Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
P/4 - Why it is THE issue that destroys GH and AGW.
#81
OK, it seems my earlier post did not open peoples eyes as I had hoped it would.
I will try another "tack", that I hope resonates more.

Joe Postma's first paper explained that astronomy represents the sun as a 2 parallel plane model (THIS IS NOT A COMPUTER CLIMATE MODEL).
This is OK for the sun as it is a star, it is the same all over.
It is a, easily drawable on 2D paper simplified diagrammatic explanation or, model.
However earth being a planet receives solar input over a hemisphere, so half of the planet is not lite, there are two completely different halves to the whole.
This means that as the planet rotates as well we have day and night at any given location.
To model the earth as a 2 parallel plane model would be incorrect, it is not the same all over, and has two completely different halves, and it rotates.
Therefore P/4 should only be used for an overall whole ensemble average, and virtually nothing else.

As has hopefully been amply demonstrated on this thread, GH and K&T does treat earth as a 2 parallel plane model.

Joe does not really mention P/4 after that because he has already shown that P/4 is not applicable, GENERALLY in earth's case
BECAUSE EARTH IS A PLANET, NOT A STAR......

Joe Postma's first paper then continued with various examples using P and or P/2 mostly.
Many here in this thread seem to have grasped the examples Joe used, but not that he did not mention P/4 again really....

In effect, by thinking it is OK to apply P/4 GENERALLY, then you are agreeing with GH and AGW.
How then can you understanding and be agreeing with Joe's examples / first paper.....
The recent Milford Haven weather thread in this forum is an excellent example of Joe's approach, from real life, ie, actual observations..
Although the station itself does not realise it....LOL.

Does it not occur to you there may be a dichotomy in your understanding of what is supposed to be being discussed.....
P/4, as compared to Joe's examples and Milford Haven weather are mutually exclusive,
they can not both be right...
This was to my mind the whole point of Joe's first paper and the approach it describes.

I would greatly appreciate some posters taking a more relaxed attitude to their language, particularly when directed at myself, I specifically mean Climate Realist and Richard T Fowler.
What you have apparently seen as repeating by me, none science by me, and libelous by me,
is not,
it is your misunderstanding of the issue at hand, that is the problem.
This is the cause of your misinterpretations of my replies to your points raised,
none of which so far hold water in my opinion.

Climate Realist in particular keeps on going on about computer climate models,
I have stated so many times now why I am not on about computer climate models I have not a clue how to reason with you.
You are being, at best, unreasonable, and missing the points and issues raised completely.

Furthermore CR, I resent the "invoke" comment you made, are you being demeaning, insulting, or just condescending towards me?
I have been involved with Joe's first paper and his second paper before they were released.
The second paper may well have a plot or two of mine, or / and one that Joe and I worked on together, the final decision is in Joe's hands completely.

In the end Joe's first paper showed P/4 is not generally applicable, yet no one seems to realise that.
On this thread I have tried to expand upon the reasons and why P/4 is not generally applicable.

On this day of all days, in 2011, it would be nice to think this thread might help some more people to see a more INDEPENT way,
INDEPENDENCE from the presently dominant, (and false) climate science "consensus" if you like,
to view and think about our planet's climate system, and how it actually may work.

NB - To date I have not moderated a single thing in this thread, I do not intend to moderate anything in the future either, AND,
I have specifically asked SST for no posts to be moderated in this thread.
I want them to remain as evidence of people's thinking and understanding at the time..
The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed
(and hence clamorous to be led to safety)
by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.

H. L. Mencken.  

The hobgoblins have to be imaginary so that
"they" can offer their solutions, not THE solutions.
Reply
#82
Hello Darkness, my old friend,
I've come to talk with you again,
Because a vision softly creeping,
Left its seeds while I was sleeping,

And the vision
That was planted in my brain
Still remains
Within the sound

Of silence.




In restless dreams I walked alone
Narrow streets of cobblestone
'Neath the halo of a street lamp
I turned my collar to the cold and damp

When my eyes were stabbed
By the flash of a neon light
That split the night
And touched the sound

Of silence.




And in the naked light I saw
Ten thousand people, maybe more
People talking without speaking
People hearing without listening

People writing songs
That voices never share
And no one dare
Disturb the sound

Of silence.




"Fools," said I, "You do not know!
Silence like a cancer grows.
Hear my words that I might teach you.
Take my arms that I might reach you."

But my words
Like silent raindrops fell
Pell-mell
And echoed in the wells

Of silence.




