onsdagen den 14:e mars 2012

Roy Spencer Slays Back

Fstival of History

I have recently challenged Roy Spencer to describe the "greenhouse effect" that he so ardently defends together with Fred Singer, Lord Monckton and Richard Lindzen, an effect supposedly resulting from "backradiation" as heat transfer from cold to warm, which I questioned in Slaying the Sky Dragon.

After thinking quite a bit Roy now hits back with Slaying the Slayers with the Alabama Two-Step with yet another defense of the
  • “greenhouse effect” which makes the Earth’s surface warmer than it would otherwise be.
OK, so the "greenhouse effect" is something (not defined) with the effect of making the Earth's surface warmer than it would be without the effect (still not yet defined). No wonder that with this circular definition it is impossible to tell how big this effect may be.

OK, Roys presents the following evidence of the "greenhouse effect" (not defined) in as the Alabama Two-Step:
  1. Warming can be caused by a decrease in the rate of energy loss by the climate system (trivial statement).
  2. Observation of Outgoing Longwave Radiation spectrum (non-trivial).
I show in From Spectrum to Heat Transfer that quick deductions about heat transfer from a spectrum (like Downwelling Longwave Radiation from cold atmosphere to Earth surface) can be completely misleading. Roy's Two-Step thus scientifically represents a Backward Step.

I do not understand what motivates Roy as a skeptic to spend his energy on slaying other skeptics, rather than taking on the real opponents carrying the flag of CO2 alarmism.

And so: Roy, the arguments you are using to slay the slayers, are scientifically trivial. Wouldn't it be much better to use your energy to come up with non-trivial arguments to beat the alarmists?

3 kommentarer:

  1. Hello prof. Johnson,

    I've been fololowing your "discussions" on several blogs. I think your position is correct on the backradiation subject.
    Best way to prove your point is providing a better explanation for the appearent mismatch between the 255K greybody temp. and the 288K avg. surface temps.
    I think I have one. It's posted here:
    short version:
    - assume at TOA incoming and outgoing balances
    - assume ZERO heat flux from hot inner earth
    - due to the above everything that happens inside system earth is redistribution of energy.

    Either since their creation, a catastrophic event releasing lots of earts energy and/or a major meteor impact the oceans have been WARMER than they are today.
    The sun is BARELY ABLE to prevent the oceans from further cooling, BUT the temp. of their bulk is 275-277K. All the sun is doing is heating a shallow upper layer (~10% oceans volume) from ~275K to ~290K a mere 13K!!
    This warm layer heats the atmosphere (heat capacity equals ~3 METER of ocean) from below, and results eventually in ~240W/m^2 escaping to space.
    If there are no major flaws in my reasoning, this explains our present surface temps, and gives us back classic meteorology, explaining a lot of processes, and NO need for backradiation or whatever.

    See: http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/earthguide/diagrams/woce/
    the part about ocean temps.

    Awaiting your reaction.


    Ben Wouters

  2. A question if I may:

    I read your post about fooling yourself with pyrgeometers. Am I correct in assuming that the "cold" part of the thermocline should be kept at 0K to make correct readings possible?

    Regards Ben Wouters

  3. Spectrum is one thing, heat transfer another. See e.g.