Derek - Facebook group created, please look, join if you agree, and share.

[Derek]

Hi All,
I am not sure that, nor do not know if it is possible, to link to a facebook group, but I have created one.

The open group is called -
There is no greenhouse effect.

Ok, it is a statement as such, but in the about this group section I have described it as -
An open discussion group to air the failings of the greenhouse effect "theory"

Please have a look if you have a facebook account.
Please feel free to join if you wish.
and,
Please feel free to share the group, the more the merrier.

I do not intend that group to stop myself posting here, I may post less frequently, BUT, there is some interesting stuff comimng soon.
My apologies, an excel sheet calls...As well as the damned dentist again.

[Derek]

Hi All,
Please excuse me I am just draughting a response to someone asking on fb for a description of the GH effect "theory"..

The GH effect "theory" as presently taught, is as follows. Please also see this illustration.
http://​i53.photobucket.com/albums/​g43/...lide23.jpg


1) The earth at the top of it's atmosphere constantly recieves sunlight at a power of 1378W/m2. In reality this is an average, as it rises and falls as the earth's distance varies due to earth's orbital eccentricity around the sun. That said, this variation is quite small in power (W/m2) of sunlight received terms. It is worth noting as such, but effectively we can ignore it.

2) GH "theory" starts by dividing the power of sunlight recieved at the top of the atmosphere (1378W/m2) by 4. This is described b y the "theory" as being because a globe has 4 times the surface area of the same diameter disc. Hence 1378W/m2 in reality is 340W/m2 at the start of GH effect "theory". In total energy received over 24 hours terms this is correct....But,
as the how to cook a chicken analogy shows in thermodynamic terms it is completely incorrect, AND a misapplication.
One of the best descriptions in this respect of the gross error of P/4 was coined by John O'Sullivan. John in effect said,
" When a recipe says roast a 3lb chicken for 1 hour at 200° C,
a climatologist assumes that 4 hours at 50 degrees will produce the same result."
as per,
http://​www.helpwithcooking.com/​cooking...icken.html
The above how to cook a chicken analogy clearly shows how the greenhouse effect "theory" divorces itself from the thermodynamics of reality.
We all know 200C for one hour has a totally different effect thermodynamically speaking to 50C for four hours, even if it is the same amount of energy as such.

P/4 is ok for total energy received over one full rotation of a globe in space,
but not much else...
P/4 also establishes the principle that according to GH effect "theory" increased surface area reduces the power of IR received and therefore (because of S/B Law and black body) the power that can also be emitted by the receiving object.



3) GH effect "theory" starts with P/4 being applied to 1378W/m2, and so it states that 340W/m2 is received constantly, at the top of earth's atmosphere, over the whole, not in parts. This starting point for the "theory" states that earth does not receive sunlight over a lit hemisphere....
OK, so once you have swallowed the starting point for the "theory" what happens next???
The 340W/m2 at the top of the atmosphere is reduced by both reflection straight back into space, known as albedo, and by scattering and absorption within the atmosphere. These losses mean that 240W/m2 of sunlight are received, constantly, all over earth's surface, according to the "theory"....
According to the Stefan Boltzman Law a (perfect) black body receiving an IR input of 240W/m2 would warm upto a temperature of MINUS 18 Celcius. The black body would also radiate IR at a power of 240W/m2.
GH effect uses the S/B Law to state that earth's surface (GH effect "theory" treats earth as a perfect black body, as it does with ALL the parts of the climate system) receiving 240W/m2 warms to MINUS 18C, because of sunlight. Some call GH effect "theory" the cold sun hypothesis for this very reason, the sun, supposedly only "warms" earth's surface to MINUS 18C...

