P.O. Box 98199
Washington, DC 20090-8199
By popular request, here is the Jonas thread. All comments by Jonas and replies to his comments belong in this thread.
And there you go again, chek. You can’t deal with reality. Or for that matter, with anyone questioning your religious beliefs.
Empirical facts are just that, empirical facts. Regardless who’s telling them. But to understand such basic facts is of course too much for a true believer.
Yes, “skeptic”, I wish for a warmer world, statistically significant or not. If you dare to look outside your box, back in time you might notice that mankind and the rest of the world has allways thrived when the world has been warmer and the opposite when it has been colder. But perhaps that’s too much for you?
And no, I didn’t admit to anything. You brought up 1998, not I. And still, out of all the anthropogenic CO2 we have released into the atmpsphere from 1750, a third has ben released the last 16 years. And yet, during this 16 year period, we have no warming what so ever. One must be a really, really hard core believer in the cAGW church to not see the non existing cause-and-effect between CO2 and AGW.
Deal with it!
On the contrary, the problems your pet-scare has has nothing to do with exactly what starting date you chose for the hiatus …
Nor does it depend on if the calculated trend of a chosen period is zero, slightly positive or negative …
I still haven’t received any citation for no “golbal warming for the last 16 years”,
“no datasets currently show statistically significant warming since the beginning of 1998″
So there it is. Did it hur much to admit that?
I still haven’t received any citation for no “golbal warming for the last 16 years”,
“no datasets currently show statistically significant warming since the beginning of 1998″
So there it is. Did it hur much to admit that?
By the way, not only was my statement about a 15 year period rather than a 16 year period, it concerned no statistically significant warming rather than no warming. So you’ve really outdone yourself braindead z, two lies in a single post.
But let’s see an arctic animation showing the period “dec. 1991 och sep. 2008″ – presumably trhrown on the table as a tribute to PantieZ googling skills, together with the two of SG’s'paragragh length blogposts.
The first reassures us that Greenland got very, very cold this winter (tough not record-breakingly so). Nothing much there, but in the comments one of Steve’s more intellectual commenters warns us that the Bank for International Settlements is the long-feared Weld Gummint – a fact readily verrifiable via Google, according to the commenter.
The second (after carefully ignoring the increse in Antarctic seas ice is helpfully swollen by collapsed ice shelves ends in a classic (among many) of Goddard projection: “Another term for “climate expert” is “mentally ill hater of the human race“.
And that’s the last time I check any references from you PantieZ. You’re lazier than a sloth with low blood sugar.
The ones who are the haters are easily identified by their hateful language ….
“Another term for “climate expert” is “mentally ill hater of the human race“.- Steven Goddard
“Empirical facts are just that, empirical facts. Regardless who’s telling them”. – PantieZ
“The ones who are the haters are easily identified by their hateful language”.- Jonarse
No further comment from me required.
And did you watch the winter sea ice extent the different years? Well, no significant difference there. So what might that tell you? I help you out. Regardless of how much of the ice melts in the summertime, it all grows back in the winter. But that doesn’t play well with your church, so better not mention it. One type of cAGW cherrypicking.
As for Goddard, as with McKitrick and McIntyre before, they most certanely are miles abowe you regarding climate and science. There is a difference between on one hand, to look at actual empirical, unaltered evidence and from them try to draw conclusions, and on the other hand, make computer games, let it play, and when the result don’t fit the agenda, massage the input data untill you get the result that fits the cause.
There hasn’t been any warming for 16 years. Deal with it!
“On the contrary, the problems your pet-scare has has nothing to do with exactly what starting date you chose for the hiatus”
The haitus has nothing to do with AGW.
Unlike you deniers, we believe the Sun has a role to play in the climate. From peak to trough on average our sun will change the average temperatures 0.2C on a cycle from 7-16 years.
You however believe that unless everything is down to one simple mechanism, then nothing affects that product.
Simple minds like yours cannot handle anything more complex.
“And did you watch the winter sea ice extent the different years?”
How much sun do you get in winter at the pole?
