a low emissivity ε, this means that it inefficiently radiates heat energy and hence it has to have a higher temperature than it would otherwise, in order to radiate the same amount of power.

Well, O2 and N2 have basically zero emissivity, which means that they can’t lose any heat energy by radiation at all!  This means they hold on to heat energy very efficiently and can hold a higher temperature than otherwise.  Carbon dioxide and water vapour however are said to emit and have high emissivity, hence they are what allows the atmosphere to cool by shedding heat energy via radiation, in as much as the atmosphere radiates by them.

Let’s look at the simpler second equation again,

PSun = PSurf + PAtmo

This is very simple: if the atmosphere increases its power output, which is exactly what happens if it increases in temperature since power emission goes as temperature to the fourth power, then for PSun to remain constant, PSurf must decrease which means that the Earth’s surface must decrease in temperature.  Note how different this ontological result is from the greenhouse alarmist’s botched equation we analyzed above – it’s the exact opposite result.

Well, what do you expect from these guys.  They mean to enslave you to a hyperreality, not help you.

 

About these ads
Gallery | This entry was posted in Fraud of the Greenhouse Effect and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

41 Responses to Oops Anthony Watts did it Again – Introducing the Greenhouse Alarmist

  1. Tom says:

    You know that footage they wheel out every so often of the big, bad, Norwegian hunter? You know, the one of him clubbing baby seals to death? Joe’s reasoning ability and adherence to basic physics is from the Norwegian school. Watts, and all the other suckers of the luke warm teat, have just had the intellectual clubbing they deserve.

    [Triv] Replace ‘mathematically write’ with ‘mathematically right’, better still ‘mathematically correct'[/Triv].

  2. johnmarshall says:

    Thanks Joe, another good explanation of the obvious.

  3. Joe, great post. I tend to regard Watts as a man of rather limited intellect and scientific ability who has, through undoubted hard work and persistence, built up a large online following. But his lack of formal scientific training and inability to engage meaningfully in debate renders him a very poor mediator of impartial higher level inquiry into these important matters. Myself and others have challenged him to a real time, live debate but he runs scared, just like others who defend junk climate science.

  4. Derek Alker says:

    Joseph, I have had a very saddening series of posts by Dr. Roy W Spencer in the There is no greenhouse effect facebook group recently. It seems he should be added to your list.

    https://www.facebook.com/groups/446446425385858/permalink/743460105684487/

    “Roy W. Spencer wrote – ” heat content of the system is irrelevant….it only affects how long it takes for equilibrium to be achieved between incoming solar and outgoing IR, not what the final equilibrium temperature is. The geothermal flux is known to be a small fraction of a Watt/m2, and so is usually ignored. Black body vs. gray body is a red herring…the IR emissivity of the Earth isn’t 1, its probably more like 0.98 or so, but it doesn’t really affect the qualitative conclusions we make.”
    April 4 at 12:10am · Like · 1

    It even got a like……….

    Roy W. Spencer wrote –
    ” heat content of the system is irrelevant….”
    and,
    “Black body vs. gray body is a red herring…”
    and,
    “the IR emissivity of the Earth isn’t 1, its probably more like 0.98 or so,”

    T-shirt anyone….. The only question left, is should one laugh or cry? Cry, obviously.

  5. Derek, if you’d like to compile an article of Roy Spencer gaffes and self-contradictions it should make a good post on PSI to show readers what clowns this discredited clique of ‘skeptics’ really are. Cheers.

  6. Russ Jimeson says:

    Joe, would you mind if I turn this fox loose in a hen house called “Climate Change Discussions”?