4) Earth's surface having been warmed to MINUS 18C by direct sunlight, then radiates IR at a power of 240W/m2, in agreement with S/B Law. This emitted IR then warms the earth's atmosphere at a specific height (no reason ever given why a certain height) to MINUS 18C. Then according to GH effect "theory" the atmosphere radiates both up and down 240W/m2. This is in contradiction to the principle established by P/4, the power should be halved, but it is not. The same power is according to the "theory" radiated both up and down. This in effect has doubled the power and amount of the flow of IR. It is an accepted "principle" of GH effect "theory" and much of the accompanying radiative physics that power (W/m2) of IR emission EQUALS amount (Watts) of IR emitted. Either way, at this point the "theory" doubles the flow, in both power and amount terms.
Energy is literally created from nothing.

5) The IR emiited upwards by the atmosphere gives the object earth the appearance of MINUS 18C when viewed from space. This is in agreement with S/B Law. BUT, what happened to the absorbed and reflected initial sunlight?
Some would have to be added to the atmosphere emitted outgoing 240W/m2, so the earth should appear hotter than it is, or should be.
Some would have raised the temperature of the atmosphere (if it is a perfect black body...) so the atmosphere should also be emitting more than 240W/m2.
According to the "theory" the initial reflected and absorbed energy simply dissappears....GH effect "theory" not only creates energy, it also destroys energy, when it needs to.

6) According to GH effect "theory" earth's surface, is constantly receiving, over all of it's surface 240W/m2 from direct sunlight, AND 240W/m2 from the atmospheric downwards emitted IR (usually referred to as "back radiation"). This means that in accordance with S/B Law earth's surface is receiving 480W/m2, constantly, all over, and is therefore as a black body, constantly, all over 30C. What is actually taught is a 48 degrees Celcius "effect", in that the earth's surface is not merely 33C warmer because of the greenhouse effect, but that it is 48 degrees warmer, as this is the difference between MINUS 18 and 30C.
All this is based upon the initial lowering of the temperature of earth's surface due to sunight received, by the use of P/4 to MINUS 18C.....

7) Why does the earth's surface NOT radiate at 480W/m2 according to GH "theory"??? According to S/B Law an object radiates at a power comensurate with it's temperature, therefore earth's surface MUST radiate at a power of 480W/m2. However if GH "theory" admitted this then it would have to admit that emitted IR would warm the atmosphere to 480W/m2, or rather 30C. If this was the case the atmosphere would then also HAVE TO radiate at 480W/m2, so the surface would be recieving 240+240+480 = 960W/m2....Thw surface of earth would then have to radiate 960W/m2, heating the atmosphere to 960W/m2, which would.....etc, etc, etc.. You get the idea, it would be a run away effect.
WHY then does GH "theory" never explain this "slight problem" with the logic of the "theory"???

Jim Peden illustrated this issue with the "theory" beautifully some time back with his free energy (AGW) oven.
http://​i53.photobucket.com/albums/​g43/...f8834-.jpg


IF GH effect "theory" used it's own logic all the way through, then it would actually look like this.
(although the "theory" would still have to explain WHY the earth's surface does not emit at a power of 358W/m2, warming the atmosphere, etc, etc, etc..)
http://​i53.photobucket.com/albums/​g43/...lide24.jpg


The above is WHY the consensus, AND main stream sceptics avoid like the plague questioning of the principles (especially P/4), of the greenhouse effect so called "theory", that is in reality a failed hypothesis, that should never have got past first base.

[Sunsettommy]

I just answered Tom Harrison but Facebook is not a good place for detailed discussions due to Facebook's very limited posting box.

[Derek]

Yes, it has been trying my patience of late, so I thought draft a reply at GWS then post on fb.
It seems to work, in a limited fashion as you say.

[Sunsettommy]

I just replied Tom again.I realized that his initial post has red herrings in it.

He does admit that what CO2 GHE HE believes is happening is not measurable because of too many variables.

as he states here:

Quote:ThomasP: Oh, please stop. You can measure energy absorption in the lab, so you know it's happening. You can't measure it in the atmosphere, because there are too many variables to control.

He contradicts himself badly.

[Derek]

I note he does not reply to my challenge directly to him to discuss P/4 with me.
Infact he seems to prefer to reply on any other subject....preferably radiation related.
He is a perfect example of the current radiative obsession.....