“No further comment from me required.”
Exactly. For one your’e spot on.
“And you post a SkSc graph drawing exactly that long straight upward sloping line I already mentioned before is the preferred warmist diversion. ”
You see only the tiny bit that can fit inside that miniscule brain of yours, don’t you.
Go look at the graph.
Notice that there are lots of short periods where you can draw a “trend” that is negative or pretty flat.
Yet each time someone (like you, you moron) would have claimed there “it’s cooling now, AGW is over!!!” would have been dead wrong.
But you don’t have the brainpower to learn, so you never learn do you.
“Wow … even if I wrote my hypothesis about what is discussed many times again”
You’d have to write it down at least once before you can claim to do it “again”.
PantieZ, firstly your animation ends Dec 2008, and secondly removing trend lines does not remove the warming. Hint: the superimposed line is only a visual aid, not the data themselves.
That’s a big strawman, wow.
So far it’s always been the evil CO2 among you AGW mongers. Scientist pointing out that the sun could have something to do with the climate has regularely been ridiculed by you. And now you are telling us that the sun suddenly has a role in this? Hillarious.
You try using one dataset, diskissing others, try a different interval, calculate a non-neagtive trend and cling to the sign, try different wordings of similar arguments ..
When did I do this? You’re suffering from rhetoric diarrhea.
And the hiatus is still the very same problem.
Only a wilfully ignorant fool would think the 16-year trend confidence interval (just) encompassing zero means much. Just means that that data can only tell us that the underlying (ex-noise) trend could be somewhere between just below zero and just over double the measured trend. Big deal.
no warming in sight.
Just because there is noise and signal doesn’t mean there is no signal.
So you can see the future???
Or just because there is noise doesn’t mean there is no signal.
“So far it’s always been the evil CO2 among you AGW mongers.”
Though that’s want you’ve wanted to believe.
“Scientist pointing out that the sun could have something to do with the climate has regularely been ridiculed by you. ”
No, I’ve ripped the pish out of idiots pretending to be scientists who’ve made ridiculous assertions that CO2 has no effect, it’s all explained by the Sun.
SKeptic, as I said, you don’t understand the problem, you don’t undertand what it is, why it is, and that it growing (and has been)
You don’t even know what to compare the data with …
It’s goalposts and strawmen being knocked around all over … aimlessly hoping it says something also in real life
“And now you are telling us that the sun suddenly has a role in this?”
It’s always had a role.
You;’ve been to obsessed about Mann and CO2 to actually read the IPCC report.
Go and read it.
“Or just because there is noise doesn’t mean there is no signal.”
Nor does it mean there is.
“SKeptic, as I said, you don’t understand the problem,”
The problem is you’re a fuckwit and noisy with it.
It’s impossible to understand why you do it, though.
The insane are not easily understood except in terms of their insanity.
The problem is you’re just too dumb to think.
Nice try, wow. You thing anybody byes it?
“Nor does it mean there is.”
You really have a problem with english, don’t you.
Here is what you should have been reading:
“just because there is noise doesn’t mean there is no signal.”
“You thing anybody byes it?”
Well, you’re alread bought and paid for.
Do you know what you’re talking about? The calculated trends for 16 years are all positive.
Wow … you seem to be trying and for more than a year have tryied to blame all the poblems you have understanding essentially everything being discussed on agents outside yourself.Why do you think that is?
Go back and look at the SkSc-graph again, and do some thinking.
Yes Skeptic, I know what I’m talkning about. As I said, your problem does not depend on the things you a counterargument …
I have already hinted what you should be looking for.
Some people think that rhetoric diarrhea is engaging with the issue.
“Why do you think that is?”
Because you’re making it up (as usual).
Yes Skeptic, I know what I’m talkning about.
You would say that, wouldn’t you?
“Go back and look at the SkSc-graph again, and do some thinking.”
I’d say “you first”, but you’re incapable of it.
“Yes Skeptic, I know what I’m talkning about”
Nope, you don’t.
You don’t even know how to spell it.
