Egg on Face
So apparently there is some climate conference happening in London come this September:
Independent Committee on Geoethics: London Conference 2016
Christopher Monckton is a member of the organization committee. Why the focus on Monckton? Because he has been in the past one of the greatest foes of the Slayer’s rational approach to criticizing the basis of climate alarm, going so far as to threaten each and every one of us with being personally sued for daring to state that other independent scientists, such as Fred Singer, basically agree with us.
We have always been at a loss to explain this behaviour coming from people who proclaim to be skeptics of climate alarm: If you are a skeptic of climate alarm, then why does it make you so irate (and trust me, it does make them irate(!)…you should see some of the personal correspondence between the Slayer’s and Monckton, and Anthony Watts, etc…they get downright irate, and outraged) at the suggestion that perhaps it makes sense to examine the basis of climate alarm itself, which is the radiative greenhouse effect? I mean if the basis of climate alarm is the greenhouse effect, and it is, and climate alarm isn’t showing up in the temperature data, and it isn’t, and past climate variations do not demonstrate that carbon dioxide and a variable greenhouse effect are their driver, and they don’t…then why wouldn’t you do the exceedingly obvious and simple thing of examining that basis of climate alarm?
They accuse us, the Slayers, of trying to make climate skepticism lose credibility by our debunk of the greenhouse effect, and therefore that we must be working some conspiracy as double-agents to discredit climate skepticism. We accuse them, the people who say that they are skeptics of climate alarm yet get angry at criticizing the foundation of climate alarm, as being stupid, irrational, illogical, unscientific…and possibly working for the other side making sure that the pseudoscientific fundamentals of climate alarm never get discussed and exposed.
So we are at a loggerhead. The difference is that the Slayers can explain why a postulate which arises out of a flat-Earth model is wrong, while the “outraged” simply hyperventilate and personally threaten us. What does that tell you?
Egg in Pan
Monckton, as a member of the organization committee for this conference, must have some influence over what is presented at the conference. Therefore, we find his first “capitulation” to Slayer’s criticism of climate alarm in Ned Nikolov & Karl Zeller’s presentation on September 8th: “A new planetary temperature model and its implication for the Greenhouse theory.”
NN & KZ: “The basic physics of the atmospheric Greenhouse Effect (GE) has been accepted as well understood for over 150 years. GE is currently viewed as a radiative phenomenon caused by the atmosphere’s thermal infrared opacity, which is a function of the concentration of heat absorbing trace gases such as CO2, water vapour, methane, ozone and a few others. The atmosphere is mostly transparent to incoming shortwave radiation while absorbing a substantial amount of the outgoing (upwelling) long-wave flux emitted by the surface. This infrared absorption is thought to reduce the rate of Earth’s cooling to Space, hence significantly raising the surface temperature above that of an equivalent airless environment such as the Moon. Thus, according to the current GE theory, the atmosphere acts as a ‘radiative blanket’ that keeps the Earth surface sufficiently warm to allow the existence of liquid water and biological life on our planet. Hence, increasing the tropospheric concentrations of non-condensable greenhouse gases through fossil fuel burning would boost the atmospheric infrared optical depth as well as the absorption of thermal radiation leading to an enhanced GE and surface warming as a result. This concept forms the basis of present climate projections. However, mounting scientific evidence indicates that Global Circulation Models (GCMs) fail to simulate key features of past climates as inferred from geo-chemical proxies while overestimating the observed global temperature trends since 1993. The modeldata discrepancy has grown to a level that warrants a re-examination of fundamental assumptions in the Greenhouse theory.”
In other words, they’re saying that while everyone thinks that they understand the radiative greenhouse effect, they find reason to re-examine the fundamental assumptions of the radiative greenhouse effect theory. Yes, exactly, that is what the Slayers say too. But does their reason line up with Slayer criticism?
NN & KZ: “We present results from a novel Dimensional Analysis of observed planetary data spanning a broad range of environments in the Solar System, i.e. from the hot Venus to the frozen world of Neptune’s moon Triton. Our analysis reveals that the average global surface temperature of rocky planets with tangible atmospheres and negligible geothermal surface heating can accurately be predicted over a broad range of atmospheric conditions and radiative regimes using only two forcing variables: top-of-the-atmosphere stellar irradiance and total surface atmospheric pressure. The new empirical model displays characteristics of an emergent macro-level thermodynamic relationship heretofore unbeknown to science (Fig. 1). […] A key theoretical implication of the new model is that GE is not a radiative phenomenon as currently believed, but a pressure-induced thermal enhancement, which is independent of atmospheric composition. Our results provide new fundamental insights about the nature of climate forcing on different time scales, which we discuss. Using the new planetary temperature model as a base, we explain how climate models simulate warming with increasing greenhouse-gas concentrations in the atmosphere, and why such predictions are physically and mathematically incorrect.”
