REMEMBER the Sherlock Holmes story, Silver Blaze…
Gregory (of Scotland Yard): “Is there any other point to which you would wish to draw my attention?”
Holmes: “To the curious incident of the dog in the night-time.”
Gregory: “The dog did nothing in the night-time.”
Holmes: “That was the curious incident.”
And so an outraged commentator at Steven Goddard’s blog asks why we can’t observe the effects of increasing infra-red radiation…
“WHAT you have is a bunch of people claiming ever more heat in the atmosphere in form of infra-red, but the infra-red telescopy field says not one word for multiple score of years about ‘rising infra-red destroying our viewing and here’s the analysis over time’
You hear NOT ONE WORD from optical telescopy – the field that helped Einstein cement relativity’s place in history by measuring the bending of a beam of starlight by galactic gravitational bodies – not ONE WORD from the optical telescopy field which effectively holds up a microscope to the atmosphere’s heat distortion – remember the DEFINITION of HEAT on GAS is – what kids? it’s M.O.T.I.O.N.
Not ONE WORD of increased atmospheric distortion, also known as ‘The Stars Twinkling Over Their Twink Heads’ also known scientifically of course as Atmospheric Scintillation — this Star Twinkling is a D.I.R.E.C.T F.U.N.C.T.I.O.N. of the amount of heat in the atmosphere: if there’s more heat there HAS to BE more MOTION meaning more days per year when optical telescopes can’t function well enough to view.
Why is it that not ONCE in the HISTORY of all this not ONE STUDENT or ONE PROFESSOR looking for that DEVASTATING PAPER, or that EASY A, has gone and simply gotten photos of sections of the sky through time, around the same date, showing the MANDATORY EVER CLIMBING ATMOSPHERIC DISTORTION as VIEWED THROUGH OPTICAL INSTRUMENTATION?
Because there IS no increased distortion because there IS no such thing as a G.H.G. Effect. Period. Care to check up on me? No need to even crack a book still.
There are assemblies built by people to flex the mirrors of telescopes to COMPENSATE for this ATMOSPHERIC MOTION-created DISTORTION.
Why is it that not ONE WORD has ever come out about how “our mirror flexing assemblies used to have to apply X, Y, Z, flex to the mirror overall to compensate during a period of time, for the HEAT DISORTION called Atmospheric Scintillation. Now though, the amount has risen as ATMOSPHERIC HEAT HAS INCREASED.”
Why? Because THERE IS NO ADDITIONAL ATMOSPHERIC HEAT or THEY WOULD ALL – the INFRA-RED telescopy field, the OPTICAL telescopy field, and the field of instrumentation where the people flex telescope mirrors to compensate for HEAT in the ATMOSPHERE – they’d ALL be SCREAMING BLOODY MURDER about the impending doom due to balmy weather.
There IS no such thing as A.N.Y. G.H.G. Effect or these fields WOULDN’T BE ABLE TO HIDE IT as manmade gases have RAGED ever upward through passing decade after decade.”
Republished from
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2011/07/23/almost-as-hot-as-1911-1918-and-1936-must-be-the-co2/ by IAmDigitap on July 23, 2011 at 6:48 pm
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Oh well – Bob Carter, Lord Monckton and Jo Nova all disagree. Quote “Nobody disputes that …..” said the Lord.
Isn’t the internet subversive though – all these theories…
Jen once old me.
Like the use of caps though and scientific words like “raged”. I mean RAGED. The only raging I’ve seen lately were tea party types at the Monckton revival wanting to use guns !
One could ask the question how much would one expect and something about the “mechanism” of distortion? But hey then you’d have to assume the commentator was intelligent. I mean INTELLIGENT ! (sorry)
Sounds about right to me, Jen.
The curious incident of nothing happening.
After three decades of brow-beating the world that catasta strofes are about to befall, the best they can so far fudge on both sides of the line [when rounded off to a whole number] is a flat line-nothing!
But it’s coming…..just you wait….it’s coming!
Yeah.
As Monckers says, just sit back and enjoy the sun.
Dear Jennifer,
The author of your post is absolutely correct on his or her observations. Any unusual minimal addition of thermal energy to the atmosphere would create a major problem to the receptors of EM because these have been built with a high precision to compensate the variations of a normal atmosphere and reduce distortion by drastic changes of the OPD and the OPL.
Thanks a lot for this post, Dr. Jennifer!!!
Hi Luke… I’m back; but don’t panic, take it easy. 😀
” this Star Twinkling is a D.I.R.E.C.T F.U.N.C.T.I.O.N. of the amount of heat in the atmosphere:”
No it’s not ! Who says it is ? What sheer stupidity … I M.E.A.N S.H..E.>>E.R S.T.U.P.It.Y
This is typical sceptic meme trash – just make up some total shit and spruik it.
What about the decelaration of SLR silly Luke? Studies around the world are starting to come to the same conclusion.
Nasif gets to say a few words at CR.
http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=8073&linkbox=true&position=1
“The dog didn’t bark” because in thermodynamics you need to calculate in degrees Kelvin, so that
a difference of 1K means ~0.3%, hardly noticeable in an already noisy environment.
Of course, that does not mean that the CO2 greenhouse effect exists.
