Post Reply 
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
FFF video in the making - forum review.
02-09-2014, 07:09 AM
Post: #1
FFF video in the making - forum review.
Hi All,
I am thinking about making a video for You Tube based on the five fatal flaws pdf.

Ok, please be rough, if it needs improving, misses the mark, does not explain, then please say so. In a way that helps, obviously....
I will alter the text / illustrations in response.

"Script."

It is frequently stated at present that it is settled science that we, by our CO2 emissions are increasing the greenhouse effect, and that is causing the planet's climate to warm.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
http://www.ipcc.ch/
on this page states,
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data...q-1-3.html
In the industrial era, human activities have added greenhouse gases to the atmosphere, primarily through the burning of fossil fuels and clearing of forests.

Adding more of a greenhouse gas, such as CO2, to the atmosphere intensifies the greenhouse effect, thus warming Earth’s climate. The amount of warming depends on various feedback mechanisms. For example, as the atmosphere warms due to rising levels of greenhouse gases, its concentration of water vapour increases, further intensifying the greenhouse effect. This in turn causes more warming, which causes an additional increase in water vapour, in a self-reinforcing cycle. This water vapour feedback may be strong enough to approximately double the increase in the greenhouse effect due to the added CO2 alone.


The IPCC has so far produced 5 scientific reports in 1990, 1995, 2001, 2007, and 2013,
which can be downloaded from,
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data...orts.shtml

The IPCC is an integral part of, and was formed by, the United Nations.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations
Excerpt -
"Beginning with the formation of the UN Environmental Programme (UNEP) in 1972, the UN has made environmental issues a prominent part of its agenda. A lack of success in the first two decades of UN work in this area led to the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, which sought to give new impetus to these efforts.[138] In 1988, the UNEP and the World Meteorological Organization (WMO), another UN organization, established the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which assesses and reports on research on global warming.[139] The UN-sponsored Kyoto Protocol, signed in 1997, set legally-binding emissions reduction targets for ratifying states.[140]"

So, we have a science based series of reports from the world's best and most trusted scientists, ie, the IPCC, reporting to, and on behalf of the UN that we as a species are affecting the planet detrimentally, and that global actions and solutions are required.

It is quite simple to find numerous alarming quotes about how serious the problem of global warming, as reported by the IPCC, and therefore the UN, is supposed to be. It is also very easy to become bogged down in the politics, scientific issues, and emotions that have engulfed the various climate science discussions and debates.

Let us take a simpler approach. Let us get back to the root cause and see if we can deal with this whole subject area a lot better than we are at present. To do this we should employ the scientific method. You may well ask, why?

One of the traditional scientific methods great powers is that it enables non-experts to discern when experts are mistaken, and that is why.

This power was clearly expressed by none other than the great English biologist, Thomas Huxley when he said;
“Science is organized common sense where many a beautiful theory was killed by an ugly fact.”
And
“The deepest sin of the human mind is to believe things without evidence”

The traditional scientific method is,
observation -> hypothesis -> experiment -> theory -> law.
ie,
1) Observation (preferably empirical data).

2) Explain the observation and or observations (hypothesis).

3) Test the explanation by an experiment (i.e. evaluate a prediction from the hypothesis).
It should be noted that an experiment may consist of looking for information which would confirm or deny the hypothesis, and this is usual in subjects such as climatology and cosmology because climates and stars cannot be altered to conduct a test.

4) Analyze the experimental results and draw a conclusion.

5)
(a) The hypothesis is supported if the experiment confirms the prediction and it may be on its way to being accepted as a scientific theory if others are able to independently duplicate the experimental results.
(b) The hypothesis is rejected if the experiment demonstrates that the prediction was incorrect. In this case it is necessary to return to steps 2), 3) and 4), and this loop is repeated until a hypothesis is obtained which is supported by experimental results.

6) Openly publish the experiment‟s methodology, results and data.
The publication should include discussion and evaluation of all known possible problems and reservations concerning the study it reports.

Importantly, it should always be kept in mind that all presented hypotheses could be wrong so an “ugly fact” that defeats one understanding of an issue is not evidence that another understanding is correct.

It is often said that "we" at earth's surface are warmer than we would otherwise be because of the presence of earth's atmosphere. What does this refer to? Is it an observation?

What does earth emit to space as Outgoing Longwave Radiation (OLR)?
http://science1.nasa.gov/missions/erbs/
"NASA's Earth Radiation Budget Satellite (ERBS) was designed to investigate how energy from the Sun is absorbed and re-radiated by the Earth. Understanding this process helps reveal patterns in Earth's weather. One of the longest-running spacecraft missions to date, ERBS was launched on October 5, 1984 on the Space Shuttle Challenger and retired on October 14, 2005."
In other words, 239 W/m² emission by earth to space has been observed.

