Post Reply 
 
Thread Rating:
  • 66 Votes - 2.47 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Derek - Smelling the coffee.
02-01-2010, 04:37 AM
Post: #1
Derek - Smelling the coffee.
Please be aware this is a work-in-progress.

Hi All,
I have now been helpfully advised by several different and well meaning people to "take a break".
I will, with a "condition". For some reason I can not fathom, I "have" to post "things" to get others opinions.
Sometimes I find this very useful, sometimes not..
Whatever, I will keep myself to this thread only (self imposed) for the foreseeable future,
as long as this is with the permission of Sunsettommy
call me "the sceptical Q" if you so wish......lol.

Part 1 - Trying to understand the "physics" of climate.
The seemingly mostly deliberate confusion and misinterpretation of "modern climate science" and "observations",
by the "consesus" and most "sceptics" alike in "accepting" unquestioningly the greenhouse effect as modelled at present.


The amount of contrary information around on the same subjects is startling, confusing, and I suspect it is supposed to be,
particularly with regards to climate science and the "physics" pertinent thereof.

I have yet again gone right back to basics, having gone and got all confused AGAIN.
For the time being I see the below as probably one of the best "explanations" I have found regarding
some of the central issues regarding the physics and absorbtion / emission / saturation particularly of CO2.

http://www.nov55.com/ntyg.html
CO2 Absorption Spectrum
There is no Valid Mechanism for CO2 Creating Global Warming

by Gary Novak.

Jim Peden produced this amusing (well it would be if "they" did not actually think it is true..)
AGW / CO2 oven diagram, based on how AGW / CO2 believers seem to think the greenhouse effect / black body radiation works.
[Image: 6a00d834519c3c69e200e553d605cf8834-.jpg]

My first understanding of the above (and I hope to be corrected if wrong) is that an object radiates black body radiation according to it's own temperature.
So, this temperature determines the rate and wavelength of photons emitted.
In a perfectly reflecting container (impossible but let's go with it) the object could only ever recieve what it emitted, it could not recieve more than it emitted.. How could it.?
No temperature change would result, unless energy was created out of nothing, which simply can not happen.
I have realised (for my own understanding at least that) the easiest way to think of photons being absorbed by any object is
as plus, minus or the same, not adding to as AGW / CO2 tries to "persuade" us supposedly happens, and I think this is the point Jim is trying to illustrate.

If I have further understood it correctly, Jim has also illustrated above how the proposed greenhouse effect viloates the 2nd law of thermodynamics,
(this is really the same as the above paragraph, but phrased differently)
namely a cooler thing can not radiate at a high enough wavelength to heat a warmer object.
If a warmer object recieves radiation from a cooler thing, it must cool the warmer thing.
Again it may help to think of the photons being recieved as either plus, minus or the same, reletive to the object / molecule / etc absorbing.
Maybe the warmer thing would not cool as fast as it would of without having recieved the cooler radiation,
but that is still not heating the warmer thing, whichever way it is looked at - period.
Otherwise the run away heating would occur as depicted in the diagram, it does not, obviously. If only it did.


Finally regarding the AGW oven, it apparently assumes no conduction and convection of heat from the chicken to the air in the oven.
Does this mean the oven is a vacuum,. ?
IdeaIdeaIdea
We all know that the chicken put into the AGW oven will cool slightly because it will conduct it's heat to the air contained in the oven, OK.
Let us assume that indeed the oven is a perfect reflector, and it is perfectly insulated.
It would take a certain amount of time for the chicken and the air to reach a slightly lower equilibrium temperature,
chickens having a higher specific heat content than air. Rolleyes
OK, is it possible we can make the oven a lot bigger and the object a metal object (a steel ball for example) of
a known specific temperature when put in the oven (OK, if you insist you can use a chicken - as long as it's free range mind you).
Again it would take, in a perfectly insulated and reflecting oven a certain amount of time to reach a lower equilibrium temperature.
What would happen if we altered the atmospheric composition of the oven. ?
Say starting with very low humidity, and repeating with very high humidity,
or, more easily, first with an atmospheric CO2 level, and repeated with far larger CO2 levels.
I suggest that as the "anti greenhouse gases" are increased the heat dispersion would be faster,
so the steel ball and the atmosphere in the oven would reach their new lower equilibrium temperature quicker.
This would completely disprove the "greenhouse effect" gases supposed ability to trap or retain heat,
and prove the "anti greenhouse gases" ability to disperse black body radiation.
Am I right in this interpretation please people,
if indeed the steel ball and the atmosphere in the oven did reach a new lower equilibrium temperature quicker
with increased "anti greenhouse gas" levels. ?
Would this be the repeatable, verifiable experiment to disprove the greenhouse effect and AGW. ?

Phewww, quite an idea..

