Bishop Hill A new typology for the climate debate
Sep 15, 2012 Climate: Sceptics Climate: other This is a guest post by Lloyd Robertson.
I think we need a new typology for people who comment on climate--better than warmists vs. skeptics or any other "teams". I propose three main analytical categories:
- state of mind
- whether still learning or not
- communicating with public/media honestly or dishonestly.
For state of mind, I want to distinguish ordinary ignorance, Socratic ignorance (knowing when one doesn't know something), and knowledge.
The best combination of the three categories would be Socratic ignorance combined with some knowledge, still learning, and communicating honestly. In this category I would put your distinguished self, Steve McIntyre, and some bloggers I read including Lucia (including posts by Zeke), Judy Curry, and Pielke Jr. I would be more impressed if lukewarmers were prepared to say that much of the IPCC AR4 is not only shaky, but nonsense. Judy Curry stands out for having taken a fresh look at all this, and calling a spade a spade.
What impressed a lot of us about Climategate was the contrast between the way folks spoke in private, and the way they spoke in public. In public it was all about suppressing any admission of ignorance or uncertainty in order to maintain the dogma. In private, though, there was sometimes something like Socratic ignorance combined with some knowledge. For example, Trenberth saying on two occasions that there were important things he and his colleagues didn't know about temperature, "and it's a travesty that we don't know." Socratic ignorance, probably some ordinary ignorance, some knowledge, possibly trying to learn, communicating dishonestly. Ed Cook saying "we honestly know fuck-all about what the … [temperature] variability was like on timescales greater than a century with any certainty (i.e. we know with certainty that we know fuck-all)." On this last point, though, Cook probably realized that there was substantial paleo evidence against the warming dogma, and none to speak of in favour of it: a combination of ordinary and Socratic ignorance, not much knowledge, not trying hard to learn, communicating dishonestly.
Let's have some more fun: Trenberth again, but this time constantly in the news saying every hurricane is the beginning of Armageddon. Plain ignorance, lack of knowledge (not the field in which he's trained), not trying to learn, still communicating dishonestly in that he knows or should know better.
This raises a subtle point. If one is convinced that a person wallows in complete ignorance and folly, it is difficult to blame them for anything they say. How can they be dishonest about the truth if they really don't know anything? Of course there is the dishonesty in failing to achieve Socratic ignorance, and for a scientist, there is dishonesty in not trying to find out more, or not trying to disprove one's favourite theory.
For all I know, Lewandowsky has never known anything on any subject, including how to conduct an online survey. But doesn't even an ordinary, fairly stupid person have enough sense to be more honest about his mistakes than Lew is being?
Of course I am a skeptic, and I am giving the impression that the egregious faults are all on the other side. I suppose the skydragons, whoever they are, are plain ignorant, not trying to learn, but probably honest. I don't read them, I had never even heard of them until Judy Curry sharpened her lance against them.
Muller is probably an interesting case: impressive in his defence of McIntyre and Anthony Watts, blowing his own horn a bit too much as he confirms the mainstream view of temperature, and then going out on a limb by attributing the warming to man-made CO2. We have Michael Mann's word for it that the question of attribution is not settled, and it is certainly not as simple as Muller made out. So: on that question, plain ignorant, lacking in knowledge, and not trying hard enough to learn. On the other hand, Muller is probably always honest--perhaps to a fault given his non-Socratic belief that he is always right.
Reader Comments (106)
I suppose it's safe to say I'm a "skydragon"; an electrical engineer with a fair amount of education and experience with thermodynamics and heat transfer...and I publish the popular Slaying the Sky Dragon book. The subject is not that complicated...if object A is going to make object B hotter via radiation, then what is the most fundamental thing you should be able to say about the temperature of object A? Don't turn off your brain...think this through. Honestly, anyone with any common sense and the barest grasp of physics can recognize the pure nonsense of the human-caused global warming theory.