And the people bowed and prayed
To the neon "god" they'd made
And the sign flashed out its warning
In the words that it was forming

And the sign said "THE WORDS OF THE PROPHETS
ARE WRITTEN ON THE SUBWAY WALLS
AND TENEMENT HALLS
AND WHISPERED ...

IN THE SOUNDS...

of silence."




-- Paul Simon.

February 1964.


(I am not a liberal. But this is a case of a stopped clock being right.)

RTF
Shhhhh!
Reply
#83
The sound of silence...
[Image: OstrichAGW.jpg]

Shhhh, or else.
The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed
(and hence clamorous to be led to safety)
by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.

H. L. Mencken.  

The hobgoblins have to be imaginary so that
"they" can offer their solutions, not THE solutions.
Reply
#84
(07-04-2011, 01:21 PM)Derek Wrote: Shhhh, or else.

By God, is he finally starting to understand me?

I will pray.

RTF
Reply
#85
There are many instances where liberals get something right and also plenty of moments where conservatives get things wrong.

It is similar to:

"The race is not always to the swift nor the battle to the strong, but that's the way to bet."

Wink


(07-04-2011, 07:26 AM)Richard T. Fowler Wrote: Hello Darkness, my old friend,
I've come to talk with you again,
Because a vision softly creeping,
Left its seeds while I was sleeping,

And the vision
That was planted in my brain
Still remains
Within the sound

Of silence.
.
.
.


IN THE SOUNDS...

of silence."




-- Paul Simon.

February 1964.


(I am not a liberal. But this is a case of a stopped clock being right.)

RTF
Shhhhh!


Derek,

Just because you keep repeating the mantra of P/4 does not make it so. Yes it is true that only half of the Earth is getting energy from the Sun at any (and every) moment and the other half is only losing energy.

Your argument seems to be that the 341 W/m2 should be half because of the night portion of the day. The problem with your argument is that the energy balance as a whole is a one day average for a 1m^2 portion of the Earth's surface. Each meter of Earth is not losing energy in the manner described by KT.

The KT model is based on all the energy in the entire system divided by the surface area of the Earth. In fact it could be more accurately described as the average yearly energy over a period of a decade (or two for different energy flows) than then has the time component removed.

I have in painstaking detailed gone over the 1997 and the 2008 versions of the KT energy balance. The overall method is the most practical way to describe the system. Even if the definition were to be changed to describe it the way you want it to be described, it would simply result in changing all the numbers to re-align to the new "day/night" definition.

Reply
#86
Thank you inconvenient skeptic.

The problem is that a 2 parallel plane model should not be used in the first place.
It is too much of a simplification, and looses any relevance.
This is demonstrated by the issues I have tried to illustrate with P/4.

Elsewhere (Climate Realists blog / website actually) such a simple model is also becoming obviously way too simple a model approach to represent the sun as well.
How would such a model then supposed to be able to cope with or represent earth. It is insane.
Maybe that is why CR has retracted from this thread.

Please note the facts of this thread are that,
GH and AGW rely on a 2 parallel plane model, and that
a simple 2 parallel plane model is not suitable to represent earth's climate system.
Furthermore, P/4 is used to give the impression, unphysically, that such a model can represent earth's climate system.
Such a simplified approach can not represent earth's climate system, and specifically with the issues related to P/4 I have raised.

I would further note that RTF, has not discussed, and has deliberately avoided discussing these facts,
as I said he would.

It is inevitable that when a change of paradigm is involved discussion is virtually impossible,
and that is why this thread has been as it has, as I expected it would.
I have tried to explain why debate would result when paradigms change on this thread.

It is literally a case now that mainstream skeptics are the biggest supporters of AGW
because of their approach to NOT questioning the validity of the GH effect failed hypothesis,
which they defend...........
In fact it seems they defend GH more vigorously than AGW does.
Ironic to say the least.

I will post a better reply in the next day or so, but at present I am still on shift, so please accept my apologies for such a brief reply.

NB - Inconvenient Skeptic - How did you incorporate day and night into K&T?
Did you include, as earth is a grey body,
absorption, emissivity, work done, life, etc, etc, etc...????????
(07-04-2011, 01:43 PM)Richard T. Fowler Wrote: I will pray.

RTF

It won't help, if I could be described as believeing in anything, it would be that
I "BELIEVE" in nature, and the numerous natural cycles we do not understand, and some we do not know of, as of yet.