LUKE. Any more fullstops and CAPITALS from digitap and I would have been forced to edit. But I thought he used the spectrum of options optimally to make his point. I could hear the voice. 🙂
Juliar wants to send $57 billion overseas to pay to use our own coal and at the same time export three times that tonnage so other countries can expand their industrial base and become wealthier.
Of course the carbon trading market is completely corrupt and run by criminal gangs, so flushing away our billions every year can’t be properly traced.
Also this won’t change the climate or temp by a jot but is just more corruption and fraud that will help to bleed our country dry.
Thanks to Julie Bishop for writing this informative article.
http://www.nationaltimes.com.au/opinion/blogs/the-bishops-gambit/carbon-offsets-have-already-run-out-of-credit-20110720-1hnmv.html
No change in the optical depth either. What a strange thing AGW has been.
It is not in my DNA to agree with Julie Bishop (Neville’s link above). But if Jennifer permits it here is a comment I made on an article in Climate Spectator last Tuesday (perhaps Julie was just agreeing with me?):
“No doubt there are no carbon traders in Equatorial Guinea or Kazakhstan (so far!). But why is Australia seeking half its abatement needs from overseas in the first place? If this issue is “the greatest moral challenge of all time” surely it behoves ALL countries to concentrate on reducing emissions sourced from within their own boundaries for starters? And the one inarguable source of CO2 is fossil fuel burning. Claiming to be serious about reducing atmospheric CO2 while expanding coal and gas production and exports is morally a transparent joke that even mug punters can see through. Meanwhile I still have a piece of paper in front of me detailing 25 ways to scam land based abatement schemes. And that’s without really trying. Don’t forget that any reasonable quantity of abatement credit bought will cost huge $$$$. So if we are going to rely on such abatement to reduce this country’s stated net emissions, I would much prefer this to be from the devil I know than the devil I don’t know, and from within Australia’s boundaries. At least that way, if we are being scammed, then we have some chance the $$$ being ripped off will stay in circulation within our own economy. [These comments are based on 40+ years experience in researching nutrient fluxes in woodland ecosystems]”.
The truth is that when push comes to shove none of us is prepared to damage our lifestyle – whether believer or debunker, greenie or miner, politically right or left, scientifically right or wrong. All of them VOTERS! So its bye bye Julia, hello Tony – and we are all destined to discover whether there is any difference between a rock and a hard place.
What about the elevation of these Telescopes?
They are normally high up in the mountains,where they are above the bulk of the heat motion effect.That is most pronounced near the planets surface.
Before they start construction on a new high elevation location.They first do some research with small portable telescopes,to measure atmospheric stability and observe local weather conditions.The results of the site testing is very important.I have read of such testing take months of observations.To cover a range of possible changes due to weather and to create a report with sufficient data.Because many millions of dollars are at stake.
I used to own a large portable telescope.It was a 25″ F5 Obsession Telescope.Over a 14 year period.I learned that the performance of the scope was much better when I transported to a high elevation location noted for good seeing and no light pollution from nearby cities.
Maybe someone who wants to further examine this.Can request atmosphere stability data during the site location testing and any additional data during the lifetime of the location.That has a major Telescope in operation.They maybe obtainable by the institutions that manage the observatories.
I would think that the most significant change would be in the upper levels of the atmosphere.Where most of the biggest Telescopes are located.Because the upward change at such altitudes would stand out.
Little Luke says:
“”One could ask the question how much would one expect and something about the “mechanism” of distortion?”
this Star Twinkling is a D.I.R.E.C.T F.U.N.C.T.I.O.N. of the amount of heat in the atmosphere:”
No it’s not ! Who says it is ? What sheer stupidity … I M.E.A.N S.H..E.>>E.R S.T.U.P.It.Y
This is typical sceptic meme trash – just make up some total shit and spruik it.”
So, Luke, if the atmosphere was 2K you are saying it could still be quite turbulent?? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
“The effects of the atmosphere can be modelled as rotating cells of air moving turbulently.”
“The seeing of an urban environment is usually much worse. Good seeing nights tend to be clear, cold nights without wind gusts. Warm air rises (convection) degrading the seeing as does wind and clouds. At the best high-altitude mountaintop observatories the wind brings in stable air which has not previously been in contact with the ground, sometimes providing seeing as good as 0.4″.”
From your favorite climate infrormation source:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astronomical_seeing?????
Luke, let me help you out. You are saying that in the range of historic atmosphere temperatures that the difference in temp alone makes little difference in the turbulence of the atmosphere. I guess you disagree with the warmer meme that more heat has to mean more hurricanes and more tornadoes. Glad to hear that you have absorbed at least that much sense from us deniers and sceptics. What you cannot forget is that the faster the change in heat over small distances, generally there is more turbulence. Of course little Lukey probably never wondered why those great big observatories were open to the external weather during viewing and were cold and drafty!!! Think about it Little Luke!!
Oh, and Luke, we do understand that scatter will happen even at low temps, just not as much.
Maybe someone who wants to further examine this.Can request atmosphere stability data during the site location testing and any additional data during the lifetime of the location.That has a major Telescope in operation.They maybe obtainable by the institutions that manage the observatories.