At earth's surface we measure and record the near surface air temperature in many locations globally. This produces what is referred to as Global Mean Temperature (GMT).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrumenta...ure_record
"Initially the instrumental temperature record only documented land and sea surface temperature, but in recent decades instruments have also begun recording sub-surface ocean temperature. This data is collected from several thousand meteorological stations, Antarctic research stations, satellite observations of sea-surface temperature, and subsurface ocean sensors. The longest-running temperature record is the Central England temperature data series, that starts in 1659. The longest-running quasi-global record starts in 1850."
and,
"Absolute temperatures for the Earth's average surface temperature have been derived, with a best estimate of roughly 14 °C (57.2 °F).[11] However, the correct temperature could easily be anywhere between 13.3 and 14.4°C (56 and 58 °F) and uncertainty increases at smaller (non-global) scales."

More often than not GMT is referred to as being about 15C. The difference between 239W/m2, which is -18C for a black body using the Stefan Boltzman equation, and 15C at earth's surface is a 33 degrees warmer effect. The natural greenhouse effect, is thus said to have been observed.

It is reasonable to say that earth has been observed as on average emitting 239W/m2 to space. This figure is questionable, and some suggest the actual ERBS data could be shown to be a far lower figure. That noted, the official observation is 239W/m2. According to the Stefan Boltzman equation for a black body, 239W/m2 = -18 degrees Celsius.

It is also reasonable to say that, although also questionable, earth's GMT is roughly 15C. So, there is an observed, roughly, 33 degrees warmer effect of some kind between earth's surface and what earth emits to space.

The explanation for this, or rather the hypothesis is that, a natural greenhouse effect keeps us this amount warmer than we would otherwise be.

"than we would otherwise be". How do we know that? The implication is that we know earth's surface would be at an average temperature of -18C if there were no atmosphere. This is not an observation, it is an assertion. At this point we should remember that the definition of "pseudoscience" is a theory that cannot be tested empirically using the scientific method.

Discussions of what the mean temperature of the Earth's surface would be if there where no atmosphere is pseudo science because it cannot be tested empirically. However, the moon is commonly cited as a relevant example, or as a substitute observation by many. It has an average surface temperature of approximately -15C, and this agrees fairly closely with mathematical constructs, that employ P/4, that calculate earth's surface temperature without an atmosphere would be -18C.

The fact that stating earth's surface without an atmosphere would be at an average temperature of -18C is actually pseudo science is not accepted by many. But, it is pseudo science, because it can not be tested by experiment. The hypothesis, a greenhouse effect, relies not upon observation, but on the assertion, or mathematical construct, or a miscomparison with the moon that earth's surface without an atmosphere would be on average at a temperature of -18C. No one knows or can test this assertion. The hypothesis fails, at this first step, because it can not be tested within the scientific method.

It may appear to some that to say "warmer than we would otherwise be" is pseudo science because of a seemingly possible, but incorrect comparison to the moon, or to a mathematical construct, rather than an actual observation, is being pedantic, or hair splitting. It is not. Science follows the scientific method, it has no choice. If it does not, it is not science. Therefore "warmer than we would otherwise be" is the pseudo science "justification" for a false paradigm, namely the greenhouse effect failed hypothesis paradigm. In short a 33C difference is observed, but to say that means earth's surface is 33C warmer because of a greenhouse effect is a totally different matter. That is a pseudo science assertion of an already failed hypothesis, that fails because of the assertion itself. If it was an observation that earth's surface without an atmosphere is on average -18C then it would be a different matter, but it is not an observation, and it never could be an observation.

Regardless of this, that the GH "theory" paradigm is based upon a pseudo science assertion, the IPCC confidently states that -
"Adding more of a greenhouse gas, such as CO2, to the atmosphere intensifies the greenhouse effect, thus warming Earth’s climate."

Obviously, according to the scientific method that should be the end of the matter, but patently it has not been, otherwise the IPCC would not be in existence today. We would not have all the concerns voiced so worryingly, even alarmingly in regards of supposed man made climate change. But we have. So, although it is already a failed hypothesis, let us take a closer look at what is currently taught as greenhouse effect "theory". It is not a theory, plainly, it has already failed the scientific method. I have for some time now only ever referred to GH as a "theory" to indicate that it is a failed hypothesis. Which is what it is, in all of it's forms, whether they be the already described 33 degrees "observation", that has been used to falsely assert a failed hypothesis, or the yet to be explained 48+ degrees Celsius increase GH effect "theory" models.

So we, according to the already failed hypothesis, are affecting, specifically increasing, the natural greenhouse effect by our emissions of CO2.
What then is the greenhouse effect "theory"? That is obviously the root cause.