  7. Oh yes, well Derek, as you see in the links and recall from the original challenge from Watts, his bedfellow in that challenge was Roy Spencer. And Roy Spencer didn’t know what a time-dependent differential equation was, and he RAN from our answer to his and Watts’ challenge:

    http://climateofsophistry.com/2013/05/13/slayers-putting-up-not-shutting-up/

  8. Go ahead Russ, but don’t expect me to peak my head into the resulting cacophony of flying feathers, scratching talons, gobble-gobbling throats, and flying chicken shit. (Literally I grew up on a chicken farm and I know all about being in the midst of a chicken shit storm…hahahah)

  9. rjimeson1 says:

    LOL. No worries there, Joe. I know what you mean. I won’t engage with those funky chickens either. We’ll just let your words lie there. The regular skeptics/deniers will appreciate them.

  10. A great comment on the WUWT thread:

    Mervyn commented on ‘Correcting’ Trenberth et al..

    ‘Back Radiation’? This IPCC term is a myth. The cooler air cannot add heat to the warmer ground. It is impossible.
    Please remember, you cannot create more heat out of that which exists unless work is applied (First Law of Thermodynamics), and a cooler substance cannot pass its heat to a warmer substance (Second of Law of Thermodynamics). The Second Law is an absolute law.
    This is basic laws of physics.
    ‘Back Radiation’ is not a law, it is not a valid theory, and it is not even a valid hypothesis. It is simply an IPCC supposition to justify its positive water vapour feedback mechanism.

  11. Derek Alker says:

    John, I will try to put something together, and I thought this exchange with Mike Haseler may be of interest and relevant too.
    He posted the following link on fb today,

    http://skepticscience.com/

    I replied.
    Derek Alker Excerpt form article –
    “I believe it is time we skeptics accepted that “science” is a social construct describing a group of people who set their own rules and as such as outsiders we have no right to dictate those rules for them.”

    Sorry, I am going to be blunt. What utter bollocks. The scientific method empowers the people to question the experts, so that we can check what they are telling us is the truth, or at least our best understanding at present. The scientific method defines what is or is not science, NOT the academics. AND, the scientific method is inclusive to all, NOT exclusive for the few.
    End of quote.

    I mention this here because of Joseph’s often expressed opinion that only those who are scientifically trained can understand the issues and should comment. I find that somewhat perplexing. If we are to communicate the utter ridiculousness of Watts and Spencer, GH “theory”, AGW, et all, then surely the target audience has to be everyone, not just those scientifically trained.

  12. Well you are correct in your statement Derek, as this is exactly what protects “the establishment:

    “I believe it is time we skeptics accepted that “science” is a social construct describing a group of people who set their own rules and as such as outsiders we have no right to dictate those rules for them.”

    That is exactly what they desire and they in fact are quite hostile to outside independent review. You can’t even tell these people the Earth is round after they’ve stated it is flat.

    It’s all a mess, now.

  13. Joe,
    Thank you,
    Your thinking seems nicely to become more acute! Trying to be helpfull. I see that “this is mathematically wrong”, and only a false claim of the “Intergovermental Panel of Climate Clowns”

    “1. q_dot = σ(Th4 – Tc4) = σTh4 – σTc4″

    Mathematically that sigma cannot be promoted into the parentheses which would destroy the meaning of the parentheses. That evaluation of the difference in T^4 results in the maximum thermal electromagnetic potential “difference” that strictly limits the maximum flux from “hot” to “cold”.
    Stefan had a close number, Boltzmann revised that to first principals, Then the fight started, between Stefan, Boltzmann, Planck, and Maxwell. The agreement was that the parentheses are mandatory, else Rudy Clausius will come smack the shit out of all of us for trying to violate his Second Law of Thermodynamics. Look at his picture, you do not wish to fuck with Rudy.