390PPM of an IR-resonant gas heats up nearly 1,000,000PPM of N2, O2 and Argon? Really? How does that work? For a small concentration to heat up a large concentration, that rarefied stuff must be really, really hot, eh? Little Carbon Dioxide Suns?
Over and over, you see references to the 33C greenhouse gas effect. Well, what is the distribution of this effect? Is the distribution Gaussian? What is the span of this distribution? Is it plus or minus 10%, 20% or 50%? Is it the same at the equator and at the poles?
I'm ignorant, unwilling to learn, but honest? Really? I'm not the one who sees a 33C greenhouse gas effect mentioned in a physics textbook and accepts it without knowing its basis. Where does it come from? How does it work? How can I replicate it in my living room or a lab? I'm the one who is incurious?
Interesting post I think Lloyd Robertson is maybe joining the first on the road to some studious considerations that are emerging and I think will show real value is found from the “skeptic” side rather than the “consensus” side.
I.e the consensus attempt at rationalising and normalising a current demographic as a future truth is an enormous cod scientific hooey – witness Lewandowsky.
Human discussion without the pseudo weight of peer review is the way forward.
Although I will say It isn’t perfecto to my mind but I have no real criticism. Lewandowsky pops in at the end as if it was the motivator for the whole post - maybe it would have been better noticed up front I suggest?
It seems obliquely Skydragons* are getting marginalised and noticed - I think this is a good thing. It could be further asked do they have a cogent spokesperson– and who could that be?
* where did they come from? I have been a sceptic for ten years and their apparent spontaneous reification has me thinking did they make their space and earn it or have they been given it for free?
i.e. I think they are freeloaders
AR4 is not nonsense. It has been written in a way so that, when the tide of consensus will go the other way, much of AR4 will be reinterpreted and found correct anyways.
Has anyone analysed Trenberth's Energy Budget?** It adds to the net 63 W/m^2 UP IR emission from the surface the 333 W/m^2 DOWN Poynting vector***. Yet physically the former is the difference between the UP Poynting vector and the DOWN Poynting vector, making the former 396 W/m^2.
This is black body emission from a 16 °C isolated body in a vacuum, impossible because convection and net radiation are coupled, a well-known fact in engineering, also at equilibrium sum to the input energy, 160 W/m^2. Do the sums and surface IR absorbed by the atmosphere is 5x reality. The temperature is corrected by exaggerated cloud cooling. Therefore, the positive feedback and GHG temperature rise is the artefact of incorrect heat transfer physics.
** http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/ccr/aboutus/staff/kiehl/EarthsGlobalEnergyBudget.pdf
*** http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poynting%27s_theorem [The signal from a radiometer, e,g. pyrgeometers used in climate science, is the Poynting vector. Meteorologists, and Trenberth is one, are wrongly taught this is a real energy flow; it isn't, being a measure of temperature.]
Ken, that's not how it works. A blanket colder than you makes you warmer. By your logic, that should be impossible.
AlecM -
Please could you make some tangible, physical, actual, watchable, concrete, noticeable, palpable, perceptible, engineering demonstration that we can all see and agree upon that shows your personal mental model contradicts some model we all may have mistakenly held previously?
I find it hard to believe that his Grace has allowed a guest post which discusses what labels should be applied to various people?
People are what they are, say what they say and believe what they believe, putting them in pidgeon holes serves no useful purpose....garbage post.
Sep 15, 2012 at 5:11 PM | Dung
People use labels all the time here, do you want to pretend this doesn't happen?
If it does happen then someone getting space here saying they think there are ideal labels to be applied, could (and should), be argued and discussed.
Your statement saying what should be "allowed" to be posted here is more disturbing to me than the fact this topic has been posted.
What is your argument against this post?
I really am interested.
Hi Leopard; I suggest you show my post to a professional physicist who will confirm what I have deduced; You cannot do what they have done because it violates Poynting's Theorem.