Lick Observatory, established in 1888, located a bit to the southwest of San Francisco, would be a good place to look. It’s been there a long time, pre-co2 bug a boo, and the staff (at least the curator) are friendly and accessible (at least they were when I visited back in the early 90’s).
Being a subsidiary of the University of California, might be a blessing or a curse, depending on how beholding they are to the government funds. I prefer to imagine it as a blessing as their information will be grudgingly accepted by even the most entrenched global warmer as non-partisan.
Also Pic Du Midi, established 1884, in the Pyrenees Mountains of France. Wonderful people there.
There was a point of time when the French were being castigated in the US for their objections to the invasion of Iraq. I felt obliged to reach out to our French friends, to remind them that the circus was just politics, that the bonds of respect and history between our people transcend temporary political storms. (Sappy I know, but that’s me. If I wasn’t this way, I wouldn’t be here with you.)
Anyway, my ‘we still love you, France’ message was sent to an astronomer at Pic Du Midi. Fast courteous response and genuinely appreciative of my sentiment. Didn’t make me out the sap when it would have been easy for him to do so.
These are the places I would try first.
The water cycle speeds up to remove energy from the air faster thereby offsetting the extra energy in the air from more CO2.
However the effect is pitifully small compared to naturally forced changes in the speed of the water cycle from solar and oceanic variablity.
The visible manifestation of the current speed of the water cycles is the surface air pressure distribution which shifts everything poleward for warming induced naturally or equatorward for cooling induced naturally.
This explains the top down solar mechanism:
http://www.irishweatheronline.com/features-2/wilde-weather/the-sun-could-control-earths-temperature/290.html
This explains the bottom up oceanic component:
http://www.irishweatheronline.com/features-2/wilde-weather/setting-and-maintaining-of-earth%e2%80%99s-equilibrium-temperature/18931.html
Needless to say, CO2 quantities come nowhere.
Don’t be so stupid KookyKat – it’s low water vapour, dust and urban light contamination that influences telescope location. Where’s your calculation of the magnitude of the expected effect vs reality – you don’t have one – just like you don’t have underwear. It’s just another stupid sceptic meme arm wave. Come back when you have some numbers and are not so desperate as to do your physics from wiki.
Luke said:
“it’s low water vapour …….. that influences telescope location”
Quite, and isn’t extra human CO2 supposed to have a positive feedback effect from more water vapour?
Shot in foot ?
There are measurements by satellite of IR emissions. But you can’t look at just IR or long wavelength radiation, you also have to measure albedo or reflection of short wavelength incident light. This posting by Spencer is pretty interesting. http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/04/a-response-to-kevin-trenberth/
It looks at both from an energy budget point of view. Remember, if you have more clouds there will be more short wave reflection and less IR emissions to spae. It’s the net difference that defines the energy balance. Also, in a very interesting exchange between Spencer and Trenberth on Roger Pielke’s blog in April of 2010.
http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2010/04/27/april-26-2010-reply-by-kevin-trenberth/
http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2010/04/26/roy-spencers-response-to-kevin-Trenberth-april-26-2009/
http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2010/04/26/further-comment-by-kevin-trenberth/
It’s good to read all the posts so you get a sense of the difficulty in making these measurements (you need an accuracy of better than 0.1% on the measurements and the current accuracy is 1%) and how Trenberth and Spencer can come to completely different conclusions.
I spent and evening camping in the Warrumbungles below the Siding Spring Observatory just out of Coonabarabran . It was January and on a night with no moon. At 1am I was able to boil a billy and make a cup of tea entirely by starlight!! The whole sky was chock full of stars and the milky way looked like….milk! – I’ve never seen anything like it since despite spending nights out in the central desert and the Kimberly etc.
Maybe yes, maybe no, maybe “changes as previously”.
Over the last 100 years global atmospheric temperature variations have changes, and locally the changes have been significant in some areas for certain. Whether they are outside the historic ranges now is not clear and probably can’t be clear.
A good idea for falsification of CAGW. But since CAGW is in the future, and changes as of today could be as easily be the result of “normal” shifts, this test won’t work – today. But in a few years, if Hansen/Gore/Suzuki are to be believed (not), the differences and trends will be so obvious that the astronomers WILL be able to detect them when they plot their record data.
This is part of the whole CAGW bogus story: nothing has happened out of the ordinary YET. It is still in the future. The public, the politicians don’t seem to understand that the theories still have not been shown to be uniquely correct. What the IPCC does is “settled” and how they model the atmosphere is “certain” and the select models they run have consistent results, but what they do, how they do it and how they see climate working is still unsettled and uncertain.
The difference is “yup, we’ve figured out what to do in our studies” and “yup, we’ve figured out what is going on” is significant.
Hey, now that’s a really interesting question!
Why can’t we observe the increased effects of infrared atmospheric distortion since Australia has, ahem, “warmed by 0.7c since 1960”? This might be a test for regional and global warming (if not AGW) that could be performed now independent of our hopelessly massaged t-record.
It’s always the way with a failed hypothesis. The more it lies around moldering the more implications are noticed that it couldn’t have ever been fitted to in the first instance. As the evidence mounts for a usually much more interesting reality, the more ridiculously misguided and simplistic the original hypothesis becomes until one day you wake up and say, “What were we thinking???”
