Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
P/4 - Why it is THE issue that destroys GH and AGW.
#1
Hi All,

Over recent weeks "things" have been rapidly developing, and several things have come together that
in the case of P/4 show something so important yet so completely missed by so many.
My recent exchanges at tAV and elsewhere have highlighted to me
how much "they" do not want themselves and more importantly you to see this.

One world famous main stream climate "skeptic" recently said -
" Derek What is P/4? And do try to imagine a world without politics. Would 'it' be better or worse? "

"Derek What is P/4?" Sheeeesh, goodness me, I still can barely believe that was said, but said it was.

Below is a diagrammatic explanation of P/4.
[Image: PDIVIDEDBY4PLOT.jpg]

The above diagram hopefully illustrates that P is the power of a beam, in climatology this is the light from the sun.

If earth were a flat disc then P would be correct, but earth is a half light sphere, so this is not the case.
The below figure hopefully illustrates the real situation for earth.
[Image: Slide1.jpg]
In earth's case, with one sun as a source of P, then -
If P is calculated "as is" then the receiving "shape" is a perpendicular to the source of P disc, or a "spot".
If P is divided by 2, then the receiving "shape" is a hemisphere, and the figure calculated is a hemisphere average.
If P is divided by 4, then at a moment in time, this is impossible. It is unphysical.
This is proven beyond reasonable doubt by the fact that night follows day.
In earth's case the only time scale P/4 can work over is 24 hours, or multiples of 24 hours,
as that is the time it takes for the planet to fully revolve.
The planet must fully revolve otherwise P/4 is not the case,
as the surface area has been reduced (by a partial rotation),
so this must mean 1 or, full multiples of 24 hours only when "using" P/4 in earth's case.

However, P can be used, as Joe Postma has shown, to calculate the temperature a spot (imagine a square meter) on earth's surface could be a maximum of, for the received solar input.
ie, solar power input, corrected for surface's inclination to the power source, and further losses due to reflection / scattering / absorption by the atmosphere.
This would leave a W/m2 power received at the earth's surface.
Using the standard formula, which is explained in more detail on this thread, of,

(P / 5.6704) ^0.25*100=K

Where,
P = Power of beam in W/m2.
K = Degrees Kelvin temperature for receiving black body surface (per square meter).
^ = raise to the power of
* = Multiply


then, by subtracting 273.15 from the answer the above equation gives the surface's temperature in degrees Celsius for a received P of "X" Watts per meter squared (W/m2) can be calculated.

In almost all circumstances the actual surface temperature will be lower than this maximum possible figure for the received at the earth's surface solar (mostly Short wave) W/m2 P input.
Why? How can that be?
We are constantly told by the greenhouse effect failed hypothesis, and the resulting "as computer modeled" man made global warming alarmism that,
we are warmer than we should be, 33 degrees Celsius warmer, for the received solar input, NOT COLDER, which we actually are.

The answer is simple thermodynamics, as Joe Postma (linked to above) has been recently explaining.
The earth's heated surface cools by losses of 1) sensible heat by conduction to, and convection of, the atmosphere immediately above it.
Convection of sensible heat in this manner is a powerful and gravity powered process as Alan Siddons has explained in his Learning by Candlelight paper,
which can be found attached to post 4 on this thread.
But that is not the full, or even THE major part of the "story".
The earth's surface is also cooled (and most powerfully) by
the 2) latent heat removed by water vapourisation.
ie, Yes you loose heat by conduction and convection, and wind helps too,
but get wet and soon you feel a whole lot colder, especially in a wind.
(71% of earth's surface is water)

Some heat will also be absorbed by the earth's surface, and that will be released in due course (mostly the next night, when the air is colder) warming the earth's atmosphere.

Radiation losses pail into almost insignificance by comparison to the above two cooling processes, and
surface heat retention, and varying later release.
What is left to be explained by radiative losses? Not a right lot.
Radiating Infra Red thermal radiation (IR) is not a good way to cool is it.
But tell that to the "radiation obsessed" climate science and main stream "climate skeptics" at present....
You'd be right, and they'd be wrong - no sweat.

Comparing the surface temperatures that P and P/4 produce for a given W/m2 input shows something so obvious,
it is a wonder we have all missed it, but we have.
Hans Schreuder has recently been kind enough to let me paraphrase him on exactly this point, and it is also what Joe Postma has been explaining.

