Climate Change Reconsidered II – by Marty Hertzberg

This paper published in Energy & Environment is from a colleague I work with in debunking the anti-meritocratic, irrational, and anti-human fraud of climate alarm and its sophistical “greenhouse effect”. The following link opens the pdf paper:

Climate Change Reconsidered II

A few excerpts:

“When the theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) was first presented to the scientific community several decades ago, S. Fred Singer was one of the earliest scientists to challenge it. The theory supposed that human emission of CO2 from fossil combustion was causing an increase in the atmospheric CO2 concentration and a concomitant increase in global temperature via the greenhouse effect. In recent decades however, even as the atmospheric CO2 increased, temperatures remained flat, or even decreased slightly. That observation appeared to contradict the AGW theory. In response, the AGW advocates shifted their focus to “climate change”, arguing that human activity was causing “climate disruption” in the form of more hurricanes, blizzards, droughts, freezes, etc.”

“While NIPCC concedes that CO2 is a “mild greenhouse gas” that might cause some mild heating, such heating far from representing a “climate crisis” would actually be beneficial to mankind. The Global Climate Models produced by the IPCC have predicted drastic warming up to 6 C for decades to come. Those predictions have been falsified by the data.”

“But if one analyses the data carefully, one finds that the changes in temperature always precede the changes in CO2 by several hundred to a thousand years. The same precedence is observed during the most recent glacial warming cycle that we are currently experiencing. Those observations conclusively falsify the IPCC theory that CO2 is the primary forcing agent for temperature changes. Quite the contrary, it is the temperature changes that are the cause of the CO2 changes.”

“Another common theme among those 18 [versions of the greenhouse effect] is that the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere “act as a blanket” that keeps the Earth warm. One can only suggest that those who really believe that should step out naked in a very cold evening and see how well the blanket of atmospheric greenhouse gases keeps them warm. The warm air near their bodies will rise by buoyancy and will be rapidly replaced by cold air from the surroundings as they freeze to death. The blanket is an insulating, flexible, portable enclosure that reduces the rate at which their body heat is lost to the surroundings. As before, the gaseous atmosphere is not retaining heat but is an agent for cooling by natural convection.”

“While the presence of 0.04 % of CO2 in our atmosphere is essential for life in the biosphere, the notion that such a minor constituent of the atmosphere can control the above forces and motions, is absurd. There is, in fact, not one iota of reliable evidence that it does.”

Please read the paper – it is accessible, short, and precise.


This entry was posted in Fraud of the Greenhouse Effect and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

61 Responses to Climate Change Reconsidered II – by Marty Hertzberg

  1. Greg House says:

    Well, at least the author criticizes the “greenhouse effect”. But references to “global temperature” are nonsensical by nature, sorry. He does not touch the “energy budget” from the IPCC reports, where the fraud is easily recognizable on the arithmetical level. Still do not understand, why it is necessary to refer to “global temperature” if the very foundation of the AGW the “greenhouse effect” does not exist. So illogical.

  2. Truthseeker says:

    I think that the destroying the term “greenhouse gas” using the fact that greenhouses work by blocking convection and free flowing gases cannot do that is something that needs to be pushed hard and often. No sophistry by Dr Brown and his ilk can get around this simple and robust language.

  3. Greg House says:

    No. Warmists said like thousands of times that the term “greenhouse effect” was a misnomer. We should focus on the content instead, which is physically impossible warming by back radiation.

  4. blouis79 says:

    The whole thing will fall over with a few good experimental demonstrations, which haven’t been done yet. Something like the gravitational acceleration of feather and hammer on the moon – simple and iconic.

    At this point, I am wondering if nitrous oxide green house experiment might be best. N2O has a much higher GWP than CO2 and is readily available for whipped cream makers.

    Also wondering about the off axis solar cooker with a hole the side to let the sun in as a simulation of a sphere heated by sun and free to radiate to space.

  5. A small glass box greenhouse like R.W. Wood used, or like de Saussure much earlier with Fourier used, does the trick.

  6. Pingback: Climate Change Reconsidered II – by Marty Hertzberg | ajmarciniak

  7. markstoval says:

    “Please read the paper – it is accessible, short, and precise.”

    And so it was. I did enjoy the paper very much and thank you for posting it where I could read it. Too bad the alarmists and the luke-warmers will most likely not read it.

