måndag 30 september 2013

Will Skeptics Now Be Able to Unite?

As the IPCC along with its politicized scientific apparatus now sinks into the Deep Ocean, it is natural to ask if skeptics of different brands, from IPCC refugees over lukewarmers to socalled deniers, will now be able to unite instead of beating each other with secteristic fervor?

In particular, I could ask if the ban of my writings on some skeptics blogs, because of my questioning of the reality of a Holy Sky Spirit of Back Radiation or DLR (Downwelling Longwave Radiation),  can now be lifted?

In particular, can the lack of global warming since 1997 under steadily rising CO2 levels, be viewed as evidence of non-existence of radiative forcing as an effect of DLR from a Holy Sky Spirit? Is DLR fictional in the same sense as the Holy Spirit, when confronted with observed realities?

PS One of the blogs where I have been banned is Roy Spencer's because of my insistence that back radiation is non-physical and that the starting point of 1 C warming from doubled CO2 is a definition based on a simple algebraic relation (Stefan-Boltzmann's law), which does not have any real meaning for the complex system of global climate. Roy sums up the basic physics supposedly carrying climate
modeling as follows:
  • It is sometimes said that climate models are built upon physical first principles, as immutable as the force of gravity or conservation of energy (which are, indeed, included in the models). But this is a half-truth, at best, spoken by people who either don’t know any better or are outright lying.
  • The most physically sound portion of global warming predictions is that adding CO2 to the atmosphere causes about a 1% energy imbalance in the system (energy imbalances are what cause temperature to change), and if nothing else but the temperature changes, there would only be about a 1 deg. C warming response to a doubling of atmospheric CO2 (we aren’t even 50% of the way to doubling).
  • But this is where the reasonably sound, physical first principles end (if you can even call them that since the 1 deg estimate is a theoretical calculation, anyway).
Roy thus appears to question the 1 C and so we agree on this point. The red card must then result from back radiation.

1 kommentar:

  1. You should know I agree with you about the ineffectiveness of "back-radiation". I go further: Longwave radiation from the surface does not affect the atmospheric temperature, except locally and transiently--the vertical temperature lapse rate, and the intensity of solar radiation that is directly absorbed by the atmosphere, rules over all). But there is no good reason to vitiate your effectiveness by making fun of a "Holy Spirit in the Sky". Just say something like, "academics' belief in the consensus theory is counter to the overwhelming objective evidence, and is akin to the blind faith in the pronouncements of institutionalized religions--the "consensus" of earlier times, before the rise of science--that has hobbled mankind throughout history", and go on.

    Yesterday I submitted to your site a comment I originally made on Judith Curry's site in early 2011. I also looked at other comments I made to her site around that time, and found this one, which relates to the belief in "back-radiation", as espoused by Ray Pierrehumbert in the pages of Physics Today, also at that time:

    No one has learned anything here, or from Pierrehumbert's recapitulation of "The Radiative Transfer Theory," in capitals to communicate its divine status. The theory ignores convection; it ignores the ideal gas law and the gravity that compresses the atmosphere, and increases the temperature, as a monotonic function (increase) of depth (Pierrehumbert makes the insane claim that "An atmospheric greenhouse gas enables a planet to radiate at a temperature lower than the ground's" -- NO, the thermodynamic lapse rate, depending only on gravitational g and the atmospheric specific heat does that); it ignores the Venus/Earth data that proves there is NO greenhouse/Tyndall effect whatsoever, on either planet. It assumes that anything with a temperature is a blackbody (absorptivity=emissivity), including the surface of the Earth (obscene misunderstanding of basic physics). Pierrehumbert assumes no scattering of IR radiation, because he does not even have an understanding that absorption and re-emission does just that; heat diffusion is beyond his The Radiative Transfer Theory, as his cartoon Figure 1 [note: in his Physics Today article} well demonstrates. Which is less correct: "Half of the radiation is directed south by southeast, and half north by northwest" (see Shakespeare aficionados for the meaning of the latter direction), or "Half is directed back to the surface..."? And having figured that out, what is the effect of radiation from a cooler body on a warmer body? No, to both the Greenhouse Effect and to The Radiative Transfer Theory, as it is applied in climate "science". It is sheer idiocy on the part of physics today, and of Physics Today as well. Incompetence to the nth power.
    I wrote that on January 20, 2011. Earlier, on January 12, 2011, I gave my recommendations, which are still relevant:

    Too much wrong has been done. First, bring on the political revolution, to STOP "implementing climate policy". Those who would implement know not what they do, get them stopped. Second, cast all of those defending the IPCC consensus, or even peer-review, out of their comfortable "authoritative" positions, because theirs is the rottenness in climate science. Third, set up a new, independent authority, of hard scientists OUTSIDE of climate science, not in it, with the sole task of winnowing out the chaff that now inundates climate science, and identifying once and for all the true nuggets that should be built upon (such as the Venus/Earth data I recently advanced, as have others before me, that definitively disproves the greenhouse effect). It doesn't matter if they don't "know" climate science, I guarantee they can learn, and learn it far better than the "consensus" of today.