Post Reply 
 
Thread Rating:
  • 232 Votes - 2.81 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Do Global Energy budgets make sense. ???
12-02-2010, 01:53 PM
Post: #81
RE: Do Global Energy budgets make sense. ???
(12-02-2010 11:42 AM)Derek Wrote:  I would suggest their "reason" would be the diagrams show annual "averages" expressed as per second rates..
So, over a year they are implying all energy is radiated (apart from the 0.9 they say is absorbed - BY WHAT, WHERE...), that is not moved by thermal or latent heat.
I'm second guessing the "disc world" proponents, but I think that would be roughly their line of response.
Of cause they say all energy (with the exception of incoming radiation reflected) is radiated at some point. if you add up all the numbers making up the amount of energy radiated by the atmosphere (including clouds) which is either going to space or back-radiation then in order to balance that you have to add on the other side incoming radiation (absorbed by atmosphere), thermal and latent heat as well as surface radiation to match that number.

You see the problem?
Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user
Quote this message in a reply
12-02-2010, 02:40 PM
Post: #82
RE: Do Global Energy budgets make sense. ???
(12-02-2010 01:53 PM)h-j-m Wrote:  Of cause they say all energy (with the exception of incoming radiation reflected) is radiated at some point.
I am not sure they do, what about the 0.9 absorbed. ? The implication is absorbed at the earth's surface (for more than a year presumably...).
The 0.9 absorbed really is quite a problem, why is it that only 0.9 is absorbed for longer than a year, yet
none of the rest of solar input (or imaginary "back radiation") to the earth's surface is absorbed for longer than a year. ????

However I would agree that all energy in, must eventually be radiated to space, obviously not necessarily within a year though, as the budgets necessarily depict,
AND, more importantly, not necessarily "transported" within the system by radiation (thermal and latent heat for examples).

(12-02-2010 01:53 PM)h-j-m Wrote:  if you add up all the numbers making up the amount of energy radiated by the atmosphere (including clouds)
which is either going to space or back-radiation then in order to balance that
you have to add on the other side incoming radiation (absorbed by atmosphere),
thermal and latent heat as well as surface radiation to match that number.
The proof such must balance (within a year specifically) is where. ???

However, I think you mean within "their" budgets "they" have to include thermal and latent heat moments to make it all balance, which I wholeheartedly agree "they" do have to
(again not necessarily within one year, oceanic phases for example).
Whether the thermal and latent movements compared to radiation movements represented are realistic or not is another completely different question though.
I strongly suggestion (read KNOW - and can show by simple simile [already have, but don't mind repeating]) they are not realistic, in the slightest.

(12-02-2010 01:53 PM)h-j-m Wrote:  You see the problem?
Yeah, "disc world", it is unphysical rubbish, whether represented as a diagram or modeled.

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
12-02-2010, 04:42 PM
Post: #83
RE: Do Global Energy budgets make sense. ???
Footnote, I am distinctly "not alone" in following the line of reasoning I described in post 75,
I will post updates, asap.

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
12-02-2010, 05:49 PM
Post: #84
RE: Do Global Energy budgets make sense. ???
As I see it there are two possibilities. Either applying the Stefan–Boltzmann law results in a number representing all energy given up by a body's surface or I have misunderstood what I read about it. In the latter case I would like to know what I have gotten wrong.

Else Trenberth and colleagues should have subtracted the values for thermal and latent heat from their value for surface radiation and stated so. Of cause that would lead to a smaller (but still impressive) value for back-radiation. Besides, I am not sure, but I think it would deal a minor blow at their reputation and, do to the fact that this diagram is around for more than 10 years, the so called peer review process too.
Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user
Quote this message in a reply
12-02-2010, 11:58 PM
Post: #85
RE: Do Global Energy budgets make sense. ???
After reading Chapter 19 - Computational Blackbody Radiation and more in the Kindle book Slaying the Sky Dragon - Death of the Greenhouse Gas Theory I am converted and no longer believe in "backradiation" from the atmosphere to the surface of the earth in any form what so ever from so called greenhouse gases. This includes water vapour, H2O.

I can understand and accept that water in the atmosphere in the solid (ice) and liquid (droplets) forms ONLY can reduce upwelling longwave radiation from the surface.

There are a very few special cases where the atmosphere can warm the surface by direct conduction and these are all wind driven events like the fohn winds or mistrals.