" How else, other than P/4, for the solar input received,
do you get the earth’s surface temperature low enough to REQUIRE a GH “effect” ?????
Answer – You can not.
"

This is the "reason" for the use of P/4 in the incorrectly named and failed Greenhouse (GH) hypothesis, and
resulting Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW), as represented by K&T type plots.
P/4 is the way that the GH failed hypothesis, and AGW get earth's surface temperature for the received solar input low enough to require a GH effect.
No P/4 = no GH effect, and no AGW as presently touted.

I strongly suspect that P/4 is also used in climate computer models, but try as I might,
unfortunately I have not been able to show this (undeniably) for the climate models as of yet.

There are two more problems of P/4 which I will explain in the next post.
For the mean time I will leave you with a simple 4 points list of the problems of P/4.

Dividing solar power received by 4, in earth's case,
1) is unphysical.
2) has enabled the GH failed hypothesis, and AGW to get the earth's surface temperature low enough to require a GH effect,
when there is no proof such is the case.
3) establishes the principle of increased surface area = reduced intensity received and capable of being emitted.
Yet, this principle is not applied throughout the GH hypothesis as taught at present.
4) introduces a time element of 24 hours, or multiples thereof, into the quoted W/m2 figures of the GH hypothesis, and K&T type plots.
A W/m2 is strictly defined as a timeless power figure, so such calculated figures are not W/m2, because they must contain a time element.
Such calculations and averaging divorces the maths from the physics, and therefore reality.
This makes any "answers" derived physically meaningless.

Before continuing with explaining points 3 and 4 it is necessary to "back track" a little and explain what is the failed GH hypothesis.

Alan Siddons has recently compiled a series of diagrammatic explanations of what
several of the most respected Universities in America presently teach as the Greenhouse Effect "theory".
Below are the examples Alan compiled of what is presently taught and where from.
[Image: Slide1.jpg]

[Image: Slide2.jpg]

[Image: Slide3.jpg]

[Image: Slide4.jpg]

[Image: Slide5.jpg]

Although not a University in himself, Gavin Schmidt is a leading "consensus" climate science figure,
and is largely responsible for the NASA version of the K&T type plot.
[Image: Slide6.jpg]

Professor Richard Lindzen is a leading main stream "climate sceptic",
this plot is included to show that main stream "climate skeptics" accept the basic GH hypothesis.
Such "climate skeptics" would include Dr. Judith Curry, Dr. Roy Spencer, Joanna Nova, David Evans, and lord Monckton,
As well as, Jeff Id, Richard T Fowler, Science of Doom, etc, etc, etc, etc.....
To name just a few....
[Image: Slide7.jpg]

Are they really "climate skeptics" or are they merely "AGW figure quibblers"???
Well, they certainly do not question the basic principles of the failed GH hypothesis, and it's (theoretically speaking) "bastard" offspring AGW.
As will be explained in due course AGW has no (theoretical) father.

Continued in Post 2.
Reply
#2
Continuing from Post 1.

Alan then condensed all the above plots into one plot, to show how at present Greenhouse effect "theory" is taught.
[Image: Slide21.jpg]

I asked Alan if it was ok for me to do a version of his plot, that I thought might be a little clearer.
Alan gave his permission, and refers to this as a disentangled version of his original plot.
[Image: DofASV1.jpg]

I have developed the above, slightly, into this present version.
[Image: Slide23.jpg]

I would suggest that several things, many have missed, about the GH hypothesis are shown by this approach by Alan Siddons.
Firstly the hypothesis is, as the above plots represent both day and night,
that earth's surface temperature on average is 30C.....
Secondly that the hypothesis is that without atmospheric (supposed) "back radiation" of 239W/m2
the earth's surface temperature would be on average -18C....
HELLO...WAKEY, WAKEY...KNOCK, KNOCK, KNOCK...REALITY CALLING.....
There never has been a GH hypothesis has there, let alone something worth calling a "theory".

At this juncture we can return to explaining point 3 in regards of the problems of using in earth's case P/4.
Whilst compiling and drawing the above, my versions of Alan's original plot,
I asked Alan about the atmosphere radiating 239W/m2 in both directions.
Alan replied that as P/4 is used as the starting point, then
it has established the principle that increased surface area = reduced intensity.
ie, 1368W/m2 is spread over the earth's 4 times larger surface area (than the same diameter, perpendicular to source of P disc),
so 1368W/m2 is divided by 4.
This produces the figure 342W/m2, which after albedo and other losses results in 239W/m2 being absorbed at the earth's surface
- according to the GH hypothesis as presently taught.