Greenhouse effect "theory" model type 0
BBC bitsize = 2 arrows.
In its simplest form the supposed natural greenhouse effect is described by two arrows.
The British Broadcasting Corporation, on its GCSE bite sized revision web pages using the following two arrow diagram.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/schools/gcsebitesiz...rev1.shtml
[Image: BBCbitesizeGCSE_zps6973cb67.jpg]

More often than not though a four arrow version is used to describe what is depicted as the greenhouse effect, or rather to depict the greenhouse effect "theory". The same four arrow explanation of greenhouse effect "theory" can be seen in all the following examples. However, how you are supposed to read, or follow the arrows varies quite markedly between the 4 main greenhouse effect "theory" model types.
This has lead to much confusion, which we shall try to unravel..

The four arrows are -
1) Sunlight in. (Yellow arrow. Everyone thinks of the sun as yellow.)
Sunlight warms the greenhouse floor, or earth's surface.
2) Surface emitted IR. (Orange arrow. Orange because it is a warm, but not too hot a colour.)
The warmed greenhouse floor, or warmed earth's surface radiates IR, which is totally absorbed by the pane of glass, or earth's atmosphere.
3) Atmosphere emitted IR to space. (Blue arrow. Because the atmosphere on average is cold, and blue is a cold colour.)
The pane of glass or earth's atmosphere radiates energy as IR to space.
4) Atmosphere emitted IR back to surface. (Red arrow. Because red is the universal colour to indicate something is wrong.)
The pane of glass or earth's atmosphere radiates energy as IR back to earth's surface.

In due course I intend to overlay appropriate coloured arrows on the various diagrams.

Whenever criticisms are leveled at GH "theory" they are generally dismissed because "we" do not understand the model or the "theory". This happens because "we" have not put the multi stepped "theory" into context, or rather the contexts used to "justify" it.

It appears to me that "we" are being presented with a deliberately stepped "theory". Each step being flawed. The flaws being relied upon for the next step in the "theory". That is why the steps do not deal with the real criticisms raised of the previous step. The steps are there because they have to be, not because they are answers to criticisms. The various flaws have been pointed out by many over the years, but until they are put into the context of the whole stepped "theory" then many will not grasp how ridiculous this all is.

The stepped four models types are,
Model type 1 - The simple greenhouse simile.
ie, http://s53.photobucket.com/user/DerekJoh...1.jpg.html

Model type 2 - A 2 parallel plane radiative heat transfer (only) model.
ie, http://s53.photobucket.com/user/DerekJoh...3.jpg.html

Model type 3 - A 2PP very simple global energy budget.
ie, http://s53.photobucket.com/user/DerekJoh...6.jpg.html

Model type 4 - A 2PP complex global energy budget.
ie, http://s53.photobucket.com/user/DerekJoh...f.jpg.html

Model type 1 - The simple greenhouse simile.
This model introduces the notion of "back radiation warming the original emitting surface" effect. This is the "mechanism" by which the greenhouse effect "theory" is supposed to work.
This was disproved by Woods 1909, and again by Nasif Nahle 2011. Literally the "theory" has no "mechanism" by which it could work.
[Image: Slide1.jpg]
Many people criticized this model because greenhouses work by the physical barrier of the panes of glass mostly stopping the convection of sensible and latent heat losses.

In reality, being hotter than it's surroundings a greenhouse plainly emits more IR and yet still remains hotter than it's surroundings. This can only mean that radiative losses are the minor player, not the major and only player as depicted. Sensible and latent heat losses do not even get a mention! That is unphysical. There is already an obvious disconnect between the "theory" and reality. In fact this disconnect already shows the hypothesis has failed. IR is not trapped by the greenhouse. The greenhouse radiates more IR than it's surroundings, because it is at a higher temperature. This can only mean that whatever is cooling the surroundings is not cooling the inside of the greenhouse as much. The walls of the greenhouse are a physical barrier to sensible and latent heat losses, THAT is why the greenhouse is warmer than it's surroundings.

The fact that greenhouses do not work in the way the failed hypothesis depicts them is ignored by advocates of the "theory". Put simply, they can not answer this criticism. Instead they prefer to talk of radiation, and exclude any mention of sensible or latent heat transfers, which plainly are the dominant forces at work at earth's surface. This is not a mere disconnect, it means the hypothesis has failed. The hypothesis is not an explanation of the observation in the reality in which we live.

But GH "theory" advocates are radiatively obsessed, so to answer the criticisms of the simple greenhouse simile they produced a radiative model without a greenhouse.