MikeN, I'm perfectly aware of how insulation "works". I put works in quotes because we need to be careful to recognize the physics of work, don't we? Regardless, insulation does not add energy to a system, right? Now, explain to me how insulation can increase the average temperature of a cyclical system (where heat is alternately applied and removed) by 33C. Is it 33C when the sun is shining and also 33C in night? I know how the 33C falls out of the Earth's apparent temperature when viewed from space. That's all very interesting, but, unless you're a climate scientist, you can't build a heat engine with that observation. A cold, rarefied gas, in series with the vacuum of space, increases the Earth's average temperature by almost 10%. Really? Even the densest person could figure out that the atmosphere can integrate temperature extremes via convection...but not do much of anything else. Air heats water to increase its average temperature. Wow. Brilliant.
It is rather unfortunate that "skydragons" are (1) not known for non-proselitising states of mind, (2) usually convinced they can teach physics to anybody on sight and (c) always trying to hijack threads.
Please stop.
Mr Leopard
I am sad and surprised that I have upset you mate?
1. I have not said or pretended that people do not apply labels.
2. I have not said what should or should not be allowed on this blog, it is not my blog.
3. The Bish is normally objective and logical and so this post surprised me.
Now I have answered your questions can you please tell me what labels add to this blog or to any rational discussion about Climate Change?
AlecM
That seems well weird. How would I be expected to pull a physicist out of my arse? Why would I need to? How is it you are at a point in your life where you narrow some rather great expectations down to a narrow chance of an anonymous personality (me) being able to pull a physicist out of their arse and them later then saying “Gee you are right”? Why not externalise outside my anonymous personality on this blog and do something otherwise noticeable to more people than can be seen here?
BTW - I am not interested in marginalising people - to exclude them – never have – never will be. In fact I notice there is a tendentious atmosphere by many charlatan types to say X or Y has been seen or said at Z there therefore Z is a bad and should be ignored. People who say this are idiots – at best.
Sorry omnologos, but just look at the facts. I suppose this puts me in the 'knowledge' category.
Sep 15, 2012 at 5:11 PM | Dung
Dunno.
When was this site just narrowed down to the requirement to host discussions only about climate change?
I admit I may have missed a mission statement at sometime...
Mr Leopard
I think maybe you are in a bad mood and so nothing is gained by continuing even though you didnt answer my question.
BTW maybe you are Mrs Leopard or even Miss Leopard in which case I apologise for my assumption.
Sep 15, 2012 at 6:53 PM | Dung
No need to apologise. And saying "Dunno" counts as an answer. Unless you are of the philosophy of a Lewandowsky survey that demands only a yes/no response? ;)
Okay, MikeN, consider this: how well does an insulating blanket work in the vacuum of space? Not silvered mylar like a space blanket, an ordinary wool blanket. Is there any possible scenario where this blanket-in-a-vacuum will increase the average temperature of an object by nearly 10%? Suppose the blanket heats up to arrive at the enclosed object's temperature. Does the blanket heat the enclosed object at this point? Is there any possibility the blanket will get warmer than the enclosed object? We have to be careful to discount any conduction effect because we agree conduction-via-atmosphere is inconsequential. We have to be careful to discount any convection effect, because convection is a dissipative, integrating effect, not a heating effect.
Let's generalize: conduction, convection and radiation are always agents of dissipation and integration.
***breaking*** SkS channels 1984 again:
Bish, sorry I know this is OT but readers should check out right away (if interested) -- survey expert Thomas Fuller had quite a detailed ongoing critique on some of the Lewandowsky STW threads, which is all suddenly being excised days later! A re-writing of thread history to delete inconvenient questions and information:
Steve McIntyre at Climate Audit:
======================================================================
Can something be both outrageous and hilarious? This is....
Now they will need to start snipping some of their loyal bots such as JBowers, whose response to a Foxgoose comment is now referring to a *future* comment (JBowers in #84 is now referring to #89 not yet made, according to the server's revised numbering scheme):
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/9445825/Palm-trees-could-grow-in-Antarctic-if-climate-change-continues-scientists-say.html
And on the same page is a link suggessting that repair the hole in the Ozone layer has shut the door and heat cant escape into space which is why the Arctic Sea Ice has melted.