You exposed his red herrings beautifully, I thought about doing it to his reply to me,
but decided composing the above post more important.
I will tag him on the Michael Petterson "thread" to remind him of the subject in a couple of days.

[Derek]

Hi All,
I remembered recently that several years back someone said to me on forums and facebook you should have an avatar that is a picture of yourself.
I understood at the time it was being stated that an avatar of something other than yourself is considered "bad form".

As the There is no greenhouse effect facebook group is doing better than I expected, and in part also due to the "exchanges" with Tom Harrison,
I thought it time for me to use a "proper" avatar.
I may replace the present picture with one where I have shaven first though...
But any replacement will include Belle, my rescue rottweiler.

[Goose52]

I don't use a picture of myself. My avatar is the Stig.

[Derek]

Hi All,
just noting some links so I do not lose them.

Harry Dale Huffman
http://www.blogger.com/profile/03210275295826050501

http://theendofthemystery.blogspot.co.uk...ffect.html
He seems a little preoccupied with distance from the sun to me, pressure explains almost all he notes...

http://www.crescentofbetrayal.com/Jelbri...OfMass.pdf

http://climaterealists.com/attachments/f...fEarth.pdf
from,
http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=7798

http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=9085

Probably most importantly,
http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=9254
I would suggest he is tying himself in knots because of "equilibrium"...
" Removing that non-existent cooling effect from the AGW equation and replacing it with the actual warming effect will bring the numbers into balance with no need to propose any downward energy from GHGs in the air.

AGW theory relies on a gross misunderstanding of the effect of an atmosphere and of the non radiative processes as defined and quantified by the Ideal Gas Law.

The Ideal Gas Law Calculation.
The Ideal Gas Law can be found here:

http://www.shodor.org/UNChem/advanced/gas/

in particular the equation: PV = nRT

The terms used in that equation are described in the article referred to in the link above.

Note that there is no term for the presence or absence of GHGs or their radiative characteristics.

Yet the Ideal Gas Law works without such a term. If the temperature of a planet’s surface were affected by the radiative characteristics of GHGs then the Ideal Gas Law would not work, it would have been falsified long ago.

The failure to appreciate that it is the Ideal Gas Law that governs the surface temperature of a planet with an atmosphere has led to the misapplication of the S-B Law that I describe above.

That misapplication has led to various errors which I have already considered and described in detail here:The Errors That Caused The Great Global Warming Scare

On the basis of the above I submit that the entire AGW theory is wrong and that the only effect of more GHGs in the air would be a more energised air circulation but the change would be so small as compared to natural sun and ocean induced changes that we could never measure it. "

Sadly, I also have to note,

" It is clear that a planet without an atmosphere shows extremes of heat and cold with the coming and going of solar input to the surface as the planet rotates. When there is no atmosphere the solar energy goes straight in and straight out via radiation alone giving extreme highs and extreme lows of temperature but little energy storage in or on the planet. "

" In view of that time delay the planet will be warmer than the average of the extremes for a planet without an atmosphere.
An atmosphere WARMS a planetary surface so why does AGW theory put a number in for COOLING as a result of absorption of energy by an atmosphere? "

" A planet with an atmosphere will always be warmer than a planet without one and there is no limit to that additional warmth if the density of the atmosphere, regardless of composition, increases. "

" If the incoming solar energy is completely absorbed at a point within the atmosphere but above the planetary surface the heat will still be conducted down to be shared amongst the molecules of the even denser atmosphere at the surface below. "

I also have to note this excerpt from a Will Pratt comment,
http://www.spinonthat.com/CO2.html
on this thread.
http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=9206
" The effective emission height of the atmosphere, which is a variable altitude around 5 km is always at the S-B equilibrium temperature of 255 K or -18º C, it is the Earths "Black Body" equilibrium temperature estimate as calculated by the S-B LAW. It is NOT a figure that is in dispute.

It also happens to be the central mass point of the atmosphere. The central mass point and the effective emission height of a three dimensional gas is therefore obviously the true surface.

Effective emission height = radiative surface.

This is confirmed by applying the normal lapse rate of 6.5º C back to the surface.

