Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
I have posted comments objecting to Lukewarmist nonsense on WUWT
#1
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/05/07/vi...ent-655463

Amazingly, WUWT are still promoting the "greenhouse effect" with this nonsense.

Ira Glickstein:-

"Objection #2: The Atmosphere, which is cooler than the Earth Surface, cannot warm the Earth Surface.

Answer #2: The Second law of Thermodynamics is often cited as the source of this falsehood. The correct interpretation is that the Second Law refers to net warming, which can only pass from the warmer to the cooler object. The back-radiation from the Atmosphere to the Earth Surface has been measured (see lower panel in the above illustration). All matter above absolute zero emits radiation and, once emitted, that radiation does not know if it is travelling from a warmer to a cooler surface or vice-versa. Once it arrives it will either be reflected or absorbed, according to its wavelength and the characteristics of the material it happens to impact.

Objection #3: The Atmospheric “Greenhouse Effect” is fictional. A glass greenhouse works mainly by preventing or reducing convection and the Atmosphere does not work that way at all.

Answer #3: I always try to put “scare quotes” around the word “greenhouse” unless referring to the glass variety because the term is misleading. Yes, a glass greenhouse works by restricting convection, and the fact that glass passes shortwave radiation and not longwave makes only a minor contribution. Thus, I agree it is unfortunate that the established term for the Atmospheric warming effect is a bit of a misnomer. However, we are stuck with it. But, enough of semantics. Notice that the Earth System mean temperature I had to use to provide 240 Watts/m^2 of radiation to Space to balance the input absorbed from by the Earth System from the Sun was 255 K. However, the actual mean temperature at the Surface is closer to 288 K. How to explain the extra 33 K (33ºC or 58ºF)? The only rational explanation is the back-radiation from the Atmosphere to the Surface."

I say Nonsense! I have posted two comments where I destroy points 2) and 3) with reference to the Joe Postma paper. My posts are under the name of "John of Kent" on WUWT. BTW, point 1) was not even worth bothering with.

""I urge everyone at WUWT to read this brilliant paper by physicist Joe Postma ;

http://www.globalwarmingskeptics.info/fo...hp?aid=327""

I hope a few folks over there download the paper and start to understand the falsehood of these pro Greenhouse articles.
Reply
#2
The name John of Kent does not show in that link to WUWT.

Link indicates post was accepted. So whats up with that?

OK, my comment appears to be accepted.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/05/07/vi...ent-655477


Environmentalism is based on lies and the lies reflect an agenda that regards humanity as the enemy of the Earth. - Alan Caruba
Reply
#3
(05-08-2011, 04:14 AM)Richard111 Wrote: The name John of Kent does not show in that link to WUWT.

Link indicates post was accepted. So whats up with that?

OK, my comment appears to be accepted.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/05/07/vi...ent-655477

My comments are there now Richard!

Reply
#4
Yup!! There it is. Must have been in the moderators queue when I went to look.
Been caught myself. Put a comment in reply and find later 10 or more comments between me and the comment I had refered to.

Seems like Ira is getting a hard time over there. Sitting on the fence is not going to gain support in this subject.
Environmentalism is based on lies and the lies reflect an agenda that regards humanity as the enemy of the Earth. - Alan Caruba
Reply
#5
Careful. You'll become as "popular" there as I am....

NOT.
Reply
#6
I'm glad to see some of the readers at WUWT have read the Joe Postma paper!

And from a quick scan, no-one has been able to successfully defend the greenhouse theory on that thread....
Reply
#7
Here is a interesting PDF Cementafriend posted:

CO2 and climate change
It is our attitude toward free thought and free expression that will determine our fate. There must be no limit on the range of temperate discussion, no limits on thought. No subject must be taboo. No censor must preside at our assemblies.

–William O. Douglas, U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1952
Reply
#8
Another interesting comment that contained this link below:

Politics and the Greenhouse Effect
It is our attitude toward free thought and free expression that will determine our fate. There must be no limit on the range of temperate discussion, no limits on thought. No subject must be taboo. No censor must preside at our assemblies.

–William O. Douglas, U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1952
Reply
#9
Here is another one:

THE “GREENHOUSE EFFECT”
AS A FUNCTION OF ATMOSPHERIC MASS
It is our attitude toward free thought and free expression that will determine our fate. There must be no limit on the range of temperate discussion, no limits on thought. No subject must be taboo. No censor must preside at our assemblies.

–William O. Douglas, U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1952
Reply
#10
(05-09-2011, 05:39 AM)Climate Realist Wrote: I'm glad to see some of the readers at WUWT have read the Joe Postma paper!

And from a quick scan, no-one has been able to successfully defend the greenhouse theory on that thread....

Yes.Even Joel Shore avoids direct comment on the Postma paper.

Smile
It is our attitude toward free thought and free expression that will determine our fate. There must be no limit on the range of temperate discussion, no limits on thought. No subject must be taboo. No censor must preside at our assemblies.

–William O. Douglas, U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1952
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)