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
12-03-2010, 12:07 AM
Post: #86
RE: Do Global Energy budgets make sense. ???
Later edit - Having thought this over several times today I have decided to post this because as Joe Postma says in the pdf,

" In the best traditions of free intellectual inquiry and academic pursuit,
freedom of expression and exploration of ideas, and respect for person and private property,
polite critical review is always welcomed and encouraged.

Debate is fun and enjoyable, it’s what we’re here to do, and the clash of ideas is what we’re all here to develop and explore,
in the best traditions of our Natural Philosophy going back thousands and thousands of years.
"

A great big THANK YOU to Hans for sending me the following stunning link.
http://people.ucalgary.ca/~jpostma/Solar_Flux.pdf

h-j-m, AND ALL,
I think "we" are asking the wrong questions here.
Or rather phrased to answer h-j-m's post 84 and question,
" or I have misunderstood what I read about it.
I would like to know what I have gotten wrong.
"
"WE" have all missed this h-j-m.

ie, What "we" should be asking is,
When viewed from space, what is the radiative surface of earth,
which is the temperature we would observe the planet to have, as an average.
The answer is -18 degrees celcius,
so where's earth's radiative surface. ?

Yes, we live on the earth's surface, but when viewed from space, is that earth's radiative surface. - NO.
Comparing -18C and 15C is simply getting things back to front, and ignoring the ideal gas law and gravity,
as I have been somewhat banging on about in this thread of late..

http://people.ucalgary.ca/~jpostma/Solar_Flux.pdf

In short, take the earth's radiative surface temp, (-18C), factor in the ideal gas law and gravity and earth's surface temp is 22 degrees.
Oh.....

Derek goes out on a limb - please check / comment on my logic / line of thought, I ain't sure I am correct either..
1) Hold on, in part two of the pdf a single figure average is used (-18), so the answer is presumably a "disc world" figure.
The -18 is calculated using 5778K, so that implies the lit side of the planet only, and
as far as I can see the result is a "disc world" average, which means it is also a sphere maximum figure.
I am suggesting that the -18 figure varies on a sphere, so although the ideal gas law and gravity effect does not change
the temp the effect is calculated from does vary on a sphere. So the "disc world" / sphere conversion using the square root of two is required.

Convert the "disc world" average and max answer of 22 to a sphere average answer by dividing by the square root of two,
so, 22 divided by the square root of two = 15.556 celcius actual planet average surface temp (on the lit side only presumably)......

I hope astronomers do not habitually talk in the above maximum sphere, and "disc world" average (and maximum) temp figures (ie, 22 when it should be an average of 15.556 for a sphere),
but I suspect that they do. If the above is the case, then that could be quite a few figures to correct for planets, not stars though. "Disc world" I think should work for stars.

2) Does the ideal gas law and gravity dictate that the minimum possible temperature on the dark side of a planet with an atmosphere will be above that of space. ?
I think it must, therefore there is an anomaly to explain on the dark side of the planet, that is probably way in excess of the anomaly to explain on the light side of the planet.
Such an anomaly (on the dark side of the planet) I would of thought would be way in excess of anything "greenhouse" could possibly "explain".

NB - Richard111, in no way at all cynically, I genuinely mean this, and I do not mean to be patronising in the slightest,
Post 85, well done and said.

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
12-03-2010, 01:50 AM
Post: #87
RE: Do Global Energy budgets make sense. ???
Derek, thanks for the pdf. Off to read that now. So much new data that my mind is becoming boggled and I am not absorbing much. Need a sabatical. Yes, "we" have been misled like many others due to our own initial lack of understanding and basic knowledge. It's a long slow road but "we" are learning.
I like the "disc world" analogy. A brilliant work of fiction indeed. Big Grin

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
12-03-2010, 11:53 AM
Post: #88
RE: Do Global Energy budgets make sense. ???
At Roy Spencer's site his article Global Warming 101 I read that the idea of global energy balance (incoming=outgoing) is the very core of the case. During quite some battle at skepticalscience.com argument #54 "2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory", which I quit in the end when next to all replies where nothing more than ad hominem attacks in disguise, of cause I tried to become familiar with the second law of thermodynamics.

Now, with respect to a of global energy balance I remember one point of the second law of thermodynamics that blows the whole idea out of the water. Having scanned this thread to make sure this was not mentioned earlier I am ready to go.

The point is that according to the second law of thermodynamics an energy conversion (transformation of one form of energy to an other e. g. pressure to kinetic) at total efficiency (efficiency = 1) is impossible. Radiation getting absorbed by matter of cause is a energy conversion. Matter emitting radiation is another. Therefore the equation energy in = energy out violates that law. Looking at the Trenberth et al. diagram I can estimate at least three times when such a double conversion (radiation to matter, matter to radiation) take place. That is impossible!!