Below is a pdf that I feel more realistically covers what is probably actually happening in the planets atmosphere and climate.
http://www.ilovemycarbondioxide.com/pdf/...pycock.pdf
Greenhouse Effect Poppycock
Written by Alan Siddons, edited by Hans Schreuder
December 2008


Excerpt,
" Most of the warming in the climate models comes from the assumption that
water vapor and precipitation increase as temperatures warm, a strong positive feedback.
Water vapor is a far more important “greenhouse gas” than CO2.
However, that assumption has been shown in observations and peer-reviewed research to be wrong, and
in fact water vapor and precipitation act as a negative feedback that
reduces any small “greenhouse warming” so incorrectly attributed to carbon dioxide.

http://www.energytribune.com/articles.cfm?aid=970

So what does all this mean? Let’s put it together. It means that contrary to advertised,
water vapor is a major "anti-greenhouse gas" — a term that has to be put in quotes because
assuming that carbon dioxide is in any way a warming agent is also wrong, as is the whole "science of radiative forcing."

Not only will the trace gases need more energy to reach the same temperature as the air that contains them,
they will radiate it in all directions instantly and at the speed of light and thus
increase the efficiency of the air mass in cooling it, not warming it, in line with the first and second laws of thermodynamics.

There is also no need to provide a “blanket” to keep earth warm.
The vacuum of space acts like the most perfect thermos flask.
Space is not cold; it is empty, void of matter, and thus has no temperature.
"


CO2, but more importantly water vapour COOL the atmosphere, not warm it.

Here are a couple of other plots that contain much information relevant to the above links and their repercussions.

[Image: DoesCO2trapheat-001.jpg]

The sun heats the oceans.
[Image: segelstein81-jpeg.jpg]

[Image: GlobalRelativeHumidity300_700mbMarc.jpg]
NB - Is this saying water vapour levels are falling, or do you have to include temperature first to determine that. ?

I have put together a pdf elsewhere on this forum regarding what is actually modelled,
even from the viewpoint of not challenging the "accepted" version of the Greenhouse effect "theory" the models do not stand up.

GCMs model something that can not be observed, has no experimental evidence for it,
and violate the first two laws of thermodynamics in it's mere proposal.
Add to this that none of the models projections have been correct,
then it is fairly obvious a new paradigm may well be worth considering,
to see if it offers a better understanding of what we observe.

Elsewhere I have tried raising the idea that discussions could be entered into "accepting" as a premise that there is no greenhouse effect,
maybe I should of added as modelled at present........
The discussion idea was simply quashed, it was forcibly, and obviously not allowed to be aired.
I was frankly shocked, and disgusted.
(Not for the first time in that arena that a reasonable basis for discussion I or others have tried to raise on various subjects
has been dealt with (mostly by the same people) in the same manner)
I am still a member "elsewhere" but I do not see the point in posting further,
given the way a reasonable basis for discussion was dealt with.
This including the justification of quashing such discussion by the stating of
the NASA "facts" regarding a 33K greenhouse effect...............

To my mind patently something very basic is amiss with the NASA basis.
So, such a discussion basis is justified by NASA's "facts", not
precluded by these same (almost certainly misinterpretted observations as) "facts".

--------------------------------------------------------------------

Part 2 - My "hunch".

Some time ago, whilst still in short trousers probably, I remember the lesson about onshore and offshore winds at the seaside.
You may well remember the same lesson, the land gets hotter in the day, and the air rises, so
air is sucked off the cooler ocean to replace the convected over land air.
An onshore daytime wind results.
At night the land cools and the air sinks, causing an offshore wind.
OK, but how about we view this slightly differently, the land does indeed during the day heat the air more.
That is because it is the surface that is warmed, so by conduction and hence convection the warmed air rises. Commonly "seen" as a heat haze.
The air rises, and so cooler (heavier) air is sucked in to replace it.
The day time onshore wind. Why though is the air over the ocean cooler than over the land. ?
Because sunlight penetrates water, and heats it to a depth of upto 150 metres, the surface of the water does not get as hot as the land surface.

At night what happens, the land cools and the air sinks, but also the oceanic waters release heat to the air.
So the air rises over the oceans, and is replaced by the cooler air from the land, an offshore wind.

How "big" is this effect, I suspect, damned enormous, hence my diagram below,
[Image: Dailywaterjacketsized.jpg]

Stephen Wilde proposed the Hot Water Bottle Effect sometime ago now.

http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=1487
THE HOT WATER BOTTLE EFFECT by Stephen Wilde
Wednesday, June 25th 2008,

I have mentioned this idea of mine above to Stephen Wilde, as at the time it was my intrepretation of the above effect he describes.
He stated that my version, was not his idea, but I wonder is the left over heat in the oceans from a daily basis,
recycled in the various oceanic cycles and phases as more or less heat release and therefore effecting global temperatures, is
really the same effect. If it is thought of as a sum of the residual heat left in the oceans, at a longer time scale,
namely the several decades of some oceanic phases.
I think it is.