“I have already hinted what you should be looking for.”
Already been shown to you.
“Some people think that rhetoric diarrhea is engaging with the issue.”
By “some people” you mean “deniers”.
the temperature hiatius for now some 16 years
Is that supposed to be a clue? What’s it supposed to mean?
Fellas, the heat is on:
It even worse than we thought!
Hey, Olap, you still haven’t answered how you would determine a trend!
“What’s it supposed to mean?”
It means, despite all the evidence given to him, Joan still doesn’t understand what is going on.
It;s been wrong so many times and had to have its data recalculated so often, I’m suprised anyone bothers to pay Roy his salary.
Maybe that’s why he moonlights as a shill for the fossil fuel industry…
You seem at least to be aware of that there is a hiatus (but are wiggling with the details). The hint is to deal with it, not bicker about hte details. Now why would a prolongued hiatus be a problem for a scare-hypthesis favoured by many here?
Can you come up with any reason? Can you come up with some quantitiative evaluation of it?
Or is this what you have produced here really at your top performance level?
BtW have you noted the endless diarrhea spouted by some of your fellow .. ehrm … trend huggers?
“You seem at least to be aware of that there is a hiatus”
You seem to be oddly fascinated by an event that has happened many times in the past as it is a consequence of short term cycles added on to a trend.
Have you never seen any actual data before so that this reality confuses you?
“Now why would a prolongued hiatus be a problem for a scare-hypthesis favoured by many here? ”
If you stopped calling it a scare hypothesis maybe you’d get further.
And if such a thing happens, it isn’t a problem for AGW.
Since it isn’t a problem, there’s no need to come up with a reason for it to be a problem.
And now, The Great Jonarse will demonstrate No Global Warming.
Ladies and Gennelmen, with my invention of the ‘hiatius’ note there is no more AGW! Yes, it’s true! No AGW since yesterday lunchtime! No AGW since yesterday teatime! No AGW since breakfast time today! I therefore have proved that with all these multitude of hiatiuses, AGW is in deep shit and scientists and mathematicians should form an orderly queue and bow down before me where their closet communism may be forgiven.
For this is what I have shown, and what you should believe. I have said it once and I won’t be saying it again, even though the specific text may hide from your doubting eyes.
(Eight further paragraphs and exhortations extolling les premiere crackpot wankery du jour (pardon my French) follow but you get the gist.
You seem at least to be aware of that there is a hiatus (but are wiggling with the details).
So now it’s just wiggling? Whatever happened to “you don’t understand the problem, you don’t undertand what it is, why it is, and that it growing”?
Spare us the rhetoric and please give us a mathematical meaning of
the temperature hiatius for now some 16 years
“the temperature hiatius for now some 16 years”
Hell, since the temperature hasn’ t been static for 16 years, it’s plain old wrong.
“If you stopped calling it a scare hypothesis maybe you’d get further.”
If you stopped calling it a CO2 scare hypothesis maybe you’d get further.
“Hell, since the temperature hasn’ t been static for 16 years, it’s plain old wrong.”
Man, you’re good. I’m impressed. Losing it, are you? Where have anybody ever claimed earth’s temperature to being static?
Here’s something for you true believers:
“…We show that although these anthropogenic forcings share a common stochastic trend, this trend is empirically independent of the stochastic trend in temperature and solar irradiance. Therefore, greenhouse gas forcing, aerosols, solar irradiance and global temperature are not polynomially cointegrated. This implies that recent global warming is not statistically significantly related to anthropogenic forcing. On the other hand, we find that greenhouse gas forcing might have had a temporary effect on global temperature.”
We use statistical methods for nonstationary time series to test the anthropogenic interpretation of global warming (AGW), according to which an increase in atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations raised global temperature in the 20th century. Specifically, the methodology of polynomial cointegration is used to test AGW since during the observation period (1880–2007) global temperature and solar irradiance are stationary in 1st differences whereas greenhouse gases and aerosol forcings are stationary in 2nd differences. We show that although these anthropogenic forcings share a common stochastic trend, this trend is empirically independent of the stochastic trend in temperature and solar irradiance. Therefore, greenhouse gas forcing, aerosols, solar irradiance and global temperature are not polynomially cointegrated. This implies that recent global warming is not statistically significantly related to anthropogenic forcing. On the other hand, we find that greenhouse gas forcing might have had a temporary effect on global temperature.”
