tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1500584444083499721.post711087076586936815..comments2024-03-24T09:28:42.755+01:00Comments on CJ on Mathematics and Science: AGW Myth of Back RadiationClaes Johnsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07411413338950388898noreply@blogger.comBlogger50125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1500584444083499721.post-46589003293951201722010-10-03T04:51:33.349+02:002010-10-03T04:51:33.349+02:00Roger,
Can you let me know how the colder CO2 mol...Roger,<br /><br />Can you let me know how the colder CO2 molecules can force the warmer surface to increase its temperature? Doesn't heat flow from warm to less warm?<br /><br />Live well and prosperAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1500584444083499721.post-79273626752264698162010-07-02T22:25:43.463+02:002010-07-02T22:25:43.463+02:00Roger, wrong wrong wrong yet again on RW Wood!!! Y...Roger, wrong wrong wrong yet again on RW Wood!!! You obviously have not read nor understood or desire to understand his work (and others that confirmed it) so I'm done here. You obviously also do not have any ability to back up your blanket statements about flaws "too numerous to mention" and which are now are "off topic".MShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06714540297202434542noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1500584444083499721.post-66847967256748420772010-07-02T17:01:01.098+02:002010-07-02T17:01:01.098+02:00Once again, RW Wood only showed that "greenho...Once again, RW Wood only showed that "greenhouse effect" could be considered a misnomer, not that the effect did not exist.<br /><br />I already pointed out some major flaws in those papers. Carrying on with that is way off topic for this thread.RWhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07858934058244484435noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1500584444083499721.post-5346880470429800712010-07-02T04:42:06.851+02:002010-07-02T04:42:06.851+02:00Roger, please, once again the Arrhenius paper was ...Roger, please, once again the Arrhenius paper was ripped to shreds by RW Wood:<br /><br />http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics/Svante_Arrhenius<br /><br />So who is the one who has not read the literature with an open mind?<br /><br />Still waiting on your detailed analysis of one single flaw (pick any flaw at all of your choice)in each of the three papers and please don't continue to state that the flaws are just too numerous to even elaborate on one single flaw.<br /><br />Climate "science" has an incredible hubris found in no other area of science of stating it is "settled" with an "over 90%" confidence based entirely upon arbitrary computer models, while quietly admitting said models have no validation or confidence and which in fact contradict empirical observations. Just unbelievable!MShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06714540297202434542noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1500584444083499721.post-18816022039079492882010-07-01T23:25:52.119+02:002010-07-01T23:25:52.119+02:00Unfortunately you have misunderstood the scope and...Unfortunately you have misunderstood the scope and the point of the Arrhenius paper.RWhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07858934058244484435noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1500584444083499721.post-23170597141892744992010-07-01T22:37:59.585+02:002010-07-01T22:37:59.585+02:00I have read and understood that it presents a simp...I have read and understood that it presents a simple radiative model which in no way describes global climate.Claes Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07411413338950388898noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1500584444083499721.post-79043412309853020012010-07-01T22:31:50.864+02:002010-07-01T22:31:50.864+02:00Yes, I rather suspected that whichever paper I gav...Yes, I rather suspected that whichever paper I gave you, you would not be happy with. Nonetheless, you can at least withdraw your preposterous claim that "there are no key articles".<br /><br />As you do not give any indication of what you don't like about it, I assume that you have neither read nor understood the Arrhenius paper.RWhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07858934058244484435noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1500584444083499721.post-10810391241503659462010-07-01T22:01:52.857+02:002010-07-01T22:01:52.857+02:00If the Arrhenius paper is the best you can come up...If the Arrhenius paper is the best you can come up with, CO2 alarmism <br />is dead.Claes Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07411413338950388898noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1500584444083499721.post-5258943826490002952010-07-01T21:52:47.552+02:002010-07-01T21:52:47.552+02:00One key reference certainly isn't enough. Few...One key reference certainly isn't enough. Few branches of science can be trivialised in this way. I pointed this out in a comment on another of your blog posts.