Model type 2 - A 2 parallel plane radiative heat transfer (only) model. Simple four, all the same size arrows. Arrow 2 =240W/m2
One is supposed to follow the diagram from left to right. ie, arrow 1, arrow 2, arrow 3 and then arrow 4.
In this model the atmosphere is said to be warmed to 240W/m2, ie, -18C, and the surface warmed to 480W/m2, ie, 30C.
This model introduces the notion of P/4. That is, the power of sunlight received at the top of earth's atmosphere divided by four.
[Image: Slide23.jpg]

This type of model was widely criticized because it appears to create energy. When arrow 2 warms the atmosphere to the same temperature as the earth's surface due to sunlight only, the atmosphere is then depicted in the model as radiating the same amount both up and down (arrows 3 and 4). That is, twice the amount it received. If this were true then the atmosphere would be creating energy.

P/4 is the real flaw of this model type and all following model types. P/4 means sunlight received is averaged over the whole globe over a 24 hour period. That a globe of the same diameter has four times the surface area of the same sized disc is irrelevant. 24 hour, one quarter power sunlight is unphysical, and removes the thermodynamic extremes and therefore the thermodynamics of reality from the models. This error is compounded and confused by the fact that the W/m2 unit, which is a per second unit, unless otherwise stated, is used.

P/4 also has another effect, other than removing the extremes and therefore the thermodynamics of reality. It produces a low enough average surface temperature from sunlight only to require a greenhouse effect to further warm the surface. That is the second purpose of P/4.

David Archer in this video explains the approved way we should view the four arrows explanation of greenhouse effect "theory".
http://www.kaltura.com/index.php/extwidg...embed/auto

and a longer, whole lecture version on You Tube.




These screenshots show his main points.
[Image: Screenshot31_zpsb470da6a.png]
On the left of this screen shot, what Archer describes as "the bare earth model", it is pseudo science, a mathematical construct that can not be tested. He continues that this model is too cold. It can clearly be seen that sunlight in after applying P/4 is 240W/m2 = temperature of ground. Tg = 240W/m2 = -18C.
He states the glass in the second model is warmed by Tg and shines in both directions, up and down. He has just doubled the energy, with that statement.
The explanation he has given, that the glass radiates at the same power and amount that it receives from the sun warmed ground only, in both directions, is unphysical.
He confirms this by stating that "we" are assuming E = 1. The model he describes clearly shows 1 in from the ground, and 1 to space and 1 back to the surface, 1+ 1 = 2 out.

On the left of this shot it can clearly be seen that Tg has a value of 240W/m2 = sunlight in ONLY.
On the right of this shot it can clearly be seen that Tg has a value of 480W/m2 = sunlight in (240W/m2) PLUS atmospheric back radiation (240W/m2).
Archer explains that Tg is 240W/m2 at one point and then that Tg is 480W/m2.
Archer says this difference is due to the presence of an atmosphere, yet atmospheric back radiation warming of earth's surface has never been observed, and as a notion it has failed experimental testing.

He further states that the atmosphere is a selective black body, in that it absorbs all IR from the ground and reradiates all that it receives,
and that the whole system is in a steady state.
Earth is not an imaginary black body.
Earth's climate system is a dynamic robust complex natural system, which is, and must be dominated by negative feedbacks. It is not a steady state, nor is it in a steady state.

[Image: Screenshot40_zpse009792f.png]
This is the logical failure plainly described, Archer states if Tg is not 2Ta then there is no greenhouse effect.
Ta has already been described by him as
sunlight in (240W/m2) = Tg (240W/m2) = Ta (240W/m2).
But for there to be a greenhouse effect there must be 2Ta, and Tg must equal 2Ta (480W/m2).
To do this atmospheric back radiation is counted BEFORE the atmosphere is warmed by Tg. This is how the type 3 model creates 240W/m2 of energy.


Model type 3 - A 2PP very simple global energy budget.
Four arrows. Arrow 2 = 480W/m2
David Archer has shown above why the diagram should be read as arrow 1, arrow 4, arrow 2, and arrow 3. Plainly it is false logic.
In this model the atmosphere is depicted as having been warmed to 480W/m2, ie, 30C, by earth's surface which is according to the "theory" on average 30C.

In fact, this model type is a completely different type of model, it depicts energy flows or fluxes, not heat flows. This sounds a trivial difference, but it is not.
An energy flow is not necessarily a certain temperature, nor does it necessarily indicate a certain temperature.
Energy is the ability to do work, whereas heat is only one of the ways by which energy can be moved around.

Professor Nathan Phillips also explains in this pdf Greenhouse effect "theory" model 3.

[Image: Nathan_Phillips_GH_four_arrows_theory_zpsc96ef366.jpg]

Please note that all the GH "theory" models use a two parallel plane type of model.
[Image: Slide1-1.jpg]

The Greenhouse effect “theory” as clearly depicted in the above diagrams has (at least) four fatal flaws, which are as follows.