Of course Wes – you’d first have to say how much distortion that would be in theory …. (sound of crickets follows). A duh.
Stephen Wilde – I knew someone would play. Well Stephen – that’s because they are low water vapour locations. hmmmmm …. more crickets …. I know it’s difficult.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K8E_zMLCRNg&feature=related
That’s the sound of curious climate scientists rushing with great moral urgency to apply for grants to rigorously test the CAGW hypothesis by any currently available means.
Thinking about it a bit more, this could be an open source project. Plenty of astronomy clubs located above and below the moist air.
Many keep detailed diaries of seeing conditions at their favorite viewing sites.
Well, James, that’s the only way it could ever happen. Something like Watt’s surface station survey…could be a real opportunity for some young hot shot to make a name for him or herself. Obviously, the “science is settled” crowd share Luke’s piercingly insightful lack of curiosity.
What about simple observation from Harry Dale Huffman?
No greenhouse effect!
http://theendofthemystery.blogspot.com/2010/11/venus-no-greenhouse-effect.html
I’m amazed how fast the debate is moving…Scafetta is being posted at Bolta.
http://benthamscience.com/open/toascj/articles/V005/74TOASCJ.pdf
Scafetta alone disproves AGW; this is probably the reason why Milne is now calling for censorship of the Australian media. I heard her on Q&A last night and have been digesting it all day; my conclusion:
The Greens are the enemy of Australia; and before you start luke, get stuffed.
Little Lukey claimed turbulence was not an issue. I showed that it is an issue (not the only one obviously). Little Lukey then had a hissy and screamed that it is dust and water vapour.
Little Lukey, you are quite correct that water vapour and dust are more of a problem. Of course, once you get to altitude with little water vapour and aerosols you STILL have to deal with the atmosphere even with it thinner, which is why they have built such fancy adaptive optics!!
See how you alarmists are Little Lukey?? It doesn’t matter how much information we find you will DENY it and change the subject!!!
Oh and Little Lukey, you should find the paper Dr. Pielke talks about here:
http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2011/07/25/comments-on-the-article-stratospheric-pollution-helps-slow-global-warming-by-david-biello/
Apparently this guy is telling us that water vapour has been DECREASING in the atmosphere. Just like the Hot Spot, another prediction bites back. So, apparently all that CO2 is NOT getting the positive feedback from Water Vapour.
Whatcha gonna do when they come for you Bad Boys Bad Boys…
Oh again Little Lukey, I have been really fed up with that atrocious back of the envelope estimation of the energy balance of the earth that claims we would be -18c or some ridiculous number like that without GHG’s. Here is the answer finally:
http://principia-scientific.org/pso/images/stories/pdfs/The_Model_Atmosphere.pdf
Some days you just can’t catch a break can you Little Lukey?
Oh yet again Little Lukey,
have you figured out yet that CO2 emits in atmospheric conditions from COLLISION?? Yeah, ain’t quite what y’all been telling us ignorant peasants. Funny thing is that y’all have also been telling us that the rest of the atmosphere DOESN’T EMIT IR because of the lack of a dipole. Funny thing is that COLLISIONS provide plenty of energy in the electron cloud to cause the other specie in the atmosphere to emit also!!! Ya see, back to that old IR Telescopy, imaging, and remote sensing I used to harp on, we couldn’t very well measure temps of Oxygen molecules with MSU if they weren’t emitting now could we???
So Little Lukey, your BackRadiation comes from everything. Kinda gets rid of the need to concentrate on limiting the plant food doesn’t it??
Ya wanna worry about something you can’t do anything about? Worry about this:
http://www.wm7d.net/hamradio/solar/
The sun sunspot and Radio Flux are undershooting the last predictions which was the fourth downward adjustment of the official prediction. The AP is staying on the low side also. This month is about the same as last month. BRRRRRRRRR!!!!
There’s a somewhat more erudite discussion of this paper on:
http://judithcurry.com/2011/07/25/loehle-and-scafetta-on-climate-change-attribution/#more-4189
Both Loehle and Scafetta have joined in at various stages
Now I expect to see quotes cherry-picked out of context here 🙂
The twinkling effect (turbulence) is a long reach from temperature or heat content.
But it is a nice indicator of how trivial CO2 effects actually are.
All utter tripe Kookykat – make with the assessment of what we should observe and stop being arm-waving denialist filth. Face it Kookers – denialist opinions are a dime a dozen. brrrr is your US heatwave. lol
You can tell when Luke knows he is losing- his ability to engage drops from small to minisucule.
Sort of like what CO2 is actually doing compared to what the believers wish it was doing.
Little Lukey the Ad Hom warrior is raging against reality as usual. Why don’t you try reading the papers?? Don’t have the ability to understand them so ask a moron like me to try and explain them? You are scraping the bottom of the barrel now Little Lukey if you need me to explain the papers to you!!
Yup, heatwaves happen don’t they Little Lukey, whether we want them or not. We had heatwaves in the arctic last year pushing those arctic temps down across the US and Europe.