  8. geran says:

    Greg House says:
    2015/05/13 at 7:44 PM
    No. Warmists said like thousands of times that the term “greenhouse effect” was a misnomer. We should focus on the content instead, which is physically impossible warming by back radiation.

    Greg, even in your drunkest moment, you could not imagine this. This “climate clown” believes that the Earth can warm the Sun!


    The Earth’s surface does not poll each incoming photon and ask it the temperature of the source which emitted it, to decide whether or not to absorb it. When an IR photon is emitted from a CO2 molecule in the Earth’s atmosphere, it cools the CO2 molecule. When (or if) it is subsequently absorbed by something else, it (very slightly) warms whatever absorbed it. That is equally true whether it is absorbed by the ground, by another gas molecule in the atmosphere, by the surface of the moon (1.3 seconds later), or even by the Sun (8 minutes later).

    Yes, you read that correctly. When an infrared photon emitted by a molecule of CO2 in the Earth’s frigid upper atmosphere is absorbed by the Sun, it warms the sun (by an infinitesimally tiny amount). The Sun does not care that the photon was emitted from an icy cold atmosphere.

    (About midway down the comments)

  9. Truthseeker says:

    Greg, the language is prejudicial and the lukewarmers know it. A greenhouse is known to be warmer than its surroundings, that is why it works. Using the term “greenhouse” invokes that subliminal warming concept and does it erroneously. We have to attack the misuse of the language. Getting involved in “back radiation” discussions does not work with the …


    Remember that term?

  10. geran says:

    Wow, just returned and still “moderated”.

    LOL, three hours!

    Josey, you won’t have to worry about my comments again!

    Hint: Science is NOT censored. (Call you buddy at WUWT.)

  11. Geran…I was busy.

  12. “The Earth’s surface does not poll each incoming photon and ask it the temperature of the source which emitted it, to decide whether or not to absorb it.”

    What a bunch of ****ing jerks! See the radiative heat flow equation, morons?:

    Q’ = k(Thot^4 – Tcool^4)

    and therefore a colder source doesn’t heat a warmer source, because heat doesn’t transfer from cold to hot. YES, there is energy exchange because there are indeed two terms in the equation…but the equation as the whole defines heat flow and HEAT is what is required for temperature increase; heat doesn’t flow from cold to hot. Thus the cold source does not warm the warmer source.

    What a bunch of a-holes. I mean who has the stupidity and audacity to claim that cold heats hot? Who? Morons.

  13. Greg House says:


    As soon as the term “greenhouse effect” is attacked, the warmists admit it is a misnomer. It happened numerous times on blogs. What is your point then? Arguing about the term is straw-man argumentation which is considered logical fallacy.

    And then you suggest not to talk about the “greenhouse effect” as such, although it is very simple to debunk on the junior high school level. I am not surprised remembering your previous efforts of obfuscation.

  14. Please drop this sort of back and forth. Work on your own solutions…as long as you’re doing that.

  15. There is a solution. I won’t divulge it yet, but there is. My own solution anyway.

  16. Greg House says:

    I am not quite sure, Joe, was it the answer to my posting? If yes, i do not see the relevance. My “solution” is explaining people in the most simple way that the “greenhouse effect” is non-existent, which I have been doing. Since there is no “greenhouse effect”, any measures against CO2 are absurd. This is the scientific part. Unfortunately, I do not have means to communicate it to a broader audience.

  17. For sure Greg I support that solution/approach etc.

  18. markstoval says:

    In my opinion, this is a political war as much or more than it is a scientific one. I think we need a simple and easy to understand experiment to demonstrate that cooler radiation can not warm a warmer surface. Some kind of warm plate with a source of long wave radiation aimed right at it and failing to warm it. Then you aim a high energy short wave source at it and heat it thereby showing that hotter can heat warm but colder can not.

    The experiment has to be something that even Willis and Anthony of wuwt can understand. If they can, then the “man in the street” would be able to see it. And it would be great if the whole experiment could be done at a low cost so that all sorts of people could try it. School kids even.

    After all, experiment is the heart of science is it not?