1) A 2 parallel plane (2PP) model used - Inappropriate, does not apply to earth.
In some cases, for example stars, that are in effect the same all over, then a number of parallel planes model may be appropriate, but earth is a half lit rotating sphere, that consequently has day and night. Earth has poles and an equator. Earth's surface is 71% ocean and 29% land. Earth can not be said to be the same all over.

2) The power of sunlight received at the top of earth’s atmosphere is divided by four (P/4) - This is unphysical, and can not be applied to earth.
At earth's surface there is day and night, so the planet is not wholly illuminated by a one quarter power, hazy sun. In this sense dividing the power of sunlight is unphysical. As an average over 24 hours for example this also excludes the extremes experienced at earth's surface during day and night. Applying P/4 to get an average power of sunlight received is akin to saying because one can cook a 4lb chicken for one hour at 200C, you can also cook a 4lb chicken at 50C for four hours and get the same resulting cooked chicken. One can not. The average of P/4 excludes the thermodynamics of reality. Model type 2 and onwards of GH "theory" all start with, whether it is made clear or not, P/4.

3) In the model 2 type, 240W/m2 is absorbed by earth’s atmosphere which becomes 480W/m2 radiated by the atmosphere. The atmosphere is depicted as emitting the same power or amount of energy both up and down, ie, twice what it receives. 240 W/m2 of energy is created. - Energy can not be created. In the model 3 type the atmosphere is depicted as radiating 240W/m2 before the surface warms it. This is double accounting, at best, and is by any other name, creating energy.

4) In the model 2 type earth's surface receives 480W/m2, but is depicted as only radiating 240W/m2.
S/B law dictates that earth’s surface at a temperature of 30°C must radiate at 480W/m2, but it does not in the four arrows version greenhouse effect "theory".
In the model 3 type the atmosphere is depicted as being warmed to 480W/m2 by earth's surface. The atmosphere is not 30C on average.

Clearly, with an atmosphere depicted to be on average at 30C, the type 3 models, although they "answered" some questions asked of the "theory" in it's type 2 form, also raised other questions that arguably are even more difficult for the "theory" to answer.

The solution used is not to refer to temperatures, but to refer to energy flows or fluxes, thus avoiding the thorny issues of credibility, or even possibility, that a "theory" suggesting earth's atmosphere is at an average temperature of 30C raises. Hence Global Energy Budgets suddenly came to the forefront of "climate science".

Model type 4 - A 2PP complex global energy budget.
All GEBs / NASA GEB 2013 = Four arrows and a lot of other details, + back radiation is "accounted" for differently, hence arrows 2, 3, and 4 are in effect twice the size of arrow 1.
The global energy budgets are a more complicated version of GH "theory" models so far described. There are two versions that are most commonly cited. One is usually attributed to Gavin Schmidt of NASA.
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Feature.../page6.php
ie, http://s53.photobucket.com/user/DerekJoh...s.png.html
The other, more commonly referred to is by Kiehl and Trenberth. This global energy budget has had many revisions over the years, but it can be said to have had two main revisions.
Mk1 1997
https://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/041.htm
ie, http://s53.photobucket.com/user/DerekJoh...f.jpg.html
Mk2 2009
http://echorock.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/Staff/F...alBAMS.pdf
[Image: GEBMk2_zps9fbe18f8-1.jpg]
NASA Mk2 2013
http://science-edu.larc.nasa.gov/energy_budget/
and, in more detail
http://science-edu.larc.nasa.gov/energy_...7-08c1.pdf
[Image: GEBMk3_zps1ed50a5f.jpg]

It can be seen that the more complicated global energy budget versions of greenhouse effect "theory" seem to answer some of the criticisms that the simpler four arrows version raise. However, some remain.

It is notable that the global energy budgets seem to count twice, or rather double atmospheric back radiation, so that atmospheric back radiation is depicted as being of twice the power, or amount of the solar input??? This doubling, or rather double counting is, it seems, achieved by counting back radiation before the surface has emitted the radiation!!! Otherwise, the same, and rather familiar four arrows GH "theory" can be seen plainly in the global energy budgets too.

There are at least three main points, or areas of concern that are raised by all the global energy budgets.
Some are common to the four arrows versions of greenhouse effect "theory" as well, but a very important one has not been mentioned yet.

1) A 2 parallel plane (2PP) model used - Inappropriate, does not apply to earth.
As has already been explained.

2) The power of sunlight received at the top of earth’s atmosphere is divided by four (P/4) - This is unphysical, and can not be applied to earth.
As has already been explained.