    Because of the very low “thermal potential difference” between the surface and the atmosphere < 10 meters above surface, surface radiation is limited to < 60 mWatts/ m^2.
    Conduction and convection transfer all required energy to the radiative atmosphere which can and does radiate at whatever temperature to cold space "all" energy required to maintain radiative thermodynamic equilibrium. There can be no "radiative forcing"

  14. Derek Alker says:

    Will Janoschka says:
    2014/04/10 at 8:24 PM

    Because of the very low “thermal potential difference” between the surface and the atmosphere < 10 meters above surface, surface radiation is limited to < 60 mWatts/ m^2.
    Conduction and convection transfer all required energy to the radiative atmosphere which can and does radiate at whatever temperature to cold space "all" energy required to maintain radiative thermodynamic equilibrium. There can be no "radiative forcing"

    Will, am I right to understand that you are saying the atmosphere emits IR to space at the temperature (T) it is at, which is always a far higher (thinking about it in degrees Kelvin terms) bigger difference than the difference between the actual surface temperature and the near surface air temperature.
    ie,
    1) Atmosphere average temperature = 255K
    2) Difference between surface T and near surface air T = 10 to 15K

    ie, 1) is the difference between absolute zero and the actual temperature whilst 2) is the difference between two temperatures.

  15. Max™ says:

    I tried to link to the Connolly site and got my comment replaced by:

    [Slayer sophist, whatever – you’ve been told you aren’t welcome here when you link to such things (link removed) Feel free to be as upset as you wish. – Anthony]

    Amusing as hell.

    Oh, hah, my comment at the Connolly site about it was “the comment of the beast” it seems: http://globalwarmingsolved.com/2013/11/summary-the-physics-of-the-earths-atmosphere-papers-1-3/comment-page-8/#comment-666

  16. Isn’t he a disgusting beast? He LIKES the feeling that his bullying might upset people. We should all organize to destroy him. And the Connollys have nothing to do with us…and in fact their science is better haha.

  17. Max™ says:

    That is what baffled me the most, they do good science, and he wants nothing to do with them.

  18. No Max that is exactly why! Watts is defending the basis of alarm and AGW and he knows it. They are lackeys…shapers and protectors of the argument etc…him and Spencer, Shore, Brown, etc etc.

  19. Greg House says:

    Max™ says: “they do good science,”
    =======================================

    Yeah, “pervection” (lol)

  20. solvingtornadoes says:

    Max™ says: “they do good science,”
    Greg says: “Yeah, ‘pervection’ (lol).”

    Meteorologists constantly refer to structure in the atmosphere. But if you challenge a meteorologists to discuss the physical (molecular) basis thereof they become real bitter and real evasive real fast, just like an AGW advocates. Meteorologists don’t want anybody to know that they are clueless on the issue of how N2, O2, and H2O can, somehow, manifest atmospheric structure. They become belligerent if you don’t accept their nonanswers–just like AGW advocates.

    In the most literal sense pervection is, of course, wrong. Now, maybe the Connelleys are just as evasive when it comes forthright. I don’t know. (Nor do I care.) But the fact that they have broached a subject that Meteorologist treat as a taboo subject tells me that their instincts are correct. They at least acknowledge the issue.

    There are very few people on this planet that when confronted with contradictions to what they believe will embrace these contradictions. Those that do have a chance of making scientific discoveries/breakthroughs. Those that don’t will wallow in vagueness into eternity.

  21. Greg House says:

    solvingtornadoes says: “In the most literal sense pervection is, of course, wrong. … But the fact that they have broached a subject that Meteorologist treat as a taboo subject tells me that their instincts are correct.”
    ==================================================

    Well, you apparently posses the ability to turn a piece of crap into a candy. All I can say is “Bon appétit!” and LOL again.

  22. solvingtornadoes says:

    And everybody can see, Greg, that (as usual) you dodged taking a stand on anything. You are well within your rights to stand on the sidelines and make all the snide comments you like. I’m just saying that the target of your snideness should be much wider than just the connelleys–if youi’re to be consistent.

  23. Derek Alker says:

    A polite request for spoon feeding please.
    The Connolly’s have two main points to my mind, 1) pervection (not sure about that at all….sounds way too Loschmidt for my liking / understanding) and, 2) Some sort of phase change that makes molecules clump together, hence explaining the tropopause for example. Apologies, I know they have a name for this effect they describe but I can not remember it at present.

    2) Should be a well known chemical “thing” yet I have not seen anyone confirm or question it? Does anyone know one way or the other please?