Now I have come across this from Gary Novak,

http://www.nov55.com/icecause.html

http://www.nov55.com/gbwg.html

http://www.nov55.com/iceage.html

I certainly agree that geothermal heat inputs to the oceans is completely overlooked, usually excused by "we do not know"
- that ain't good enough to preclude discussion or consideration - period..
I take from this article by Gary Novak a proposed mechanism whereby the earth could loose large amounts of heat to space.
Heat that was previously "stored" in the oceans,
albeit part of which was being released (particularly at night) and keeping the planet warmer than it would otherise of been.
I would take the "triggered in 2008" as an attention grabbing headline / title to get discussion / consideration for the idea / proposal.
It may also be somewhere along the right lines.

I also get the feeling this is the same idea as my daily idea but on a far longer time scale (ie interglacial),
with other relevant factors included.
Much the same as could be said for Stephen Wilde's Hot Water Bottle Effect,
in releatiton to the idea I have described above, but on a multi decadal / oceanic phase time scale.
They are continuations of the same basic idea.
It really isn't my idea anyway, it is just applying an old explanation (onshore / off shore winds and their causes)
at a larger scale than appears to have been done previously.
- that is my "idea" as such.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

Part 3 - A suggestion for "Dumb discussions" cartoon.

I have already said present discussions of climate seem to have to be conducted with the "accepted" premise that there is a greenhouse effect as modelled.
I think this is holding back our improving of our understanding and baising our view and interpretation of the "observations".
For example here is a cartoon I hope to develop. I want to set the below which will hopefully be an "Ogri" style cartoon
based upon the idea of present climate discussions being publicly held around a table that unquestioningly accepts the as modelled greenhouse effect first,
on a stage in a large auditorium, the audience being the confused general public.
Off to one side of the auditorium there is a large room, with many "dissenting" wording emminanting from it.
This room is being deliberately kept away from the cameras all pointing at the main stage, and
there are "gate keepers" in the front of this side room stopping the "dissenting" words, and people getting on the stage.
NB - The "fish" would be moved to the back of the side room, hidden behind and underneath the other dissenting voices.
The "guards" or rather "double agents" at the front of the side room are well connected to the main group of consensus leamings.
They all have careers and reputations to protect...
[Image: Dumbdiscussionsjpegsmall-Derek.jpg]

Unlike me.

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.
Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user
Quote this message in a reply
02-01-2010, 07:29 AM
Post: #2
RE: Derek - Smelling the coffee.
Care of Questioning_Climate's link to,

http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2010/02...sible.html

I came across this thread,

Part 4 - Who are the money men, and who are the real vested interests.

http://umbrellog.com/forum3/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=1008161
Climate change: the final phase

Including amongst many other amazing insights and information,


http://www.iigcc.org/index.aspx

“The Institutional Investors Group on Climate Change (IIGCC) is a forum for collaboration on climate change for European investors. The group’s objective is to catalyse greater investment in a low carbon economy by bringing investors together to use their collective influence with companies, policymakers and investors. The group currently has over 50 members, including some of the largest pension funds and asset managers in Europe, and represents assets of around €4trillion."

"IIGCC aims to become an influential player on the investment implications of climate change. IIGCC aims to be the preferred vehicle through which Government and other initiatives such as UNEP FI, Carbon Disclosure Project and others address investors on climate change. Members of the IIGCC will thus gain from greater access to information and greater ability to influence other parties."

Members of the IIGCC include:

Baptist Union of Great Britain, BBC Pension Trust, Bedfordshire Pension Fund, BT Pension Scheme, Central Finance Board of the Methodist Church, Corporation of London Pension Fund, Environment Agency Pension Fund, Greater Manchester Pension Fund, Kent County Council, London Borough of Hounslow Pension Fund, London Borough of Islington Pension Fund, London Borough of Newham Pension Fund, London Pensions Fund Authority, Merseyside Pension Fund, Roman Catholic Diocese of Plymouth, Roman Catholic Diocese of Salford, South Yorkshire Pensions Authority, The Church Commissioners for England, The Church in Wales, The Roman Catholic Diocese of Portsmouth, United Reform Church, Universities Superannuation Scheme
West Midlands Metropolitan Authorities Pension Fund, West Yorkshire Pension Fund.
Posted by Dabble Sun Jan 31, 2010 11:33 am

and,

The IIGCC are not alone. On 14th January 2010 an association of similar groups published at statement calling for more action, quicker, 'cos they've got investments to protect... I mean, to save the planet. And UNEP have their fingers in that as well.

The world’s largest investors released a statement calling on the U.S. and other governments to quickly adopt strong national climate policies that will establish a stable investment climate and thus spur low-carbon investments to reduce emissions causing climate change. At December’s Copenhagen Climate Change Summit it was estimated that private-sector investors will need to finance more than 85 percent of the global transition to a low-carbon economy.

The Investor Statement on Catalyzing Investment in a Low-Carbon Economy calls for rapid action on carbon emission limits, energy efficiency, renewable energy, financing mechanisms and other policies. The statement was endorsed by four groups representing more than 190 investors with more than US$ 13 trillion of assets – Investor Network on Climate Risk (INCR), Institutional Investors Group on Climate Change (IIGCC), Investor Group on Climate Change (IGCC) and the United Nations Environment Programme Finance Initiative (UNEP FI).