My underlines. That is precisely what the Slayers and PSI have published papers about and what I’ve written about extensively on this blog. And it is also precisely what has caused Christopher Monckton to hyperventilate towards us in the past. It is great to see him coming around to reason…to quite reasonable criticism of the fundamentals of climate alarm, which is its radiative greenhouse effect.
The second “capitulation” to the Slayers comes in the acceptance of Hans Jeblring’s presentation later in the same day as the above one. Jelbring’s talk is titled “The dominant physical processes that cause climate change,” but I do not have the abstract for it (correction – see link to all abstracts here). From the title it doesn’t appear that it is about the greenhouse effect specifically, however, Jelbring is a founding Slayer and his work is one of, if not the earliest, presentations of the theory and the mathematics and physics that the temperature gradient in the atmosphere is caused by pressure, and that this therefore guarantees that the bottom of the atmosphere will be the warmest part of the atmosphere and warmer than any expected average temperature for the atmosphere as a whole. Readers of this blog will have witnessed the derivation of the temperature gradient many, many times. That derivation comes from a Jelbring paper. While the gradient doesn’t tell us what the temperature should be at the bottom of the atmosphere, it does tell us that the bottom of the atmosphere has to be warmer than any expected average, and this is one of the core elements to the Slayer’s debunk of the radiative greenhouse effect.
The third “capitulation” comes from the acceptance of Oliver Manuel’s talk on “neutron repulsion”. This talk is on the first day again, same as the previous two, and this day’s subject matter is “Natural drivers of climate changes”. Manuel is a keynote presentation. At this point I am finding this all quite strange. Manuel was one of the founding Slayers and they published his work before I became involved. I would have not accepted Manuel’s work because it isn’t really to do with debunking climate change alarm, and I am likewise wondering why it is being presented at this conference. Manuel’s work itself I find no basis for accepting either – neutron repulsion and the idea that the Sun has a neutron star at its core. If this were true for the Sun then it would be true for all other stars since all other stars behave exactly like the Sun given their position on the Hertzsprung-Russel diagram. While this all could work if all stars did have the “hidden variable” of a neutron star at their core…it is impossible for all stars to have a neutron star at their core. I’ve read Manuel’s work and I just don’t find anything that supports his conclusions, and this isn’t just because I have an MSc in astrophysics and studied stellar modelling – I am more than capable of criticizing “accepted” science, but I don’t find an actual scientific argument or presentation in his work. The founding Slayers unfortunately didn’t detect the problems with Manuel and I wasn’t aware of Manuel until well after I became involved, at which point Manuel didn’t seem like much of a problem anymore. While the Slayers had the right idea, at that early time they did not have the full scientific expertise which I subsequently brought to the table which might have helped weed out the bad science from the legitimate, rational, although out-of-the-box, skepticism they stood for.
In any case, aside from the last point’s concerns, it seems that Monckton is now quite open to supporting criticism of the radiative greenhouse effect. This is quite a change of attitude coming from him given the extremely nasty and bullying way he has treated us in the past.
I see that the conference has been covered by Anthony Watts here, with the proviso:
“While I carry this story on WUWT for informational purposes, that should in no way imply that I endorse the topics of the conference itself or the speakers – Anthony Watts”
In the comments section there is this exchange from Monckton:
“As the head posting makes clear, there will be some ideas presented at the conference that are not mainstream, though my own presentation will be mainstream science, as will the presentations of the overwhelming majority of participants. But Professor Moerner, the organizer, and a world authority on sea level, believes that the ever more elaborate intolerant filtering of ideas before they are given a chance to be fairly heard is dangerous, so he has invited some who, though not in the mainstream, should in his opinion be given the chance to have their ideas tested before an eminent academic audience.
I think it likely that some of these ideas, on being exposed to a properly qualified audience giving them a fair hearing for the first time, will be finally disposed of as being unacceptably bad. Others, perhaps not. But most of us will be presenting science that fully respects the scientific method, and on this topic to do such a thing in the England of today, which possesses the most scientifically illiterate establishment since the Middle Ages, takes more than a little courage.”
Monckton wrote that in response to a question as to why Manuel would be given a presentation slot, but perhaps it relates to the presentations criticizing the greenhouse effect too. Assuming the latter is the case, it is still quite a change of attitude given that his previous desire was to personally sue all Slayers for having the audacity to criticize the greenhouse effect and claim that other scientists essentially agree with doing that (which they do and did). He’s now allowing such criticism to be heard. Monctkon continues later:
“Professor Butterworth has no reason for threatening his academic colleague other than a totalitarian desire to suppress scientific research on the climate question with which his paymasters disagree.