<br /><br />Still, I may as well point you towards Arrhenius's paper of 1896, "On the Influence of Carbonic Acid in the Air upon the Temperature of the Ground".RWhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07858934058244484435noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1500584444083499721.post-86028159084432667322010-07-01T21:26:42.944+02:002010-07-01T21:26:42.944+02:00One key reference is enough. Give me that or give ...One key reference is enough. Give me that or give up acting like a AGW spokesman. My person is irrelevant as concerns the existence of scientific support of AGW.Claes Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07411413338950388898noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1500584444083499721.post-59974133061505337042010-07-01T20:47:25.501+02:002010-07-01T20:47:25.501+02:00I am not a "spokesman for AGW". You onl...I am not a "spokesman for AGW". You only started demanding "key references" when you could not answer simple questions about your original post. I gave you references. That you now deny this only demonstrates your own insincerity.<br /><br />Perhaps you could tell me the exact number of "key references" that you consider sufficient. Perhaps you could also give me an estimate of how many climate-related papers and textbooks you've read already.RWhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07858934058244484435noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1500584444083499721.post-61307505295044997522010-07-01T20:32:27.192+02:002010-07-01T20:32:27.192+02:00Roger, as a spokesman for AGW don't you unders...Roger, as a spokesman for AGW don't you understand that by failing to give key scientific references you pull the carpet for CO2 climate alarmism?Claes Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07411413338950388898noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1500584444083499721.post-25868053230392052112010-07-01T19:18:13.496+02:002010-07-01T19:18:13.496+02:00and here's why we shouldn't have confidenc...and here's why we shouldn't have confidence in said models:<br /><br />http://www.skeptic.com/the_magazine/featured_articles/v14n01_climate_of_belief.html#MShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06714540297202434542noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1500584444083499721.post-15909333873128506662010-07-01T18:41:02.939+02:002010-07-01T18:41:02.939+02:00Roger,
I don't post my email address on public...Roger,<br />I don't post my email address on public web pages. How about just showing in detail specifically what you consider to be the most egregious flaw for each of the papers by Chilingar, Kramm, and Miskolczi...just pick one single flaw for each paper...and doing it here for all to evaluate?<br /><br />Claes- I have also not been able to find any paper proving the physics of AGW - The IPCC relies on arbitrary computer models to provide whatever result is desired - and admits in the fine print that few read (section 8.6.4) that it isn't even clear which diagnostic tests are critical to assess confidence in the models. The section concludes by saying that the things necessary to assess confidence in feedbacks simulated by different models have yet to be developed. In other words, the scientists can't make any assessment whatsoever of confidence of the models at the heart of the IPCC "consensus" on AGW.MShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06714540297202434542noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1500584444083499721.post-54347409185883787722010-07-01T17:53:25.846+02:002010-07-01T17:53:25.846+02:00MS: the errors are so basic and so numerous that i...MS: the errors are so basic and so numerous that it would take an extremely long time to go through them all. If you really want to know why they are all mistaken, then post your e-mail address and I'll contact you.<br /><br />Clothcap: how does the earth know where the energy that falls on it came from?<br /><br />Claes: I gave you a whole textbook, and a list of some 2000 articles and papers. Your demand for a single "seminal" paper is a bit ridiculous. Perhaps you could explain why you think there should be just one paper that describes the entire science of planetary atmospheres?RWhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07858934058244484435noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1500584444083499721.post-90180549071432645222010-07-01T16:54:35.322+02:002010-07-01T16:54:35.322+02:00Claes,
Here's two of the AGW "seminal&quo...Claes,<br />Here's two of the AGW "seminal" papers so you can see how flimsy the arguments are (they are both entirely based upon arbitrary computer models):<br /><br />James Hansen's "seminal" 1988 paper:<br />http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2010/03/hansen-mars-challenge.html<br /><br />Kiehl & Trenberth's paper on the energy budget which still adheres to the greenhouse "heat trapping" gases behave like a pane of glass theory disproven by Wood in 1909:<br /><br />http://www.geo.utexas.edu/courses/387H/PAPERS/kiehl.pdfMShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06714540297202434542noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1500584444083499721.post-37570422174265019662010-07-01T08:50:51.508+02:002010-07-01T08:50:51.508+02:00Give me an article or give up.Give me an article or give up.Claes Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07411413338950388898noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1500584444083499721.post-77390303526361934222010-07-01T08:40:32.057+02:002010-07-01T08:40:32.057+02:00Roger