I most certainly will not believe in a GH effect that there is absolutely no proof for.

In days of old they drowned witches. Yes they did, but back then the earth was supposedly flat.
It did not matter if you were drowned in the ducking stool, you may have been innocent, but you were dead.
If by some miracle of holding your breath long enough you survived the ducking chair, then you were a witch and burnt at the stake.
THE POINT of this was not if you were a witch or not, it was that you were dead either way if you were accused of being a witch by those in power.
It was intimidation - literally, Shhh, or else.

Yes, RTF, I do understand you, but no I will not Shhh.

The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed
(and hence clamorous to be led to safety)
by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.

H. L. Mencken.  

The hobgoblins have to be imaginary so that
"they" can offer their solutions, not THE solutions.
Reply
#87

[Image: Slide1-1.jpg]

[Image: Slide1b.jpg]

[Image: Slide7-1.jpg]

[Image: Slide8.jpg]
The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed
(and hence clamorous to be led to safety)
by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.

H. L. Mencken.  

The hobgoblins have to be imaginary so that
"they" can offer their solutions, not THE solutions.
Reply
#88
Hello All,
I have decided that rather than try to cover all fronts at once on one thread, and that the subject area this thread covers is so important and so central
to understanding the false basis of GH and hence AGW to deserve it's own subforum.
I asked SST to create such a subforum, and he kindly has. THANK YOU SST.

Therefore I have started several new threads within this subforum to cover topics that have arisen.
Please feel free to start your own specific subject areas related threads to this thread I may have missed, or not realised need further explanation.
If you feel a bit shy about starting a thread in this subforum, then please send me a PM and I will start one for you if need be.

The threads in this subforum WILL BE STRONGLY MODERATED BY ME, FOR DISCUSSION ONLY.
Any other "types" of replies in the threads will simply be deleted.

This particular thread will be left as is, and not moderated by myself at all, as has been the case to date.
The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed
(and hence clamorous to be led to safety)
by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.

H. L. Mencken.  

The hobgoblins have to be imaginary so that
"they" can offer their solutions, not THE solutions.
Reply
#89
(07-05-2011, 01:07 PM)Derek Wrote: The problem is that a 2 parallel plane model should not be used in the first place.


I have already said as much several times with respect to a single plane, when there is the ability to do more.

For the record, I also think the same about two parallel planes, i.e. one for surface and one for atmosphere.


(07-05-2011, 01:07 PM)Derek Wrote: Maybe that is why CR has retracted from this thread.


Pure speculation, as far as I can see. Also a disparagement of motive, a/k/a personal attack.


(07-05-2011, 01:07 PM)Derek Wrote: Please note the facts of this thread are that,
GH and AGW rely on a 2 parallel plane model, and that
a simple 2 parallel plane model is not suitable to represent earth's climate system.
Furthermore, P/4 is used to give the impression, unphysically, that such a model can represent earth's climate system.
Such a simplified approach can not represent earth's climate system, and specifically with the issues related to P/4 I have raised.

I would further note that RTF, has not discussed, and has deliberately avoided discussing these facts,
as I said he would.

"Fact" number two has been discussed ad nauseam by me and others, on this thread and others.


(07-05-2011, 01:07 PM)Derek Wrote: It is literally a case now that mainstream skeptics are the biggest supporters of AGW
because of their approach to NOT questioning the validity of the GH effect failed hypothesis,
which they defend...........
In fact it seems they defend GH more vigorously than AGW does.


Ironic to say the least.

When have I defended GH???? I have my belief about what various models do and do not do. I have repeated seemingly endlessly that such does not mean that there has to be a GH effect. I have even given you credit for helping to open my eyes to this fact. I said, "thanks in part to you". You said nothing in response.


(07-05-2011, 01:07 PM)Derek Wrote: I most certainly will not believe in a GH effect that there is absolutely no proof for.

Neither will _I_, since I have learnt the state of the evidence, which began with my reading your "P/4" presentation.

It beggars belief that you will not still accept this about me.


(07-05-2011, 01:07 PM)Derek Wrote: It was intimidation - literally, Shhh, or else.

Yes, RTF, I do understand you, but no I will not Shhh.

I was not saying "shhh" to you, and as sure as the day is long, I certainly wasn't saying "shhh, or else."

Derek, you have not understood me at all, and this is truly a shame.

At this point, I have to say that I hardly understand you either, as far as your most recent comments on this thread. This is all quite unfortunate.