6.5º C * 5 = 32.5º C. -18º C + 32.5º C = 14.5º C

In any radiosonde data it is possible to accurately estimate the surface temperature from this S-B equilibrium temperature of -18º C. It makes no difference at what specific altitude the S-B equilibrium temperature of -18º C can be located. As long as conditions for the column of air below are fairly stable, it is possible to estimate within a few degrees, the surface temperature. Though one must take into account the position of the solar zenith both in time of year and geographical location.

In other words if one was to locate an average geographical position on the Earth at an average time of year (with regard to incoming EMR), it is possible to accurately predict the near surface temperature to within one or two degrees by locating the S-B equilibrium temperature of -18º C in an atmospheric sounding.

So for example, a sounding over Madrid in late spring in which -18º C can be located, regardless of what altitude it is found, using the 6.5º C lapse rate will predict the near surface temperature with a high degree of accuracy.

.... it can be tested and verified by anyone.

Here is proof :

http://weather.uwyo.edu/cgi-bin/sounding...STNM=08221 "

I have met Will, he is an ok bloke, a bit loud, but I would gladly have a few beers with him any day.
-----------------------------
Just drafting...

Harry Dale Huffman for example studied the temperatures found on Venus, in his blog post titled, Venus: No Greenhouse Effect.
Excerpts,
" Surprisingly to most, there is no greenhouse effect at all, and you can prove it for yourself.

From the temperature and pressure profiles for the Venusian atmosphere, you can confirm that, at the altitude where the pressure = 1000 millibars, which is the sea level pressure of Earth, the temperature of the Venusian atmosphere is 66ºC = 339K.

This is much warmer than the temperature at the surface of the Earth (at pressure = 1000 millibars), which is about 15ºC = 288K. HOWEVER

Venus is closer to the Sun, and gets proportionally more power from it. Earth is 93 million miles from the Sun, on average, while Venus is only 67.25 million. Since the intensity of the Sun's radiation decreases with distance from it as 1 over r-squared, Venus receives (93/67.25) squared, or 1.91 times the power per unit area that Earth receives, on average. "

and,
" Another way to look at the Venus/Earth data is this:

Venus is 67.25 million miles from the Sun, the Earth, 93 million.

The radiating temperature of Venus should be 1.176 times that of the Earth.

Without ANY greenhouse effect as promulgated by the IPCC, at any given pressure within the range of the Earth atmosphere, the temperature of the Venus atmosphere should be 1.176 times that of the corresponding Earth atmosphere.

The facts:
at 1000 millibars (mb), T_earth=287.4 (K), T_venus=338.6, ratio=1.178
at 900 mb, T_earth=281.7, T_venus=331.4, ratio=1.176
at 800 mb, T_earth=275.5, T_venus=322.9, ratio=1.172
at 700 mb, T_earth=268.6, T_venus=315.0, ratio=1.173
at 600 mb, T_earth=260.8, T_venus=302.1, ratio=1.158
at 500 mb, T_earth=251.9, T_venus=291.4, ratio=1.157
at 400 mb, T_earth=241.4, T_venus=278.6, ratio=1.154
at 300 mb, T_earth=228.6, T_venus=262.9, ratio=1.150
at 200 mb, T_earth=211.6, T_venus=247.1, ratio=1.168
(Venus temperatures are +/- 1.4K, Earth temp. are from std. atm)

The actual ratio overall is 1.165 +/- 0.015 = 0.991 x 1.176. It does not vary from the no-greenhouse theoretical value at any point by more than about 2%. "

and,
" There is no sign whatever of a greenhouse effect on either planet. The fact that the temperature ratios are so close to that predicted solely by their relative distances from the Sun. "

Stephen Wilde, is another comentator of note in regards to the ideal gas law and how it should have been applied in the present climatology GH and AGW dominated paradigm. In particular in an article titled, Atmospheric Composition, Planetary Surface Temperatures and How AGW Theory Fails To Observe The Laws of Physics..
Excerpt,
" Removing that non-existent cooling effect from the AGW equation and replacing it with the actual warming effect will bring the numbers into balance with no need to propose any downward energy from GHGs in the air.

