Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Will it post?
#1
This is what I have posted at this LINK.

Quote:Hello commentators.

I see a lot of condemnation but negligible attempts post viable counterpoints.

Maybe most of what Joe Bastardi wrote is beyond your capability to counter?

Take care,

Sunsettommy

Here is what it looks like there:

Quote:36. sunsettommy says:
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
March 12, 2012 at 9:13 pm

Hello commentators.

I see a lot of condemnation but negligible attempts post viable counterpoints.

Maybe most of what Joe Bastardi wrote is beyond your capability to counter?

Take care,

Sunsettommy

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
#2
Funny I just posted a reply to the below on that thread earlier today too.
Bob Webster says:
March 13, 2012 at 8:19 pm
You write, “So was Arrhenius wrong about this, too?”
Yes, he was most certainly wrong. Egregiously.


I mentioned Arrhenius's second paper,
linked to G&T Falsification of GH within framework of physics, and,
Nasif Nahle's repeat of the Woods 1910 experiment.
I doubt it will be posted either.

I may do another post and put a pdf of it here so others can see what Romm and co. simply will not discuss.
ie, P/4.
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
#3
My comment is still NOT POSTED.

What in the hell are they afraid of?
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
#4
Mine neither, they are afraid of being exposed for what they are.

Post and pdf to follow here and there tomorrow.

The day after tomorrow. My apologies.

Derek posts at Joe Rom’s blog.


To be posted at, on 16th March 2012.
http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2012/03/11...?mobile=nc

This post will be posted (exactly as it is here + some illustrations) at the below link, and in a (downloadable) pdf form (with the same illustrations) on this thread at the GWS forum.
http://www.globalwarmingskeptics.info/thread-1840.html

The post will be as follows.

Dear Joe Romm, and all here at this blog,

I must say the tone of the original piece and following comments towards Joe Bastardi, and what he is saying leaves a lot to be desired. That said, I will add some (further) comments for your consideration. First though let us look a little into what Joe Bastardi was actually saying, or trying to describe.

Joe Bastardi was merely stating that CO2 increases the ability of earth’s atmosphere to cool itself. This is simply because CO2 has more ways to cool than oxygen and nitrogen (99% of the atmosphere), CO2 (0.04% of the atmosphere) is a radiatively able gas. In reality this means O2 and N2 can only cool (at atmospheric temperatures) by conduction or convection, which CO2 can also do. But CO2 can also cool itself, and the surrounding atmosphere (it is at a ratio of 1 part per 2500 parts) by emitting radiation. The reverse is also true as such, CO2 could warm the atmosphere, BUT given the ratio, and convection this effect will be negligible. The often sited “experiments” of contained gas being heated and showing an increased temperature rise for higher CO2 levels is a clever trick. CO2 is reactive to radiation where air is not, so in the same volume you have more mass being heated, so a higher temperature would and does result (clever that one, fooled many for a long time now).

Therefore increased atmospheric levels of CO2, which are historically low at present, being only 0.04%, as compared to a whopping 0.2% or 0.3% in the not so distant (geologically speaking) past, could only have increased earth’s atmosphere's ability to cool itself.

Would it not be better to use real world examples and observations to test the “basic physics” that Joe Romm states Joe Bastardi “denies”?
I will quote from Joe Romm’s piece at the start of this thread,
http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2012/03/11...?mobile=nc
If it weren’t for the natural greenhouse effect, we wouldn’t even be here to argue about climate change — it keeps the planet warm enough for life to thrive.

For example, to test the “basic physics” of the proposed, and as currently taught, greenhouse effect “theory” I have always liked the Milford Haven weather station.
http://www.milfordweather.org.uk/solar.php
[Image: Slide2-1.jpg]
Which disproves P/4 does it not, THE starting point for GHG "theory".
P/4 is the basis for the “physics” of the GHG “theory” yet it is plainly unphysical, otherwise we would not have day followed by night followed by day, followed by night, followed by day, etc, etc.
P/4 CAN ONLY BE over (whole NOT part) periods of 24 hours, or multiples thereof.
http://www.globalwarmingskeptics.info/th...er+of+GHGs
Do we live in a 24 hour, ¼ solar glow? – NO. P/4 IS UNPHYSICAL. P/4 is to divorce the GHG “theory” from the reality of thermodynamics, that is it’s purpose.
P/4 is to reduce the earth’s surface temperature (at a point, ie, a square meter) sufficiently TO REQUIRE a greenhouse effect, where there is none in the first place.
To illustrate this most important point, please see,
http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g43/De...lide23.jpg
and,
http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g43/De...lide24.jpg

[Image: Slide23.jpg]

[Image: Slide24.jpg]

The points these illustrations raise are quite simple.