Geofrey Lean this thread is about classifing Climate Skeptics .
The best thing the Media talks about is talking about the Media.
The 2 biggest News Stories today are topless pics of Kate Middleton circulating about the tabloid Media and a Youtube film insulting the prophet Mohamid enraging Muslims and their fury across the world.
So Geofrey how do you classify Climate Change Journalism
Scientific and then the Sensationalist.
The above 2 examples proves that for the main Protagonists Sensationalism always works best.
Lean is despicable and I am afraid I just turn the page when I notice his articles.
"I would be more impressed if lukewarmers were prepared to say that much of the IPCC AR4 is not only shaky, but nonsense. "
This is nonsense - illogical! You are arguing that we who are "learning", should disregard a large body of "knowledge" on the basis of a few bad apples and ineffective internal rules of the IPCC.
I am a skeptic/luke warmist, but this post is very "Wattsonian" in its spitball approach.
Sep 15, 2012 at 8:45 PM | Adrian
Sep 15, 2012 at 4:43 PM | omnologos
Good point about the request for lukewarmers to say "nonsense" about the IPCC. The IPCC process is a large variegated thing that has much that is functionally factual by accident if not design ;) It is not a conspiracy! ;)
The news management and the summaries from the IPCC are where the main focus should be I think - but then again reading RPJ's latest I wonder if I am wrong in even that estimation?
Dubito, ergo cogito, ergo sum
Lloyd Robertson, why don't you use these scales:
Those who care vs. those who do not care
Those who look to their immediate benefit vs. those who look to the future for everyone
Those who are sincere & want to do good vs. those who are paid.
Notice the way almost every sceptic we know is at the better end of each of these.
Notice also that a lot of alarmists would also be toward the "better" end of these.
I think there is some phrase like "hearts and minds"?
We should not forget that we cannot win this fight if all we think about is the mind. Sceptics have right on our as well as the facts. But we spend far too much time talking about the facts and forgetting that sceptics are good people.
Here we go, the slayers are in for it again. Yes, at least one of them does tend to be a bit melodramatic and bombard the blog comments; unfortunately the others have been tarred with the same brush over the years but they don't deserve it, particularly Alan Siddons. Has anyone here read any of his articles and his chapters in the Sky Dragon book? I think they are well worth a look. And you won't see Alan bombarding any blogs. He writes the odd article here and there on various sites when he's got something to say.
By the way Ken Koffman, you seem to be in the know. Could you tell us why at the Slayers' website Alan Siddons no longer figures in the "Meet the Authors" section?
Paradoxically a few of those on the far skeptic fringe of the debate refuse to budge from their flawed interpretation of the science, even spouting arrant nonsense in an obsessive and committed 'believer' fashion, in their quixotic mission to save the world from the CAGW folly. Thus being the mirror image of their deep green opponents. Such anti-CAGW fringe dwellers may be prone to thread bombing on skeptic blogs, in a sort of hypomania. Delusions of grandeur wouldn't be far off the mark.
At least these people have self-delusion in their defence in contrast, I believe, to some of the cynical extremists on the other side who clearly know what they are saying is false, but think it justifiable to further a political agenda. This is more akin to the 'useful idiots' strategy of Lenin, exploiting scientifically illiterate greenies and politicians.
Some of the latter can be flattered to believe that their contribution to groupthink CAGW policy-making is 'making the world a better place'. Rational (on this subject) and fully informed MPs like Peter Lilley seem to be still in the minority, although there are now definite signs that truth and common sense will prevail, I believe. I say "seem to be" because there may well be many politicians who understand that CAGW is a total crock, but are currently unwilling to speak out against the prevailing meme to avoid being pilloried or ostracised by their colleagues, thereby jeopardising their career prospects.