The great majority of the presentations at the conference will be mainstream science, but Professor Moerner is not as intolerant of free speech as the true-believers. He will allow a small number of alternative voices to be heard. By doing so, he is demonstrating that, on our side of the debate, academic freedom still thrives. That freedom has always included the freedom to put forward bad hypotheses. Some of those hypotheses will die a well-deserved death at the London conference, but at least those offering them will have know that they have had a fair hearing from a learned audience of open minds.
Like it or not, that is how science should be done. If even the sceptical side of the debate will not give a platform to new ideas, good or bad, what hope is there for a restoration of the scientific method? That method works not by rejecting uncongenial hypotheses a priori, but by letting them be heard and then, and only then, dismissing them if they are found wanting.”
I wish that this was the Christopher Monckton I had the pleasure of discussing climate alarmism criticism with! The Christopher Monckton I got is the one who called me names, questioned my honesty and scientific integrity, and threatened to personally sue me! lol
In light of your new attitude towards all this Chris, then why not dismiss a postulate that arises out of treating the Earth as flat(!) and sunshine as not being able to heat anything above -18 degrees Celsius!? What is it that prevents you people from seeing the absurdity in that!? Seriously! Do you not find such a postulate in “wanting”? Do you not find the premise that the Earth is flat and that sunshine is no warmer than -18°C to be wanting?!
By the way, on page 55 of the abstracts volume, there is a presentation from Jan-Erik Solheim, Thor Eriksen, and Yngvar Engebretsen titled “The Greenhouse effect – a high school experiment”. The experiment is basically the de-Saussure device experiment discussed in recent posts on this blog, with their finding being that:
“Our conclusion is that we were not able to prove that more CO2 leads to a higher temperature in a greenhouse. The greenhouse effect is due to the air being trapped by the roof and the walls, inhibiting natural cooling by conduction, convection, and evaporation.”
Chris, you’re really hanging around people who do Slayer science now. I don’t know whats up with that.
Honestly…this change of attitude is a little too much to believe on first sight, given our past interactions. Maybe something fishy is going on.
Well, I’ll publish this here and PSI will likely copy it, and so I’ll let readers know if any personal lawsuits lie in waiting. Duhn-duhn-duhn.
Climate of Sophistry 
Joe,
I find this new attitude long overdue, and very welcome. I urge all who want to restore the scientific method to completely avoid ad hominem attacks, name-calling, and legal threats.
Well done Joe, Keep up the good work.
Let us be clear. The sound-distant slayers libelled Fred Singer by saying he supported their nonsense, which he did nor support. That kind of personally-directed dishonesty is altogether unacceptable in climate science. Singer did not and does not support the barmy notion that there is no greenhouse effect.
If any of these presenting at the London conference try peddling such nonsense there, they will get short shrift from the many mainstream scientists who are attending.
As I have made repeatedly plain, you are free to hawk your nonsense, just as I am free to call it what it is.
But you must not continue your shoddy deception of saying that named eminent scientists endorse your pseudo-science when they do not. It is that lie that I oppose.
For the record, here is what Fred Singer said, and why it aligns with what the Slayers say.
Secondly, you merely assume it is a libelous quotation and usage of his scientific commentary. It is an assumption without warrant, despite your loud protestations. It has nothing to do with personal direction, and the quote speaks for itself. He said it, and it is a scientific conclusion of his. Sorry if this upsets you.
Yes, indeed, thank you for admitting that you support the mainstream science on this matter. Since when is that a position that you take, as a so-called skeptic? Your duplicitous position doesn’t speak well for your own honesty and motives here.
CM: “If any of these presenting at the London conference try peddling such nonsense there, they will get short shrift from the many mainstream scientists who are attending.”
Well doesn’t that now speak for itself.
As said in the article:
and further:
Our “nonsense”, Chris, is questioning whether a flat Earth model with -18°C sunshine is a scientifically or physically valid representation of reality from which to base further postulates about the way reality behaves.
This could not be any more ludicrous. We question if the Earth is truly flat and if sunshine is truly -18°C. You hyperventilate about this question and call us names for asking it, and threaten to sue us for the “libel”(!) of quoting other scientists who also head in this direction.
Chris, you personally have introduced me to levels of ludicrousness that I never knew were possible while living on this Earth as a human. It’s one thing to get it from sophist alarmists; from who you pretend to be, it is absurd.
The censor has spoken – New Dawn of Truth is the conference theme – but only if you agree with the censor.