  19. squid2112 says:

    @geran says:
    2015/05/14 at 5:14 PM

    Geran, thanks for the link and a little trip back in time. Those were the discussions that got me canned at Heller’s site (StevenGoddard). From time to time, folks at SteveGoddard will blather on about how open and free their discussions are, how they are not like WUWT and do not censor comments, etc. Of course, little could be further from the truth. Just go arue actual physics with them for a little while and I am pretty sure you can get yourself banned from the site relatively quickly. In regards to physics (and in particular the so-called GHE), Tony Heller is a complete hack and hasn’t a clue. Very few of the idiots over there have a clue. The honestly believe that the radiative heat flow equation (the Joseph refers to frequently, and properly discusses) is about NET heat flow. The believe that the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is about NET heat flow. They believe that a 100mph spinning wheel, slapped by a 50mph hand, will spin faster (afterall, its the NET energy right?). When it comes to the so-called “greenhouse effect”, Greg is absolutely correct. This has nothing to do with terminology and EVERYTHING to do with total and utter ignorance of how our physical universe operates. The only laws one cannot, under any circumstances, break, are the Laws of Mother Nature (eg. Physics). The so-called “greenhouse effect”, in ANY form (backradiation, insulation, whatever), is simply NOT POSSIBLE! .. The folks at StevenGoddard know what backradation is, they know what insulation is, they know a lot of these things, but they will twist themselves into knots trying to prove or convince you that a cooler object can heat a warmer object and that the “greenhouse effect” (in any form) does indeed make our planet warmer than it would otherwise be. I don’t know how you break down those barriers, as I have tried many times. I have had folks over there prove THEMSELVES wrong and yet they will still cling to their “belief” that the atmosphere can heat the surface, specifically by backradiation, but when the backradiation argument begins to breakdown, the will cling to insulation, and when that breaks down, they either grab on to something else, begin flinging adhoms, and in the end they will simply silence you (banned). Many of the folks there (and at WUWT) are EXACTLY like the AGW alarmists. They are not interested in discussing and learning, they are interested in hearing themselves repeat the same bullshit over and over again. This is why I love places like Joseph’s site. I don’t believe there has been a thread posted on here that I didn’t learn something from. Thanks to Joseph, and many of the fine people that have presented very thorough and thoughtful discussion here, I am able to visualize in my own mind, EXACTLY how this stuff works and EXACTLY why the so-called GHE is IMPOSSIBLE. I may not be able to articulate it well, as I am just a software engineer, not a physicist, but, I am certain to the core of my being that a cooler object CANNOT warm a warmer object. And more importantly, I KNOW WHY!

    Thank you folks!

  20. geran says:

    Joseph, thanks for putting up with me. Sometimes I just get frustrated. If I owe you an apology, then I apologize.

    As squid mentions above, you are trying to get the actual science out. In reality, there are very few skeptical sites. Many claim to be “skeptics”, but as we know, they are weak in their science, and actually are “Lukewarmers” (or “Lukers”, if you prefer). The “science” presented by the IPCC, the CO2/GHE/AGW tripe, is BOGUS science. If someone accepts any part of IPCC science, they either:
    1) Do not know science, or
    2) They have an agenda.

    (But, back to your moderation policy. Why moderate us at all? If someone gets carried away, just warn them. If they do not heed the warning, then ban them for a week or two. If they continue to cause problems, ban them permanently. I agree that there are some obnoxious, book-seller types that need to be banned, but most of us are not like that. Please try a reduced-moderation policy. I believe it will mean less work for you and also create more interest in your blog. Thanks for listening, and again, thanks for putting up with me.)

  21. OK about moderation: On the WordPress site settings you can put in a list of email addresses to moderate. For some reason once the list got too big, it was moderating people I didn’t want to moderate, and it was also doing it randomly…sometimes it would, sometimes not. So then I stopped moderating at all. As soon as I stop moderating though, then the parasites, like Doug Cotton and a few others, notice within a few days and begin incessantly spamming their irrational garbage. So then I just decided to leave the setting on “moderate everybody”. It slows things down sure, but anyone who is rational gets through once I get the opportunity to moderate, and anyone who is an idiot gets to be edit thrashed by me within their own comment before I let it through, or just deleted.

    And even with the people who are rational, some of you will still waste space going at each other back and forth over what you think the best approach is etc etc etc. The moderation policy has stopped you from doing that so much, and probably saved you from getting so needlessly upset at each other that you’re still able to mostly work together. I do believe I’ve lost a couple of readers due to that type of needless bickering.