This was the point of the 'science is settled' mantra of about five years ago, to make it socially unacceptable for public figures to question the dogma. In Australia, for instance, in the election year 2007 a tired conservative government was bullied by the media and green lobby to agree to planning for an emissions trading scheme. Not that it did them any good to pander to the clamourers; they were expected to lose the election and did, setting the scene for the Labor/Greens' abhorrent carbon tax.
I see some misunderstandings of blankets and feeling warm or cold. I'm going to waste my next few moments trying to explain a few things about feeling warm or cold and it may not be what you have always thought.
When you feel coldness what you are sensing is the body's signature of energy leaving your skin. It is unmistakable. Same when you feel warmth except energy is entering your skin. Recall we have regulated bodies regards temperature. Blankets that are not already warmer than you don't make you warmer. They retard the rate at which energy leaves your skin. They make you not feel the cold. They do this by inhibiting air flow which is the most common means by which your skin loses energy at sensory rates.
As pointed out here blankets in a vacuum do little because there is no air movement to constrain. Then again, there is no air contact with your skin to make you feel cold, so it will depend entirely on the incoming radiant energy around you what you feel thermally in a vacuum.
At this stage, I'm siding with Ken Coffman.
Simply risible.
From and Islamic website on the subject of ignorance:
The Ulema have divided ignorance (jahl) into two types: jahl basit (simple), and jahl murakkab (complex).
Jahl basit is basic unawareness - "I do not know." This is a minor problem in the sense that it is easily remedied and replaced with knowledge given the proper steps summed up by the act of asking. Even a superlatively knowledgeable person such as Imam Malik, will - or rather, must - at times say: "I do not know" and defer the matter to those who know, by asking. Ibn `Umar would bless the day in which he admitted not to know something. For to say "I do not know" is in itself a proof of one's knowledge that one knows something and ignores many things, as the maxim goes, "`Alimta shay'an wa jahilta ashya'."
Jahl murakkab, compound ignorance, is by far the real problem. Most of what is posted on SRI is characterized by Jahl murakkab, the disease of those who say: "I do know, I do know, I do know" and they know less than nothing. Of beneficial knowledge they are completely deprived, and mostly possess useless knowledge. This is not due to the nature of their material but to the disease in their hearts, ego pushing them into denial and obduracy beyond limits of which they themselves have no idea. Wal-`iyadhu billah.
I'd say the skydragons come from a knowledge angle, as they seem to throw hard physics at the problem and stick to claims on what they know. I have no idea if their physics is sound or not, perhaps they are the least ignorant and most learned of the groups, perhaps the opposite, I couldn't make that call. Yet from what I've seen you definately got it right at least with the honest part. What would be the point of dishonesty when you're already marginalized and ignored by just about everyone? Telling lies that noone hears just seems far too futile.
Also, someone should tell Lew to change his site to snippingtomorrowsworld.org
Muller may define another catagory. A non ideologue who doesn't care about knowledge or ignorance, merely craves attention and self satisfaction.
@Ken Coffman
I know just enough thermodynamics to get my face slapped, so I might be on the wrong track, but I think it goes something like this:
◊ The earth is warmed by the sun's radiation. (There may be other factors, but I'll keep this simple for now).
◊ The earth is cooled by (amongst other things) re-emitting the solar energy that it has absorbed as radiant energy into the atmosphere and eventually, out into space.
◊ Much of the sun's radiation is short wave, and is not much absorbed by greenhouse gasses.
◊ Much of the energy emitted by the earth is long wave, and some of this is absorbed by greenhouse gasses.
◊ After the GHG molecules absorb the energy, they re-emit it in all directions. Some percentage of that secondary emmission is back toward the earth where it further warms the earth.
◊ Let's imagine a world without GHGs. As the earth absorbs solar (short wave) energy and emits (long wave) energy, an equilibrium is reached at a temperature t. In the day time, obsorbtion of solar energy is high, so t is higher. At night, less solar energy, so t may reduce. Clouds, particular matter, etc. may also change the equilibrium.
◊ Now reinstate the GHGs. Some of the short wave energy emitted by the earth is absorbed by the GHGs and emitted back towards the earth. This increases the amount of energy absorbed and moves the equilibrium point such as to increase t.