AGW theory relies on a gross misunderstanding of the effect of an atmosphere and of the non radiative processes as defined and quantified by the Ideal Gas Law.

The Ideal Gas Law Calculation.
The Ideal Gas Law can be found here:

http://www.shodor.org/UNChem/advanced/gas/

in particular the equation: PV = nRT

The terms used in that equation are described in the article referred to in the link above.

Note that there is no term for the presence or absence of GHGs or their radiative characteristics.

Yet the Ideal Gas Law works without such a term. If the temperature of a planet’s surface were affected by the radiative characteristics of GHGs then the Ideal Gas Law would not work, it would have been falsified long ago.

The failure to appreciate that it is the Ideal Gas Law that governs the surface temperature of a planet with an atmosphere has led to the misapplication of the S-B Law "

It appears that Harry Dale Huffman has shown that distance from the sun governs the teperature that a planet observed from space will apear to be. Stephen Wilde argues and very convincingly that pressure determines the teperature for a given altitude, or rather pressure due to the amount of atosphere contained within the planets gravity field.

Will Pratt, appears to correctly combine the two approaches into a one overall approach with the below excerpt from Posted by Will Pratt (Twitter) on Feb 29th 2012, 2:27 PM EST at the Climate Realists website.
Will Pratt wrote,
" The effective emission height of the atmosphere, which is a variable altitude around 5 km is always at the S-B equilibrium temperature of 255 K or -18º C, it is the Earths "Black Body" equilibrium temperature estimate as calculated by the S-B LAW. It is NOT a figure that is in dispute.

It also happens to be the central mass point of the atmosphere. The central mass point and the effective emission height of a three dimensional gas is therefore obviously the true surface.

Effective emission height = radiative surface.

This is confirmed by applying the normal lapse rate of 6.5º C back to the surface.

6.5º C * 5 = 32.5º C. -18º C + 32.5º C = 14.5º C

In any radiosonde data it is possible to accurately estimate the surface temperature from this S-B equilibrium temperature of -18º C. It makes no difference at what specific altitude the S-B equilibrium temperature of -18º C can be located. As long as conditions for the column of air below are fairly stable, it is possible to estimate within a few degrees, the surface temperature. Though one must take into account the position of the solar zenith both in time of year and geographical location.

In other words if one was to locate an average geographical position on the Earth at an average time of year (with regard to incoming EMR), it is possible to accurately predict the near surface temperature to within one or two degrees by locating the S-B equilibrium temperature of -18º C in an atmospheric sounding.

So for example, a sounding over Madrid in late spring in which -18º C can be located, regardless of what altitude it is found, using the 6.5º C lapse rate will predict the near surface temperature with a high degree of accuracy.

.... it can be tested and verified by anyone.

Here is proof :

http://weather.uwyo.edu/cgi-bin/sounding...STNM=08221 "

Overall then it appears that, gravity, and the amount of atmosphere, ie pressure, supplies a base amount of energy to the system (a planets atosphere), this produces a lapse rate due to reducing pressure with altitude.
ie, the ideal gas law states, for every altitude what the temperature should be (with no solar insolation). Any difference to this is what should interest us. HOWEVER, the difference is the sum of ALL warming and cooling processes.

Furthermore, it appears that all planets obey the S/B Law as objects observed in space.

[Derek]

I think the take home message is that gravity and amount of atmosphere, ie pressure, = temperature, with no solar input required...

Gravity, and the amount of atmosphere, ie pressure, supplies a base amount of energy to the system, this produces a lapse rate due to reducing pressure with altitude.
ie, the ideal gas law states, for every altitude what the temperature should be (with no sunlight, or rather solar insolation). Any difference to this is what should interest us. HOWEVER, the difference is the sum of ALL warming and cooling processes.

That all planets appear to obey S/B Law as objects observed in space should also interest us, because this must happen.