That's one hell of a vested interest these groups represent.

EDIT: Perhaps or perhaps not noteworthy, the next item down on the UNEP FI website is the annoucement of a 'webinar', the chair of which is "Nick Robins, Head of HSBC Climate Change Centre of Excellence, Co-Chair of the Climate Change Working Group of UNEP FI"
Posted by gareth » Sun Jan 31, 2010 7:27 pm

and,

I have aslo come across this,
http://biased-bbc.blogspot.com/2010/02/f...-pies.html
FINGERS IN PIES...
Biased BBC blog.
Monday, February 01, 2010

The links to the above mentioned bodies and people jump out at you.
Excerpt,
Peter Dunscombe, and he runs the £8.2bn corporation pension fund, advising trustees on a day-to-day basis about their investments. Mr Dunscombe, who addresses conferences about 'ethical investments', is also chairman of the Institutional Investment Group on Climate Change(IIGCC), which has 47 members and manages four trillion euros' worth of investments; yes, four trillion. Their goal is to find as many 'climate change' investment opportunities as possible:

and,
" Update: I've been going through the latest BBC Pensions Trust report, and it reveals that Helen Boaden, who is the overall boss of the BBC's news and current affairs operation, was appointed to the trust in 2008. So the woman who tells environment reporters such as Roger Harrabin and Richard Black that the science is settled also works to maximise the returns of the pension fund with Peter Dunscombe. I thought that needed spelling out fully, just in case any subtleties might be missed. "


Back on the original umbrella forum post is also listed in this post some of the "gates" so far.

Climategate 100,000,000
Glaciergate 113,000
Amazongate 52,400
Carbongate 18,700
Crugate 12,000
Pachaurigate 9,800
IPCCgate 2,000

These stories are now really viral
Posted by Julian Williams » Sun Jan 31, 2010 6:40 pm

As posted later there may well be added "Kiwigate",
and numerous other "gates" to come.
I would suggest such as,
"Greenpeacegate", WWFgate", and probably "Pensiongate" care of the Peter Dunscombe mentioned above,
and BigOilgate, Educationgate, RoyalSocietygate, etc, etc, etc.
One thing appears certain the size of this "gated" community is only going to grow.

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.
Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user
Quote this message in a reply
02-01-2010, 07:43 AM
Post: #3
RE: Derek - Smelling the coffee.
Your first post raises a lot of good points that is deserving an answer.

I have to go to work first,but must say that the people at CS forum has shown to be closeminded on the "greenhouse" effect.

I will be back with a lot more to say.

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
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user
Quote this message in a reply
02-01-2010, 08:12 AM
Post: #4
RE: Derek - Smelling the coffee.
Thank you SST, can I take that as approval of my "use" of this thread as stated.

BTW - My first post is a work-in-progress. I hope to develop it in light of any (again I hope) "positive discusion" intended replies it may generate.
I know your (SST and many others here - hence I posted here) replies are made with just that intention
so please do not think that was in any way intended or aimed at (any of) you.

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.
Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user
Quote this message in a reply
02-01-2010, 08:37 AM
Post: #5
RE: Derek - Smelling the coffee.
(02-01-2010 08:12 AM)Derek Wrote:  Thank you SST, can I take that as approval of my "use" of this thread as stated.

BTW - My first post is a work-in-progress. I hope to develop it in light of any (again I hope) "positive discusion" intended replies it may generate.
I know your (SST and many others here - hence I posted here) replies are made with just that intention
so please do not think that was in any way intended or aimed at (any of) you.

Sure since this IS private discussions.

Smile

I have asked Harpo if he can see this board,to see if he can contribute here.I am not sure if Richard 111 can see this place,I will have to check when I get home.You can let him know about it if you want.

Maybe we can ask Alan Siddons for some help in this since he is another one who does not like the "STANDARD" explanation either.He can keep his anonymous status by only being here and not in the public area.I can keep his name invisible to the public too.

I have no problem with your "pointed" comments,I know they are coming from you and that is good enough for me.

Big Grin

Well off to work I go!

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
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user
Quote this message in a reply
02-01-2010, 10:03 AM
Post: #6
RE: Derek - Smelling the coffee.
Awesome work Derek.

Looks overwhelming at the moment since I'm short on time. But it will still be here later. Smile
Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user
Quote this message in a reply
02-01-2010, 12:16 PM
Post: #7
RE: Derek - Smelling the coffee.
Thank you SST, and HarpoSpoke, greatly appreciated.
Alan Siddons, that would be fantastic, wouldn't it.
Come to think of it, I should put in Jim Peden's CO2 oven as well. - Done.
I'll contact Richard111 and find out.

Smile

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.
Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user
Quote this message in a reply
02-01-2010, 01:42 PM
Post: #8
RE: Derek - Smelling the coffee.
Yep, I'm here. Nothing pertinent to add at this time.
Will be watching.