The above is, of course, a huge simplification of the process. However I think it is consistent with thermodynamics.
Am I wrong?
.
I'm not sure an article this phsycho babble stuff is doing justice to this blog. To me it's simple thee are two camps, those that believe human emissions will cause catastrophic warming and this who don't. If the former weren't making a grab for power of the lives of the people the latter would be as interested in them as they are in troofers. Why all the introspection?
Unfortunately here are 3 camps:
* Those who believe man is doing harm, or who believe the extrapolated trends.
* Those who question the detail of the arguments from the first group.
* Those who argue that they have discovered a lie in the basic explanation of the mechanism used by group 1.
Group 3 are a distraction. It's likely that the GHG theory has some imperfections, but to argue through logic that so much of thermodynamics is wrong seems to be taking us back about 2500 years. Many things in physics are not intuitive (I'm too far from my degree to remember examples, but I do remember struggling with radiative equilibrium equations). The reason for a strongly developed formal framework for the maths is to avoid ambiguity which so easily confounds the logical analysis. I would argue that we have extensive experimental data on the behaviour of insulation in space - it's an issue for every satellite.
Group 3 ought to realise that if there was an obvious weakness in the grand plan, we would have noticed it - unless they think we're all in on the plan except them???
Trying to follow the slayers arguments, and I may be out on a limb here, it struck me that if they are correct, there should be no differences in the adiabatic lapse rate between two given atmospheric concentrations of Co2 Ceteris paribus.
Surely this is measurable?
John in France: I'm happy to discuss privately my interaction with Mr. Siddons, but it won't be very satisfying, because I don't know much about him and my interaction with him, other than him calling me stupid, has been something close to zero. He has good and interesting insight into how IR radiation "works". I don't know anything about the "contributor" issue you mention.
Activists get away with remarkable misinformation about radiation because a lot of people consider the subject arcane and weird and shut down their capable minds. Baring exothermic chemical and nuclear reactions (I have yet to hear anyone claim these things are at work in our cold, rarefied atmosphere), the "desire" of mother nature is simple enough: her forces and mechanisms act to minimize differences--to integrate and distribute and diffuse and dissipate.
What can a CO2 molecule do? As stated above, for one thing, it can "convert" certain narrow bandwidths of directional (outgoing) IR energy into omnidirectional energy. Thus, it can slow down the rate of outgoing energy in those bands. However, in the day/night cycle timescale this happens quickly. There will be a distribution of the lag, but the central distribution will be no longer than a few milliseconds. So, is this meaningful from an average temperature POV? No, it isn't. It will decrease the peak temperature immeasurably slightly and it will increase the valley temperature immeasurably slightly. It will have no meaningful effect on the average. Period. It can't. It won't. It doesn't.
With such amazing insulating properties claimed for CO2, you'd think window manufacturers would use it instead of Argon or Krypton. But, they don't. They tried it--it didn't work. Academic climate scientists can make all kinds of remarkable claims, but they are trumped by reality every time they are forced to confront it. They are forced to confront reality far too rarely for my taste.
@Ken Coffman
I'm reaching beyond my competence here, so I may be talking rubbish. However I would have thought it to be more complex than you paint it.
We don't have a single thin layer of CO₂ but rather a large 3-D volume. What is emitted from one CO₂ molecule may well be re-absorbed by another. Energy may "bounce" about repeatedly and be re-absorbed, then re-emitted by the earth many times.
I don't know the total magnitude of the effect caused by CO₂, it may still be very small, but I cannot help feeling that it is not nearly so simple as you report it to be.
Yes, of course, Michael, the details are complex and the math can be as elaborate as you care to make it, but I urge you: please don't discount your own personal analysis, intuition, simplification and generalization. Every huckster in the world will take advantage of you by making the analysis seem overly complex and arcane. It helps to keep in mind, as long as we're not talking about an exothermic chemical or nuclear reaction, that conduction, convection and radiation always act in the same direction: to integrate, dissipate, diffuse, disperse, etc. If you're curious about the overall thermodynamic effect of radiation between points A and B, then imagine a conductive thermal path between A and B. The action will be exactly the same, though the rate will be different.