  24. solvingtornadoes says:

    Derek,

    Well, my point is not that the Connelleys have the right answers–they don’t. But, IMO, they are asking the right questions. The things the Connelleys discuss are not things that you would ever see/hear a Meteorologists discussing. Meteorology is kind of stuck in a 19th century mindset. And they don’t want the public to know this. So they play their card very close to their chest. Like climate change believers, they don’t attempt to explicate and resolve issues as much as they pretend to downplay their significance. When it comes to conceptual aspects of their underlying theory they all read from the same script. Thinking is discouraged and shunned. And if you press them they become belligerent–just like AGW advocates. So when I found the Connelleys were actually addressing these issues I found it refreshing.

  25. Derek Alker says: 2014/04/10 at 11:21 PM
    Will Janoschka says: 2014/04/10 at 8:24 PM

    ‘Because of the very low “thermal potential difference” between the surface and the atmosphere < 10 meters above surface, surface radiation is limited to < 60 mWatts/ m^2.
    Conduction and convection transfer all required energy to the radiative atmosphere which can and does radiate at whatever temperature to cold space "all" energy required to maintain radiative thermodynamic equilibrium. There can be no "radiative forcing"'.

    "Will, am I right to understand that you are saying the atmosphere emits IR to space at the temperature (T) it is at, which is always a far higher (thinking about it in degrees Kelvin terms) bigger difference than the difference between the actual surface temperature and the near surface air temperature.ie,
    1) Atmosphere average temperature = 255K
    2) Difference between surface T and near surface air T = 10 to 15K
    ie, 1) is the difference between absolute zero and the actual temperature whilst 2) is the difference between two temperatures."
    Derek,
    It, is the basic Climate Clown nonsense that radiation from a mass is proportional to the fourth power of the temperature of that mass. Such a thing has never been detected, observed, nor measured! The useful form of the S-B equation "only" gives the maximum possible radiative flux (W/m^2) between two infinite, parallel, black, flat, Lambertian, surfaces, with different temperatures, and 100% transmissivity completely through "all" intervening distances, no mater how far! The potential for such radiative flux (radiation) is a difference in two potentials the two temperatures each raised to the forth power. This one way flux has been measured to 98% of that maximum, using very carefully constructed surfaces with maximum emissivity at every wavelengtht, and at every angle. Another Climate Clown fantasy is that a blackbody can exist, and that two such, each radiate a flux in all; directions proportional to that body's radiance as calculated via Planck's integral. Only one directional flux less than determined in both magnitude and direction has ever been observed!
    To get the differences in the two temperature potentials, when that difference is small the te proper first derivative of the S-B integral equation with respect to temperature is used:
    Max radiative flux equals 4 x sigmax Tabs^4 x delta temperature. As you can see from proper mathematics, when delta temperature is zero, max radiative flux also equals zero.
    Stefan, Boltzmann, Planck, and Maxwell all worked on that percise S-B equation, and made no mistake. Climate Clowns always misinterpret anything that will further that religion!

  26. Continued:
    The proper delta temperature to use is the difference in temperature wnen the atmosphere absorbs 50% of the modulated flux except in the 8-13 micron band that distance at the surface is approx 10 meters distance 93% is absorbed within 80 meters (measured). Use any lapse rate and atmospheric density to derermine the proper delta T at any altitude . Vertically at the surface that radiative flux is < 60 mWatts/M^2. In that 8-13 micron region the surface T^4 minus space T or cloud T "either" raised to the 4th power. The atmosphere is 67% cloud cover.