  22. Greg House says:

    About moderation, look at the PSI site polluted by Doug Cotton for years. You can not just ban him, because he changes names. I have no problem with moderation as such, just with the delays.

  23. HYPeRGY says:

    markstoval says:2015/05/15 at 3:43 AMIn my opinion, this is a political war as much or more than it is a scientific one.
    The current Australian prime minister Mr Tony Abbot said recently”climate change does not exist”.
    You would think the media would take the opportunity to demonize the crap out of him….but they were rather soft.the last thing the media powers want is an outright public debate to end the climate fraud stupidity. Same can be said for biblical like laws of scientific materialism.
    Joe asked advice for publishing his work in the previous thread, sure hit all the science related outlets, but also politics, there are many anti climate change politicians and related causes, even universities. The likes of Mr Abbot sure aren’t looking up information on blogs .. So it wouldn’t take much effort for every supporter of these works to print and post 10 or 100 copies on the author’s behalf to the previous mentioned people’s.
    That would add up quite quickly to thousands,maby tens of thousands,sooner or later someone in power will push the climate change debate into the public where it can be fought out once and for all.
    Print on paper can go a long way, simple idea…it will work!
    Enough of ‘inhouse’debates…more ‘how too’s’ plans off attack…I.e.’Atttack’!
    I suggest true supporters of JP’s work should be stocking up on print ink stamps an envelopes for an all out assault on climate change!

    Casus belli

  24. Dan Fauth (DurangoDan) says:

    Joe, Love your site. My moment of becoming 100% convinced of the impossibility of AGW was when I calculated the ratio of the thermodynamic potential for water compared to CO2 to move heat about the atmosphere. Assuming 2% water vapor in the atmosphere and 390 ppm CO2 results in a ratio of about 50,000:1 (I’ll send my calcs if your are interested) and this doesn’t even consider the buoyancy of humid air or the variations in albedo associated with water in its three phases and forms. Your complete debunking of the various definitions of the AGHE is the icing on the cake. I’ve tried to get self-described “lovers of science” to visit your site, but get rejected with responses such as: “if I want to read pretty fiction written by someone working alone, I go down to the bookstore and pick up a novel. If I want to know the state of a science, I read the peer-reviewed literature. There are way too many skeptics in the scientific community to allow BS to pass or stay unchallenged for long. If you don’t accept the science presented by UCAR in the link I sent you last time, I don’t know what else could change your mind.” This response is frustrating to say the least. I agree with your explanation of “cognitive dissonance” as being a primary roadblock suppressing acceptance of the reality or even the possibility of non-existence of the AGHE. The AGHE theory is largely maintained by a conspiracy of silence among the scientific community. We should be mindful that AGW is bigger than the Manhattan Project and the Moon Race combined when it comes to being a source of public and private funding for Science. It is the goose that keeps laying golden eggs for virtually any science project that can claim a tie to climate change. What scientist that relies on such funding has the intellectual integrity to kill this goose? You are among the very few scientists that will take this on. Thank You!

  25. That’s all exactly correct Dan. Even when you show them the evidence and explain directly the physics, it doesn’t matter, because they have the narrative which seems to give them their identity. Few people actually think on this matter…it is all hysteria or something.

    And I definitely understand your calculations and know how you arrived at those results. Actual physics! It’s not difficult to do. For some reason, it is extremely difficult for the hystericalists to adapt to.

  26. And also, thanks Dan. Working on another new paper myself to debunk it all.

  27. And yes, they just LOVE the groupthink, and love the excuse that groupthink means that they don’t have to have any self-initiative to read and understand anything on their own. Oh they’ll read the groupthink, but that’s it, because it has done the thinking for them already…it tells them what to think already.

    I mean think of how intellectually bankrupt that is: “I don’t have to read a criticism because everyone else tells me what to think already. There are more people thinking this way and so any criticism is therefore not worth reading. I don’t need to even understand what the criticism is, because we are thinking in a way which ignores it, therefore the criticism is false.”

    Well, that’s the human condition for you.