3) A warming effect at earth's surface by atmospheric back radiation has never been observed. Professor Woods raised this issue in 1909, and Nasif Nahle repeated Woods experiments getting the same results in 2011.
No warming effect can be observed by atmospheric back radiation at earth's surface.
Literally the "theory" does not have a mechanism that can be observed by which it could work. This falsifies the proposed mechanism by which the "theory" could work, and therefore falsifies the "theory" itself.
http://www.biocab.org/Experiment_on_Gree...Effect.pdf

In this short piece the greenhouse effect "theory" in it's various, and more complicated versions has been presented. That said, the "theory" itself is very easy to understand. Put simply atmospheric back radiation keeps us warmer than we would otherwise be. However, the "theory" does not stand up to scrutiny, it is unphysical, and it has no mechanism by which it could work. So, whatever is happening this "theory" does not explain it.
In short, greenhouse effect "theory" is a failed hypothesis. There is no greenhouse effect, it can only exist in the minds of some very mistaken men and women.

In other words the IPCC and the UN are not producing science based reports,
what they are producing is unphysical, and therefore imaginary, pseudo science.

If we give the pseudo science that is GH "theory" and therefore AGW any credence or political sway at all, then we are very much mistaken and will pay a heavy price for being taken in by what will become known as the largest mistake or deliberate scam (take your pick) in human history.

to be continued...

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
02-09-2014, 02:29 PM
Post: #2
RE: FFF video in the making - forum review.
Thank you to Alan Siddons for suggestions corrections to planes rather than panes... Obsessed about glass am I !!! LOL.
And, its rather than it's.

Thank you to Kent Clizbe as well for suggesting changing plots to diagrams.
"And, from a non-techie, some video advice: I found that BrainShark is a very easy, cheap (free), and reliable tool to turn a PowerPoint presentation into an online video, with sound, and narration."
Sounds a distinct possibility which I will look into tomorrow. Thanks again Kent.

I hope I got them all.

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
02-10-2014, 12:41 AM
Post: #3
RE: FFF video in the making - forum review.
I am very fond of the NASA Mk2 global energy budget. It plainly shows the four arrows.

However Michelle points out to me that the following paragraph in regard of the global energy budgets does not really hit the mark.

"It is notable that the global energy budgets seem to count twice, or rather double atmospheric back radiation, so that atmospheric back radiation is depicted as being of twice the power, or amount of the solar input??? This doubling, or rather double counting is, it seems, achieved by counting back radiation before the surface has emitted the radiation!!! Otherwise, the same, and rather familiar four arrows GH "theory" can be seen plainly in the global energy budgets too."

I agree with her, so any suggestions would be greatly appreciated.

I intend to add some text between each of the green background diagrams to more fully explain the "justifications" used for the four arrows. I think this is needed, and would fill in awkward gaps as the diagrams are displayed.
Although, I will have to be careful as Greg House has correctly pointed out recently on the below thread. Very valid points Greg has raised.
http://www.globalwarmingskeptics.info/thread-2238.html

Russ Jimeson has suggested I should add Joe Postma's thermodynamic model diagram, and some explanation, to the end of the piece.
http://climateofsophistry.com/2012/11/06...o-reality/
I think this is a good idea, but I am not too sure if it should be added. Too complicated / complicating, when what the piece is trying to do is as simply as possible show GH "theory" (in all of its current forms) for what it is?

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
02-10-2014, 01:18 PM
Post: #4
RE: FFF video in the making - forum review.
Hi All,
Sorry, but I need to note this..

http://www.bu.edu/earth/people/faculty/nathan-phillips/
Professor Nathan Phillips
Boston University.

http://people.bu.edu/nathan/ge510_06_6.pdf
pdf attached to this post.

A perfect example of the simple four arrows version of GH "theory".
[Image: Nathan_Phillips_GH_four_arrows_theory_zpsc96ef366.jpg]

Later edit - Just noticed Phillips has the ground emitting 2S, because it receives sunlight and atmospheric back radiation, before the atmosphere was warmed....
So, he has double accounted. Is this the basis of the GEBs double accounting too?


Attached File(s)
.pdf  Nathan Phillips_ge510_06_6.pdf (Size: 468.93 KB / Downloads: 0)

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
02-11-2014, 07:09 AM
Post: #5
RE: FFF video in the making - forum review.
Department of the Geophysical sciences, University of Chicago.
Professor David Archer.

Enjoy - I fell off my seat laughing....
http://www.kaltura.com/index.php/extwidg...embed/auto

Takes a little time to get going, but boy, what humor this man has....
http://mindonline.uchicago.edu/media/psd...cture5.mp4

I just love the way he pauses at 16 minutes and 40 seconds.......
He is plainly thinking - "Please no one ask me why I have just doubled the amount of energy being emitted..."

It is possible he does not think he is joking??? May be he actually believes this pseudo science!!! Well, his job / reputation depends upon it.

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
02-11-2014, 09:56 AM
Post: #6
RE: FFF video in the making - forum review.
[Image: Screenshot31_zpsb470da6a.png]

[Image: Screenshot40_zpse009792f.png]

There you have it, in plain sight.