    Derek Alker says: 2014/04/11 at 10:55 PM
    "A polite request for spoon feeding please.
    The Connolly’s have two main points to my mind, 1) pervection (not sure about that at all….sounds way too Loschmidt for my liking / understanding) and, 2) Some sort of phase change that makes molecules clump together, hence explaining the tropopause for example. Apologies, I know they have a name for this effect they describe but I can not remember it at present." 2) Should be a well known chemical “thing” yet I have not seen anyone confirm or question it? Does anyone know one way or the other please?
    Dereck,
    It is not well known, that "is" the point of the Connolly papers! They give thier best conjecture "phase change", for "why", the real balloon measurements, they used, are what they were!
    F. Miscolczi using theb same "measurements" came up with a different conjecture "a difference in the number of constraints on the degrees of freedom of molecules on the stratosphere, From 5.2 in the troposphere to only 1", (gravitational force) in the stratosphere, where the is no bottle, (nearby other molecules)!
    Both of these and several others, all based on measurements, show "no" temperature effects from an increase atmospheric CO2. Only Climate Clowns change the "measurements" to fit their current fantasy of gloom! Both also show that outward thermal radiation does not come from any surface, but that outward flux continues to accumulate in the atmosphere, all the way out to 220 kM, most coming from about 6 Km, little or nothing from the surface.
    What ever the conjecture, it is likely not demonstratable in the laboratory, perhaps in some sort of centrifuge! In any case "it", whatever it is, clearly confirms, that the Warmists have no clue as to what they are spouting!!!

  27. Max™ says:

    I am going to take offense on behalf of the Connolly’s here, as they very clearly took Observations, asked questions about them and proposed an explanatory Hypothesis, considered how they could go about testing it with Experiment, and then shared their findings and methods with others.

    That is science.

    Simply declaring that they are wrong is not science.

    They have given you the tools and information, if they are actually wrong, by all means demonstrate this, I am certain they will thank you for it.

    As it stands, you need to come up with a better explanation for their results than they have, because, well, they’ve identified something which needs explanation, performed experiments, and so on.

  28. solvingtornadoes says:

    Max,
    One of the problems that currently has atmospheric physicists stumped is that according to calculations of fluid dynamics (not thermodynamics) there should be more friction in the atmosphere than there is and this friction (storms) should be more even distributed and constant at all parts of the globe than it is. Consequently there is “missing” lubrication in the atmosphere the explanation for which has yet to be supplied by science. It is, IMO, an opportunity waiting for somebody to come along and fill in the missing piece of that puzzle. In June I will be releasing my book which deals with the physics of the vortex. Therein I will hypothesize how vortexes are the structure (pervection) of our atmospheric circulation, manifested in the jet stream, a structural element in our atmosphere. It will propose previously undiscovered phase of water. And if will attempt to fill in this missing piece of the puzzle and solve tornadoes also.

    Most climatologists, meteorologists, physicists, slayer etc. are blissfully unaware of these issues. Connelleys seem to be aware of these issues. For that I give them credit. But they don’t have any answers. Multimers of N2 and O2 are, let’s be honest, impossible. Pervection–as they indicate–requires structure. It does not explain it’s origins. In contrast, my understanding will explain the physical basis for structure (the jet stream) in the atmosphere. Pervection is good as an explanatory tool for explaining why there must be structure (lubrication) on our atmosphere. But, quite obviously, it isn’t the answer.

    My guess is that the Connelleys intended this as more of an explanatory tool rather than a proposed hypothesis, which explains why they are not here defending it.

  29. Max™ says:

    I thought they identified the mechanical energy transfer mechanism with the syringe/tubing experiment, worked out the rate at which it was occurring and then applied the term pervection.

    It’s not an explanatory tool, it’s an observation, there seems to be a point between compressible behavior and incompressible behavior within the atmosphere at which point there could be a form of energy transfer rapid enough to push the system towards thermodynamic equilibrium across a given vertical profile.

    The mechanism has been observed and described with theoretical explanations proposed.

    It isn’t certain that it is actually as important as they suggest it may be, but it is certain that there can be mechanical energy transfer when air behaves at least as a briefly incompressible fluid, and it is a reasonable explanation for the vertical temperature profiles they observed in the balloon datasets.

  30. solvingtornadoes says:

    Max,

    You are very insightful to have noticed these things. I’m actually a bit surprized. You made this comment: ” . . . there seems to be a point between compressible behavior and incompressible behavior within the atmosphere . . .” You also mention, ” . . . a briefly incompressible fluid.”