Environmentalism is based on lies and the lies reflect an agenda that regards humanity as the enemy of the Earth. - Alan Caruba
Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user
Quote this message in a reply
02-02-2010, 01:37 AM
Post: #9
RE: Derek - Smelling the coffee.
Kiwigate - possibly....

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/SC1002/S00004.htm
NIWA Unable To Justify Official Temperature Record
Monday, 1 February 2010, 4:02 pm
Press Release: New Zealand Climate Science Coalition


Excerpt,
" an admission by NIWA that it no longer holds the records that would support its in-house manipulation of official temperature readings.

In December, NZCSC issued a formal request for the schedule of adjustments under the Official Information Act 1982,
specifically seeking copies of “the original worksheets and/or computer records used for the calculations”.
On 29 January, NIWA responded that they no longer held any internal records, and
merely referred to the scientific literature.
"

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.
Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user
Quote this message in a reply
02-02-2010, 03:07 AM
Post: #10
RE: Derek - Smelling the coffee.
British Gov. tries to find ways not to prosecute Climategate "scientists".
http://www.climatechangefraud.com/politi...mategate-i
By misinterpreting it's own laws...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/colum...-case.html

Excerpt,
" There is something very odd indeed about the statement by the Information Commission on its investigation into “Climategate”, the leak of emails from East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit. Gordon Smith, the deputy commissioner, confirms that the university’s refusal to answer legitimate inquiries made in 2007 and 2008 was an offence under S.77 of the Information Act. But he goes on to claim that the Commission is powerless to bring charges, thanks to a loophole in the law – “because the legislation requires action within six months of the offence taking place”.

Careful examination of the Act, however, shows that it says nothing whatever about a time limit. The Commission appears to be trying to confuse this with a provision of the Magistrates Act, that charges for an offence cannot be brought more than six months after it has been drawn to the authorities’ attention – not after it was committed. In this case, the Commission only became aware of the offence two months ago when the emails were leaked – showing that the small group of British and American scientists at the top of the IPCC were discussing with each other and with the university ways to break the law, not least by destroying evidence, an offence in itself.

The Commission is thus impaled on a hook of its own devising. By admitting that serious offences were committed, it is now legally obliged to bring charges. And if these were brought under the 1977 Criminal Law Act, alleging that the offences amounted to a conspiracy to defy the law, there is no time limit anyway.

The real mystery therefore is how the Commission came to misread the very Act which brought it into being. Undoubtedly a successful prosecution involving such world-ranking scientists would be extraordinarily embarrassing, not just to the Government but to the entire global warming cause. So what has persuaded the Commission not to do its duty?
"


Over in Aussie Lord Monckton debates and wins again (link includes downloadable mp3 file of debate).
http://blogs.abc.net.au/victoria/2010/02...group.html
February 01, 2010 , 9:46 AM by Simon Brown

Excerpt,
Lord Monckton " came on Mornings with Jon Faine to debate Rupert Posner from The Climate Group,
who claims dangerous man-made global warming is occurring and action must be taken to stop it now.
"

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.
Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user
Quote this message in a reply
02-02-2010, 07:10 AM
Post: #11
RE: Derek - Smelling the coffee.
(02-02-2010 01:37 AM)Derek Wrote:  Kiwigate - possibly....

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/SC1002/S00004.htm
NIWA Unable To Justify Official Temperature Record
Monday, 1 February 2010, 4:02 pm
Press Release: New Zealand Climate Science Coalition


Excerpt,
" an admission by NIWA that it no longer holds the records that would support its in-house manipulation of official temperature readings.

In December, NZCSC issued a formal request for the schedule of adjustments under the Official Information Act 1982,
specifically seeking copies of “the original worksheets and/or computer records used for the calculations”.
On 29 January, NIWA responded that they no longer held any internal records, and
merely referred to the scientific literature.
"

ROFLMAO!

Sheer incompetence is the end result of being morons.

Now we can officially ignore their "adjustments" since there are no records to refer to them to see how it was done.

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
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user
Quote this message in a reply
02-02-2010, 07:18 AM
Post: #12
RE: Derek - Smelling the coffee.
Quote:Elsewhere I have tried raising the idea that discussions could be entered into "accepting" as a premise that there is no greenhouse effect,
maybe I should of added as modelled at present........
The discussion idea was simply quashed, it was forcibly, and obviously not allowed to be aired.
I was frankly shocked, and disgusted.
(Not for the first time in that arena that a reasonable basis for discussion I or others have tried to raise on various subjects
has been dealt with (mostly by the same people) in the same manner)
I am still a member "elsewhere" but I do not see the point in posting further,
given the way a reasonable basis for discussion was dealt with.
This including the justification of quashing such discussion by the stating of
the NASA "facts" regarding a 33K greenhouse effect...............

To my mind patently something very basic is amiss with the NASA basis.
So, such a discussion basis is justified by NASA's "facts", not
precluded by these same (almost certainly misinterpretted observations as) "facts".