Rather than get into how molecules work lets...Roger<br />Rather than get into how molecules work lets stay with what I believe. <br />The whole atm is what reduces the incoming solar radiation. Some reaches the surface and provokes IR emission.<br />The energy emitted as IR by the surface cannot further warm the surface.<br />Any influence on T of additions to CO2 as a GHG is not detectable. In any case additions to CO2 volume are irrelevant to the atm. heat content because of saturation.<br /><br />http://www.appinsys.com/globalwarming/Tombstone.htmClothcaphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03077729532843204244noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1500584444083499721.post-75685689640363537942010-07-01T05:34:23.619+02:002010-07-01T05:34:23.619+02:00BTW, Miskolczi has a new peer-reviewed paper comin...BTW, Miskolczi has a new peer-reviewed paper coming out this momth & here is the abstract:<br /><br />http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2010/06/new-miskolczi-paper-co2-not-cause-of.htmlMShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06714540297202434542noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1500584444083499721.post-51664312332677141142010-07-01T03:53:39.721+02:002010-07-01T03:53:39.721+02:00Roger,
Your criticism of the Chilingar paper is fa...Roger,<br />Your criticism of the Chilingar paper is false - start reading on page 2 "...when the infrared radiation is absorbed by the greenhouse gases..."<br /><br />Smith's paper is refuted by Kramm's paper - what specifically do you find wrong with Kramm's paper (other than not yet peer reviewed)?<br /><br />What specifically is wrong Miskolczi's statement of Kirchhoff's law?MShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06714540297202434542noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1500584444083499721.post-49138761425598635442010-07-01T00:51:51.669+02:002010-07-01T00:51:51.669+02:00Really? You did not find any enlightenment at all...Really? You did not find any enlightenment at all? You found no answers in the story of the work of Fourier, Tyndall, Arrhenius, Chamberlin, Milankovitch, Callendar, Plass, Revelle, Keeling, Manabe, Ramanathan, Hansen, and countless others? Not a single one of the <a href="http://www.aip.org/history/climate/bib.htm" rel="nofollow">2000+ references</a> satisfied your demand for papers demonstrating the global warming effect of CO2?<br /><br />It is not easy to believe you really read it. At the very least, you cannot possibly have read it with an open mind. Would you agree with that, or would you in all honesty describe yourself as open-minded?RWhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07858934058244484435noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1500584444083499721.post-62774569924773729782010-07-01T00:39:55.168+02:002010-07-01T00:39:55.168+02:00Yes I have, but I did not find any answers and my ...Yes I have, but I did not find any answers and my question thus remains.Claes Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07411413338950388898noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1500584444083499721.post-46277186369941819372010-06-30T22:38:55.946+02:002010-06-30T22:38:55.946+02:00Like many aspects of science, our understanding of...Like many aspects of science, our understanding of planetary atmospheres has developed in smaller or larger steps over many decades. You're asking for a small number of papers describing giant leaps that never happened.<br /><br />Have you already read "The discovery of global warming" by Spencer Weart, as I recommended?RWhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07858934058244484435noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1500584444083499721.post-49363587811628732282010-06-30T21:43:28.779+02:002010-06-30T21:43:28.779+02:00If there are no key articles proving CO2 global wa...If there are no key articles proving CO2 global warming, then the science <br />of this effect is missing. I have asked the same question to the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, with the same empty response. Give me<br />an article or give up.Claes Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07411413338950388898noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1500584444083499721.post-34128642999103118812010-06-30T21:22:52.119+02:002010-06-30T21:22:52.119+02:00MS: I certainly did offer criticism. I showed you...MS: I certainly did offer criticism. I showed you a paper that carries out a proper analysis of lunar surface temperatures.<br /><br />You found only three peer-reviewed papers. They are easily shown to be mistaken.<br /><br />1. This paper assumes implicitly that CO2 does not absorb infrared radiation.<br /><br />2. Transparently ridiculous, as shown in the peer-reviewed literature here:<br /><br />http://www.worldscinet.com/ijmpb/24/2410/S021797921005555X.html<br /><br />3. Not peer-reviewed as far as I can tell.<br /><br />4. Wrongly states Kirchhoff's law, wrongly claims that a semi-infinite atmosphere has been assumed by all previous investigations, among numerous other basic errors.<br /><br />Your beliefs contradict basic physics. If the atmosphere radiates, then it cannot fail to warm the Earth, and yet you believe that this is not so. Have you read any textbooks about planetary atmospheres?<br /><br />Claes: To ask such a question you must presumably be not be at all familiar with the literature. It is a mistake to imagine that there are a small number of key articles that have established theories of how planetary atmospheres behave. However, a good overview of how the science has developed can be found in "The discovery of global warming" by Spencer Weart.RWhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07858934058244484435noreply@blogger.com