    As engineers know, there are two types of strength in materials. There is tensile strength and there is compressive strength. In order for structure/pervection to persist in the atmosphere (and. thereby, achieve the thermodynamic equilibrium you mention above) it must have some degree of compressive strength. But it is common knowledge that the constituents of the atmosphere, N2 O2 and H2O have no compressive strength. Most people stop when confronted with the conundrum. Meteorology is stumped on this issue. I figured it out but I’m not going to release that here/now.

    I’m really impressed that the Connelleys, and now you, have recognized these issues.

    One of the biggest conceptual problems/issues of tornadogenesis is in regard to the energy associated with the larger storms: where did the energy come from and how did it get here so fast? Structure/pervection provides us a means of explaining this in that large amounts of energy can be sent down a tube at the speed of sound, ie. vacuum effect. (Not unlike a hydralics.)

    As I see it pervection is just another word for atmosopheric structure. As you (and Connelleys) suggest, structure/pervection must exist or else the observed thermodynamic equillibrium has no explanation. But none of this will matter if we can’t find the mechanism of compressive strength in the atmosphere.

    I have found it. As you will see shortly.

    I think I’m going to publish my book on Amazon.

  31. Ron C. says:

    The Connollys are providing some useful empirical evidence.

    Recently I had an exchange challenging someone offering an assumption shared by warmists, namely that CO2 raises the effective radiating altitude, thereby warming the troposphere and the surface. Now this notion can be found in textbooks and indeed operates in all the climate models. Yet there is no empirical evidence supporting it. What data there is (radiosonde ballon readings) detects no effect from IR active gases upon the temperature profile in the atmosphere.

    Of course the other person disengaged, and I later saw his comments repeating the claim as though no issue had been raised. This causes me to consider our Mcluhan global village, rife with rumors, fears and opinions, all fueled by the internet.

    Once you realize that CO2 hysteria is nothing more than a set of shared assumptions, then all that matters is how widely shared are those beliefs (consensus). Those of us who insist on empirical evidence can only fight back by diluting the consensus and trying to help others come to their senses, one by one.

  32. solvingtornadoes says:

    Ron C. says:”The Connolleys are providing some useful empirical evidence.”

    Well, I’m not sure what it is you’re seeing that I’m not seeing. I would not describe their contribution as empirical. I would describe it as theoretical.

  33. Ron C. says:

    @ solvingtornadoes

    The Connollys investigated readings from radiosonde balloons, attempting to measure the impact upon the atmosphere’s temperature profile from increasing amounts of GHGs. The climate models include assumptions about tropospheric warming and stratospheric cooling that are not supported by the observations.

    “It can be seen from the infra-red cooling model of Figure 19 that the greenhouse effect theory predicts a strong influence from the greenhouse gases on the barometric temperature profile. Moreover, the modelled net effect of the greenhouse gases on infra-red cooling varies substantially over the entire atmospheric profile.

    However, when we analysed the barometric temperature profiles of the radiosondes in this paper, we were unable to detect any influence from greenhouse gases. Instead, the profiles were very well described by the thermodynamic properties of the main atmospheric gases, i.e., N 2 and O 2 , in a gravitational field.”

    While water vapour is a greenhouse gas, the effects of water vapour on the temperature profile did not appear to be related to its radiative properties, but rather its different molecular structure and the latent heat released/gained by water in its gas/liquid/solid phase changes.

    For this reason, our results suggest that the magnitude of the greenhouse effect is very small, perhaps negligible. At any rate, its magnitude appears to be too small to be detected from the archived radiosonde data.”

    Open Peer Rev. J., 2014; 19 (Atm. Sci.), Ver. 0.1. http://oprj.net/articles/atmospheric-science/19 page 18 of 28

  34. solvingtornadoes says:

    Ron C.

    Thank you for your response.