A mouthful for the Cli-Fi society.
“If you stopped calling it a CO2 scare hypothesis maybe you’d get further.”
I agree. Stop calling it a CO2 scare hypothesis.
“Where have anybody ever claimed earth’s temperature to being static?”
When they say this: “the temperature hiatius for now some 16 years”
Or don’t you know what haitus means?
“This implies that recent global warming is not statistically significantly related to anthropogenic forcing. ”
This isn’t implied by the earlier statements.
The earlier statements show that the correlation between temperature and anthropogenic sources correlate better than solar does.
“On the other hand, we find that greenhouse gas forcing might have had a temporary effect on global temperature.”
Since they only look at past data they can ALWAYS pretend (and note it IS “pretend”) that it is not going to happen in the future.
All their statement REALLY says is that Anthropogenic sources fit better as the causation of past temperature rise.
Since they aren’t doing any physics, extrapolating into the future is solely curve-fitting.
You know, like Roy does and then drops when his curve that shows “cooling any day now” starts looking stupid even to him.
“Or don’t you know what haitus means?”
Yes, I do. Do you?
And then, as usual, you start to make things up. Your’e just full of it. How does it feel when reallity bites your ass? Your church is diminishing to only a small sect right in front of you. And still you refuse to look reallity in the eye. Pathetic.
“Yes, I do.”
Then why did you ask where anyone had said that temperatures had been static for 16 years?
But you do not, merely claim you know when it is obvious you do not.
“Your church is diminishing to only a small sect right in front of you. ”
Yeah, the increase in people accepting AGW and wanting something to do about it getting up to 62% is “diminishing”.
Tell me,you know you’re lying rather than don’t know what “diminishing” means.
If you’re claming that “hiatus” is the same as “static” you really have a severe problem wity your reading comprehension. Funny that you are trying to lecture me when you obviously hasn’t got a clue your self. Hillarious.
Nice illustration of the fallacy of “cooling” by greenman:
“If you’re claming that “hiatus” is the same as “static”"
If that isn’t what Joan is saying then why does he think that an interruption of continued warming is a PROBLEM?
“…up to 62%”
Did you use the same method for that number as for the “98% of the worlds scientists”? The alleged concensus which turned out to be 75 scientists out of 79? Haha…
And by “the same method” you mean “the correct method”?
Seems you can’t do maths either.
And have you EVER corroborated ANY claim of yours with evidence?
So far “no”.
Oh man, wow is linking to tamino like it’s some kind of authority on climate science. Hillarious. What an own goal!
” like it’s some kind of authority on climate science. ”
No, like it is an authority on statistics.
Which it is.
But your brain is far too small to contain more than one meme at a time, isn’t it, panties.
panties is confused about what “own goal” means too.
“Seems you can’t do maths either.”
Actual, the culprits who conducted the survey did the round off all by them selves. Didn’t you know? Some small cheating here, some small cheating there. I guess they felt the number 98 was prettier than 95. All for the good cause.
“No, like it is an authority on statistics.”
Oh, bugger. My fault. Let me rephrase:
Oh man, wow is linking to tamino like it’s some kind of authority on statistics. Hillarious. What an own goal!
“the culprits who conducted the survey did the round off all by them selves”
Except that isn’t even the case. Even rounded off 75/79 still goesn’t get you 98%.
Still failing with the maths, panties.
” linking to tamino like it’s some kind of authority on statistics.”
OK, now it’s just plain wrong.
This is still an improvement for you, more’s the pity.
How bad do you feel when merely being wrong is an improvement for you, panties?
“But your brain is far too small to contain more than one meme at a time, isn’t it, panties.”