This means that the atmosphere, as it is radiating in two directions, has twice the surface area of the earth's surface, therefore
the atmosphere must radiate in both directions at half the intensity, namely 119.5 W/m2, not 239W/2,
according to the GH hypothesis's own logic.
As this is such an important point that has severe repercussions for the GH hypothesis as presently taught I have drawn the below plot.
The temperature for W/m2 figures in the plot were calculated using the earlier stated equation.
[Image: GHasRadflowD.jpg]

The above plot shows that, according to, and using throughout GH hypothesis logic,
namely that, increased surface area = reduced intensity, then;
a) Earth appears from space to be an object emitting 222.5 W/m2 (-22.86C), not the 239W/m2 (-18c) it should be,
according to the presently accepted laws of physics.
b) Earth's average day and night surface temperature is 8.84C (358.5W/m2). Not the 30C (478W/m2) as presently taught.

Quite a difference advocates of the FAILED BY IT'S OWN LOGIC GH hypothesis surely have to address.

The fourth and last point has already been explained as such, but in separate parts of this piece so far,
I will however attempt co-join the relevant parts here.

In earth's case the only time scale P/4 can work over is 24 hours, or multiples of 24 hours,
as that is the time it takes for the planet to fully revolve.
The planet must fully revolve otherwise P/4 is not the case,
as the surface area has been reduced (by a partial rotation),
so this must mean 1 or, full multiples of 24 hours only when "using" P/4 in earth's case.

This necessarily introduces a time element of 24 hours, or multiples thereof,
into the quoted W/m2 figures of the GH hypothesis, and K&T type plots.
A W/m2 is a timeless power unit, so dividing P by 4 in earths case results in a unit that is not a W/m2, because
it has to be over a certain time period. In earths case this is obviously 24 hours, or one full revolution of the planet.

When looking at K&T type budgets it is immediately apparent that all the quoted W/m2 figures are calculated using different time scales / units,
so all the units compared are actually different, and do not represent the physical reality of what they purport to represent.
It is no wonder such budgets therefore lead to such daft, but seemingly “justified” conclusions.
“justified” by numbers expressed in units of W/m2 that are not actually timeless W/m2 figures.

A W/m2 is strictly defined in physics (but not in climatology apparently) as a timeless power figure.
If the W/m2 is not a timeless power figure, then it is not a W/m2.
If the unit used includes a time element, then it is an energy flow at that (averaged) power by the time element.
Which is still pretty meaningless because the average has mangled the physics.

Such calculations including or starting with P/4, or P/4 derived figures for W/m2 are really energy flows (the time element is simply not stated), they are not power figures only.
Averaging over an arbitrary length of time (one year in K&T) divorces (again) the maths from the physics, and therefore reality.
This makes any "answers" derived physically meaningless and divorced from reality, or any use whatsoever in reality.

P/4 has much to answer for. It deserves no, and has no place in reality.

Finally, to reply to the part of the quote at the start of this piece I have not addressed yet.
Namely,
And do try to imagine a world without politics. Would 'it' be better or worse? "

If only I could imagine a world without politics….
There would be no GH “theory” in that world, it is a politically motivated “issue”,
not a science “theory”.


Attached Files
.pdf   P divided by 4 - Why it is THE issue that destroys GH and AGW - Derek..pdf (Size: 929.53 KB / Downloads: 462)
Reply
#3
I don't understand enough to comment on T/4 but it appears there are others out there with thoughts along Derek's lines of argument.

http://judithcurry.com/2010/12/14/co2-no...y-part-ii/

Quote:Unfortunately the only place we know something about the fluxes is the TOA because it is there that we will postulate that radiation in = radiation out.
This is also wrong (just look at the difference between the night half, the day half and the sum of both) but this is the basic assumption of all and any climate models sofar. So what we postulate at some height R where the atmosphere is supposed to “stop” is :
FTOA = g(R,θ,φ) with g some function.
Environmentalism is based on lies and the lies reflect an agenda that regards humanity as the enemy of the Earth. - Alan Caruba
Reply
#4
The earths surface would only receive 1368w/m2 when the sun is directly overhead, i.e. mid- day on the equator at a certain time of year. P/4 is simply an average of all other lattitudes and times of day/night/ time of years isn't it?

It seems to me that P/4 could be a genuine average of W/M2 on the Earths surface. I don't see the problem with the geometry. Look here, a sphere has 4x the surface area of a circle of the same diameter. http://www.csgnetwork.com/circlecalc.html

enter 10 as the diameter and the circle has a surface area of 78.53981633974483 and the sphere of 314.1592653589793, exactly 4x. Therefore it is correct to divide the 1368W/M2 to get the real averaged figure over 24 hours. This does not validate the greenhouse effect, there is a different reason why there is no need for a greenhouse effect:-

BTW, Joe Postma has shown that the reason why satellites 'see" a radiative temp of -18c is that this is an average of the Earths surface and the WHOLE of the atmosphere.