1) P/4 = 1378W/m2 / 4 = 344.5W/m2. So, the principle IS increased surface area reduces the power of received radiation and therefore the power of emission of the receiver. Yes?
Literally the power is spread over 4 times the surface area, because a globe has 4 times the surface area of the same diameter disc.
YET, the atmosphere is depicted as emitting both up and down, it has twice the surface area of the emitter, which is in this case the earth’s surface.
Why then is the power of emission not halved?
GHG "theory" contradicts itself at this point, plainly.

2) IF the atmosphere does emit both up and down at the same power (AND WE ASSUME POWER ALWAYS EQUALS AMOUNT) as depicted, then, it is emitting twice what it receives.
GHG "theory" literally in the atmosphere DOUBLES the depicted flow.
GHG “theory” (at point 4 in the above diagrams) creates energy from nothing.

Amazing, sad, and unfortunately true. How did this ever get past first base?

Water vapour is THE dominant factor within earth's climate system. Latent heat, and change of state are so painfully and obviously under represented in modern climatology.
No wonder IPCC and climatology has never given water vapour a greenhouse gas value.
They do for lots, and lots of other supposed GHG's, with such supposed "accuracy" - LOL.
IF YOU CAN CALL A COMPUTER MODELLING FUDGE FACTOR ACCURATE.....
http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g43/De...deled2.jpg
(You may find it interesting to scroll back and forwards to other illustrations / tables I have compiled)

I would suggest people will find it a lot easier to understand water vapour’s dominance, if the way a heat pipe works is explained, and that the water cycle IS one big heat pipe.
Please see,
http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g43/De...lide13.jpg
and,
http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g43/De...lide15.jpg

[Image: Slide13.jpg]

[Image: Slide15.jpg]

Hopefully this piece I am currently working on, will help.
The solar and geothermal powered refrigerator called Earth - forum review.
http://www.globalwarmingskeptics.info/thread-1530.html

In the end, if something is wrong, then it is wrong. The flat earth "theory" lasted many, many years, but did that make it right? NO.
The same applies to GH "theory", it is wrong, and so are the hundred and fifty year old supposed "physics".
Dr Matthias Kleespies has an excellent review of the physics and their history which can be read and / or downloaded from the below link. It is titled,
A Short History Of Radiation Theories
– What Do They Reveal About "Anthropogenic Global Warming"?
Matthias Kleespies, Germany, November 18th, 2011

http://principia-scientific.org/publicat...iation.pdf

Yours,
Derek Alker.
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
#5
AHA! I can finally see this forum again!

BTW, even luke-warmer blogs such as WUWT are practicing censorship now, with Watts publishing anti Slayer and Denier propaganda with the comments feature disabled!
Reply
#6
Sad news Climate Realist. Something I have not really been watching to be honest, but,
there again I have been told publicly to "go to hell Derek", and "Enjoy Life while you can" this summer whilst trying to discuss specific aspects of "climate science" with Professors and the like.
To mention just two occasions.

This thread will ony "feature" more and more "places" me thinks...

I know P/4 is a somewhat "thorny" issue for some, but how about this way of thinking about it.
1378W/m2 divided by 4 is a "point" calculation, the "point" being a square meter.
However, the "point" has to be considered over an unspecified time period, which must be half day and half night (otherwise P can not be divided by 4) for
greenhouse effect "theory" and therefore Anthropogenic Global Warming to work as presently described by Climatology.
This severly limits when and how P/4 can be applied to reality.
For example, if applied without a specified, or a wrong time period, then P/4 has to be unphysical,
because it assumes a constant 1/4 solar glow being received at TOA for earth.
Which means it would be divorvced from the physics of reality, namely thermodynamics.
This is proved by the fact that day follows night, follows day, follows night, add infinitum.
Also, if earth does receive a constant solar input all over as P/4 assumes, how does that explain the diurnal bulge? P/4 can not explain that FACT.

As the starting point for GHG "theory" and AGW, P/4 is how they were divorced from the thermodynamics of reality.
Any "climate science" or "theory" based upon divorcing itself from the thermodynamics of reality is a none starter in my book.
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)