So, how each planets atmosphere works overall to obey the ideal gas law at it's surface, AND S/B Law as an object oberved from space is the real question. How with the planets atmosphere and it's composition does the physics of the situation acheive this, as all planets appear to do? Each atmospheric composition, each differing distance from the sun, and each differing gravity field will no doubt have differing answers, applying the GH "theory" or principle to all (or any) is plainly just ridiculous.
We therefore need a new approach / paradigm, I would suggest along the above described lines.


There is no greenhouse effect.

[Derek]

What is the greenhouse effect ??? Parts 1 and 2. Final.

[Derek]

Hi All,
Apologies, just drafting / working out again..

http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/apr....Ch.r.html
" Common table sugar is sucrose, which has a molecular mass of 342.3 grams per mole. Assuming you're using granulated sugar, one grain of sugar has a mass around 0.625 mg "

CO2.
400 parts per million - 400 / 1,000,000 - 0r, 4 / 10,000
therefore,
4 grams of sugar to 10 1 kilo bags of sugar.
Maybe a teaspoon.

Methane.
1850 parts per billion. - 1850 / 1,000,000,000 or, 1.85 / 1,000,000 - 0.0185 / 10,000
0.0185 grams of sugar to 10 1 kilo bags of sugar.
18.5mg / 0.625 = 29.6 grains of sugar to 10 1 kilo bags of sugar.

Water vapour.
Upto 4% = 40,000 / 1,000,000
400 / 10,000
0.4kg of sugar to 10 1 kilo bags of sugar.
Just under half a bag of sugar + the energies of change of state....

[Derek]

Work in progress, to be finished later..Now finished as such. This is a reply to a thread in regard of Steve Milloy's below linked to articles.
Will anybody tag Steve to the thread????? I hope so.

Sadly, as a respected, and in many ways great main stream climate science skeptic, Steve Milloy wrote this (which accuarately reflects the generally held main stream skeptics position / understanding) unphysical pile of tripe last year,
http://junkscience.com/climate-features/...odynamics/

This year he is doing no better, in point of fact worse to be honest.
http://junkscience.com/2012/08/27/anothe...not-exist/
Excerpts -
a) " Earth is in the emission path of a portion of that energy, enough to raise it to about 255 kelvins after allowing for the portion reflected rather than absorbed. Earth radiates a similar amount to the universe. "
and,
b) " Within the gaseous portion of Earth’s surface – and below the altitude of effective emission (the point where incoming and outgoing radiation are in perfect balance) – we have a nice warm and humid zone in which we live. "
and,
c) " No repulsive force exists to prevent some of this radiation from being intercepted by Earth and since Earth is not transparent to these radiations it absorbs this energy. It is this feedback which keeps Earth’s non-gaseous surface warmer than it would otherwise be. "

In a) Milloy states that sunlight, ( IR beam with a power of 1368W/m2) heats earth up to 255k, or -18C. This is in contradiciton of the S/B Law, which states for a beam of the power of 1368W/m2, then a surface temperature (of a black body) of 121C, or 394k, would be induced. What he is describing, without saying, is the power of sunlight recieved at the top of earth's atmosphere (TOA), divided by four (ie P/4), then allowing for albedo and absorption within earth's atmosphere. He is stating GH "theory", without saying he is, in that he is saying that because of P/4, and atmospheric albedo, absorption, and scattering only 240W/m2 is said to reach earth's surface. Certainly he is not representing what he is describing in a clear and easily understandable manner.
Please see this diagram of the GH "theory".
http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g43/De...theory.jpg
Solar input is divided by 4 at the starting point of the "theory", and then some is lost before it is received at earth's surface.
AGW "theory" also starts with a very similar "explanation", as depicted in K&T type global energy budgets.
http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g43/De...rth_20.jpg
NASA also depict this "explanation" in their version of a global energy budget.
http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g43/De...onents.png
Please note they all start with P/4, but not one of them states that.
In this respect the consensus and main stream skeptics are inseparable, all "explanations" start with P/4.