The only reason the surface is hotter than -18C (average is actually 15C) is due to air pressure at the surface and hence temperature being greater than the average for the atmosphere.

So P/4 can be correct and there is STILL NO NEED for a greenhouse effect!
Reply
#5
This is my take on "radiation in = radiation out".
The mean diameter of the Earth = 25,469.6km, thus mean radius = 12,734.8km
Surface area = 4piR^2 = 2,037,952,800square kilometres.
multiply by 10^6 will give us global surface are in square metres =
2,037,952,800,000,000 or 2.038x10^15 square metres.

The area of Earth's disc is piR^2 = 509,488,200.27square kilometres.
Multiply by 10^6 gives 509,488,200,270,000 or 510x10^12 square metres.

Radiation in = 1,366W/m^2, albedo of 0.3 reduces that to 956.2W/m^2.
So total energy in = 487,172,617,098,174,000 Watts (or joules/second).

Divide that by total surface area we get 239W/m^2 outgoing radiation.
That amounts to -18C, Earth's radiative temperature to space at TOA.

This outgoing radiation is a "sum total" of surface, through the 10micron window plus clouds and anything in the atmosphere capable of radiating.

The fact that fairly large portions of the Earth's surface is warmer than -18C is easily accounted for conduction and convection and circulation of atmosphere and oceans. You just need to understand heat capacity of solids, liquids and gases, thermal effects of phase changes occuring with H2O, then include gravity effects on atmospheric density and derive lapse rates for all the different conditions and presto! You might be able to forecast the next rain shower for Timbuctu. Big Grin
Environmentalism is based on lies and the lies reflect an agenda that regards humanity as the enemy of the Earth. - Alan Caruba
Reply
#6
"The fact that fairly large portions of the Earth's surface is warmer than -18C is easily accounted for conduction and convection and circulation of atmosphere and oceans. You just need to understand heat capacity of solids, liquids and gases, thermal effects of phase changes occuring with H2O, then include gravity effects on atmospheric density and derive lapse rates for all the different conditions and presto! You might be able to forecast the next rain shower for Timbuctu. "

-18C is an average of the whole of the atmosphere and the surface, so much of the upper atmosphere is below -18C, the Earths surface is 15C the warmest (due to air pressure being the greatest at the bottom of the atmosphere) .

This false claim that there is a 33C difference between the -18C rasiative temperature and the surface being at 15C average is simply due to air pressure. The 33C is a range between the average and the maximum NOT a discrepancy that is in need of a GH theory to explain it away!
Reply
#7
(06-14-2011, 04:00 AM)Climate Realist Wrote: The earths surface would only receive 1368w/m2 when the sun is directly overhead, i.e. mid- day on the equator at a certain time of year. P/4 is simply an average of all other lattitudes and times of day/night/ time of years isn't it?

Errr, the earth's surface will never receive 1368W/m2 as the planet has an atmosphere with an albedo.
To be honest with no atmosphere, the surface would still not receive 1368W/m2 because the surface also has an albedo.

(06-14-2011, 04:00 AM)Climate Realist Wrote: It seems to me that P/4 could be a genuine average of W/M2 on the Earths surface. I don't see the problem with the geometry. Look here, a sphere has 4x the surface area of a circle of the same diameter. http://www.csgnetwork.com/circlecalc.html
Think of P/4 in a moment of time, it is impossible.
The dark side of the planet is not receiving anything.
This is divorced from reality, and a physicaaly meaningless average.

(06-14-2011, 04:00 AM)Climate Realist Wrote: enter 10 as the diameter and the circle has a surface area of 78.53981633974483 and the sphere of 314.1592653589793, exactly 4x. Therefore it is correct to divide the 1368W/M2 to get the real averaged figure over 24 hours. This does not validate the greenhouse effect, there is a different reason why there is no need for a greenhouse effect:-
I think we have already explained the geometry simply enough.
AND, You just do not seem to realise maths does not determine the physics with meaningless, unphysical "averages",
maths can only describe the physics, if it does not, then it is imaginary maths of no use in reality.

(06-14-2011, 04:00 AM)Climate Realist Wrote: BTW, Joe Postma has shown that the reason why satellites 'see" a radiative temp of -18c is that this is an average of the Earths surface and the WHOLE of the atmosphere.
Joe P showed using accepted standard physics that for an object, at the distance it is from the sun, it should be -18C.
Your confusing yourself.