It's true that collisions slow down the average outgoing velocity of IR photons and collisions are very prominent near the Earth's surface. That's why the delay distribution is slow from a "light-speed" POV. Milliseconds are a huge amount of time compared to how quickly an IR photon would escape the Earth system without collision. From the photon POV, the delay is enormous. However, from a day/night cycle POV, a few milliseconds are miniscule.
If you know anything about feedback theory, what is the fundamental requirement for positive feedback? The feedback has to be in phase, right? What would the outgoing delay have to be for outgoing IR to return in phase with the day/night cycle? How many hours? Do you think the energy carried by the average outgoing IR photon is delayed for hours in our atmosphere?
It would be easy to shut me up. Simply point to a single example where the net effect of passive radiation is contrary to conduction. Or, heat an iron ball up to 100C, then remove the heat source and do anything you want with a mirror or insulation to mimic things the atmosphere can do...what can you do to increase its temperature to 101C? If you remember anything about superposition from your college days...it is your friend. Superposition is easy enough...if you want to know the overall effect of a collection of independent influences, you can analyze each effect individually and sum them together.
Ken Coffman:GHG thermal radiation from the lower atmosphere reduces emissivity in that wavelength interval at the adjacent IR emitter, the Earth's surface, standard heat transfer theory clearly forgotten by most. You go back to Kirchhoff to understand it. The black body claim is absurd. The GHE is the rise in temperature of the surface as emissivity falls. There is still side-band emission.
I'm still with Ken Coffman.
Well hello. Fellow Slayer...btw, we're called "Slayers", not "Sky Dragons". Big difference. We slay the sky dragons.
For those of you who would like more information on our criticism of GHG/GHE theory, you may read my papers listed chronologically below. Be forewarned you will be getting into a lot of technical stuff and logical analysis, but you should enjoy it.
This was the beginning of my public foray into the matter:
http://www.ilovemycarbondioxide.com/pdf/Understanding_the_Atmosphere_Effect.pdf
This was my first attempt to formalize everything I said in the previous:
http://principia-scientific.org/publications/The_Model_Atmosphere.pdf
This is a summary of the previous works which I thought might be more accessible for the layman, and much shorter:
http://principia-scientific.org/publications/Copernicus_Meets_the_Greenhouse_Effect.pdf
A lot of this material was my own contribution on the philosophical objections:
http://principia-scientific.org/index.php/latest-news/the-three-hyper-real-paradoxes-of-global-warming.html
Starting below the headline "The True Folly of Green Power" is where I explain that the entire philosophy of climate alarm and greenie environmentalism is fundamentally anti-human:
http://www.ilovemycarbondioxide.com/dreamers.html
I won't be able to return here to debate anyone because I am too busy working on a new paper.
Best regards...
Sep 16, 2012 at 4:55 PM | Ken Coffman
"Yes, of course, Michael, the details are complex and the math can be as elaborate as you care to make it .. "
If you were a good EE (probably not RF/Antennas though, just a lumped circuits man?) you might work up a simulation using the NEC2 engine or maybe Ansoft HFSS and run a 'test case' and model the CO2 molecule with like distribution/spacial placement in the atmosphere and get some 'numbers' representative of EM propagation of the key CO2 absorption/transmission frequencies/wavelengths ...
_Jim
If you were a good EE (probably not RF/Antennas though, just a lumped circuits man?) you might work up a simulation using the NEC2 engine or maybe Ansoft HFSS and run a 'test case' and model the CO2 molecule with like distribution/spacial placement in the atmosphere and get some 'numbers' representative of EM propagation of the key CO2 absorption/transmission frequencies/wavelengths ...
_Jim
Sep 17, 2012 at 3:31 AM | _Jim>>>>>
Sounds interesting.