I have been trying to comply with your request for more measured language. I wish I could say that I feel that you are meeting the same standard yourself. But you are not.

I am gratified that there is no one else on this forum who has treated me in the same or a similar way. I wish that I could post on other subjects that are under discussion here at GWS, but it has become painfully clear that the attacks will not stop if I do that. No matter how much I may agree with others including Derek, it appears that I will continue to be used as a punching bag. For this reason, I do not feel comfortable continuing to post, though I reserve the right to continue to respond to personal attacks on me.

Again I repeat: if the attacks stop, I will stop defending myself against them.

RTF
Reply
#90
Quote:I am gratified that there is no one else on this forum who has treated me in the same or a similar way. I wish that I could post on other subjects that are under discussion here at GWS, but it has become painfully clear that the attacks will not stop if I do that. No matter how much I may agree with others including Derek, it appears that I will continue to be used as a punching bag. For this reason, I do not feel comfortable continuing to post, though I reserve the right to continue to respond to personal attacks on me.

If you have legitimate complaints.You need to REPORT them.

The Report button,or by a PM.



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
#91
Derek, I have explained in a previous post why I have ducked out of this thread:-

"BTW, I really am going to drop out of this thread unless Derek comes up with a better explanation of his idea that I can follow. At the moment it simply does not make sense to me."

I've read and understand your P/4 argument, but it simply does not make any sense, it is confused and repetitive. And repetition does not make a statement true. That is akin to propaganda. I'm also not wishing to debate, I have discussed your theory and have now chosen to move on to more worthwhile discussions. My feeling from your posts Derek, with all due respect is that P/4 is a red herring and a straw man, too easy for alarmists to burn down. I have already explained the issues I have seen in your P/4 theory in previous posts. No need to repeat anything again

And K-T diagrams DO form the basis for computer climate models! I'm still ducking out, just explaining why i ducked out of this thread.
"Elsewhere (Climate Realists blog / website actually) such a simple model is also becoming obviously way too simple a model approach to represent the sun as well.
How would such a model then supposed to be able to cope with or represent earth. It is insane.
Maybe that is why CR has retracted from this thread."

No, I retracted from this thread because I have agreed that we disagree on your P/4 idea. It does not mean that I agree with your idea.

Oh, and by way of clarification, although i am Climate Realist on the CR blog and other pages, that blog is not mine! It is run by Gabriel Rychart (sorry for the spelling!). The CR blog was called "CO2 Sceptics" when I joined as "Climate Realist", then after about a year co-incidentally changed its name to Climate Realist upon the suggestion of Piers Corbyn.
Reply
#92
(07-17-2011, 02:18 PM)Sunsettommy Wrote: If you have legitimate complaints.You need to REPORT them.

The Report button,or by a PM.

Sunsettommy,

Apparently, you have not fully understood me, either. I have tried very hard to communicate to you, including in a PM which you did not answer. Thus it is not clear to me that you actually received the PM.

What you are not fully understanding is that I am trying to show good will by _not_ reporting legitimate complaints. It is called "detente". It is an attempt to demonstrate that I am not here to try to cause trouble. To report a complaint formally can be seen as an escalation and thus as an invitation of more combat. To let it go is to offer peace. I shouldn't think it's too difficult to realize.

I had thought that Derek and I had reached a detente of sorts at the time Derek first addressed me in June at tAV.

But since then, every time I have answered him cordially, he has subsequently attacked me.

Now, I don't care if you delete this entire post, provided you read it first and you really want it deleted. But I had to make sure that you would receive it.

I am not reporting the attacks because I don't want them deleted. Thus, it is my hope that my intent to have peace will be understood.

I also would have thought that my roughly two-week absence would have adequately conveyed this. But it seems my perceptions of this are not universally shared.

RTF
Reply
#93
(07-17-2011, 02:23 PM)Climate Realist Wrote: I retracted from this thread because I have agreed that we disagree on your P/4 idea. It does not mean that I agree with your idea.

Oh, and by way of clarification, although i am Climate Realist on the CR blog and other pages, that blog is not mine! It is run by Gabriel Rychart (sorry for the spelling!). The CR blog was called "CO2 Sceptics" when I joined as "Climate Realist", then after about a year co-incidentally changed its name to Climate Realist upon the suggestion of Piers Corbyn.

OK, we agree to disagree, however, I will repeat,
Maths CAN NOT determine the physics.
Maths can only describe the physics,
when applied correctly to a given situation.

and,
Thank you for the clarification re Climate Realist blog.