(06-14-2011, 04:00 AM)Climate Realist Wrote: The only reason the surface is hotter than -18C (average is actually 15C) is due to air pressure at the surface and hence temperature being greater than the average for the atmosphere.
No, but I thought that originally too when reading Joe P's work for the first few times.
The air is the temperature it is because of basic thermodynamic heat transfers from the surface back out to space,
whilst earth and physics keeps earth looking from space to be overall -18C which it quite correctly does.

(06-14-2011, 04:00 AM)Climate Realist Wrote: So P/4 can be correct and there is STILL NO NEED for a greenhouse effect!
Your so far off base, it is unphysical...

BTW - P/4 is incompatible with Joe Postma's approach...

(06-14-2011, 06:18 AM)Climate Realist Wrote: -18C is an average of the whole of the atmosphere and the surface, so much of the upper atmosphere is below -18C, the Earths surface is 15C the warmest (due to air pressure being the greatest at the bottom of the atmosphere) .

This false claim that there is a 33C difference between the -18C radiative temperature and the surface being at 15C average is simply due to air pressure. The 33C is a range between the average and the maximum NOT a discrepancy that is in need of a GH theory to explain it away!

According to the failed GH hypothesis it is taught that the earth's surface temperature is on average 30C (478W/m2).
It is near surface air temperature that is supposedly globally meaned as being 15C.
Quite a different thing.

The hypothesis itself teaches that the GH effect is from -18C to 30C for the earth's surface average temp.
Therefore the GH hypothesis says, and is taught as, the GH effect as supposedly being 48C at the earth's surface.
Such a low initial temp. for the earth's surface can only be achieved by the use of P/4...
Reply
#8

Derek says,

-------
Professor Richard Lindzen is a leading main stream "climate sceptic",
this plot is included to show that main stream "climate skeptics" accept the basic GH hypothesis.
Such "climate skeptics" would include Dr. Judith Curry, Dr. Roy Spencer, Joanna Nova, David Evans, and lord Monckton,
As well as, Jeff Id, Richard T Fowler, Science of Doom, etc, etc, etc, etc.....
To name just a few....

Are they really "climate skeptics" or are they merely "AGW figure quibblers"???
Well, they certainly do not question the basic principles of the failed GH hypothesis [. . . .]

-------


Unbelievable.

Derek, you have some nerve to write that I "certainly do not question the basic principles of the failed GH hypothesis."

I have done so ad nauseam on no less than four different websites, including this one. You have even acknowledged this multiple times at the Air Vent.

This is just disgusting, and I demand a retraction. I don't care whether you believe me, you just can't do this.

Imagine if I did that to you. They'd hear your screaming on Mars.

RTF
Reply
#9
They wouldn't hear my screaming RTF, because
a) I don't scream, as you imply, and,
b) there is no one on Mars in the first place.

I am surprised you did not know that RTF....

RTF as far as P/4 goes you do not question the basic principle, that is the point you wholly miss.


Anyway, back to business, unless "we" have not realised yet.
The time is upon us, for climate science skeptics to decide which "camp" they are in.

"Skeptics" will have to ask themselves;
Do I as a climate science skeptic belong to
those that do question, and consequently refute P/4,
or,
those that accept P/4.


You, RTF, are in the later "camp", and I am in the former.
That is about it really.

BTW - It occurs to me as Richard T Fowler has posted, and as Climate Realist has posted,
I ought to explain the differences in the maths as we see them.

All radiation is positively absorbed sees,
2 + 2 = 4
Claes Johnson sees,
4 + nothing = 4 (although I still have not worked out how he got to 4 if he accepts P/4....)
Relatively absorbed sees,
6 - 2 = 4

They all produce the same answer by different routes, and that is the point,
it is the route that is important, or rather the actual physics, AND thermodynamics,
not some imaginary, , failed hypothesis, "radiation obsessed", utterly unrealistic, divorced from reality, version thereof..............
Reply
#10
HOW MANY TIMES DO I HAVE TO REPEAT MY POSITION BEFORE YOU WILL HEAR IT.

I have seemingly endlessly expressed my agreement that a one-quarter haze would not be an appropriate climate model!

MY ONLY RELEVANT DISAGREEMENT WITH YOU, ON THE MATTER OF P/4, IS THAT THE PRESENT CLIMATE MODELS ARE CLEARLY NOT DOING THAT!!!!

WHY CAN YOU NOT ADDRESS THIS ASPECT OF MY UNDERSTANDING, RATHER THAN ENDLESSLY CHANGING THE SUBJECT OFF OF THAT QUESTION??