A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it. Max Planck 1858-1947
Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user
Quote this message in a reply
12-04-2010, 01:01 AM
Post: #89
RE: Do Global Energy budgets make sense. ???
Derek, thanks again for that link to the Solar-Flux.pdf. It is absolutely brilliant!

I was asking long ago about the constantcy of the dry adiabatic lapse rate and one reply from Richard Courtney suggested I would need five PhDs to understand the workings. Well, to quote from that pdf; the dry adiabatic lapse rate is solely a function of the gravitational field strength and the heat capacity of the gas. When you look at that along side the blackbody radiation laws it all makes sense and confirms the result laboriously worked out by climatologists using other methods. So just keep digging and we get there.

h-j-m, in blackbody radiation two bodies at equilibrium will both be radiating at each other but niether will get hotter than the other. This also applies to grey bodies. If one body is warmer it will raise the energy level (heat) the cooler body until both are in equilibrium and then they will continue to cool down together. This applies to gases in the atmosphere. -20C CO2 in the air cannot warm up +20C ground below, but whats coming up from the ground will sure warm up the CO2. Problem is that for every CO2 molecule there are 2,499 other molecules wanting a share of that heat. No contest.

Now this makes me lose my cool big time! Angry Angry Angry

Gov pays Greens to lobby it, says report

How you pay for hippies to see you off

Posted in Government, 3rd December 2010 13:39 GMT

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
12-04-2010, 08:16 AM
Post: #90
RE: Do Global Energy budgets make sense. ???
Dear Richard111, i have to confess to be unable spotting the connection of your reply to anything I have written here.

But nevertheless i want to comment on it with emphasis on the concepts you mentioned, black and grey bodies as well as equilibrium. As in my understanding science is about events and its goal is first to understand how (in detail) any event takes place and second to find an explanation why they take place. As, by definition, equilibrium is a state where no event takes place it can no way be a subject of scientific endeavour. It can only be a simplified ideal construct that may, or may not, serve some purpose.

Radiation on the other hand, is an event taking place in the real universe, that can be observed and measured. These observations tell us that matter absorbs, emits, reflects and scatters radiation due to its chemical composition and temperature. If I understand it right it is the chemical composition that determines absorption as well as the emitting bands (frequencies, wavelength) while the temperature determines the amount of energy to be absorbed or emitted. Now if you take away the determining factors of absorption and keep only the temperature for emission you got your black or grey body. I dare to doubt that this will allow for telling a lot about the real universe and its physics. Though I do not deny that the result of such abstractions can be useful. For example they can tell you the minimum temperature needed for spectral analysis an this depends on the detectability (intensity) on emissions at certain wavelength.

You further mentioned the cause of back-radiation which the AGW proponents claim is absorbed by the earth's surface which in effect cause it to warm deriving that from the fact that they can measure it. If so why don't they provide ample proof? If you follow what I wrote so far that should be easy, you just need to provide a verifiable radiation spectrum of the back-radiation and show that there is a matching (verifiable) absorption spectrum for the surface. Of cause a similar proof could easily provided the other way round (radiation spectrum of the surface vs. absorption spectrum of the atmosphere) to show that the atmosphere catches next to all surface radiation.

So far I failed to note any presentation of such proof.

A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it. Max Planck 1858-1947
Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user
Quote this message in a reply
12-05-2010, 02:41 AM (This post was last modified: 12-05-2010 02:43 AM by Richard111.)
Post: #91
RE: Do Global Energy budgets make sense. ???
h-j-m, apologies for being obscure. I'm still carried away with excitement from reading Joseph E Postma's writings in the Solar_Flux.pdf following so soon after aquiring Slaying the Sky Dragon - Death of the Greenhouse Gas Theory. Big Grin

Within the context of this thread the above two documents have convinced me that the K-T diagrams are rubbish and "back radiation" from the atmosphere to the surface is a nonsense.

The starting point as mentioned by Postma is the sun is a blackbody radiating at 5778K and the earth is a blackbody radiating at 255K (-18C). The radiating level of the earth is not the surface but several kilometers up in the atmosphere.