Just before the heatwaves back east we were below average temps and will return to below average in about another week.The heatwave has set less than 5 all time records in spite of all the amplification the media has given it. The media has as much effect on the temperature as CO2 does. Not quite the AGW event you were wishing for??
Sorry Little Lukey, reality bites again. The US has had multiple past heatwaves worse than the current one before 1970. If you actually tried reading instead of denying you might actually find this information on the internet or in your newspapers or school or town library archives!!
Hey Little Lukey,
Is this you and your friends and associates on slide 4??
https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=explorer&chrome=true&srcid=0B2CFo8f0zV_bOTc1YTliZDktODNiMi00MDQzLWFiYmMtNTA4YzkyODNlYjZk&hl=en_GB
Keep up the good work Luke. For people who don’t feel confident in deciding themselves on scientific issues rebuttals like ” and stop being arm-waving denialist filth” should be enough to tip the balance.
What bogus drongosity – But you see Kookius Kattus – we’re supposed to be in a bone crushing Ice Age by now. Yo’all have been telling for years.
And don’t give me “the papers” nonsense Kookers – remember too much “link link” they told me. Just in you own words they said. And peer review is corrupt they told me.
Anyways back to the silly post – might we expect to see adjustments in all the telescope chicanery for ENSO and PDO too – hmmmmm – queue crickets chirping tape.
zzzzzzzzzzzzz
My new paper can be read here:
http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=8119
Enjoy.
Lukey-dookey,
It was the alarmists who declared the last ice age, not the skeptics.
Check your wiring,a nd see if they hav eordered the upgraded body for your CPU. Perhaps things are over heating a bit while you are sloshed around on the floor?
Yes indeed you are correct hunter. It was a Mr H. Sapien I believe. Even 100,000s of year ago alarmists were indeed on the money.
Biggest snowfalls seen in NZ and South Africa for a couple of decades … it’s just weather at the moment.
Within a decade it will become clear whether the solar input is all its cracked up to be, but one thing for sure the AGW alarmists will have nowhere to hide.
Natural variability rules and the average punter isn’t going to let the fkncarbonista destroy their lives on a hot air theory.
Ahh Little Lukey,
You are really confused now. I am the whacktard telling you that the ice cores are bogus. Try Velikovsky. That is a little closer to what may have happened!!! Simply put, I don’t worry about ice ages any more than I worry about the earth turning into a twin of Venus. You really need to get a grip Little Lukey. You might enjoy it more than trying to insult people.
Remember this Jennifer? 2 years is a long time – isn’t it.
http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2009/06/sea-ice-extent-now-normal-in-arctic/
Look forward to your explanation about current melting seeing it’s supposed to be a cool year.
Plenty of explanations starting to appear on other sceptic sites so lots to choose from.
Monckton says it not even happening !!!
Looks like this is the case of the heat that wasn’t because it’s buggered off to outer space.
Amazing what actual measurement can do instead of loopy climate models.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/07/26/pielke-sr-on-new-spencer-and-braswell-paper/#more-44091
Sure Brian, we’re all going to burn:
http://arctic-roos.org/observations/satellite-data/sea-ice/observation_images/ssmi1_ice_ext.png
Another good paper Joseph Postma. Thanks.
http://vidcall.com/index.php/videos/show/2090/
Cant trust the government funded scientists nor the media,and the pollies are a few sheep short in the top paddock, so I guess social media is the way to go.
I see that Goldman Sachs and Al Gore get a prominent billing… now who would have thought that.
Perhaps there is a method in Turdballs madness.
More of this barking mad fraud is rapidly falling apart. Seems the drowning polar bears story used by HIPPO Gore could be total BS and the idiot doing the research ? could be telling porkies.
BTW there are plenty of studies that prove that polar bears can swim hundreds of kilometres in the sea. Of course if bad weather comes along with very high seas for a day or three some of these bears will drown, get used to it. Just NATURE once again and NATURAL weather.
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/warmist_scientist_investigated_over_his_polar_bear_scare/
Mr. Postma,
I found your paper very interesting. It takes into excellent detail and depth the issues at which others have only scratched. Hopefully little tykes like Little Lukey will read it and actually try to understand where they left the track.
Personally I had been arguing against the ridiculous 33c for GHG’s postulated by the Alarmists, but, when people have made up their minds it takes a qualified astrophysicist to make the correct, detailed case, and I am exceedingly far from that.
Thank you for a wonderful addition to the Science and discussion.
The link to your well written paper again is here:
http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=8119
At some point deniers like Kool for Kats http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pblSU5M1d1Y has to start getting serious. So now we have another unpublished greenhouse effect denier – how tedious.
Meanwhile Crutem3 is out – and pensioner scarer and disinformation centralist Wattscrookwithme is having a sook already.
And funny the Arctic is looking a bitt soggy. Where’s that bone crushing ice age? http://rabett.blogspot.com/2011/07/get-your-bets-right-here.html
And the old Argo floaties seem to be warming after all. Sigh…
http://www.skepticalscience.com/news.php?n=798
Don’t bother arguing with sceptics just drop’em !
Thank you kuhnkat!
I will copy a couple of my comments from the Climate Realist’s link here, to help summarize my paper:
The GHE models the Earth without a night-time. The night-time obviously is where most of the cooling occurs, since there is no input heating.