Lets get down to basics. The basis of climate alarmism is that in the last 100 years the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased by 100 parts per million and this has resulted in a temperature increase of 1 degree c. (rough figures) assuming an average earth temperature of 15 degrees C. This can be restated as; A change to 1 /10,000th part of the atmosphere is responsible for a 7% increase in the thermal energy of the atmosphere. Sort of homeopathy on steroids. From this I conclude that it is not all caused by CO2 if at all. What sort of temperature would the additional CO2 molecules have to be creating to effect the whole atmosphere by 1 degree C ?
It’s looking more and more like a total set-up job. Something was fishy about it, including the totally ridiculous new-agey sounding theme “New Dawn of Truth” (lol) that’s guaranteed to attract the honest but unwary.
The “New Dawn of Truth” – that is all mainstream science and which is defended by those proclaiming to be skeptics of mainstream science with the hope of bringing new truth which is not mainstream science. The sophistry and cognitive dissonance is quite high here.
Note quite 7% Paulus as you divided 1 degree by 15 degrees Celsius, whereas it should have been 1 degree by 288 Kelvin degrees.
By the way, which version do defenders of the greenhouse effect refer to? Here’s a wide choice from my archives:
http://www.tech-know-group.com/archives/CONSENSUS_SCIENCE_updated092012.pdf
Many links will no longer work because the peope who ever posted them have seen the light. Maybe we need to wait a further 30 years before the defenders of the greenhouse effect are laughed out of court. Phlogiston anyone?
I guess these folks would have aneurysms if they also found out that the calculation of an “average global temperature” is a scientifically meaningless exercise. See Dr. Darko Butina’s website, 14patterns,com for this and other revelations. He is a retired scientist with particular expertise in data analysis. He totally destroys the very fundamentals of the AGW theory with clear logic and analysis and a little bit of humor..
Yes, that is a good way to characterize it: aneurysms.
Darko’s findings are totally legitimate mathematically and they also destroy the foundation of how the radiative greenhouse effect is postulated.
Gee whiz, look at this paper by Chris Monckton from September 2007. Some excerpts:
No Chris…Occam’s Razor would state that the simplest explanation why something which is purported to exist, yet can not be found, is because the thing doesn’t exist at all!
Chris for goodness’ sake…all this time I should have been directly quoting you as supporting the Slayer’s criticism of the greenhouse effect. In fact, this paper from way back then and some of your other early work is exactly why I became skeptical of the radiative greenhouse effect and subsequently debunked it. It’s thanks to you, and what you found! Hence my bewilderment when you now so angrily resist doing the rational thing and question the rational and obvious places, and so staunchly defend what you clearly can not given your very own work! I don’t know whats up with that.
Claes Johnson also had some comments on the matter: Lord Monckton Believes in the Greenhouse Effect
Claes remarks:
Chris, you’re in a world of self-contradiction and bad logic and bad science.
His Lordship says: “If any of these presenting at the London conference try peddling such nonsense there, they will get short shrift from the many mainstream scientists who are attending.”
Well, if Christopher Monckton was truly possessed of a skeptical mindset he might at least put up or shut up about ‘Slayer science v greenhouse gas theory’ and accept the challenge often put to him by the Slayers for a public debate. What better opportunity than his beloved London Conference? I’m sure someone from the Slayer side could be at the venue so that either Monckton or one of his “mainstream scientists” could perform a public service and nail this debate once and for all.
Mr Pisrma continues to libel Fred Singer, who did not and does not endorse postman’s childishly anti-scientific stance. He has asked me to make that quite clear, just as I have made it clear that I do not endorse the slayers’ rubbish either.
I never claimed that Singer endorsed me. As a scientist I am free to examine the conclusions of other scientists and examine whether or not their conclusions support other conclusions from other scientists that I am aware of, or my own, and they have no right or need to prevent other scientists from extrapolating upon their work or making note of such support. Just as upon reviewing your own work, Chris, I can make the observation and statement that your conclusions support my and the Slayer’s work quite directly.
None of this has anything to do with libel, you merely quite inexplicably invent it as such.
My last name is spelled “Postma”.
Kind regards.
Joe, Looks like you’ve got Monckton rattled. He doesn’t seem to know how the scientific process works. In his world it’s all threats, lawsuits, consensus science, status quo and if you’re not on the ‘Approved Expert’ list you’re not worthy of consideration. Didn’t those Brits decide democratically with the gamechanging Brexit vote that the era of the ‘Approved Expert’ was at an end – no one believes anymore those who inanely appeal to authority. From what I have seen it appears you and the Slayers are a breath of fresh air, like the Brexiteers and Monckton is part of the ‘Old Guard’ who remain obstinately (and illogically) loyal to a discredited status quo.