Milloy has confused that the Stefan Boltzman law states a black body (an imaginary, albeit useful, physics concept) that recieves 240W/m2 will warm up to -18C (255k). The earth, when viewed as an object in space, obeys S/B Law. However, and this is the misdirection, he also then applies this "overall" view directly to earth's surface, when he uses the phrase in c) "warmer than it would otherwise be". THAT is the misapplication, he is stating that earth's surface is the same as the overall view one would get of earth as an object in space. THIS IS INCORRECT, AND UNPHYSICAL. IT IS RUBBISH, but it forms the basis of his whole explanantion, because he is saying earth's surface is only warmed to -18C by the sun. His unstated use of P/4 has created the need for a warming effect of some sort. As we all know, earth's surface is a lot warmer than -18C, over almost all of it's surface, almost all of the time. Milloy is simply applying P/4 without actually saying that is what he has done. Both main stream skeptics and the consensus all do this.


P/4 is "justified" because in maths a globe has four times the surface area of the same diameter disc. As earth rotates, then in 24 hours earth has had 4 times the surface area warmed compared to a disc, so P/4 is used as an average for the effect at earth's surface. Yet, no one can illuminate ALL of a globe, evenly, with a torch. THAT is the proof P/4 IS UNPHYSICAL. P/4 is just a meaningless system average in this context. It is mathematically correct, yes, but it is physically, and therefore thermodynamically incorrect. If it were correct physically then one could illuminate all of a globe, evenly, with a torch. One can not, therfore without doubt, P/4 is unphysical and should not be used.

We can measure recieved at earth's surface sunlight in W/m2. According to Milloy's explanation and use of P/4 this will only be 240W/m2, and CONSTANTLY, + a CONSTANT back radiation of similar power, ie 480W/m2 CONSTANTLY. Hence earth's surface is only warmed to 255k, -18C by sunlight according to Milloy, but we experience another, according to Milloy, 240W/m2 of back radiation which raises the temperature of earth's surface to 480W/m2, or about 30C, CONSTANTLY....
What we measure in reality is somewhat different, as this link shows.
http://www.milfordweather.org.uk/solar.php
Milloy states in b) that it is back radiation that further warms earth's surface. So, he saying earth has two effective surfaces, i) the effective surface of emission (as seen from space as -18C and that radiates back to earth's surface), and ii) the actual physical surface of earth on which we live. One should find the atmospheric (2nd "surface") effective surface of emission a difficult concept to accept as there is an atmospheric IR window through which 30% to 40% of earth's actual surface IR emissions escape to space without any hinderence whatsoever. The (mandatory) use of 2 surfaces is because the GH "theory" and AGW "theory" use a 2 parrellel plane model type.
http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g43/De...ide4-1.jpg
But earth and it's climate system can not be represented by such a model type.
http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g43/De...lide1b.jpg

In c) Milloy states that there is nothing to stop or repel back radiation from reaching earth's surface. Yes, there most definately is, water vapour, to name just one. Here he has obviously contradicted himself, namely, he stated earlier that some incoming solar IR does not reach earth's surface due to absorption, albedo and scattering, but for back radiation of thermal radiation no such losses occur, according to Milloy, (main stream skeptics and the "consensus" too, to be fair). This is ridiculous. Nasif Nahle studied the mean free path length of a photon (ie, thermal radiation) in earth's atmosphere. Nahle showed that rarely, does a photon travel further than a few meters before being absorbed by a water molecule.
http://www.biocab.org/Mean_Free_Path_Len...otons.html
How then can back radiation travel from the base of clouds to earth's surface unhindered? Simply, it can not.
Nahle also showed that CO2 cools earth's atmosphere.

Steve Milloy has repeated the "mantra" and does not seem to have grasped even the most basic of the physics and thermodynaics that have to be included in any study of earth's climate system.
Sadly, he is not alone, in fact he is in the company of almost all the main stream skeptics and the "consensus".
One can only conclude that this is WHY the main stream skeptics and the "consensus" will not openly discuss the GH "theory", nor AGW "theory". They will be shown as being, either,
i) incompetent,
or,
ii) deliberate liars.