In order to mathematically compensate for not including the cooling of the night-time, the model reduces the solar heating intensity by a factor of 4, thus reducing it to -18C.
At that point, the model cannot explain why it is ever warmer than -18C anywhere, and so it invents a greenhouse effect to raise the temperature.
However, the original error was in not including the night time in the model in the first place. If you actually include the night-time and day-time individually, then you can use the physically real actual solar heating intensity which is +121C at maximum, and +30C on average. These are the REAL, ACTUAL values of the solar heating, and then you don’t need to use the mathematically & artificially low value of -18C.
And then you also never need to put yourself into the situation of scratching your head over why the Sun feels so warm!
Alan Siddons recently summed it up as this:
“When a recipe says bake for an hour at 200°C, a climatologist assumes that four hours at 50 degrees will produce the same result.”
In other words, will baking your Turkey from all-sides at 50C for 4 hours produce the same result as baking it on one-side-only at 200C for one hour? Surely it will not.
In the same way, baking the Earth from all-sides at -18C will NOT produce the same physics as baking the Earth from one-side at +30C (with a maximum of 121C around the solar zenith).
I thought Alan’s summary was just perfect.
Don’t bother arguing with AGWers and Lukes, just drop’em:
http://news.yahoo.com/nasa-data-blow-gaping-hold-global-warming-alarmism-192334971.html
http://blogs.forbes.com/jamestaylor/2011/07/27/new-nasa-data-blow-gaping-hold-in-global-warming-alarmism/
Etc….
Good to see you now like your science based on a greenhouse effect. No hypocrisy for Nasif !
J Postma – what an amazing lot of denialist drivel and claptrap.
“The GHE models the Earth without a night-time” no they frigging don’t !!
Climate models do nothing of the sort. They are grid based and spatially explicit. The end and stop spreading mischief.
KuhnKat does the level of silliness of your fellow travellers ever concern you?
Little Lukey,
show us how YOU model the earth to get that -18c figure that allows the large CO2 with feedback effect hmmmm????
It was always a rather poor back of the envelope exercise. Let’s see you do it right!!! Or, you can show us where Mr. Postma got it wrong??
Little Lukey,
I should mention I admire how POSITIVE you are in your denialism with absolutely no FACTS in hand!!
By the way, when Mr. Postma referred to GHE models, I do not believe he was talking about the sloppy things out of NASA and the other IPCC houses of worship. You really should read the paper to know what you are DENYING!!!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Oh Little Lukey look!!!
I have a faint ray of hope on the Arctic front:
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/icecover.uk.php
It might not break the 2007 record after all. I am grasping onto this chart along with my guns and bibles!! Then again, NASA has release at least two reports over the years explaining how the ice level in the Arctic is controlled by winds and currents as the small amount of temperature variation is physically impossible to explain the amount of ice melt. You DO believe in physics don’t you Little Lukey??
Here is the temperature charts:
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php
Historic charts are accessible on the left if you can’t figure it out on your own.
Little Lukey,
sorry to dissapoint you one more time but you DENIERS bring it upon yourselves.
http://sealevel.colorado.edu/
Remember that PHYSICS stuff you keep swearing you believe in?? I have a difficult time correlating sea level rise shown on this chart, which has been enhanced by a new special adjustment, and is higher than the European Sat data, with your claimed ocean warming and claimed GLACIAL melts.
Remember, if you torture data long enough it WILL give you what you want!!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
PS: Don’t eat too many Skeptikal Science Rabbett Droppings. They are bad for your health and will rot your teeth!!
Well shucks – a whole 4 posts. What drongoism – but mate – mate I had to laugh – http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/07/misdiagnosis-of-surface-temperature-feedback/ and I avoid citing RC causes the locals here to spasm. But today an exception just for you.
Owned ! and severely. You really are a bunch of chicken shit dimwits aren’t you.
This educational video will help http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kuAjSlxiN84
@Luke… No hypocresy; I stand on my correct science position. Those links take you to a single purpose. AGWers and GHEers were wrong. The satellite measurements of ORL were wrong and now they are corrected. I go for evidence and true science, not GHE myth.
Spencer takes a swipe at his critics.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/07/30/fallout-from-our-paper-the-empire-strikes-back/#more-44323
Nasif, please stop being hypocritical. The article you submitted is not worth publishing nor even discussing.
(1) First, your conclusion is, “The greenhouse effect inside greenhouses is due to the blockage of convective heat transfer with the environment and it is not related to any kind of “trapped” radiation.”
This is a well-known and long established fact, see Wikipedia links:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect
Therefore, your article totally lacks any novelty.
(2) Second, you apparently have no clue about what to expect from your experiments. Common explanation of planetary GH effect involves global atmospheric temperature profile (with certain lapse rate), which is “anchored” to temperature of emission layer, for details see
http://climateclash.com/2010/11/28/g2-greenhouse-gas-effect/
The air path in your experimental box is obviously too short to absorb any significant amount of IR emission from the bottom, it must be at least 100m tall (even for 13-16um CO2 band). However, when an IR-opaque lid is used, it serves as IR interface to environment, not the bottom of your box. Therefore, when a box has a non-IR transparent lid, the bottom temperature will be determined by temperature equilibrium at the top, plus whatever lapse rate dictates at the bottom. For a 30cm box the drop in temperatures (due to lapse rate) is expected to be about 3/1000 of a degree (assuming 10K/km standard dry adiabatic lapse rate). In reality the convective stirring inside your box will be suppressed, so the “lapse rate” will be even less, giving even less expected delta T as compared to a box with totally transparent lid.