  28. blouis79 says:

    Joe, the small glass box isn’t doing the trick because it has a lid. Believers say it doesn’t replicate what is happening in the atmosphere. But if 3m thick of 100% CO2 = the thickness of CO2 in the atmosphere, how much thickness of N2O do we need to measure a difference of lack thereof with readily available equipment??

  29. blouis79 says:

    Joe, the small glass box isn’t doing the trick because it has a lid. Believers say it doesn’t replicate what is happening in the atmosphere. But if 3m thick of 100% CO2 = the thickness of CO2 in the atmosphere, how much thickness of N2O do we need to measure a difference of lack thereof??

  30. I have a trick up my sleeve on that one blouis79. Rationalists will love it and the religionists will be apoplectic over it. Wait and see.

  31. markstoval says:

    This is an example of the BS we are up against. The same moron who claimed

    “Yes, you read that correctly. When an infrared photon emitted by a molecule of CO2 in the Earth’s frigid upper atmosphere is absorbed by the Sun, it warms the sun (by an infinitesimally tiny amount).”

    wrote back to me the following idiotic response to justify his claim of the earth warming the sun. …

    daveburton says:
    May 15, 2015 at 11:56 pm

    It’s physics, Mark. I understand that physics can be confusing to people who haven’t studied it, but perhaps I can explain it for you.

    Think of a kiln.

    Have you ever seen a kiln that wasn’t enclosed? Why not?

    It’s because the fire bricks help maintain a higher temperature inside. The contents of the kiln gets hotter because of the fire bricks around it. You understand that, right?

    Okay, now suppose that you removed just one of the fire bricks, leaving a hole in the side of the kiln. What do you suppose would happen to the temperature inside the kiln?

    It wouldn’t get as hot inside, would it?

    Remove two bricks, making a bigger hole, and the kiln’s interior temperature would be lower yet.

    Remove an entire side of the kiln, and its temperature would be quite a bit lower yet.

    Remove two whole sides of the kiln, and its temperature would be lower yet.

    Remove all but a little stack of three bricks on one side, and the temperature the kiln would reach would be lower yet — but still slightly higher than it would have been with with just two bricks.

    Do you see where this is going? Every fire brick helps make the contents of the kiln get just a little bit hotter than it would have gotten without that fire brick.

    In fact, even just one very small fire brick helps the kiln get ever so slightly hotter than it would have gotten without that one small brick.

    Well, the sun is like a very big kiln (with a fusion, rather than electrical, power source). The Earth is like a very, very small fire brick.

    Does that make sense to you, now?


    How this example relates to the physics of “back radiation” and cold things warming hot things I just do not know. But from a rhetorical and political point of view, his answer is sufficient to satisfy the low information people who let “authority” do their thinking. (the majority of people in my experience)

    I note his condensation, but in all fairness, I did quote Mencken to him: “I believe it was the sage of Baltimore who first observed that you could drag a moron through a university and even confer a PhD on him; but you would still have a moron.”

    The last big refuge of the luke-warmers is that since CO2 sends some photons down toward the surface then that must warm the surface to some degree. This idea is hard for the average fellow to see past. Defeat that idea and the game is over.

  32. What a dispicable person.

  33. A kiln is a structure which prevents energy loss from a very high temperature heat source such as coal or coke. It does not make the coal burn hotter! QED refuted idiots.

  34. squid2112 says:

    blouis79, the thought had occurred to me that one can easily debunk the whole “heating by back radiation” BS with simply two metal boxes, one 1/2 the volume of the other. Let me explain.

    Take two metal boxes (dark on the outside and shiny on the inside would be good). One box of 1 M³ and the other 0.5 M³. Drill 4 small holes into lids of each box, 1 large enough for small wires to pass through for the thermal sensors (available here, the other 3 for a tiny string of non thermally conductive material (as much as possible). Wire in the sensors and string such that the lid of the small box will serve to be suspended approximately in the middle of the larger box. Seal the holes. Seal the lid onto the smaller box. Place the lid onto the large box, suspending the smaller box inside and seal it.

    Now, nothing to do but wait and monitor the temperatures of each sensor. Setup a computer with software to take temperature samples every 60 seconds (you could actually use one of the embedded devices I am currently working on to do this very thing, as that is what it is designed to do for electrical energy systems as well as sensors of this kind).