If i was British i would be ashamed of Monkton,
A body with sufficient energy supply to maintain it at 37 degrees C is in space where background radiation is close enough to zero. Assuming unit area and emissivity we have:-
Q = sigma *( To^4 – Ts^4) = sigma To^4 – 0 = ~525 W/sqm.
Move it to an atmosphere at minus 18 degrees C and this is how people like Brown and Spencer write the equations:-
Q = 524 = sigma *( To^4 – Ts^4) = sigma * (To^4 – Ts^4).
To =( Q/sigma + Ts^4) ^-4 = (524/sigma + 254.15^4)^-4
Thus To = 340.74 K or 67.59 degrees C.
Clausius said –
“No process is possible whose sole result is the transfer of heat from a cooler to a hotter body.”
Yet Brown, Spencer and all who support this algebra on the SB equation totally disregard Clausius’ statement.
They claim simply moving ( a process) an object with sufficient energy to maintain a temperature of 37 degrees C to an environment which is significantly colder than it – minus 18 degrees C – has the sole result of increasing the temperature of the object to 67 degrees C.
Or, if you like, “fitting” a close fitting steel shell as in the Steel Greenhouse nonsense.
It has to they say to maintain their fanciful thermodynamics. Well I can understand their algebra despite all the insults they pour forth – I simply believe they are totally wrong.
If totally wrong then all that flows from this type of modeling is similarly junk “science” !
They claim this is not a violation of thermodynamics and if you do not agree you must be dim witted.
Well it is unequivocally transferring heat from cold to hot as is evident by the plus sign.
How they CANNOT see this is a total violation of “No process is possible whose sole result is the transfer of heat from a cooler to a hotter body” is quite frankly astounding !
Also meant to say I don’t care HOW many “scientists” line up to defend the “thermodynamics” I showed above it doesn’t change the fact that it unequivocally represents transfer of heat from cold to hot !
Thus the advocates of this – and there are many of them – who smugly defend this insanity are claiming one of the fundamental proven features of science – that heat transfers exclusively from hot to cold – is wrong !
I say bullshit !
Pingback: Roy Spencer: A*****e (Language Warning!) | Climate of Sophistry
Singer is essentially holding up the truth of ’cause and effect’. If you don;t see the effect, then there can’t be a cause. In climate, if there is no evidence for man’s or any CO2 being a driver of global temperature, i.e. a greenhouse effect, or other severe weather events, then why it is not obvious to question the cause, or hypothesis, that drives that assumption. To continue ‘belief’ in the greenhouse effect is nonsensical.
This is why folks like Mann, Schmidt, Gore, etc. will never debate ‘the science’, as they know they will be made a laughing stock, and as we know, a severely dented pride is the greatest humiliation. Messers Monckton, Watts, etc. are also falling into the pride trap and being cornered. Human nature in this situation is to be defensive and fight.
My (late) brother had a wonderful way of handling folk in this type of situation (he was always ahead of colleagues in new ideas and solutions). He’d propose it and carefully, gently and thoroughly explain it, then sit back and let them catch up.
Good comment ilma630. Trust me, we tried the calm and gentle approach. Tried it for a long time. We were immediately met with vitriol and scorn from the (now known to be) gatekeepers.
But exactly: If there is supposed to be an effect, but the effect is not there, then the cause can not be there either. Cause & effect. That was very nicely put. Thanks.
Ah, finally we have the customary threat to sue from Chris:
CM: “I am taking two weeks’ holiday and shall decide on my return whether I shall sue for your libel in falsely suggesting that I endorse your nonsensical notion that there is no greenhouse effect.”
Well seeing as that I didn’t say that you endorsed me, you won’t get very far with that.
Note how the last thing he wants to do, and that he’s never done, is actually address our simplest of questions as to whether it makes sense to postulate things with a flat Earth and sunshine at -18C as having anything to do with reality. They won’t touch it.
In infra-red spectroscopy a molecule produces a spectral graph by absorbing certain wavelengths of the infra-red spectrum. Do you accept that such a molecule is therefore absorbing “energy”? If so, why would that not slow down the passage of that energy? My understanding is that once a molecule has absorbed a photon of infra-red energy it then re-radiates that energy in any random direction, including back to where it came from. Why would that not have some effect on the temperature (however small) on the body which emitted it? I ask these questions not to reject anyone’s ideas, but merely to try and understand what this really means.
I wrote a comment on this post a short while ago and I received an email from you asking me to click CONFIRM, but unfortunately the email did not enable me to do that.