To measure the differences, you employed a kitchen grade thermometer that has an accuracy of about 6C.
( see your ref. #3, http://cemszmkpl.en.makepolo.com/productshow/4569429.html )
Obviously your instrumentation is four orders of magnitude short of necessary requirements for this kind of experiment. No wonder you got all sorts of random data unrelated to the problem at hand, and arrived to absurd conclusion.
It is unfortunate that the physics of planetary greenhouse effect requires a bit more sophistication than the 8th-grade science fair school kids can afford. This article of yours is a typical example of crackpottery and provincial pseudo science.
I alerted you about these fatal deficiencies of your work a week ago, but you ignored all the above, and still promoting your nonsense.
Speaking of Sherlock Holmes… Notwithstanding his fondness for tobacco and cocaine, the famous consulting detective was remarkably healthy. However when he fell ill one day, he complained to his friend and colleague, Dr Watson. Please forgive me if you’ve heard this story before.
Watson: Holmes, what seems to be the problem?
Holmes: Why it’s alimentary, my dear Watson. 🙂
J.Postma wrote:
“If you actually include the night-time and day-time individually, then you can use the physically real actual solar heating intensity which is +121C at maximum, and +30C on average. These are the REAL, ACTUAL values of the solar heating, and then you don’t need to use the mathematically & artificially low value of -18C.”
The above is apparent nonsense and is easily falsifiable by reality. I live in Central Texas, and we have substantial clear sky sunshine. And (can you imagine!) we have nights too. Yet the air temperature in my backyard rarely exceeds +38C even these days of end of July. Never +121C. Please also keep in mind that 70% of Earth surface is water, at it’s surface never goes much above +30C, and in most areas is at +4C only all day or night. And what about energy fluxes in polar areas, where the sun rarely shines? What you (and Alan Simmons) are missing in your reasoning is the largely unknown thermal inertia and heat capacity of objects involved in exchange of energy between absorbed SW radiation and air.
You might have some point that the real radiative interface occurs at the surface, and not at 2m of air. As such, local energy budget across the real bottom of atmosphere can be very different (the radiative fraction of it can be much higher at daytime). Therefore the meteorological air temperatures cannot be used to re-evaluate the actual integral of energy flux. However, your attack on averages is misplaced. True, with nonlinear functions as T^^4 all bold climatological averages do not make real physical sense, but there is no way one can get global statistics of SURFACE temperature (288K) close to planetary emission temperature of 255K.
I am not sure why you folks are attacking the existence of main GH effect so belligerently. The emission temperature of 255K is the result of experimental observation of intensity of insolation and experimental measurements of global albedo of our planet. So it is a sort of experimental fact. The global average of surface air temperatures is also an experimental fact, regardless if it has an usable physical meaning or not (it is not). So, what you are arguing about? It is counterproductive to argue against facts.
What is looks to me is that many “skeptical” folks confuse the effect itself with sensitivity of this effect to a parameter, to concentration of GH gases. The sensitivity is a totally different beast, and AGW alarmists have very many holes in their reasoning. Please try to regroup your energy and try to identify these holes without attacking the obvious.
Al,
your first post complains that Nasif simply reposts tired sceptic science. You then do the same for alarmist talking points. Yaaaaawn.
In your post in response to Mr. Postma you manage to ignore that he actually uses computations that DO use diurnal variation while the pseudo science you apparently support does not. Can you explain why this is?? Couldn’t you be bothered to actually read his paper to be able to make intelligent comments?
Can you explain to me why it is OK to ignore the increase in radiation with temperature during the day AND the decrease of radiation with the decrease in temperature at night in addition to the thermal mass slowing down cooling at night and slowing heating during the day??
Al,
your first post complains that Nasif simply reposts tired sceptic science. You then do the same for alarmist talking points. Yaaaaawn.
In your post in response to Mr. Postma you manage to ignore that he actually uses computations that DO use diurnal variation while the pseudo science you apparently support does not. Can you explain why this is?? Couldn’t you be bothered to actually read his paper to be able to make informed comments?
Little Lukey,
you almost got me to snort when I read the RC (does that stand for Radio Control?) comment on Dr. Spencer’s paper. They took the bait and argued models. Rational people have seen the data, looked at the new DATA presented by Dr. Spencer, and realize the model and faux senstivity numbers are beside the point. NONE of the IPCC type models can even get close to precipitation or energy flows through the system so are a lost cause until y’all wake up and stop trying to write you bias into them.
Dr. Spencer was a little silly to tray and play the model game against deniers who refuse to admit their complex conglomerations are at least a decade away from being able to function at the level that Dr. Spencer’s, and other’s, simple models have performed.