    Once you have this all setup, you can also place the box assembly into different ambient temperature settings. Set it out into the bright sunlight at midday and log the readings for an hour or so. Place in the shade and do the same. Place it in your deep freezer for a while and do the same. If you have an oven large enough, place it in an oven on its highest temperature setting and do the same.

    The point: Do these things, gather the data, map the data, graph the data and you will see empirically that the temperature of BOTH sensors will remain the same, except perhaps for a slight delay between them as the ambient temperature changes, but, they will always come to equilibrium with one another. There is NO back radiation heating within the smaller inner box. One could also do this experiment by injecting pure CO2 into the inner box. You will still find that the temperature in the inner box will still come to perfect equilibrium with the outer box. This experiment would emphatically prove the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics and prove that in no way can a cooler object make a warmer object warmer still. Not even an object of equal temperature can make another object warmer still. It simply cannot be done. This completely refutes and proves that the “greenhouse effect” is simply not possible, just as a Perpetuum Mobile is not possible.

    I suspect that one could build and carry out this experiment for less than $100, and the results would be absolutely irrefutable. And to think they waste some $30 billion a year trying to claim otherwise. Sheeesh … boggles the mind.

  35. squid2112 says:

    Joseph, on the topic of moderation. Is it not possible in WordPress to “whitelist” certain users? Could you not at least whitelist those that you are confident will behave? I have a WordPress account, and a WordPress site out there somewhere, but I never use it so I am not really familiar with what settings may be available. Just a possible suggestion for you that could save you a little bit of time.

  36. squid2112 says:

    A kiln is a structure which prevents energy loss from a very high temperature heat source such as coal or coke. It does not make the coal burn hotter! QED refuted idiots.

    Yes, my mother had several kiln’s for several years for making pottery and ceramics of all kinds. She had electric ones as well as gas ones. She has even used wood and coal ones before. What you say is absolutely true Joseph. The insulation around the kiln served only two purposes. 1) To contain and confine the heat to a concentrated area (and keep the garage from burning down). And 2) to make the process more efficient. But, “efficiency” is not the act of “creating” more heat. It is the act of “preserving” and “utilizing” as much of the existing heat as you can. Many people conflate conservation with creation. Conservation is not Creation. Insulation cannot create heat, as my above experiment would empirically prove. And insulation cannot make heat “pile”, just as a previous posting of yours proves.

  37. squid2112 says:

    Joseph, I just spoke with a fellow engineer that I work with. He and I are going to build the experiment that I just described above. Additionally, we will place online, publically available, one of our Com’X 510 energy Gateway/Server’s that will continually log data at an interval rate of 60 seconds. We will make available quest logins to that device so that one can visualize and/or download the pertinent data. I won’t have time to work on this little project until next month when I return from a business trip to France, but I will let you know when it is all up and running. Further, we will document, photograph and video every step of the building and the operating processes, also making those available online. Once we have gathered enough data, I will supply that data to you (should you want it) to include any graphs and information that you would like to utilize for any future writings and/or papers of yours.

  38. There is no white list function no. That would be a great idea!

  39. I’ll comment more layer about the experiment, but both interior and exterior should be black so that they act like thermal blackbodies with high emissivity as much as possible. Matte black surfaces are best. Shiny metal surfaces have very low emissivity.

  40. Thanks for the link Squid I’ll check it out when back on PC. On mobile app right now.

  41. squid2112 says:

    I don’t know if that plugin will do what we are thinking though. After further investigation, it appears to be a whitelist for registration, not for individual comments. I have been searching for whitelist plugins for individual comments, but doesn’t appear that anyone has one. There are a whole lot of anti-spam plugins, but that really isn’t what we are looking for. I have found a lot of requests from people for what we are seeking, and I am surprised not to find any solutions. I may end up having to write one for you. It shouldn’t be a difficult thing.

    As for the experiment. I was thinking myself that the inside of the boxes should be shiny, while the outside of the boxes should be matt-black. My reasoning was that the outside of the box should be able to absorb as much radiation as possible, while the inside of the boxes should be able to reflect as much radiation as possible. The outer box would reflect as much of its own radiation onto the inner box as it can, and the inner box should be able to reflect as much onto itself (inside) as it can. But, perhaps we can make a couple of box experiments, one with the setup I just suggested, and one with your suggestion. Could be interesting to see if there is any difference too (which I am sure there won’t be). But it could also put to rest criticism from others on that topic.