Joe,
you need to try a simpler analogy for Monckton. Try my old two radiators in a chilly room analogy; one connected to the steam(solar input) and the other just sitting in the room(radiative atmosphere). How many disconnected radiators can I add to make the first radiator hotter? A higher heat capacity of the disconnected radiators will increase the rate of thermal decay when the steam is turned off but will not make the steam generate more heat.Sorry if this is stupid.
Derek, there is nothing wrong with a molecule absorbing energy and “warming up” from it.
For any photon which may radiate back toward the warmer source, there are more photons (more total photonic energy at higher frequency, to be precise, but basically “more photons”) from the source radiating back out since the source is warmer. At most the numbers of photons could be equal when the temperatures are equal, and at that point, temperature doesn’t change at all. It’s really that simple. Even when you include an outside incoming radiant thermal source, the most that can happen is that the initially-warmed first-surface emits the same total energy of photons that come in (though they’re at at lower frequency), and then of course the cooler atmosphere could at most emit that same total energy too. At no point can a larger number of or higher frequency photons be generated than initially came in, even if they are keeping coming in.
“I wrote a comment on this post a short while ago and I received an email from you asking me to click CONFIRM, but unfortunately the email did not enable me to do that.”
That’s something strange that WordPress must have done. It sends me emails for first-time commentators to approve comments (to help reduce spam). Not sure why the email went to you.
That’s not stupid Shawn, it is a great point. Yes, we’ve tried any number of explanations for these people. They don’t want to hear it, and reject it not by addressing the science or logic, but by threatening to sue us because such statements as your are “libelous”!
What do you think Shawn? Is there anything in your statement which you think is libelous? Should I threaten to sue you for libel because you wrote that on my blog which makes it seems like I endorse it? I mean lol. There is no “libel” in what you just said. So ridiculous…
I shoulda said decrease the rate of thermal decay – sorry.
Look the sun is a huge source of infrared in precisely the spectra intercepted and refracted by various so-called green house gases.
*GO GET a CHART of SUNLIGHT TOP-of-ATMOSPHERE and SUNLIGHT EARTH SURFACE*
I want all you newbie gas/atmospherics guys to PAY ATTENTION.
When you GET your CHART look at all those SLOTS where sunlight is PEELED OFF somehow and never makes it to the surface.
ALL those SLOTS are due to GREEN HOUSE GAS, SURFACE ENERGY DENSITY REDUCTION.
Again – those slots are the green house gases, BLOCKING
19-22% of the TOTAL LIGHT of the sun
from ever warming the earth surface.
They never arrive and this is called reduction, of surface energy density, or – in other words,
c
o
o
l
i
n
g.
Without the atmosphere you have full sunlight to the surface of the planet, and one mode of energy leaving the planet.
With the atmosphere – depending on the amount of green house gases – 20% of sunlight energy
never
reaches surface
of earth.
This is an additional mode of cooling created simply by existence of green house gases.
The sun-side stream of infrared in GHG-interactive spectra, is FIVE TIMES GREATER than that which comes from earth.
When you take a spotlight and put it in your lizard cage, and you heat that rock he lies on/under,
it’s identical to earth and that rock gives off some of the energy coming from the infrared lamp;
When YOU put a SHADE between the LAMP and the ROCK,
since the LAMP is the energy SOURCE, the ROCK
COOLS
DOWN.
This second mode of cooling is – remember – CREATED by the GHGs.
Oxygen with it’s daylight refraction, creates blue skies, accounting of about 3% of the energy deflected by the atmosphere.
Then there’s the standard touch/contact conduction by gas molecules in the atmosphere.
A green house gas water, surpasses all other gases in this cooling, regarding energy removed per-molecular-contact.
Then there is the effect of convection: the storm systems of the world. Have you ever heard of what’s named a heat-pipe? It’s where they take a pipe and seal both ends, and they pull most of the air out and then inject a little bit of alcohol or water and seal it up. You can strap this to a computer chip and the liquid at the bottom will evaporate: Rise upward as vapor till it contacts the upper end of that pipe which – obviously – you strap to a hunk of metal, and fan energy off of.
This makes the stuff condense again and fall to the bottom as liquid. Ok? Then around it goes, dumping energy falling, picking up energy rising, and this is called ”phase change cooling.”
K? It’s phase change, by your dose of refrigerant.
This phase change cooling system on earth is accomplished by water, and water alone, the green house gas. It scrubs not just the surface but the atmosphere around it too, as it rises, condenses, falls, again and again.
In fact in storm systems when water evaporates (cooling dramatically) and rises swiftly – making room for other air molecules to fall and make surface contact – after it loses energy at the top of the atmosphere and contracts back to solid instead of remaining gas – this second change of phase, (evaporation from liquid or ice at the surface is phase-change #1)
that water falls back toward earth and something stops it from making it back to the surface.