You will enjoy Joe Postma's second paper.
Knowing the contents of which has restricted what I have been able to post in this thread so far.
Joe Postma's second paper should be released this week, watch this space.
The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed
(and hence clamorous to be led to safety)
by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.

H. L. Mencken.  

The hobgoblins have to be imaginary so that
"they" can offer their solutions, not THE solutions.
Reply
#94
(07-18-2011, 12:37 AM)Derek Wrote: Joe Postma's second paper should be released this week, watch this space.

Please see,
Greenhouse Effect Theory exposed as mathematical wizzardy

Excerpt, that is particularly relevant to this thread,
" Now, I used the term “day-time and night-time denial” within this paper, but
I can use that term without compromising my conscience because
that is what the atmospheric GHE model actually really does...
it really actually does deny that
there is such a thing as day and night on this planet Earth. And as we have seen,
it is only within the aberrations of this denial that one can create a
model with a back-radiative atmospheric greenhouse effect.
"

“day-time and night-time denial” = P/4 - Why it is THE issue that destroys GH and AGW.
The title of this thread......
The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed
(and hence clamorous to be led to safety)
by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.

H. L. Mencken.  

The hobgoblins have to be imaginary so that
"they" can offer their solutions, not THE solutions.
Reply
#95
As this thread was always intended by me as a lead into Joe Postma's second paper, this seems an appropriate time to close this thread.
Reply
#96
Hello All,
Given many things are now in the public domain that were not some months ago, then,
I think it is probably time to reopen this thread.
The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed
(and hence clamorous to be led to safety)
by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.

H. L. Mencken.  

The hobgoblins have to be imaginary so that
"they" can offer their solutions, not THE solutions.
Reply
#97
We all know that this is a realistic representation.
[Image: allplanets.jpg]

We all know earth is illuinated by the sun in the below fashion.
[Image: earth.jpg]

HOWEVER, when maths determines the physics, as P/4 does, then this is what reality is supposed look like according to the starting point of GH and AGW "theories"....
[Image: pdivby4means.jpg]

Both GH "theory" and AGW "theory" start with P/4, if in any doubt, please see the below plots of the "theories".
Greenhouse effect "theory".
[Image: Slide23.jpg]

Anthropogenic Global Warming "theory".
[Image: radiation_budget_kiehl_trenberth_20.jpg]

The above is to my mind proof beyond any reasonable doubt that both GH and AGW "theories" are unphysical, and therefore failed hypothesises.
The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed
(and hence clamorous to be led to safety)
by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.

H. L. Mencken.  

The hobgoblins have to be imaginary so that
"they" can offer their solutions, not THE solutions.
Reply
#98
Hello All,
P/4 is the comparison of one side of a disc to the surface area of a 3 dimensional globe.
BUT, a disc has two sides, so it is NOT a disc that is being compared with.
ONLY a black body surface has only one side, so it is the comparison of an imaginary black body disc and a 3D globe. THAT is the only way to get P/4.
Therefore P/4 IS a black body assumption being misapplied to actual (3D) thermodynamic reality.

A real disc has two sides and therefore P/2 is the actual answer.
HOWEVER, P/2 is also unphysical. IF it were physical the earth would not have poles and an equator. The inputs to earth's surface will have to be dealt with in a physical way, because P/2 does not allow for an equator, or the poles, it just makes everywhere "mid latitudes"...

I think Joseph Postma's models approach to solar input received at earth's surface is the correct one (but I suspect it is not allowing for increasing oceanic surface reflection, with increased latitude), however difficult it may be to explain.

Then there are geothermal inputs (currently dismissed as insignificant), which are obviously different beneath the oceans where the crust is very thin, 5-10kms, but down to zero in places, and under the continents where the crust can be between 35 and 70 kms. There are also direct to the atmosphere geothermal inputs, via the vulcanism we see at earth's surface.

P/4 is deliberately flawed. It is unphysical. It is actually a black body assumption that is used to lower earth's surface temperature due to the sun only, and hence the use of it requires further warming of the surface. The use of P/4 requires, needs, a gh effect of some kind.

P/2 is still a divorced from the physics of reality average. It simply will not do for a physical basis from which to explain earth's climate system from.
The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed
(and hence clamorous to be led to safety)
by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.

H. L. Mencken.  

The hobgoblins have to be imaginary so that
"they" can offer their solutions, not THE solutions.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)