  42. squid2112 says:

    This plugin might do the trick. Makes me a little bit nervous that it hasn’t been updated in 2 years, and WordPress gives you a warning about that when you view the plugin in their Plugin Directory, however, that doesn’t necessarily mean that it wouldn’t work well for you. I will do some further research.

  43. squid2112 says:

    I have looked through the source code of the “Comment Whitelist” plugin, and it looks relatively benign and pretty simple. You may want to give it a shot. Seems you can simply provide a list of valid email addresses (each on a line). I have translated the Spanish comments into English so that I could read them (not really needed though), and if you would require any modifications to the plugin, we could do that pretty easily. It’s a very simple plugin.

  44. squid2112 says:

    Over 500 active installs and 1,129 downloads … only one review however:

    Does Exactly What It Says
    By mlanger, November 24, 2014 for WP 4.0.1
    Makes it very easy to pre-approve certain users for posting comments without having them wait for moderation. GREAT for trusted users on a site requiring comment approval.

  45. OK I’ll check out the 2nd plugin Squid.

    About the metal: shiny metal has low emissivity, and a low emissivity surface has higher temperature to emit the same radiation. This is why low emissivity shiny surface conflates things a bit. Plus, the GHE is about thermal absorption and emission, not reflection and absorption etc. It is important to get the underlying mechanics of the experiment correct etc. If you use a low emissivity surface, such as a shiny surface, it WILL actually have a higher temperature – not because of a GHE, but because low emissivity equates to higher temperature for a given radiative input/output. So at the very least, you would definitely need to know the emissivity of the shiny surface before starting so that you could factor it in. But in any case remember – this is about thermal absorption and emission, not reflection and low emissivity. A matte black surface provides the best straight-on thermal behaviour. A shiny surface does things that you have to be much more careful about factoring in, and to factor them in, they need to be measured and known before hand.

    For a given radiative flux F, then F = e*sigma*T^4, where e is the emissivity, and so T^4 = F/e/sigma. Thus, for low e, higher T. Best is to have e = 1, which is what is approached when you have a matte black surface. A shiny surface has e = 0.1 for example, so it really affects the temperature. Inside the box, you will actually maximize the thermal emission and internal flux by having e as close to 1 as possible, therefore a matte black surface.

    Reflection is NOT what you want. You want thermal absorption and thermal re-emission.

    Make sense?

  46. Greg House says:

    The problem with references to experiments is that the other side presents fakes or misinterpreted results which the public can not check for themselves, so people remain confused.

  47. I actually just use the free version of the WP site. It doesn’t allow adding plugins. It’s not so bad.

  48. markstoval says:

    I stumbled on something very interesting about solar cookers by reading a comment at The Hockey Schtick. After searching a bit I find this paper by two people, Sarah McGuire and Prof. Steven E. Jones of the Department of Physics and Astronomy at BYU.

    Click to access Solar_Cookers_and_Other_Solar_Alternatives.pdf

    One part is this:

    The second area of solar cookers I looked at was their potential
    use for cooling. I tested to see how effective they are at cooling both at
    night and during the day. During both times, the solar cooker needs to be
    aimed away from buildings, and trees. These objects have thermal
    radiation and will reduce the cooling effects. At night the solar cooker
    needs to also be aimed straight up towards the cold sky. During the day
    the solar cooker needs to be turned so that it does not face the Sun and
    also points towards the sky. [11] For both time periods cooling should be
    possible because all bodies emit thermal radiation by virtue of their
    temperature. [8] So the heat should be radiated outward. Cooling should
    occur because of the second law of thermodynamics which states that
    heat will flow naturally from a hot object to a cold object.[7]
    The sky
    and upper atmosphere will be at a lower temperature then the cooking
    vessel. The average high-atmosphere temperature is approximately -20
    °C. [2] So the heat should be radiated from the cooking vessel to the

    For daytime cooling, I always conducted my tests between
    2:30p.m.-6:30p.m. on a sunny cloud free day. I conducted tests using
    different solar cookers, sizes of canning jars, water amounts, and types
    of plastic bags. I measured the water temperature using a temperature
    probe and a TI-CBL. The data for the ambient temperature was taken
    from the Brigham Young University Weather Center located at the top of
    the Eyring Science Center. The data was downloaded and recorded
    every 5 minutes. The best results I obtained are for a wide funnel with a
    1 quart canning jar, 500 ml of water, and two polyethylene bags. I found
    that the difference between the water and ambient temperature reached
    approximately 2.2 °C or 4.0 °F. The cooling trend (slope) was still
    towards more cooling at the end of the test suggesting the need for
    further testing.