What stops it from making it back to the surface is that it evaporates again – and again – back to gas, as it *scrubs the air it is falling through of heat energy, as well.*
There is nothing in any of this which actually is a heating mechanism.
It’s all cooling, which is why the sun doesn’t simply evaporate all the water off the planet: the surface of the planet’s covered with high efficiency, liquified, refrigerant.
Keep up the good fight atmospheric/gas/radiation specialists.
One last thing: All you have to do, to figure out for yourself, if the earth’s atmosphere, is even capable of warming the earth immersed within it, is ask the sophist thermo-billy hick barking Magic Gas bullsh*ter,
to explain to you the FULLY vested, INTERESTED INQUIRER into his HICK bullshoot,
ONE INSTANCE
in ALL PHYSICS
of WARMING a ROCK with LIGHT from a FIRE in VACUUM
and when it’s temperature doesn’t get high enough from that,
IMMERSING the ROCK
into a FRIGID, TURBULENT, LIGHT-BLOCKING BATH doped with
PHASE CHANGE REFRIGERANT
to make that rock’s SURFACE energy DENSITY
grow overall HIGHER
than when the rock was washed with FULL SUNLIGHT
and when the rock was NOT washed with FRIGID, TURBULENT, FLUID BATH.
Ask any human being – tell him STOP bullshitting and show ME – the FERVENT WANNABELIEVER
ONE instance
of RAISING surface energy density
through IMMERSION into FRIGID FLUIDS
presence of which STOPS a FIFTH of available light ever warming a sensor.
Just tell the sophist whether it be Watts, Eschenbach, Spencer, Schmidt, -any of those scientific scum, to SHOW you a SINGLE instance
of WARMING a ROCK in VACUUM
as HOT as FULL LIGHT can GET it – with ONE mode of energy loss, radiant –
and then – when it won’t get warm enough,
putting it into a bath of cold, turbulent gases,
that block a fifth of the light from the fire, ever even arriving.
I said above, ”it’s all cooling” and that isn’t a conditional statement. Any minor reductions in cooling need to be borne in mind by you the investigator, as part of immersing a light-warmed rock,
into a bath of frigid, thermally conductive fluids.
Do you, the independently arriving, scientific investigator into the fraud of there being a GHE,
know of any instance in all physics when people warm objects through immersion into frigid fluids many degrees colder than the object so immersed?
Joseph Postma and the Dragon Slayers are despised by the pseudo scientific scum who flooded into the vacuum when government employees began firing and talking about suing people who told the truth about governmental chemistry scams.
”Oh but this is so unprecedented. How could it happen and ”no one know” ?
How did it happen that the federal government of the US and about sixty other countries have pot declared to be like heroin and more dangerous than a methamphetamine addiction?
People DO know the governments of the world and various fake, pseudo-scientific scammers,
such as
Watts,
Monckton,
Hansen,
Schmidt,
simply aggrandize their names by pretending to be in some sort of intimate contact with the sciences, they and their friends, ***DROVE all the REAL scientists and science, OUT of.***
Joe,
[“At no point can a larger number of or higher frequency photons be generated than initially came in, even if they are keeping coming in.”]
It really is that simple.
As I have asked on this forum before:
How many cold objects do you have to place around a warm object before the warm object gets even hotter?
It doesn’t happen. There is no thermal energy gained by the warm object from the radiating cool object. ‘Back radiation’ is irrelevant to the warm object. (Or, put another way, it is not a case of 5-3 = net 2 but 2-0 = 2. There is no ‘net’ sum with radiation. There is only heat flow from warm to cool until equilibrium.)
Perhaps those who call themselves sceptics (but ultimately accept consensus science) should ask themselves precisely why the radiation from the Sun warms the planet? Maybe only then they will realise why the radiation from the cooler CO2 molecules in the atmosphere cannot warm the planet…
It is the poor understanding of the interaction between radiation and matter that forms the basis of the misguided CO2=>cAGW postulation.
Regards,
Arfur
A wilful misunderstanding more like Arfur.
Are students not being ‘equipped’ with the right sort of education in the States these days to ‘get it’.
Nice post by the way..
Thank you, Gary.
Pingback: The Ducks | Climate of Sophistry
Derek says: 2016/08/12 at 4:45 AM
“In infra-red spectroscopy a molecule produces a spectral graph by absorbing certain wavelengths of the infra-red spectrum. Do you accept that such a molecule is therefore absorbing “energy”? If so, why would that not slow down the passage of that energy?”
The only way a Co2 molecule can possibly absorb any 15 micron power is to have a lower temperature (radiance) than the source, else it is neutral, or emitting into the direction of that lower temperature (radiance). Absolutely no matter of any sort, can ‘spontaneously’ generate EM flux in a direction of higher radiance at any frequency.