1 = 2

1Tg = 2 Ta

No, it does not. No it can not. THAT is unphysical.

Look, he has, and is using, two different meanings for Tg......
Specifically, he has a Tg for sunlight only, AND he uses a Tg for sunlight + atmospheric back radiation.

[Image: Screenshot41_zps65c3a53c.png]
He has already stated that Tg = Ta, because he has explained sunlight in (arrow 1) = Tg (arrow 2), and it is Tg that warms the atmosphere to Ta....
But then Ta (arrow 3) becomes 2Ta (arrows 3 and 4). What should have happened is half up and half down, NOT the original amount both ways.
Energy is created from nothing. Even in the abstract the model fails.


NB - The "confusion" over Tg is deliberate. IF he had used Tg1 and Tg2 as he should have done, then you would ask, why is there not a Ta1 and a Ta2. BECAUSE that would lead to an infinite temperature, ie, Tg3,4,5,6,7, add infinitum... Far better then a little confusion over what he means by Tg....

NNB - Phillips uses G = 2S for arrow two. So, the difference between versions 2 and 3 of GH "theory" models is that arrow 2 is either 240W/m2 or 480W/m2.
Archer tries to use both at the same time.
Worth remembering at the same time that arrow 3 (what earth emits to space) is also described as being an observation of 240W/m2 that no one really questions. It could well be smaller, but that's another story...

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
02-12-2014, 12:53 PM
Post: #7
RE: FFF video in the making - forum review.
Some revisions today...

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
02-13-2014, 09:25 AM
Post: #8
RE: FFF video in the making - forum review.
Hi All,
To continue thinking aloud...

GEBs, how do they calculate "back radiation" value? Let me try the model 3 logic approach for the four shown.
ie, I assume the atmosphere is warmed by Tg, for sunlight only, before the surface has actually emitted it....

Trenberth 1
Absorbed by atmosphere (67 + 24 + 78) + absorbed by surface 168 = 337 W/m2
Depicted total warming atmosphere - back radiation 337 - 324 = 13 W/m2
Depicted total absorbed by surface is 168 + 324 = 492 W/m2
Depicted total emitted by surface is 390 + 78 + 24 = 492 W/m2
Depicted outgoing longwave radiation to space = 235W/m2

Trenberth 2
Absorbed by atmosphere (78 + 17 + 80) + absorbed by surface 161 = 336 W/m2
Depicted total warming atmosphere - back radiation 336 - 333 = 3 W/m2
Depicted total absorbed by surface is 161 + 333 = 494 W/m2
Depicted total emitted by surface is 396 + 80 + 17 = 493 W/m2
Depicted outgoing longwave radiation to space = 239W/m2

NASA 1 (100% = 340 W/m2)
Absorbed by atmosphere (23 + 5 + 25) + absorbed by surface 48 = 101% = 343.4 W/m2
Depicted total warming atmosphere - back radiation 101 - 100 = 1% = 3.4 W/m2
Depicted total absorbed by surface is 100 + 48 = 148% = 503.2 W/m2
Depicted total emitted by surface is 5 + 25 + 117 = 147% = 499.8 W/m2
Depicted outgoing longwave radiation to space = 71% = 241.4 W/m2

NASA 2
Absorbed by atmosphere (77.1 + 18.4 + 86.4) + absorbed by surface 163.3 = 345.2 W/m2
Depicted total warming atmosphere - back radiation 345.2 - 340.3 = 4.9 W/m2
Depicted total absorbed by surface is 163.3 + 340.3 = 503.6 W/m2
Depicted total emitted by surface is 18.4 + 86.4 + 398.2 = 503 W/m2
Depicted outgoing longwave radiation to space = 239.9 W/m2

It seems the logic of the model 3 type under pins the GEBs too.

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
02-19-2014, 07:39 AM
Post: #9
RE: FFF video in the making - forum review.
I have been having a ponder...

Is the following a better way to explain i) the four arrows and ii) four stepped models approach that has been used to explain GH "theory"?

i) The Four arrows.
I think that GH "theory" IS the four arrows, which I will describe as,

1) Sunlight in. (Yellow arrow. Everyone thinks of the sun as yellow.)
Sunlight warms the greenhouse floor, or earth's surface.
2) Surface emitted IR. (Orange arrow. Orange because it is a warm, but not too hot a colour.)
The warmed greenhouse floor, or warmed earth's surface radiates IR, which is totally absorbed by the pane of glass, or earth's atmosphere.
3) Atmosphere emitted IR to space. (Blue arrow. Because the atmosphere on average is cold, and blue is a cold colour.)
The pane of glass or earth's atmosphere radiates energy as IR to space.
4) Atmosphere emitted IR back to surface. (Red arrow. Because red is the universal colour to indicate something is wrong.)
The pane of glass or earth's atmosphere radiates energy as IR back to earth's surface.