I was at that forum just a few minutes ago and see that the discussion is heating up.

Jack B and Hans J are being somewhat contradicted by Arthur R.

It is funny because the various replies shows that even they do not know the true answer either,otherwise they would not be arguing it the manner they are doing.

That is a major reason why I have been open to other people such as Alan Siddons,Nasif Nahiale and Hans Schreuder on this.

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
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user
Quote this message in a reply
02-02-2010, 10:42 AM
Post: #13
RE: Derek - Smelling the coffee.
Big GrinBig GrinBig Grin
Why am I not surprised they continue to argue mute points......


I am going to add to the first post the below, normally I won't add the further revisions to the end of the thread,
but I think this may be worth it...

Finally regarding the AGW oven, it apparently assumes no conduction and convection of heat from the chicken to the air in the oven.
Does this mean the oven is a vacuum,. ?
IdeaIdeaIdea
We all know that the chicken put into the AGW oven will cool slightly because it will conduct it's heat to the air contained in the oven, OK.
Let us assume that indeed the oven is a perfect reflector, and it is perfectly insulated.
It would take a certain amount of time for the chicken and the air to reach a slightly lower equilibrium temperature,
chickens having a higher specific heat content than air. Rolleyes
OK, is it possible we can make the oven a lot bigger and the object a metal object (a steel ball for example)
of a known specific temperature when put in the oven (OK, if you insist you can use a chicken if you must - as long as it's free range mind you).
Again it would take, in a perfectly insulated and reflecting oven a certain amount of time to reach a lower equilibrium temperature.
What would happen if we altered the atmospheric composition of the oven. ?
Say starting with very low humidity, and repeating with very high humidity,
or, more easily, first with an atmospheric CO2 level, and repeated with far larger CO2 levels.
I suggest that as the "anti greenhouse gases" are increased the heat dispersion would be faster,
so the steel ball and the atmosphere in the oven would reach their new lower equilibrium temperature quicker.
This would completely disprove the "greenhouse effect" gases supposed ability to trap or retain heat,
and prove the "anti greenhouse gases" ability to disperse black body radiation.
Am I right in this interpretation please people,
if indeed the steel ball and the atmosphere in the oven did reach a new lower equilibrium temperature quicker
with increased "anti greenhouse gas" levels. ?
Would this be the repeatable, verifiable experiment to disprove the greenhouse effect and AGW. ?

Phewww, quite an idea..

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.
Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user
Quote this message in a reply
02-02-2010, 06:56 PM
Post: #14
RE: Derek - Smelling the coffee.
(02-02-2010 10:42 AM)Derek Wrote:  Big GrinBig GrinBig Grin
Why am I not surprised they continue to argue mute points......


I am going to add to the first post the below, normally I won't add the further revisions to the end of the thread,
but I think this may be worth it...

Finally regarding the AGW oven, it apparently assumes no conduction and convection of heat from the chicken to the air in the oven.
Does this mean the oven is a vacuum,. ?
IdeaIdeaIdea
We all know that the chicken put into the AGW oven will cool slightly because it will conduct it's heat to the air contained in the oven, OK.
Let us assume that indeed the oven is a perfect reflector, and it is perfectly insulated.
It would take a certain amount of time for the chicken and the air to reach a slightly lower equilibrium temperature,
chickens having a higher specific heat content than air. Rolleyes
OK, is it possible we can make the oven a lot bigger and the object a metal object (a steel ball for example)
of a known specific temperature when put in the oven (OK, if you insist you can use a chicken if you must - as long as it's free range mind you).
Again it would take, in a perfectly insulated and reflecting oven a certain amount of time to reach a lower equilibrium temperature.
What would happen if we altered the atmospheric composition of the oven. ?
Say starting with very low humidity, and repeating with very high humidity,
or, more easily, first with an atmospheric CO2 level, and repeated with far larger CO2 levels.
I suggest that as the "anti greenhouse gases" are increased the heat dispersion would be faster,
so the steel ball and the atmosphere in the oven would reach their new lower equilibrium temperature quicker.
This would completely disprove the "greenhouse effect" gases supposed ability to trap or retain heat,
and prove the "anti greenhouse gases" ability to disperse black body radiation.
Am I right in this interpretation please people,
if indeed the steel ball and the atmosphere in the oven did reach a new lower equilibrium temperature quicker
with increased "anti greenhouse gas" levels. ?
Would this be the repeatable, verifiable experiment to disprove the greenhouse effect and AGW. ?

Phewww, quite an idea..

Jim was making fun of the climate models that seems to state that continual IR radiation from a chicken,will after being reflected back to the chicken over and over,will fully cook it.

It is impossible,because no additional kinetic energy was added!

If the bird was 15 C when put into the perfect reflecting oven,that would be the warmest it gets,because no new heat was added.

It really is that simple.