“My understanding is that once a molecule has absorbed a photon of infra-red energy it then re-radiates that energy in any random direction, including back to where it came from.”
Show us your fake photon! Such is as fake as your fake greenhouse effect. See the above.
“Why would that not have some effect on the temperature (however small) on the body which emitted it? I ask these questions not to reject anyone’s ideas, but merely to try and understand what this really means.”
Such has no effect simply because such never happens! Not you or any other has ever observed such a thing, nor can anyone ever observe (measure) such a thing!
Joseph E Postma says: 2016/08/10 at 2:55 PM
“Gee whiz, look at this paper by Chris Monckton from September 2007. Some excerpts:”
(“Applying Occam’s Razor, the simplest explanation for the discrepancy between theoretical modeling and realworld observation is that the models on which the case for alarm about climate change are based are very substantially overestimating the effect of anthropogenic greenhouse warming on global temperatures.”)
“No Chris…Occam’s Razor would state that the simplest explanation why something which is purported to exist, yet can not be found, is because the thing doesn’t exist at all!”
Exactly Joseph! While increasing surface temperature due to increasing atmospheric CO2 likely has some ‘wee’ above zero probability. Absolutely no valid scientific method for such causative effect has ever been verified! Horse shit, bull shit, bee shit, bat shit, rat shit, bunkum is all they ever have.
Joseph E Postma says: 2016/08/10 at 2:55 PM
“Gee whiz, look at this paper by Chris Monckton from September 2007. Some excerpts:”
(” Real-world temperatures in the upper atmosphere have been measured with balloons since at least the 1960’s and with microwave satellite sensors since 1979. However, the Hadley Centre’s plot of real-world radiosonde observations does not demonstrate the “global warming hot-spot” at all. The predicted phenomenon is startlingly and entirely absent from the observational record.
Applying Occam’s Razor, the simplest explanation for the discrepancy between theoretical modeling and realworld observation is that the models on which the case for alarm about climate change are based are very substantially overestimating the effect of anthropogenic greenhouse warming on global temperatures. “)
“No Chris…Occam’s Razor would state that the simplest explanation why something which is purported to exist, yet can not be found, is because the thing doesn’t exist at all!”
Correct Joseph! While it is likely that atmospheric CO2 levels may have some ‘wee’ probability of affecting Earth’s surface temperature, There remains no known method of causation that has ever had even attempted verification. Such always remains “trust me I am academic skyintist”, and you rat boy, know nothing!!
I agree with Dr S Fred Singer when he closed his well-written October 15, 2014 American Thinker essay “The Climate Sensitivity Controversy” with
“I should note that I am somewhat out of step here with my fellow skeptics. Few of them would agree with me that the climate sensitivity (CS) is indeed close to zero. I will have to publish the analyses to prove my point and try to convince them. Of course, nothing, no set of facts, will ever convince the confirmed climate alarmists.”
I can prove CS is vanishingly small, -0.8C < CS < +0.5C, from the laws of radiant energy transfer between non-black body radiators, accounting for surface photosynthesis, CO2 absorption of incoming solar radiation and the fact increasing atmospheric CO2 increases its absorptivity & emissivity, which allows Earth to radiate back to space its absorbed sunshine at a lower temperature. Increasing emissivity of any radiator reduces its radiating temperature at a given wattage, according to the Stefan – Boltzmann Law of radiation physics for non-black bodies.
Chemical engineers have good estimates of emissivity of radiating gas mixtures to quantify the effect for furnace design. No need for analyzing global temperatures to quantify something so small as to be unmeasurable/undetectable. Dr Singer should be very happy about halting useless global GHGT research at $1 billion/day.
In 1997 I proved from control systems engineering mathematics that Earth’s thermostat adjusting fossil fuel combustion would never work on three counts: system in unmeasurable, unobservable and uncontrollable. If all 7.5 billion humans believe it can, their consensus is irrelevant. History has proven me right so far.
In 2015 C Monckton of Benchley said I was not allowed to agree with Singer and was guilty of the crime of libel or slander against Singer. CM threatened me with a lawsuit. I proved he was mistaken. I arranged to meet him at Heathrow Airport before returning to Houston on 15May2015 to reconcile but he was a no show. He was not supported by Singer. He never filed. Postma’s title is valid.
Indeed Pierre. Mr. Monckton has clearly gotten away from himself. He, himself, also published work proving and supporting your own findings. That would make a good new article: “Monckton agrees with Latour”. Perhaps he merely seeks to claim the discovery of no greenhouse effect all to himself…
Reblogged this on Climate- Science.press.