    When weighing moonbeams it doesn’t matter how empirical you approach the examination, the results are always going to be non-empirical. GHG’s are undefinable, immeasurable, pseudo-science. The people putting forth this propaganda have been very careful to keep it vague and to keep the public confused. They know that what can’t be defined and can’t be measured can’t be disputed/refuted. IMO, presenting a scientific dispute of a notion that is deliberately non-scientific does nothing but make one’self look stupid and the alarmist look smart in comparison.

  35. Greg House says:

    solvingtornadoes says: “GHG’s are undefinable, immeasurable, pseudo-science. The people putting forth this propaganda have been very careful to keep it vague and to keep the public confused. They know that what can’t be defined and can’t be measured can’t be disputed/refuted.”
    =================================

    The IPCC have presented their “greenhouse effect” clear enough in their reports and it can be easily disputed even on the junior high school level.

  36. Ron C. says:

    Since the agenda depends on a fearful public, it is important to challenge the fictitious claims put forth in the PR campaigns.

    Skeptics are ordinary people who are simply asking for proof that rising CO2 is causing dangerous global warming. The proofs that have been offered are not convincing.

    Claim: “The climate models show CO2 drives warming.”
    Answer: Models are not proof; they are built on the modellers’ assumptions, which require proving.

    Claim: “The models can not explain warming from 1978 to 1998 unless CO2 is included as a driver.”
    Answer: Arguing from ignorance is not proof of anything.

    Claim: “The models show that the globe will warm by 1.5 to 4.5C this century.”
    Answer: The models are all running hot compared to the datasets, even those with unexplained “adjustments”. If this is proof, it goes against the models.

    Then there are the supposed proofs of the GHG atmospheric warming effect.

    Claim: “CO2 radiates heat back to the surface, making it warmer.”
    Answer: Both the surface and the air have kinetic energy, so there is an infrared flux between them. But, on balance, the direction of warming is from the surface to the air, not the other way around.

    Claim: “CO2 traps heat in the atmosphere, delaying the cooling of the surface, resulting in warming.”
    Answer: CO2 is IR active and unable to store energy it absorbs. The energy is either instantly shared with O2 and N2 molecules, or is reemitted. O2 and N2 are not IR active and do slow the surface cooling.

    Claim: “CO2 raises the emission level, causing the troposphere to warm all the way down to the surface, and the stratosphere to cool.”
    Answer: Analysis of radiosonde data shows no effect from increasing CO2 on the temperature profile of the atmosphere.

    As Patrick Moore said, if there were an actual proof of man-made global warming, you would see it everywhere.

  37. solvingtornadoes says:

    Greg: The IPCC have presented their “greenhouse effect” clear enough in their reports and it can be easily disputed even on the junior high school level.

    Solvingtornadoes: IPCC reports are, clearly, not scientifically concise documents.

  38. Smokey says:

    Your hating on Anthony Watts reflects very badly on you.

  39. Your inability to focus on the core ontological issue reflects badly on you.

    Watts is merely a fat buffoon with a gross mustache who it seems was paid to get in the way. The man is VERY stupid. He’s useful as an example to write about in terms of all climate retards. He’s served his purpose.

  40. Smokey says:

    A ‘fat buffoon’? a ‘gross mustache’? ‘VERY stupid’??

    You could easily have me on your side with your scientific arguments and facts. But after reading your scurilous ad hominem rant, I have no respect for you.

    If you would stick to the science that would be good. But you are clearly fixated on Anthony Watts. He has colonized your mind to the point you can only express venomous hatred whenever his name comes up. You clearly do not see how you come across to other casual readers.

    Why? What did he ever do to you that deserves such hatred?

  41. Smokey you were never going to be able to understand the science anyway, because your emotional feeling personality type gets far too distracted with people issues. I have a very few articles on Watts because he engaged debate with me, out of several dozen other articles. You are thus the one fixated on the Watts issue, and you can’t recognize that because your priorities are emotional and not rational. Do you think I was seeking respect from you? You assume too much.

    If you read the articles, you would understand why Watts is such an embarrassing fool. That you don’t, says everything about you.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s