If it could work,they would have long ago done away with conventional ovens and used the microwave sized oven,with the heat source of a flashlight size bulb in a perfect reflective environment,that would cook the poor bird to perfection!

Flashlight technology made good for the world,no more wood burning stoves needed in poor nations,to cook their food to satisfaction.

What is stopping Al Gore and Richard Branson from peddling a sure thing?

Rolleyes

Quote:OK, is it possible we can make the oven a lot bigger and the object a metal object (a steel ball for example)
of a known specific temperature when put in the oven (OK, if you insist you can use a chicken if you must - as long as it's free range mind you).
Again it would take, in a perfectly insulated and reflecting oven a certain amount of time to reach a lower equilibrium temperature.
What would happen if we altered the atmospheric composition of the oven. ?
Say starting with very low humidity, and repeating with very high humidity,
or, more easily, first with an atmospheric CO2 level, and repeated with far larger CO2 levels.
I suggest that as the "anti greenhouse gases" are increased the heat dispersion would be faster,
so the steel ball and the atmosphere in the oven would reach their new lower equilibrium temperature quicker.
This would completely disprove the "greenhouse effect" gases supposed ability to trap or retain heat,
and prove the "anti greenhouse gases" ability to disperse black body radiation.

Since no additional kinetic energy was added,it could not warm up anyway.Cooling is all there is left since we all know that a warm object ALWAYS cool in the absence of additional energy input.

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
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user
Quote this message in a reply
02-02-2010, 11:11 PM
Post: #15
RE: Derek - Smelling the coffee.
Yes, I realise that "It really is that simple", cooling is all there left for the chicken to do in Jim's cartoon,
and, yes I have gone off at a tangent to it, but, the question I have posed remains.

If the chicken was warmer than the ovens "atmosphere" would more "anti greenhouse gases" alter the time taken for
the chicken (object) to reach a new lower atmosphere / chicken equilibrium temperature within the oven. ?
In other words, does the level of "greenhouse gases, or "anti greenhouse gases" (whichever term you prefer) effect the rate of cooling, in an atmosphere. ?

Also should the experiment of a hottter object (steel ball suggested) in an "oven" that is perfectly reflecting and insolated be repeated
not just with different levels of "greenhouse gases" (or "anti greenhouse gases" if you prefer), but also with different barometric pressures, ie, 1100, 1000, 900, 800, and 700 Mb.
Would this give a comparison of time with reducing "conductive ability" of the atmosphere in the oven as the pressure was lowered in the different versions of the experiment. ?

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.
Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user
Quote this message in a reply
02-04-2010, 06:23 AM
Post: #16
RE: Derek - Smelling the coffee.
Okay, this chicken has cooked his goose. Big Grin

Here is a thought experiment to explain my personal take on the "greenhouse effect". Take a blank sheet of paper, A4 will do, mark a series of horizontal lines about an inch apart up the paper. Draw some shading under the lowest line to indicate a radiating surface. Doesn't matter what the surface is; snow, ice, water, rock, tarmac, grass, all will radiate IR.

Each line above the surface line represents the theoretical optical depth in the atmosphere for any IR wavelength you wish to use. This is the depth at which ALL of a specified wavelength of radiation emitted by the surface is absorbed in the atmosphere by "greenhouse gases". I think it is Novak who claims 10 meters for CO2. I have read elsewhere that it is above 100 meters, no matter. The depth will vary for different wavelengths or be non-existent for some wavelengths.

The 15 micron wavelength of CO2 is about the most intense part of the IR spectrum, it is also in the "IR window" of the atmosphere. Jim Peden claims that the CO2 will absorb somewhat less than 8% of the total upwelling IR from the surface. We will use that 8% figure as it makes no difference to the following argument.

The physics states that some of the absorbed energy will pass into the air by conduction and half of what is left will radiate back to the surface and the other half will continue up. I have been unable to find any discussion, paper, whatever, that quantifies the data for this first absorption level.

Let's ignore heating losses; thus 8% is absorbed at the first level, 92% continues up and is no longer a consideration in this exercise. Now ALL of the upgoing 4% will be absorbed by the next layer above. 2% will come back down and 2% will go up to the third layer. The 2% coming down will be absorbed by the first layer sending 1% back up and 1% down to the surface.

To summarise; the first layer returned 4% to the surface, the second layer returned 1% more, the third layer will result in a further increase of 0.25% and so on. It gets messy once you reach the sixth layer but it looks like the total returned radiation for the IR wavelength of interest can NOT exceed some 5.3%. That figure will not change as CO2 increases, the optical depths will just move a little lower.

To help visualise this on that sheet of paper, draw a small up arrow from the surface and mark it with the figure 8. On the first line above draw an up and a down arrow and mark each with the figure 4. Repeat on the next line above and mark with 2. Keep marking each line upwards showing a reduction by half of the upwelling radiation through each optical depth layer. Layer 2 passes 2% down to layer 1 which will allow 1% through to the surface and 1% back up to layer 2 which passes 1/2% to layer 1 which passes 1/4% to the surface. It is a logical progression where each layer reduces by half the radiation passing through, whether up or down. Marking this up on the paper helps to see that the maximum "backradiation" cannot exceed 5.3% of whatever the surface temperature happens to be.