    So there really are some scientists out there that understand the idea of heat going from hot to cooler. I found this idea to be a very good illustration of ideas presented here often. Heat flows from hot to cold. Who knew???

  49. Martin Clark says:

    Following up on Mark’s solar cookers, the link didn’t work, but the pdf is here:

    Click to access File:Solar_Cookers_and_Other_Solar_Alternatives.pdf

    This ought to go in the catalogue of simple experiments that demonstrate the non-effect of back-radiation. My problem was that without being aware of the 2nd Law Thermo, I had always observed that heat only went from hot to cooler anyway, so for some time, I couldn’t understand what all the noise was about. “Who knew???” Haha count me in – apparently 🙂
    “…. During both times, the solar cooker needs to be aimed away from buildings, and trees.”
    Same with IR measurements. Around here, day/night, sky straight up always lowest, sky angle next, then trees, buildings, ground-soil, solar-exposed ground rock, concrete highest.
    The only possible evidence for BR I ever found was rate of heat loss from low thermal capacity material was less if in very close proximity (but not contact) to high thermal capacity material. Hard to substantiate with a hand-held. Next experiment (if I can afford it) is a datalogging pyrometer to monitor say, the heat drop from solar-exposed concrete on ground. and relate this to the half-hourly data from the nearby weather station.

  50. Greg House says:

    Right, without solar cookers, pyrometers and weather stations we can not convince anyone.

    Or maybe we can just say that (assuming the back radiation to the source exists) even if use a perfect 100% reflector, it would be not different from the case where 2 bodies of the same temperature facing each other. Everyone knows that such bodies do not warm each other, problem solved. Takes 2-3 minutes to convince any sane unbiased person. What is really difficult is to explain, how all those climate professors can be that stupid.

  51. geran says:

    “…The only possible evidence for BR I ever found was rate of heat loss from low thermal capacity material was less if in very close proximity (but not contact) to high thermal capacity material…”

    Martin, you must be very careful to eliminate both conduction and convection, in your “back radiation” experiment. This was the mistake Anthony Watts made in his light bulb “experiment”. He “proved” that a mirror could warm a light bulb by restricting convection and allowing conduction. He had (has) no clue. It’s called “climate science”!

  52. Chris Monckton just told me off in an email, among other things saying that for PSI to believe that a cold source of radiation can not heat a warmer source of radiation is superstitious…he said that we have “superstitious beliefs” on this point! He says that we’re not allowed to reference any other scientist’s work in support of ours without their explicit written permission! lol! Because our “superstitious beliefs” about heat transfer only being from hot to cold is damaging to their career and reputation to be associated with us by us referencing them. Can you believe this guy?! Bizarro land!

  53. Greg House says:

    Watts must have read comments and explanations about convection so often on his blog that it is too generous to call what he did a mistake.

  54. geran says:

    “Chris Monckton just told me off in an email…”

    Suggest that he heat his house with ice cubes next winter, then report back.

  55. Martin Clark says:

    @Geran at 6:50: Yep, eliminating conduction/convection difficult. In the case of my “possible evidence” this was a result of some after-dark measurements in the open. Maybe its different in temperate climates, but here in the tropics the first 1-2m is usually highly turbulent during daylight hours, as indicated by a smoke generator.

  56. SkepticGoneWild says:


    Why do you think igloos are so warm? They are a radiation cavity. The igloo’s interior surface “does not poll each incoming photon and ask it the temperature of the source which emitted it, to decide whether or not to absorb it. 😉

  57. squid2112 says:

    Chris Monckton just told me off in an email…

    What is wrong with these people? This is a physical law of nature, you cannot break a physical law of nature, no matter how hard you try. Call me stunned … I would have never figured this to come from Monckton. WOW!

  58. 4TimesAYear says:

    Reblogged this on 4timesayear's Blog.

Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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 )

Connecting to %s