Why can you not actually address how Dr. Johnson gets to his explanation? Over 3,000 words on this page, before I posted, and not one word about Johnson or his paper, Climate Thermodynamics. Now you mention his name, but not much else, besides a cryptic metaphor that is almost completely incomprehensible to me.

How about taking a quote or passage from his paper, and responding directly to that, so it can actually make sense to someone other than yourself?

By the way, thank you for your partial correction of the record. As I understand it you have removed me from the list you established above. I disagree with the "camp" you're putting me in now, but not enough to fight with you about it at this time. If this is the best I can get from you right now, then I accept it. You're certainly entitled to your opinion about what I believe -- however wrong that opinion might be.

RTF


-------

Addendum: Having read some of the Postma paper from last month, the "cryptic metaphor" is making a little more sense to me, as is Derek's confusion about the Johnson hypothesis. See my comments further down on this page. RTF
Reply
#11
And now, I find _this_ in the new Postma paper:



And this [supposed cause of AGW] is distinguished from Natural Global Warming (NGW) which could be theoretically caused by natural emission of CO2 which would also depend upon the Greenhouse Theory to actually create said natural warming.


Notice the use of the word, "COULD", which expresses UNCERTAINTY and thus makes this statement one which I have in the past agreed with and continue to agree with, to wit that that it THEORETICALLY COULD, BUT IT'S NOT PROVEN.

And because I have expressed agreement with similar CONDITIONAL statements that express UNCERTAINTY A...BOUT...THE...MATTER, I have been roundly beaten senseless by Derek in the blogosphere for expressing myself.

Apparently, this means Derek will now be placing Postma in the same camp he places me in. (Yeah, right.) If he is honest with himself, he will either (falsely) place Postma in the same camp with me, or he will move me into whatever camp he currently places Postma in.

POSTMA IS UNCERTAIN, AND SO AM I.

Which makes me wonder where Schreuder and Simmons stand on the question.

RTF
Reply
#12
My reply to Derek's comment that he still has not worked out how Johnson gets to '4' if he accepts 'P/4'.

Well I guess the first thing is, Derek, DO you see from reading Climate Thermodynamics why Johnson must necessarily accept P/4?

If your answer to this is "no", then not much of anything is going to make sense to you regarding the climate models -- and you have some serious studying to do.

If your answer is "yes", then the next step is to share that understanding, so that others (for example, myself) can try to determine if your understanding is correct. Nothing can be accomplished if we are not on the same page about that.

Rather than drench you with information at this stage, I offer you this hint: it has to do with __simulated rotation__ within the models. We touched upon this on two prior occasions, and at both times you just summarily swept it aside with what seemed (at least on my end) like a profound anger, I might even say "fury". I don't know; that's just how it came across.

If you're really serious about exploring this, then fine, so am I. But the problem is that you seem to assume that any skepticism about your own explanations (whatever they may be at the moment) is rooted in an effort to deceive.

Since your forum has all these draconian rules about what your critics or auditors may and may not write in response to your ideas, it makes it very easy for a person such as myself (who you seem to have concluded believes almost the opposite of what I do) to be censored.

Do you think I don't have fury in me about the fraud that is going on!?

But if I just allow that to be directed at EVERYONE who IN THE SLIGHTEST WAY questions ANYTHING I EVER SAY ... what progress can be made?

I suspect that the only way you're going to ever understand the Climate Thermodynamics paper and the work Johnson reports doing in that paper, is if you first accept that there MAY exist a possibility that there could be a false GH signal within a spherical model that accounts for night and day by approximating rotation. _I_ certainly have understood this possibility, and while I don't mean any disprespect to Postma, I believe that his conclusions are not possible within the framework of the models that are currently in use -- though I hasten to add that I am not yet finished reviewing his paper, and thus I must admit some uncertainty about this. If Postma is saying what I THINK he's saying, then my present belief will be sustained after the completion of my review. Otherwise, I'd have to say that there is a possibility (however small) that he has latched on to a part of the puzzle that Johnson is working on.

I'll pause at this point and wait to see what you might have to say about all of this.

RTF
Reply
#13
Richard T. Fowler,

Quote:Since your forum has all these draconian rules about what your critics or auditors may and may not write in response to your ideas, it makes it very easy for a person such as myself (who you seem to have concluded believes almost the opposite of what I do) to be censored.

It is MY forum you are complaining about.

I wonder what "draconian rules" you are referring to.I am not aware that I have posted them.

If you really believe you or others are being censored.By all means let me know through the PM system.I want diverse views to be aired here.Including yours.

This forum is open for DISCUSSIONS.To foster a greater understanding of different viewpoints.