So, there it is. Out of arguments again?
No, just observing.
Of course you could just be a psychopathic liar.
I’m only going on observed qualities here.
And I note that you still fail at thinking. Try it some day. Get an adult to help.
So to sum up, panties
a) thinks that 75/79 is approximately 98%
b) thinks that 98% is a rounding from 95%
c) thinks that analysing a set of data for statistical properties is climate science.
d) has made ludicrous claims (see above) with no back up by any facts.
“How bad do you feel when merely being wrong is an improvement for you, panties?”
Some really valig arguments you have. Hillarious!
“Even rounded off 75/79 still goesn’t get you 98%.” And again you fail the comprehension test. What in the sentence “the culprits who conducted the survey did the round off all by them selves” don’t you understand?
You really have some issues going around in your head. I suggest you get them sorted out.
“Some really valig arguments you have.”
Seems you don’t know what argument means either.
“What in the sentence “the culprits who conducted the survey did the round off all by them selves” don’t you understand?”
What part of “you claim 75/79 is 98%” don’t you understand?
All we have is you saying this. Absolutely nothing else. Just you.
What part of “you claim 98% is a rounding of 95%” don’t you understand, panties?
a) The survey boiled down to 79 “acceptable” scientists. Of these 75 truly believed in AGW.
b) The survey team banged on the big drum and clamed that 98% sf the worlds scientists believed in AGW. Now, who did you think did the round off?
c) If you don’t believe it to be “climate science”, why do you then link to it?
d) It should start with “I have made…”. Then it would be right.
So, back to the crib for a nap.
The world hasn’t warmed the last 16 years. Deal with it!
You know, repeating your non-arguments don’t make them true.
Till next time.
come on, panties, pull yourself up.
Apparently, unable to accept your lies are pretty damn obvious, you run away.
That isn’t too hard a question for you, is it?
“a) The survey boiled down to 79 “acceptable” scientists. Of these 75 truly believed in AGW. ”
The survey? You’ve already said there’s been more than one.
” Now, who did you think did the round off?”
You claimed the rounding off of 95% was 98%.
“c) If you don’t believe it to be “climate science”, why do you then link to it? ”
See this is why I assert your brain is too small to hold more than one meme at a time.
Even when your idiot mates are doing it.
“d) It should start with “I have made…”. Then it would be right.”
Nope, “has made” in a list is completely correct.
Seems even when you’re trying your hardest, you still fail at English.
“The world hasn’t warmed the last 16 years.”
Yes it has. Deal with it.
I remember your sour-grapes-comments after I read your cherrished Rahmstorf-chapter And how you thereafter were unable to get back to arguing anything factual.
But of course I can repeat this for you.
We’ve had a hiatus for some 16 years (regardelss of how exactly you want to describe it, or which dataset etc)
The existence of this hiatus is a real problem for the CO2-scare-pet-hypothesis cherished by quite a few. And it will increase rapidly the longer it lasts.
To me, to anyone just slightly familiar with the topic, with the claims of the hypothesis and what it’s based on, and understanding of what a hypthesis is … I’d say that problem is glaringly obvious.
It seems that quite a few here however aren’t aware of this. And instead bicker about minor details, or other things like seaa ice or long-term trends etc.
Question: Is it not obvious to you either?
So it’s “tag, you’re it” for Team Idiot, Joan?
“We’ve had a hiatus for some 16 years”
Define what you mean. Is it the dictionary plain verse or something else.
“The existence of this hiatus is a real problem”
Not if you mean haitus by the plain dictionary definition.
“And it will increase rapidly the longer it lasts.”
So you don’t mean haitus, then?
“I’d say that problem is glaringly obvious. ”
Yup, it’s between your two ears, just behind the eyes.
“It seems that quite a few here however aren’t aware of this”
Indeed, you seem resistent to the problem, prefering to ignore it even exists.
” And instead bicker about minor details”
What? You mean you admit your 16 year period is a minor detail because it is irrelvant to climate change? If so, you’re improving. Maybe this site has done you some good after all.
chek, having trouble again with sticking to the truth?