The above description should cover model types 1, 2, 3, and 4. Do you agree? Is the suggested colour scheme a good idea? I intend to overlay appropriate coloured arrows on various diagrams.

ii) The stepped four models.
Whenever criticisms are leveled at GH "theory" they are generally dismissed because "we" do not understand the model or the "theory". This happens because "we" have not put the multi stepped "theory" into context, or rather the contexts used to "justify" it. I think this needs to be done, then the "target" has less of a chance of dodging the bullets.

It appears to me that "we" are being presented with a deliberately stepped "theory". Each step being flawed. The flaws being relied upon for the next step in the "theory". That is why the steps do not deal with the real criticisms raised of the previous step. The steps are there because they have to be, not because they are answers to criticisms. The various flaws have been pointed out by many over the years, but until they are put into the context of the whole stepped "theory" then many will not grasp how ridiculous this all is.

Would anyone disagree that there has to be a deliberate series of four stepped model types as follows?
Model type 1 - The simple greenhouse simile.
ie, http://s53.photobucket.com/user/DerekJoh...1.jpg.html
This model type introduces the concept of "back radiation" warming the emitting surface.
Disproved by Woods 1909, and again by Nahle 2011.
Main criticism of model was that greenhouses do not work by IR they work by physically trapping sensible and latent heat losses.

So, the response was to introduce P/4 to arrow 1.

Model type 2 - A 2 parallel plane radiative heat transfer (only) model.
ie, http://s53.photobucket.com/user/DerekJoh...3.jpg.html
The greenhouse roof was flattened, and the walls were removed by employing a 2 PP model type.
Thermodynamic reality was usurped / removed by the use of P/4 for arrow 1.

This the "theory" argues deals with the criticism that a greenhouse does not work like that,
which had been correctly raised about the type 1 model.
The back radiation warming of the surface issue is simply ignored / not dealt with.

This model type was criticized because it depicts the atmosphere emitting twice the amount it receives from earth's surface, which is only heated by arrow 1, before emitting IR.
It is supposed to be read arrow 1, then 2, then 3 and 4.

David Archer explains the type 2 and the type 3 models in this video.
http://www.kaltura.com/index.php/extwidg...embed/auto

Model type 3 - A 2PP very simple global energy budget.
ie, http://s53.photobucket.com/user/DerekJoh...6.jpg.html
This looks the same as type 2 yet is completely different. It is an energy budget, NOT a radiative heat transfer budget. Arrow 2 is now 480W/m2, not 240W/m2 as in type 2.
The model should now be read arrows 1 and 4, then 2, then 3. It is still creating the energy for arrow 4, because the atmosphere emits downwards before it is heated. However, this is dodged, because the figures are averages.... Archer in the above video flips between the two model types with great aplomb... Though he does look a little worried of occasion....

Model type 4 - A 2PP complex global energy budget.
ie, http://s53.photobucket.com/user/DerekJoh...f.jpg.html
This is a type 3 model with bits added, that is all. It IS GH "theory", the four arrows are plainly visible. This model type tries to include latent and sensible heat to appear realistic, yet, it is all still done from a solid and black body point of view. The atmosphere is not a solid, nor is any part of the system depicted a black body.

The logic used is very similar to a type 3 model. However, the double accounting of type 3, by adding arrow 4 before the atmosphere is heated, has been increased, now the surface emits 2 and half times the amount of solar input... Presumably to give enough room to maneuver to try to take into account sensible and latent heat.

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
02-20-2014, 09:53 AM
Post: #10
RE: FFF video in the making - forum review.
Major revisions / rewrite again today..

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
03-01-2014, 08:30 AM
Post: #11
RE: FFF video in the making - forum review.
Not exactly a rave review, but a review, of sorts... lol
The idealised greenhouse effect model and its enemies

Posted by William M. Connolley on February 16, 2014

#97 Derek Alker
http://www.globalwarmingskeptics.info/index.php
2014/03/01

Your comment is awaiting moderation.

FYI – William Connolley your “response” is a little out of date.
Thursday, 20th February, 2014,
Major revisions / rewrite again today..

I will continue to improve the piece, which has changed significantly since your post here was written, in light of responses I am aware of.

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
Post Reply 


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread: Author Replies: Views: Last Post
  Dessler & Lindzen video debate Questioning_Climate 0 1,880 10-21-2010 11:39 AM
Last Post: Questioning_Climate
  Video report on Climategate Questioning_Climate 1 2,124 10-20-2010 12:57 PM
Last Post: Derek
  A video antidote to An Inconvenient truth. Derek 2 2,515 09-02-2009 12:47 PM
Last Post: Derek



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