There is a reason for using the REPORT button at bottom right corner of a post.If you really feel aggrieved about something.Click on it and explain what you are unhappy about.Then either Forum Manager Sunsettommy or Global Moderator JohnWho will look it over.



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
#14
Richard, I enjoyed your explanation. I thought it was clear and well reasoned.
“We do not believe any group of men adequate enough or wise enough to operate without scrutiny or without criticism. We know that the only way to avoid error is to detect it, that the only way to detect it is to be free to inquire. We know that in secrecy error undetected will flourish and subvert”.J Robert Oppenheimer.
Reply
#15
RTF - I am in the fortunate position, greatly privileged infact, of knowing a lot more than most, of what is being said by whom, behind the scenes,
with regards to the subject matter and by the people you mention.

Your representation of what you think the people you mention are actually thinking, and saying,
is, well, a little off the mark.
More than that I can not say.

So, here, (taking into account the above) in this piece and thread I have put across from an original (and new to most I hope) perspective what I understand the P/4 "issue" is about.
Whether anyone agrees with me, or even considers the points I raise, is a separate issue.

I have not moderated a single thing on this thread to date, so
your "draconian rules here" slur is just that.
An unfounded, in this instance, slur.
Previously I have tried to tidy up threads, that I admit, and that it was not particularly successful.
For that, with the best of intentions originally, and now, I apologise (and if I remember correctly, I already have apologised).

In the end I see your posts as merely deflection from the real issue, which is P/4.
ie,
(06-14-2011, 01:08 PM)Richard T. Fowler Wrote: MY ONLY RELEVANT DISAGREEMENT WITH YOU, ON THE MATTER OF P/4, IS THAT THE PRESENT CLIMATE MODELS ARE CLEARLY NOT DOING THAT!!!!
Please read this thread - it explains why and where I am up to in regards of what the climate models actually do.
Which as I state, at present, try as I might, I do not know for certain either way.
The same link is in the piece, did you read it?

For certain however, GH "theory" as presently taught does depend upon P/4, as do the K&T type plots, so P/4 is a live, and centrally relevant issue,
whether the climate models do use it or not.
As I said at tAV,
" So goes researching an issue, not from a static view point. "


Lastly, Sunsettommy's forum is a discussion forum, and Jeff Id's blog is a place, as he says himself, to vent,
please remember that when posting here.


Reply
#16
I've decided I may drop out of this thread as it has got close to sadly crossing the line from friendly discussion to hostile debate. I still stand, however, about what I said about the geometry- which I see as somewhat of a red herring.

Sorry Derek, I think you are confusing yourself, making the P/4 seem more complicated than it is and you seem to me to be shooting down a straw man.

The real way to destroy the AGW theory is via Thermodynamics and the interaction of radiation with matter at the molecular and subatomic level. On these levels the theory falls down, not with the geometry of the globe.

You explain correctly why P/4 needs to be used and then make this strange statement:-

"If P is divided by 4, then at a moment in time, this is impossible. It is unphysical."

Not really, because the models are run over a period of time, they have a time component, therefore by using P/4 they account for day, night and the changing angle of sunlight at different latitudes. The models are run out to up to 100 years therefore they have to include a time component and therefore they have to use P/4. The problem with the models is not P/4 but that the models suggest that back radiation can heat the surface of the earth and lower atmosphere is the problem, not the geometry!

Just by saying it is "unphysical" does not make it unphysical, because the truth is, the world, does revolve once every 24 hours and that the angle of incidence of sunlight means higher latitudes get less W/m2, and as the surface area of a sphere is 4 x the surface area of a circle with the same diameter, the use of P/4 to average the solar radiation received on each M2 (less the radiation reflected from the atmosphere to space) is not unphysical, it is simple geometry and common sense!
Reply
#17
(06-15-2011, 02:49 AM)Climate Realist Wrote: I've decided to drop out of this thread as it has sadly crossed the line from friendly discussion to hostile debate.
Which was and is RTF's intention, as I interpret his posts.

I am not aware I was hostile to you Climate Realist,
nor RTF when you consider his "tone".
Which he has carried over from tAV.

I disagree with you Climate realist, as we have before, over Claes Johnson's approach to the maths for example,
but that is to be expected, and undoubtedly it would be better not left undiscussed.
You have on this forum made your views robustly before, that I did not, and still do not fully agree with.
Niether did I take your views, and robust expression of them as hostile.

I do however, and genuinely, thank you for your contributions, and hope you will take the time to reconsider dropping out of this thread.
I think you have expressed others "thoughts" as well,
that I hope I have explained are basically widely held misconceptions, we have all had drilled into us for so long,
we can not see what is plainly in front of our faces.