“And now, The Great Jonarse will demonstrate No Global Warming”
Or is your comprehension really this bad?
I know, I know, everything else you perform here is equally lousy. I just ask if you even are aware what total gibberish you are spouting?
Just make sure that you don’t confuse all the strawmen you bring with some of the other strawheads mingling among them
Wow is a perfect example of what I describe … He is on ‘your side’ wich probably will keep you from openly distancing yourself from his idiot-spoutings. But he still draws explicit support from a few of the others. Which I find just amazing.
I mean there are commenters here arguing that they are arguing ‘science’ some of them with PhDs and even waiving their CVs, and which will side with someone like Wow and even use him as ‘support’ for their argument just because he shares their belief (in a wuastion they at best vaguely, but mostly not, understand)
““And now, The Great Jonarse will demonstrate No Global Warming”
Or is your comprehension really this bad? ”
Heck, the Great Joan Arse will demonstrate The Overwhelming Power Of NONSEQUITUR!
Really, how the hell did you manage to conclude that from the quote you took to reach it?
And still avoiding defining terms?
An interruption in temperature rise is not a problem.
For anyone or anything.
Doing nothing whilst you have a temporary lull in the problem of AGW IS a problem.
But you’re just hoping that you’ll not be affected by the problem, aren’t you.
Selfish little weasel.
“I mean there are commenters here arguing that they are arguing ‘science’ some of them with PhDs and even waiving their CVs”
That would be you, Joan.
You’re ALWAYS arguing about how well qualified you are therefore you understand “it”.
“in a wuastion they at best vaguely, but mostly not, understand”
If nobody understands you wuastion [sic], then the problem is not their comprehension skills, it’s that you suck at explaining.
As I said, some here are not even familiar what a scientific hypthesis is, and what it may be used for …
That’s on the level of believing that the printed words found in a scientific journal or publication are the actual science …
What a sad bunch …
Wow … I mean ‘question’ … but even with that help, I’m pretty sure that the sentence was far to long for you to even extract what I meant.
But please do keep posting …
Some of the others might once more use you in support for their beliefs .. I am actually hoping and waiting for that
” some here are not even familiar what a scientific hypthesis is, and what it may be used for ”
By some you mean you.
” I’m pretty sure that the sentence was far to long for you to even extract what I meant. ”
No, just because you’re too thick to think doesn’t mean everyone else is “blessed” with the same problem.
And I note that you’re still avoiding any answers.
Or, indeed, any explanations.
“I am actually hoping and waiting for that”
Looks like the only problem this “haitus” brings about is that Joan has a problem with identifying what they mean.
To stupid to figure that out, eh?
I’ll ask you again, please give us a mathematical meaning of
The word “hiatius” does not have a specific mathematical meaning AFAIK.
“To stupid to figure that out, eh?”
To thick to think of the answer, eh?
And I can think of any number of possible reasons.
However, Joan or you or one of the other useless idiots will disagree with it and say it’s my fault I’m not a mind reader (even if the mind is apparently nonfunctional).
Why do rats leaving a sinking ship come before me. I wonder.
That Bogus Greenhouse Gas Whatchamacallit Effect
WRITTEN BY JOHN O’SULLIVAN | 16 JANUARY 2012
NASA Scientist James Hansen Arrested, August 29, 2011
Image via Wikipedia
Red-faced global warming policymakers are now back tracking as independent experts increasingly discredit the cornerstone of climatology: the greenhouse gas effect (GHE).
One such whistleblower is Dr. Pierre R Latour who explains adroitly belowhow his NASA colleague, septuagenarian Dr. James Hansen, concocted a mythical 33°C [91.4°F] atmospheric greenhouse gas global warming phenomenon.
NASA’s global warming guru, Dr. James Hansen, will go down in history as climate science’s Bernie Madoff for his pivotal role in touting the GHE hypothesis. This is no imprudent comparison – just “follow the money” as they say. It was Hansen’s now legendary doomsaying pronouncements to the U.S. Congress in 1981 that spawned a hundred billion dollar, thirty-year government Ponzi scheme (Madoff scammed ‘only’ $50 billion).
