söndag 25 mars 2012

Why Skeptics Need a "Greenhouse Effect"

The Basic Postulate of CO2 alarmism is the existence of no-feedback climate sensitivity of global warming of 1 C as the result of a "Greenhouse Effect" from doubling of atmospheric CO2, which by postulated positive feedback is increased to an alarming 3 C.

Leading skeptics including Dick Lindzen, Fred Singer and Roy Spencer applauded by Lord Monckton and Anthony Watts, start from the same Basic Postulate of 1 C and their skepticism is expressed by negative feedback instead of the positive feedback of alarmism, reducing climate sensitivity to harmless 0.5 C. The trademark of their skepticism is thus negative feedback.

In recent posts I have documented an attack by this leading group of skeptics on other skeptics including myself, which question the Basic Postulate. I have asked for reasons for this form of auto-immune reaction and have by a commenter been led to the following answer:

Lindzen at al have invested heavily in negative feedback as special scientific competence, which however is not really needed without the Basic Postulate. The relentless attack can thus be understood as a reptile brain reaction under a perceived threat to core values, a threat which is not real because the real threat is CO2 alarmism and not skepticism to its Basic Postulate.

6 kommentarer:

  1. In department store: When I put my naked hand (+25C) high abover frozen pool (-20C) I can "feel" coldness of it compared with same hand over warmer floor (+10..+15C). The latter must warm my hand. (It also feels "warmer").

    I've measured this more objectively also at home (with home made thermometer) above floor fridgerator in cool porch of the house (thermometer warmer than both fridgerator and floor can distinguish which is warmer, and only way to get this info is in reveiving photons).

    This simple experiment shows that warmer get photons from colder. (Net-flow is of course from warmer to colder).

    Regards from Finland.

  2. If it makes hard to accept from thermo-II(2nd law) point of view then think this:
    floor and fridgerator send also hot +100C..+3000C photons to my hand (avarage +25C) due to large distribution of photon energies.

  3. You are feeling the coldness of the frozen pool not the warmth of the floor.

  4. I think that Mr. Kat (Pas Kat?) means that he feels a small but very cold radiation coming from the space where the temperature is close to 0k!

  5. Both the floor and the frozen pool are colder than my hand but both send also photons that are hotter than my hand and floor sends more than pool. This is "due to" Plank's law equation. I thinks otherwise distinguishing colder pools by warmer hand would be impossible.

  6. to Anonym:
    How about this. I'd have bolometer/pyrometer/thermometer+thermal mass (T=0C) that is slowly cooling at night in focus of mirror telescope. Cooling rate (dT/dt=C0) is constant when telescope is pointing to cold space. But cooling slows a bit (dT/dt=C1>C0) when it poins to the moon (T=220K= -73C at equator) but FOR 1.5 SECONDS ONLY. Then telescope is directed to cold space again. Thermometers photons never has time to get two-way balance etc. (speed of light takes over 1 second to get to moon). So only way to explain C1>C0 is that that 0C thermometer got photons from colder (-73C) moon surface.