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.
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.
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,
“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.
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.
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,
The points these illustrations raise are quite simple.
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.
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.....
(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.
Hopefully this piece I am currently working on, will help.
The solar and geothermal powered refrigerator called Earth - forum review.
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