None who sat on that congressional committee appear to have been aware that in 1951 the American Meteorological Society (AMS) had already condemned the GHE to the trashcan of failed theories.
When Cooking the Numbers Ain’t Ok
Now retired, former DuPont and NASA Chemical Engineer, Latour is unconstrained in his opinion,” The 33°C are whatchamacallits. This greenhouse gas effect does not exist.”
Dr. Latour is one of many experts old enough to remember that in 1981 James Hansen stated the average thermal T (temperature) at Earth’s surface is 15°C (ok) and Earth radiates to space at -18°C (ok). From that he declared the difference 15° – (-18°) = 33°C (arithmetic ok) to be the famous greenhouse gas effect.
This is not ‘ok’ to more astute analysts critical of Hansen’s number fudging. They say Hansen’s math is very seriously awry because there is no physics to connect these two dissimilar numbers.
Latour recounts his altogether more conventional if less alarmist explanation for what is actually happening with our climate. Apologies to those of you not of a scientific or engineer disposition but hereon in is where we need to get somewhat technical.
The professional engineer registered in Texas and California and from Houston clarifies, “Thermal T is a point property of matter, a scalar measure of its kinetic energy of atomic and molecular motion. It’s what thermometers measure and it decreases with altitude. The rate of thermal energy transfer by conduction or convection between hot Th and cold Tc is proportional to (Th – Tc).”
Dr. Latour then explains that radiation t is a point property of massless radiation, EMR, a directional vector measure of its energy transmission rate per area or intensity, w/m2, according to the Stefan-Boltzmann law. It is measured by pyrometers and spectrometers.
False Atmospheric Heating Assumptions of Climate Scientists
Solar radiation t increases with altitude. Black bodies are defined to be those that absorb and radiate with the same intensity and corresponding t. Real, colorful bodies reflect, scatter, absorb, convert and emit radiant energy according to the nature of the incident radiation direction, spectrum and body matter reflectivity, absorptivity, emissivity and view factors. The rate of EMR energy transfer from a hot body, th, is Q, w = 5.67Ae(th + 273)4. But it may not be absorbed by all bodies that intercept it, as GHG theory assumes. In particular, hotter radiating bodies do not absorb colder radiation and reemit it more intensely, as GHG back-radiation theory assumes.
The Houston engineer reminds us that above Earth’s stratosphere, thin air T is rather cold, about -80°C. Yet solar radiation t is rather hot, about 120°C. So spacesuits have thermal insulation and radiant reflection. He points out, “The difference, 200°C, is meaningless. On a cold, clear, winter day on snowcapped mountains, dry air T = -10°C and radiation t = 50°C. I can feel them both.”
Where the Difference Between ‘T’ and ‘t’ was Missed
Much of GHE theory fails to make clear distinctions between these two different kinds of temperature, T and t. One temperature, t, is analogous to velocity, 34 km/hour north; the other, T, is analogous to density, 1 kg/liter.
“So 34 km/hour – 1 kg/liter is indeed 33 whatchamacallits by arithmetic, but nobody will ever know what a whatchamacallit is because velocity and density are not connected by nature,” bemoans Dr. Latour.
He further explains, “To clarify this enormous intellectual flaw, take boiling point of water is 100°C (true) and freezing point is 32°F (true), subtract 100 – 32 = 68 (correct arithmetic) and declare atmospheric pressure is 68 psia. The declaration is false because a) the difference between C and F has no meaning, b) there is no physics to connect 68 to pressure, psia, and c) atmospheric pressure is actually 14.7 psia.”
Thus we can see that the 33°C greenhouse gas effect that has everybody so upset and is researched ad nausea to death is not an effect, merely an easily explained pair of facts.
“Therefore, it is quite true the 33°C greenhouse gas effect defined by Dr. Hansen in 1981 as thermal T = 15°C at surface minus radiant t = -18°C to space is whatchamacallit nonsense,” according to Dr. Latour.
