lördag 24 juli 2010

Skeptic Believers in the Greenhouse Effect


Among the many comments to Herman-Pielke's Explanation of the "The GreenHouse Effect" on WUWT we find that Lord Monckton is a believer:
  • I am delighted that this simple and clear but authoritative statement of the reality of the “greenhouse effect” has been posted here. Too many inaccurate statements to the effect that there is no greenhouse effect have been published recently, and they do not deserve to be given any credence. 
  • The true debate in the scientific community is not about whether there is a greenhouse effect (there is)...
I am surprised to see Lord Monckton appeal to authority in his denial of any credibility of scientists (like me) saying that the "greenhouse effect" is non-physical and is not described in the physics literature. Does Lord Monckton no longer believe in the virtues of a skeptical scientific attitude? 

  • Even my oldest daughter, a realtor who has an aversion to things scientific, got the right answer...

14 kommentarer:

  1. Anyone who says "the "greenhouse effect" is non-physical and is not described in the physics literature" is an idiot. If even Lord Monckton is one step ahead of you, you're intellectually dead.

    SvaraRadera
  2. Ah, yet another insightful & constructive comment by the AGW troll "Roger", who finds Claes threatening to his religion so he unleashes more venomous fire & brimstone. Roger, you sure do a lot of reading and commenting on a blog you consider to be idiotic and intellectually dead, so why are you wasting your time here (and everyone else's time) - go write your own blog, but don't bother to let us know the link.

    SvaraRadera
  3. How very open-minded you are.

    SvaraRadera
  4. By now there are probably a lot of scientists and non-scientists like Monckton panicing to save their skins, embarassed that they fell for this silly scam created by some pretentious charlatans, all because they didn't check the logic behind it in the first place. A true scientist doesn't behave that way, he doesn't believe in any authority, he checks. The last sentence was a quote from Monckton himself.

    SvaraRadera
  5. Strange that skeptics make a coordinated effort to save climate alarmism.

    SvaraRadera
  6. "I know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the greatest complexity, can seldom accept even the simplest and most obvious truth if it be such as would oblige them to admit the falsity of conclusions which they have delighted in explaining to colleagues, which they have proudly taught to others, and which they have woven, thread by thread, into the fabric of their lives." Tolstoy.

    SvaraRadera
  7. Yes I have cited this truth somewhere myself.

    SvaraRadera
  8. So, I can turn on a heat lamp, shine it through the top of a closed transparent cylinder with N2 and O2 in it, and feel the heat in my palm placed under the base. If I fill the cylinder up with CO2, radiative heat hitting my hand will substantially decrease. What's up with that?

    SvaraRadera
  9. Fine, but that is cooling not warming.

    SvaraRadera
  10. What?! The air got hotter. Given the same radiation the temperature of the system increases.

    SvaraRadera
  11. Yes, the lamp heats the absorbing gas. But the gas cannot "trap heat", only set a temperature gradient for heat transfer, which may result in cooling of the hand.

    SvaraRadera
  12. Claes,

    How do you explain the flux of infrared radiation that we observe to be downwelling from the atmosphere?

    SvaraRadera
  13. What observation of infrared radiation downwelling from the atmosphere are you referring to?

    SvaraRadera
  14. Anyone who cannot grasp that presence of a CONDUCTIVE FLUID, ie gases in the form of an ATMOSPHERE which is MUCH LARGER in CROSS SECTION therefore AN AMPLIFIER of LOSS MECHANISM(s)

    causes the planet to LOSE MORE HEAT THAN IT POSSIBLY COULD only in presence of the (partial)vacuum of SPACE which PARTIAL VACUUM LIMITS AVAILABLE MECHANISMS for ENERGY LOSS...

    deserves to be told about 'global warming' which Phil Jones admitted in his 2010 B.B.C. interview hasn't occurred since 1995 - AND which is VERIFIED by the RAW TEMPERATURE DATA POSTED BY LAW ONLINE-

    and deserves to think the sky is "afire up thar!"...

    A CONDUCTIVE BLANKET which INCREASES both POTENCY of MECHANISMS AND the TOTAL CROSS SECTIONAL AREA of LOSS-

    'warms' the planet.... mein Gott... the stupidity is incredible and stunning every time you see it: ESPECIALLY from men who, allegedly, understand physics of COOLING...

    without an atmosphere, FEWER MECHANISMS for LOSS therefore MORE ENERGY STORED BEFORE RADIATION finally establishes equilibrium IT'S way -

    WITH an atmosphere, the CONDUCTION off the surface and augmenting CONVECTION lift the THERMAL ENERGY - photonic energy, this isn't difficult, OR complicated -

    OFF the SURFACE BEFORE it GETS as HOT as it WOULD WITHOUT the C.O.N.D.U.C.T.I.V.E. ATMOSPHERE to AID in ENERGY TRANSFER outward to present that photonic energy to the wind of space's partial vacuum...

    Thank you, THANK you for standing up for this S.I.M.P.L.E. facet of a VERY VERY SIMPLE situation.

    SvaraRadera