- Do you consider the Kiehl-Trenberth energy budget to be essentially correct?
- Do you consider backradiation from cold to warm to be a real physical phenomenon?
- Have you read and understood my derivation of Planck's radiation law without statistics?
- Do you consider the derivation to be essentially correct?
- Have you read and understood Planck's derivation of his law based on statistics?
- Which derivation do you consider to best represent physics?
- Do you think it is necessary to understand the derivation of a physical law to properly understand the meaning of the law?
- Is it correct to speak of a greenhouse effect from a whole range of a causes, but then connect the effect to one (small) cause?
- Is it correct to speak about a greenhouse effect from CO2 which may very well be zero?
- It is correct to speak about a no-feedback climate sensitivity of +1 C from doubled CO2 obtained by a direct application of Stefan-Boltzmann's radiation law without any consideration of thermodynamics, as a basic value with physical significance? Isn't it a formality like a definition twisted into a physical fact?
- Do you think an IR-meter can give information of radiative flux by effectively measuring temperature? If so, how is the translation from temperature to radiation performed by the instrument?
Answers will be posted when received.
It appears that neither Lord Monckton nor Spencer is eager to answer any of my questions, nor ask me any question. Lord M says that he has not the time to answer my questions, and Spencer says nothing. The discussion then collapses to silence.
But Lord M insists that there is a "greenhouse effect" somehow caused by the atmosphere, but seems to say that since the physics of this "greenhouse effect" has not be identified and described, it is impossible to say that it does not exist. How can you deny the existence of angels if you don't know what an angel is supposed to be? Maybe there is some sort of angel,
with or without wings?
But as I have remarked before, it is unfortunate if skeptics are more skeptic to other skeptics than to their common target of CO2 climate alarmists.
- Claes, I have read and considered your arguments. To rebut/refute them would take more time than I am prepared to spend on this. I have to use my time where I think it is best spent. Judy
Inlägg
Claes,
SvaraRaderaThere is back radiation, and it does not cause directly the greenhouse gas effect. You confuse the fact of back radiation to NET radiation and heat transfer. The forward radiation is, on the average, larger than back radiation, so the effect of the greenhouse gases and back radiation is to act as partial radiation insulation. However, the free convection and evaporation (which then condenses at higher altitude) carry the absorbed solar energy to the upper atmosphere atmosphere, where it radiates to space. It is the fact that the outgoing radiation is raised in altitude, combined with the lapse rate that sets the surface temperature. The increased ground level temperature and back radiation are results of this higher temperature and presence of greenhouse gases rather than them being the cause of the higher temperature. Be assured that the presence of greenhouse gases (and clouds) is required to raise the ground temperature. Without the greenhouse gases (and clouds), the ground would average 255 K. There would still be a lapse rate, but it would cool down from that 255 K as you went up.
I do not question that clouds have an effect on the ground temperature.
SvaraRaderaThe question is if the effect is cooling or warming or both in different places? Do you know?
Clouds give a direct reduction of absorbed solar radiation during daytime due to increased albedo. However, clouds also trap some outgoing long wave radiation. On average during daytime the typical average effect is cooling, but at night, the typical effect is warming. In addition, there are greatly different types of clouds, which have different effects. In my opinion, the net average effect tends toward cooling if average cloudyness increases. Based on the best data I have seen, and Roy Spenser's analysis, I would guess it is a negative feedback for CO2 increases.
SvaraRaderaLeonard,
SvaraRaderathank you for telling us you do not know.
Claes,
SvaraRaderaIt is true I do not know. Do you? I gave my personal analysis and opinion, which is all anyone can do at this point. I was honest enough to make clear it was an opinion and guess, which is more than some do.
I am not claiming that I know, but I do question those who say they do.
SvaraRadera