I suppose we can both take some cold comfort from;
Time will tell.
Reply
#18
Derek, I'm surprised you disagree with Claes Johnson's approach as this is firmly rooted in thermodynamics and my ideas are firmly rooted in the way that atoms and molecules interact with IR radiation. These are the ways by which the GHE theory is demolished.

What do you disagree with? Joe Posthma for example likes my ideas.

BTW, I have changed my post to "may" drop out.
EDIT- JUST FOLLOWED YOUR LINK.

"UPDATE: Ids poll answers -

Question 1 – Would a minus 180 C block of ice the size of the moon and in lunar orbit warm or cool the Earth.

Ids Answer – It would warm the Earth. No matter what you assumed the definition of lunar orbit to mean for the majority of the time, the ice chunk would find itself blocking a view of the blackness of space at 3K or minus 270C. In place of that minus 270C radiation which continually strikes the earth, a small section of the sky has a hotter, brighter minus 180C emission. Therefore – the Earth Warms.

Question 2 – Would it warm the Sun.

Ids Answer – It would warm the Sun for the same reasons as above. The tiny little pinpoint in the distance would probably add as much as a distant star, but it would add a little and that is all it takes.

Now, if you get all caught up in how much and could it be measured etc. etc. and so on, you are probably lousy at story problems. The answers are actually quite simple. It will be interesting to learn where I am wrong in the inevitable follow up comments"

Sorry, but what a load of rubbish! That does not "prove" the GHE at all. Cold cannot heat warm, if the moon were at -180C then it would be cooler than it is now and would reflect less radiation back to the earth, therefore a cooler moon would cool the earth. However, a moon at -180C could not warm the earth as it is colder than the earth.

It is nonsense because of my explanation that a -180C moon is emitting radiation that cannot possibly warm a 15C (or -18C etc) temp earth because the matter of the earth is in higher energy state and is ALREADY emitting radiation at this wavelength that corresponds to this temperature and higher. Therefore the radiation from -180C moon cannot excite the atoms and molecules on the earth because they are already at this state of excitation and higher. Therefore the energy states of the bonds and electrons that correspond to -180C are already occupied- the earths matter cannot be excited by this radiation and therefore cannot be warmed by this radiation and the Lunar -180C radiation will merely be scattered back to the moon and to outer space.

Thermodynamics is the mathematical expression of what happens (does not happen in this case) and my paragraph above explains WHY it cannot happen (cold heating warm) on the molecular and atomic scale with radiation and energy states of electrons and bond orbitals.

I may post this of Jeff ID's site.
However this Jeff ID thread has nothing to do with P/4 and computer climate models!
EDIT- now posted on Jeff ID's site.
Reply
#19
This thread is about P/4, that IS used in the failed GH hypothesis, and K&T type plots / energy budgets.
Whether P/4 is, or is not, used in computer climate models, to the best of my understanding at present,
is still a question I can not answer defnitely one way or the other.
BUT, I strongly suspect P/4 is used in the models.

I will comment further to relevant P/4 comments only,
except to say Climate Realist, as far as I am aware no one actually knows what happens with molecules / atoms and IR.
As Claes himself notes this is the reason for the ultraviolet catastrophe.
That is, in my opinion, a very real reason why your approach is probably based upon a straw man argument.
I see no good reason why molecules / atoms do not absorb relatively.

Can we get back to P/4 only on this thread please.
Reply
#20
(06-15-2011, 04:53 AM)Derek Wrote: -snip-
except to say Climate Realist, as far as I am aware no one actually knows what happens with molecules / atoms and IR.
As Claes himself notes this is the reason for the ultraviolet catastrophe.
That is, in my opinion, a very real reason why your approach is probably based upon a straw man argument.
I see no good reason why molecules / atoms do not absorb relatively.
-snip-

Not true! We do know what goes on when a photon strikes an atom/ molecule- it is a branch of quantum mechanics. This is the basis for a branch of chemistry called Spectroscopy, in particular Infra Red spectroscopy. Hans Schreuder used to do this as his career I have spoken to him briefly and he agreed with my subatomic assessment as to why radiation from a cold body cannot heat a warm body and why this invalidates the GH theory.

As for P/4, you introducing that on Jeff's thread is about as relevant as me introducing my subatomic IR interaction theory (SIRI theory) on this thread! Blush

I still don't understand why you say the use of P/4 in models in unphysical, if you are correct then a clearer and expanded explanation will help us all to understand your idea.

Reply




Users browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)