That 5.3% figure is way over the top because I have not accounted for loses that occurred heating the atmosphere, and the temperature of the atmosphere reduces with altitude also effecting the level of returned radiation. Also the "broadening" of the IR bands is effected by local temperature so this drops away rapidly with altitude. Have not considered this effect either.

The above argument applies for IR radiation up from the surface, but it must also apply to IR radiation down from space thereby providing some cooling for the upper atmosphere. CO2 being a much more effective radiator than N2 and O2 will induce increased cooling of the upper atmosphere as above the 300mb level radiation can easily escape to space.

Conclusion. Increasing levels of CO2 will make no change to the observed "greenhouse effect" at the surface and will increase upper tropospheric cooling.

In support of the above argument consider that H2O, water vapour, is never less than 0.1% anywhere in the atmosphere. At the tropics the H2O level can change from say less than 1% to more than 4% in just hours without there being any massive change in surface temperature. I know, I have lived in the tropics for some years.

Environmentalism is based on lies and the lies reflect an agenda that regards humanity as the enemy of the Earth. - Alan Caruba
Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user
Quote this message in a reply
02-04-2010, 08:59 AM
Post: #17
RE: Derek - Smelling the coffee.
Spot on Richard111, I used to use 6% as an over the top safe figure (I couldn't be bothered working out the reduction due to broadening, etc.).
Which means the rate of cooling would be 94%.
The question left, is over what time scale. - This is the point at which Dr. Miskolczi never replied..
Milliseconds, presumably.


The UK's biggest water melon is....

http://buythetruth.wordpress.com/2009/08...sts-dream/

" The UK Meteorological Office, whose Hadley Centre runs the IPCC scientific assessment (“Working Group 1”),
is now a department of the UK Ministry of Defence. And its Chairman is none other than ###### ######
"

" Not only is he the chairman of the Met office,
but ###### is Chairman of the Green Fiscal Commission, seeking to impose massive green taxation;
he is Director of the Carbon Disclosure Project, which has built the largest database on corporate ‘carbon footprints’
as a basis for discrimination against those who don’t go along with the eco agenda;
he is Chairman of the trustees of the World Centre of Monitoring of Conservation, which is bankrolled by the UN Environment Programme
to push and ensure compliance with the Green agenda; and
he is Chairman of the Homes and Communities Agency, which is seeking to grab land for ecotowns and
determining compliance of housing to stringent Green standards.
Other recent positions he has held include Chief Executive of WWF-UK, a vast malthusian political pressure group
seeking to grab land and stop development around the world;
a Director of The Climate Group, a huge international pressure group for the climate change agenda; and
a Director of the Alliance of Religions and Conservation, a secular body seeking to infuse ‘Green’ values into all the major religions,
and to designate land as ‘sacred’ to prohibit development, and galvanize religions as a powerful advocacy group for the eco agenda.

This web of organizations over which ###### exercises influence means that ###### is responsible for
the generation of climate alarmism, input into the IPCC reports, powerful secular and religious eco advocacy,
directing of investments exceeding $55 trillion towards the Green agenda,
monitoring of eco compliance, manipulating government fiscal policy towards green taxes, and
control of the built environment towards the green agenda.
###### is an eco-imperialist, and for him and his cronies it’s all about
total social control for the green agenda – controlling all bases:
investment, building, land, religion, government, taxes,
propaganda, advocacy, monitoring, climate science and data.
"

He is presently,
chairman of the Met office
Chairman of the Green Fiscal Commission
Director of the Carbon Disclosure Project
Chairman of the trustees of the World Centre of Monitoring of Conservation
Chairman of the Homes and Communities Agency

recently held positions include,
Chief Executive of WWF-UK
Director of The Climate Group
Director of the Alliance of Religions and Conservation

he is....
a very busy man indeed..

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.
Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user
Quote this message in a reply
02-04-2010, 11:28 AM
Post: #18
RE: Derek - Smelling the coffee.
(02-04-2010 08:59 AM)Derek Wrote:  he is....
a very busy man indeed..

Yes, and thankfully, there is absolutely no conflict of interest in his holding all of those posts.

I know you think you understand what you thought I said,
but I'm not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant!
Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user
Quote this message in a reply
02-04-2010, 11:52 AM
Post: #19
RE: Derek - Smelling the coffee.
Big GrinBig GrinBig Grin JohnWho.

I couldn't work out from the way it was written if ###### is also Chairman of the Hadley Centre, and / or the Ministry of Defence as well.

It wouldn't surprise me for a man of his energies.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1b-6U5Mwy...r_embedded

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.
Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user
Quote this message in a reply
02-04-2010, 01:02 PM
Post: #20
RE: Derek - Smelling the coffee.
I hope that isn't as scary as it sounds.
Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user
Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)