How Greenhouse Gas Theorists Compare Apples to Eggs
Latour assures us that since this is irrefutable logic, no experiment is called for. In other words, everybody knows you can’t compare apples to eggs; except, that is, unless you’re a Greenhouse Gas theorist like Hansen.
The sage Texan advises, “Logic trumps nonsense; that is why humans invented it around 400 B.C. No one needs to prove or disprove the existence of whatchamacallits. They are not even imaginary. There is no greenhouse in the sky.”
Planetary atmospheres reflect, scatter, transmit, absorb, emit and diminish stellar radiation intensity at the surface according to Beer-Lambert Law, 121°C incident to Earth’s stratosphere to 15°C at surface. Thermal T of atmospheres increase as gravity compresses gas and converts potential energy to kinetic energy closer to the surface from -80°C in the stratosphere to 14.5°C at the ground. Therefore atmospheres cause the surface to be colder than it would be if the atmosphere were thinner or non-existent. The more O2 (oxygen) is exchanged for higher heat capacity CO2 (carbon dioxide), the colder the surface radiation intensity temperature. Atmospheres are refrigerators, not blankets.
Dr. Latour continues, “GHG theory postulates back-radiation from cold atmospheric CO2 is absorbed by the surface, heating it more.” He is in agreement with the ‘Slayers’ group of skeptics who says that violates Second Law of thermodynamics (energy can only be transferred from hot to cold bodies).
Hansen’s hokum led climate science to ‘create’ additional GHE energy, a violation of the First Law of thermodynamics (energy conservation). Latour now joins experts, astrophysicist, Joe Postma, Dr. Matthias Kleepsies and Professor Nasif Nahle in vociferously declaring that the infant science of climatology has spawned an impossible perpetual motion machine; a device that man-made global warming promoters have exploited to promote the nonsense of eternal global warming. Together these highly credentialed specialists from diverse fields, collectively referred to as the ‘Slayers’, are building a compelling body of evidence.
Seven Fine Facts Frustrate Hansen’s Folly
Latour reminds us “CO2 does not trap radiation; like all molecules, it absorbs some incident radiation according to its absorption spectrum and promptly emits it according to its emission spectrum. Moreover, CO2 is not a pollutant; it is inert green plant food. CO2 should not be curtailed, starving Earth’s flora.
As independent science professors are proving, minor solar driven global warming from 1974 to 1998 hasstabilized this century. CO2 has nothing to do with global warming; it actually cools Earth. Arctic ice does not melt because of global warming, increasing T; it melts when the average T > 0, at rate proportional to T, no matter whether T is increasing or decreasing.”
Dr. Latour will be causing quite a stir among government climatologists with his essay of seven scientific facts (33°C whatchamacallit, no blanket, no back-radiation, CO2 no trap, CO2 inert food, no AGW, ice melts).
Each of Pierre Latour’s seven deadly facts slay James Hansen’s CO2 sky dragon and refute GHG and the man-made global warming sham. What Dr. Latour presents is robust and verifiable science.
But the unassuming Latour doesn’t claim his analysis is cutting edge or requiring any special peer review because what he presents is well known to professional physicists and engineers; ”it does not merit a research paper, or research, or experiments.”
As the man-made global warming cult collapses the ‘science’ of human caused global warming is being condemned just as emphatically as Wall Street’s sub-prime mortgage scam. Thus Latour’s final words of advice are succinct and to the point: “Logic just needs clear definitions and common sense, not government spending and regulation.”
“Why do rats leaving a sinking ship come before me.”
They consider you their leader.
” The 33°C are whatchamacallits. This greenhouse gas effect does not exist.”
That’s enough to tell that this latest lunatic fossil you’ve dug up is a crank.
Past time for more thread.
Sorry it’s late, I blame the carbon tax!
Do you think the alarmists who predicted doom because of the carbon tax will shut up?
By popular request, Brad Keyes is only permitted to post in this thread.