The bottom line is that the IPCC trash overestimates the temperature trend even compared to the inflated GISS temp metric. They have distorted energy fluxes based on the new OBSERVATIONS that Dr. Spencer presented, claiming no change in energy flux during increases such as El Nino’s until the peak when PHYSICS, even without the OBSERVATIONS, tell us that higher temps means higher radiation.
Basically you continue to show how your position is based on BELIEF and not REALITY. Please continue.
kuhnkat, you wrote to me:
“in response to Mr. Postma you manage to ignore that he actually uses computations that DO use diurnal variation while the pseudo science you apparently support does not.”
Mr. Postma selects as his target one of early educational models of GH effect known as “single glass slab” radiative model. Deficiencies of this most primitive model are very well known and widely discussed everywhere. Yes, in this model the boundary condition has a discontinuity, an unphysical jump. It is obvious that his conservation equation [12] is unrealistic and incomplete, because the energy flux into atmosphere includes also convective and latent terms. It is all well known. Apparently Mr. Postma is not familiar with the subject he is criticizing so belligerently. As result of his computations of known wrong model, he arrives at ridiculously high expectations for his suggested experiment with 6″ tall boxes.
Then you ask:
“Can you explain to me why it is OK to ignore the increase in radiation with temperature during the day AND the decrease of radiation with the decrease in temperature at night in addition to the thermal mass slowing down cooling at night and slowing heating during the day??”
No one ignores increases and decreases. For each daytime increase there is a nighttime decrease. Please try to familiarize yourself with concept of averages in physics, especially averages of fast oscillating periodic functions. Granted, mainstream climatology has difficulties in using averages of algebraic products of wildly fluctuating functions, no argument here. And day-night averaging can be done with more care for nonlinearity of radiation as function of temperature. However, the simple ballpark estimation of “global average temperature” seems pretty convincing and indicates the presence of basic greenhouse effect.
An which thermal mass are you talking about? No calculation is possible without knowing thermal properties of all soils and rocks and local mixing situation in oceans.
Couldn’t you be bothered to actually reacquaint yourself with scientific basics before posting so frivolously in public forums?
Al,
again you are trying to compare a simplified back of the envelope style estimation of the temperature differential between a simplified sphere and the same sphere with atmosphere including GHG’s. Are you really that dense or just being argumentative.
For instance you say:
“It is obvious that his conservation equation [12] is unrealistic and incomplete, because the energy flux into atmosphere includes also convective and latent terms.”
Umm, yeah. I thought that is what your favored computation did also. So apparently you are admitting that radiative physics ISN’T the only things at work and it isn’t realistic?
Which GCM shows us what the earth would be like as a bare sphere and with atmosphere and GHG’s?? You are familiar with this basic thought experiment you say, yet, you try and conflate what it is attempting to show with other issues. I am not even clear why you bring up the discontinuity. I guess you simply have to try and confuse the issue any way possible.
Still, after all your obfuscation you say:
“However, the simple ballpark estimation of “global average temperature” seems pretty convincing and indicates the presence of basic greenhouse effect.”
And it is solid because it leaves out part of the parameters for even the simplified earth which would reduce the alledged Greenhouse Effect to nothing?? Thanks for the lesson in confirmation bias.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Al,
Just to be very clear, you said:
“No one ignores increases and decreases. For each daytime increase there is a nighttime decrease.”
Please go back to RC or Tamino’s or SOD and ask them why that does not work. With the radiation changing on a power of 4 the decrease in radiation from the average is much smaller for the same change in temperature than the increase from the average. Using the average temperature to compute the amount of radiation then gives a much lower figure for total radiation over the 24 hour period. That is basically why this model is better than your good old -18c model. It does a better job of estimating the ACTUAL RADIATIVE STATE!
The Earth without “Greenhouse Gases” would be minus 18C – how do you explain Baghdad or Death Valley reaching 45 – 50 C ??
From Wikipedia – A blackbody in space the same distance from the sun as Earth would be 5.3 C – how does the idiot who wrote that crap explain the Moon (no gases at all let alone greenhouse ones) reaching over 120 C – source N.A.S.A. ???
Radiation is the least effective form of thermal transfer – convection and conduction beat it hands down – if radiation was so efficient why does a car motor rely on conduction by water to remove heat to a “radiator” (poor name choice – should be convector) where the heat is removed by conduction and convection – not radiation ?
Why do they put the convection in the oven ???
Do they REALLY expect you to believe that the vast bulk of the atmosphere doesn’t get hot – how do they explain hot air balloons – 0.04 % super heated CO2 ??
If the bulk of the atmosphere is as hot as the CO2 and water vapour it will also emit infra-red radiation like everything else in the Universe – how do they even detect the tiny 0.04% from CO2 ???
The truth is the whole of the atmosphere absorb thermal energy and increases in temperature during the day. During the night when the temperature can drop rapidly it is some of the heat of the atmosphere but mainly the latent heat stored by water as it evaporates that maintains a higher than otherwise temperature – you can do an experiment to verify this easily – spend some time by the seaside and some time inland far from the sea – anyone can verify inland areas cool down much more than the seaside.
The whole GHG thingie is overblown at best – the effect is miniscule – or a complete lie at worst. Take your pick !