[Derek]

‎In response to this link being posted, possibly in "defence" of the suggestion that the "blanket" analogy is OK to describe the effects of water vapour in earth's climate system, I replied.
I have also attached a word document of the linked to article for later reference.

#####, even with the briefest of skims over that article two points jump out at me.

1) The first paragraph asserts radiation is the dominant heat / energy loss mechanism. There is no mention of surface latent heat losses.......

2) The author "digresses" into describing wind chill, WITHOUT explaining that increased latent heat losses of water vapourisation IS the main component of wind chill.

The obvious fatal flaws in the explanation given are shown for all to see in my oily tray home experiment on this thread,
http://www.globalwarmingskeptics.info/th...l#pid11709
I will post a plot from the excel sheet I compiled later.....

AND, in this piece,
http://www.globalwarmingskeptics.info/thread-1846.html
Titled - THE 3 forms of heat loss from an object or surface at earth's surface are...
Please note, in order of important, 1) latent heat losses, 2) conduction of sensible heat, 3) radiative losses........

I may copy that whole piece and examine it in a word document yet, it is a stunning piece of misdirection, and misinterpretation, as I suppose one should expect from where Michael Mann works, ie Penn State. My initial impression is that it does not disappoint....

[Derek]

Ulric has been rather enthusiastiic recently. I am considering how to respond to his postings.

One possible route follows.
I think I have sussed what has been happening in this thread in relation to the blanket effect of clouds at night. We all have to admit that warm and humid is not comfortable, because, one can not cool. So the question is what is reducing surface cooling. Ulric has flipped this observation and question of what we all know is correct, to what warms the surface by constant use of night examples and talking about LWIR from clouds. Jim is right of course, there is a cloud effect, but, he has the wrong mechanism. Jim focuses on convection of sensible heat. In the end when it is cloudy and hence warmer and muggier at night, something has reduced surface cooling, whatever this is, it also seems to keep the heat hanging around too, hence we feel hotter and it feels muggier when there are clouds at night.

Evapouration is driven by temperature, and / or humidity, and / or wind. This is proven by my oily tray experiments.
Humid nights equal less evaporation, and less convection....
IR energy losses are therefore minor in almost all cases, and sensible heat losses are also minor in almost all cases. As my oily tray experiment proves.
Therefore the blanket effect is reduced evapourative losses at the surface. This is why latent heat losses are dismissed. Latent heat is THE key to explaining all, BUT, in W/m2 terms, power = amount would have to be admitted as wrong too because IR losses ARE minor overall. Again, as my oily tray experiment proves.

[Derek]

Reply to Ulric - I will put aside a couple of hours tomorrow to reply to your replies and direction of your replies in this thread.
(Later edit - Ooops forgot to include night time release of stored input from ground, and geothermal - so many dismissed variables and constants....)

In the mean time, please consider this. Imagine if you will, a container of gas in space, let the container shrink so that the pressure in the container rasies the temperature of the gas inside the container to 15C. The container will then cool by IR losses. The gas inside the container will cool by conduction of sensible heat to the container. The cooled gas will reduce in pressure, and so the temperature inside the container will reduce. If the size of the container was shrunk further the pressure inside the container would rise, and so would the temperature inside the container. But the container would cool, and then the gas would cool, and then the container would have to shrink in size to maintain the temparature at 15C. In other words, the container would have to be continuously shrinking to maintain a temperature in the gas of 15C, because of IR losses from the container, according to the ideal gas law.

One way to maintain the above container at a constant size and gas temperature would be to have a constant input of energy to the gas, an input such that counteracted the cooling losses due to the containers IR losses. Placing the container within a sufficiently strong gravity field for example.
YET, no one to date includes the input of energy by gravity to earth's atmosphere. This is a constant, all over input that is simply ignored. Given this omission, should we not always be considering first what is cooling a surface. At least that way we would be starting from a point without a glaring omission.
Hans Shreuder's grass frost plot below being an excellent example.

The place to start is to try to explain what and how much is cooling, then we can try to quantify inputs, and see if there are any "holes" left unexplained. There should be "holes", gravity is a constant....