Now this business of "back radiation". I had always assumed a body will radiate at all the frequencies it is capable of but at reduced intensities as it cools. This appears not to be the case. I find it easier to explain (I'm still learning this stuff! Rolleyes ) if I consider a "blackbody", it can absorb and radiate ALL frequencies. Depending on its size and distance from the sun it will absorb all frequencies above its ambient temperature but will only emit low frequency radiation up to its ambient temperature. As it's temperature changes so it's radiative characteristics will change. Although the blackbody is capable of emitting high frequency radiation it is simply not hot enough.

Now consider the earth, blackbody, greybody, whatever, the atmosphere just a few meters above the surface us usually colder than the surface, getting even colder with altitude. Any radiation from the atmosphere WILL NOT BE ABSORBED unless it is warmer than the surface. The path for radiative heat transfer is from warm to cool not ever the other way.

I hope I am making sense. (and then along will come another paper Blush )

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
12-05-2010, 01:00 PM
Post: #92
RE: Do Global Energy budgets make sense. ???
Applause on all fronts Richard111. Well said.

BTW - I am thinking maybe "we" should meet up next week / maybe Saturday,
I think we have enough to put a pdf "answer" and continuation to Postma's pdf together.
(I assume "we" are all upto speed regarding Siddons, Jelbring and Olson in the Slaying the dragon book context, Johnson would be useful as well but not perquisite.)
BUT, I want to discuss this idea / approach / continuation with a selected few in person, not "electronically".
(I have also asked one other so far (awaiting answer), you can guess who I'm sure.
There are two more I am thinking of, but I'll not divulge that here)

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
12-05-2010, 02:45 PM
Post: #93
RE: Do Global Energy budgets make sense. ???
Derek, I just read that solar-flux paper and seemingly had a different view on it. Because when I now look at the famous Trenberth et al. diagram I too see that next to all radiation leaving earth originates somewhere up in the atmosphere. So no big difference there. The difference left are the two explanations, greenhouse effect and adiabatic lapse rate., of surface temperatures. Though I find the latter far more convincing (due to the fact that its basics, the interdependency of pressure and temperature in gases, was part of physics at school) I doubt it can serve as a knock out blow.

I think there are two possible ways to fight the church of AGW.

1. Questioning the validity of averages to explain real events. The most prominent example of cause would be "global mean temperature". According to Richard Lindzen it is build based on taking the highest and lowest temperature readings during 24 hours dividing them by two. I for my part have severe doubts about the validity of this method. The same holds true for all numbers in play representing averages.

2. To try finding errors and discrepancies within the arguments of AGW proponents (using their own framework) as I tried (post 79 and post 88).

A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it. Max Planck 1858-1947
Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user
Quote this message in a reply
12-06-2010, 01:10 PM
Post: #94
RE: Do Global Energy budgets make sense. ???
h-j-m you have missed the points raised completely, time to go over again and see if you see what you have missed.
Better still why not read slaying the dragon - that would really help you.

Your ignoring my answer to you at post 86 is telling, very telling.

Hint.

(12-05-2010 02:45 PM)h-j-m Wrote:  I doubt it can serve as a knock out blow.

Explain the temperature on the dark side of planet earth then,
the K&T budgets DO NOT.

The basis of modeling and K&T budgets should not be a disc to the fourth power, with only one side,
THAT'S ONE DIMENSIONAL, THAT DON'T EXIST.
it should be (at bare minimum) a disc to the second power with two sides, one lit, one dark.
THIS WOULD AT LEAST BE TWO DIMENSIONAL.

There is much. much more that follows, but this is only a hint.

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
12-07-2010, 09:19 AM
Post: #95
RE: Do Global Energy budgets make sense. ???
Derek, you wrote:
Quote:Explain the temperature on the dark side of planet earth then, the K&T budgets DO NOT.
Sorry, but you are wrong. They are based on averaged values all around the world as well as for (near surface) temperatures as for incoming solar radiation which varies from zero to (next to) 1500 W per square meter.

In my humble opinion the right question to be asked first has to be:
Do average values constitute a base to explain and/or predict physical phenomena?

My answer is obviously no!

Why? That is easy. A physical phenomenon is something happening that can be observed. But nothing can happen unless it is caused by energetic differences. Building average values takes all differences out and in consequence all physics.

A nice example of cause is the "Stefan–Boltzmann law" which is all about averages.

Now, if I compare the (effective) temperature of the sun (5778 K) with the measurements taken (1 - 2 million degrees K at the corona). That gives me a rough idea how to interpret earth temperatures derived from it's application.