You seem to know about these simulators so why not model it for us if you can pin the parameters down with accuracy.
Or you could simply rely on the intuitive fact that a few milliseconds is a lot less than a day and, as any engineer can tell you, positive feedback must be greater than unity and in phase, and if only slightly greater than unity massive system hysteresis will result - not observed on a global scale.
I only have O levels.
MikeN wrote: "Ken, that's not how it works. A blanket colder than you makes you warmer. By your logic, that should be impossible."
If a cold blanket makes you warmer, then you could use a blanket to defrost your dinner.
MichaelJ wrote: "◊ After the GHG molecules absorb the energy, they re-emit it in all directions. Some percentage of that secondary emmission is back toward the earth where it further warms the earth."
If that were true, a humid place (rainforest) would be warmer than a dry place (desert) (for the same incoming solar radiation).
You decide.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barcelos,_Amazonas
http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=Barcelos+amazonas&num=10&hl=en&site=imghp&tbm=isch&gs_l=img.3..0l2j0i24l8.2563.8069.0.10019.10.8.0.2.2.0.532.2460.1j2j1j0j3j1.8.0…0.0.l9hxb0L6cLs&oq=Barcelos+amazonas
http://www.wunderground.com/history/station/82113/2012/5/20/MonthlyHistory.html
http://www.climate-charts.com/Locations/b/BZ82113.php
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adrar,_Algeria
http://www.google.co.uk/search?num=10&hl=en&site=imghp&tbm=isch&source=hp&q=adrar+algeria&oq=Adrar&gs_l=img.1.1.0l2j0i24l8.1151020.1152708.0.1155877.5.5.0.0.0.0.462.1453.1j0j2j0j2.5.0…0.0.PUZtKMJOlKc
http://www.wunderground.com/history/airport/DAUA/2012/5/20/MonthlyHistory.html
http://www.climate-charts.com/Locations/a/AL60620.php
For May 2012, Barcelos, Brazil (Lat: 1 South) Elevation ~ 30 meters (100 ft)
Temp: monthly min 20C, monthly max 33C, monthly average 26C
Average humidity 90%
For May 2012, Adrar, Algeria (Lat: 27 North) Elevation: ~280 metres (920 feet)
Temp: monthly min 9C monthly max 44C, monthly average 30C
Average humidity around 0%
It looks to me like humidity _reduces_ maximum temp and average temp, and increases minimum temp. ie. it does not _warm_ the Earth, it cools and moderates
the Earth.
As I said a huge problem with the skydragons is their absolute disregard for others and manners. This thread as many others has been hijacked with many comments that have zilch to do with the original post.
I presume a mark of loony-ness is an inability to understand where one's zeal is just too much for others to bear. This destroys not only the meaning but also the interest in whatever physics the skydragons would have anything interesting to say about.
I will recommend the Bish to take care and reject future thread hijackings because spam isn't just what Zed writes.
There are various ways to detect a "sky dragon" in blog comments.
The most obvious is that it makes absolutely no difference to them what anyone else says. Other commenters will be seen to try and explain their point of veiw, and to alter their responses, and even opinions, dependant on what is said to them. A sky dragon on the other hand will never admit to an error, and will never be seen to learn anything.
Another sky dragon attribute is hauling out references to completely irrelevant and little used physical theorems, and then littering their posts with these references, with names like Poynting and Prevost and others to try and make it look like they know what they're talking about.
They often introduce quite insane analogies as strawmen to try to "prove" a point - things as truely mad as pretending that if the green house effect existed, then coffee in the thermos flask would get hotter all by itself.
Finally, they often change their handles - the most rabid rarely keep the same handle for more than a few posts, as they know that once recognised they will be ignored. Hilariously, they often introduce a new handle by agreeing with their previous incarnations during the transition period.
"If a cold blanket makes you warmer, then you could use a blanket to defrost your dinner."
Oh dear. If you really can't see the enormous logical hole in this, there is little point in anyone trying to explain.