A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it. Max Planck 1858-1947
Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user
Quote this message in a reply
12-07-2010, 01:29 PM
Post: #96
RE: Do Global Energy budgets make sense. ???
(12-07-2010 09:19 AM)h-j-m Wrote:  Derek, you wrote:
Quote:Explain the temperature on the dark side of planet earth then, the K&T budgets DO NOT.
Sorry, but you are wrong. They are based on averaged values all around the world as well as for (near surface) temperatures as for incoming solar radiation which varies from zero to (next to) 1500 W per square meter.

I repeat, politely, h-j-m, you have missed the point/s COMPLETELY.
Your reply shows what you have missed, and that you do not know what you have missed.
Please revisit post 86 there are some very, very strong hints therein.

Otherwise wait for my pdf or powerpoint, I havn't decided which yet.

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
12-07-2010, 03:20 PM
Post: #97
RE: Do Global Energy budgets make sense. ???
OK Derek, I admit that I missed a lot. This is why.

Quote:When viewed from space, what is the radiative surface of earth,

Yes, what is it, what happens there, what do I have to look out for to detect it?

Quote:which is the temperature we would observe the planet to have, as an average.

Does such thing like a planetary average temperature exist? If yes, how or where to measure it?

Quote:The answer is -18 degrees Celsius,

As this number is derived applying the Stefan–Boltzmann law, what is its connection to temperatures we can measure here on earth, or any averages derived from such measurements?

Especially, most important, what is the relevance of the above for the earth's climate?

As I do not have answers for the posed questions I am unable to get the points.

By the way, I am living on welfare constituting a budget that does not allow for the purchasing of books.

A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it. Max Planck 1858-1947
Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user
Quote this message in a reply
12-07-2010, 11:13 PM
Post: #98
RE: Do Global Energy budgets make sense. ???
(12-07-2010 03:20 PM)h-j-m Wrote:  OK Derek, I admit that I missed a lot. This is why.

Quote:When viewed from space, what is the radiative surface of earth,

Yes, what is it, what happens there, what do I have to look out for to detect it?

Joke - It helps if your in space (end of joke).
Or, rather for safety and practical purposes your view point is from space.
Re-reading the Joe Postma pdf will help greatly though.
I think Joe (and the rest of us so far) misses some rather large points however,
which the pdf / powerpoint will be aimed at expanding upon.

(12-07-2010 03:20 PM)h-j-m Wrote:  By the way, I am living on welfare constituting a budget that does not allow for the purchasing of books.

That's why amongst many other reasons, namely my self defense,
the pdf / powerpoint will contain the pertinent points, and be for free to all.

NB - I am not ignoring your other very valid and centrally relevant points / questions h-j-m, that I will address,
they will be (mostly) answered in the pdf / powerpoint.

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
12-09-2010, 11:24 AM
Post: #99
RE: Do Global Energy budgets make sense. ???
I just reviewed my last posts and found them to be missing a systemic order and coherence.

Therefore I will try to rephrase the issue and work out a focal point.

Let's say we take all objects where we can take temperature readings (measurements) of, the sun, planets, moons maybe even some asteroids and try to our best ability to deduce an average temperature for these objects.

Then we calculate the "effective" temperatures of these objects applying the Stefan–Boltzmann law.

Next we need a statistical analysis about the correlation between these two sets of numerical values.

If there is no correlation at all we have completely ruled out the application of the Stefan–Boltzmann law as a viable method.

if there is a correlation then this leads to the question "What causes the deviations between these sets of numbers?".

Now if all measurement based numbers are higher (or lower) than the "effective" temperatures that again would point out a flawed method.

Only if measurement based numbers deviate in both directions from "effective" temperatures we can surely assume that the properties of the objects (e. g. earth) have a role to play.

A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it. Max Planck 1858-1947
Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user
Quote this message in a reply
12-09-2010, 12:22 PM
Post: #100
RE: Do Global Energy budgets make sense. ???
h-j-m, please excuse my absence, but I am working on something that will answer your questions, all and more.
"It" is worth waiting for, I already have that it is on good advice and a solid basis.

Please be patient, I will get back to you ASAP (hopefully within a week or so),
and I am a man of my word (because being a skeptic, that's all I have, along with observation, and simple critical logic).

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
  Climate models get energy balance wrong, make too hot forecasts of global warming Sunsettommy 0 2,756 07-26-2011 03:00 PM
Last Post: Sunsettommy
  Kiehl/Trenberth/et al Global Energy Budget blouis79 12 11,840 10-06-2010 10:40 AM
Last Post: Derek



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