Spencer on Stossel’s “Science Wars”

August 5th, 2015 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.

My most recent appearance on Stossel is now available on YouTube where I had the opportunity to share my opinions of those great global warming experts Bill Nye (The Science Guy™), Neil DeGrasse Tyson (The Anti-Pluto Guy), and Al Gore (The Politician-Turned-Alarmist Guy).

I always wanted to be bleeped on national TV. 🙂


318 Responses to “Spencer on Stossel’s “Science Wars””

Toggle Trackbacks

    • Ceist says:

      Ah… Fox Entertainment “News” According to an analysis by the UCS, in 2012, their coverage of Climate Change topics was 93% inaccurate and misleading, but in 2013 it was only 72% inaccurate and misleading. MSNBC was the most accurate.

      “CNN, Fox News, and MSNBC are the most widely watched cable news networks in the U.S. To determine how accurately these networks inform viewers about climate change, the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) analyzed their coverage in 2013 and found that each network treated climate science very differently.

      According to the UCS report, “Science or Spin?,” Fox News was the least accurate; 72% of its 2013 climate science-related segments contained misleading statements. CNN was in the middle, with about a third of its segments featuring misleading statements. MSNBC was cited as the most accurate, with only 8% of segments containing misleading statements. (Fox News, however, wins a consolation prize for “most improved,” since, in 2012, its climate change coverage was deemed 93% inaccurate.)”

      Fox News Coverage of Climate Change Is Now Only 72% Inaccurate

      http://io9.com/fox-news-coverage-of-climate-change-is-now-only-72-ina-1561252716

      http://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/…pin-report.pdf

      • gbaikie says:

        A union of Scientists. That’s funny.

        • Ceist says:

          Rupert Murdoch’s Fox Entertainment “News” program’s coverage of climate science has improved from being 93% wrong, inaccurate and misleading in 2012, to only 72% in 2013.

          Now THAT’s funny. 😀

    • ImranCan says:

      Roy – you were excellent. I love the way you just said it as it is. What Al Gore said was bullshit, complete and utter. And he needs to be called out directly on it.

  1. geran says:

    “These guys have personalities, which most of us (REAL scientists) don’t.” (If i got the exact quote correctly.)

    And, that is one of the problems. The “sell” is all about emotionalism and entertainment. Everyone wants to “save the planet”. Horrific predictions of the future are entertaining, especially to those that don’t understand the science. Bill Nye can entertain. He even looks like a clown!

    Even Stossel would be unwilling to have a show about just the actual science. It would not be entertaining enough to hold an audience.

    • mpainter says:

      German says “Bill Nye can entertain. He even looks like a clown!”

      ####

      Nye fully understands that he is in the entertainment business.
      He has targeted his audience and presents himself accordingly.

      And he’s making out like a bandit.

      Plaudits for Dr. Roy, who very ably presented on the program the skeptic point of view.

    • fonzarelli says:

      “Even Stossel…”

      Yeah, geran, i think the shallowness with which fox has dealt with agw is disappointing. They seem to be satisfied with skeptical talking points when they should really have a team of scientists educating viewers on this vital issue…

  2. Bart says:

    Nice job, professor. Much appreciated.

  3. fonzarelli says:

    Dr. S., you might try using the words “cow pie” next time (and see what happens…)

  4. Dr. Spencer, did as well as anyone could.

    What we need is for the global temperature trend to drop.

    • fonzarelli says:

      “What we need is for the global temperature trend to drop”

      Yes, Salvatore, if for no other reason than to get “crazy davy” off your back!

    • David A says:

      “What we need is for the global temperature trend to drop.”

      Ha ha ha…. Unfortunately for you, Salvatore, nature doesn’t react to your needs, it simply follows the laws of physics.

      • Aaron S says:

        Dave A would you go on record (as opposed to missing all future posts here) and say if temp drops the physics are inconsistent with agw theory? Lets say after this el nino and the potential raise in temp, there is a la nina and the ultimate recovery after this short term event is 0.1 deg c lower in UAH data, in this scenario would you agree CO2 is not in control?

        I love physics based on measurement… models are not physics in my view. They use physics to make hypotheses to be tested by data. They themselves are nothing without calibration. They are not doing well right now.

      • David Appell says:

        “Dave A would you go on record (as opposed to missing all future posts here) and say if temp drops the physics are inconsistent with agw theory?”

        Natural variability still exists in an AGW world. Short-term variations are very much influenced by changes in natural factors — ENSOs, volcanic eruptions, solar changes, PDOs and AMOs and all the rest.

        I don’t understand why this point is so difficult for many to grasp.

        • geran says:

          “Natural variability still exists in an AGW world.”
          _______

          Hilarious Davie, IOW, there is nothing, ever, no way, that will ever prove to you AGW is a hoax.

          Thanks for that admission.

          But, we knew it all along!

          • David Appell says:

            “AGW is a hoax?” Are you still going with that old talking point? You people need a new one…..

          • geran says:

            Nope, we never get tired of the truth. AGW is a hoax.

          • geran says:

            Davie, you always trap yourself. You never learn. YOU are the one that has to “prove it”.

            The planet is doing just fine. YOU are the one that is “over heated”.

          • David Appell says:

            Prove your claim, that AGW is a hoax.

            I expect you’ll avoid the question again.

          • geran says:

            Climate gate
            “temp adjustments”
            failed model predictions
            failed sea level predictions
            failed polar ice predictions
            bogus equations
            misuse of established equations
            failure of lab demonstrations
            violation of laws of physics
            violation of the scientific method

            But, Davie, as I stated (and it went right over your head) I do NOT have to prove anything. You advocates of the nonsense theory have to PROVE it is correct. The burden of proof is on you. Look up “null hypothesis”.

        • Aaron S says:

          I do appreciate the response, but that level of variablity needs relflected in the model’s ranges that are used to sell the theory. As is the current hiatus is statisticaly over 2 standard deviations outside the IPCC base case. As modeled CO2 was expected to force global warming (not stored oceanic or whatever model fixing variable is used as an explanation) and overrun all natural aspects of climate change. You can not sell certainty to the public in agw theory, then accept high uncertainty in data- it is unethical and disingenouous. As i scienctist that deals w models almost daily that is what bothers me most… even Roy thinks CO2 causes warming- just he considers high uncertainty about the system.

      • David Appell says:

        “…in this scenario would you agree CO2 is not in control?”

        Of course not. It’s an established fact that CO2 is a control knob of our climate.

        Nothing that happens with temperatures isn’t going to change that — it’s a result from fundamental physics. People like you seem to think we could someday arrive at a point where manmade CO2 is not a “demonic gas,” as Robert Ball or someone put it. That is not going to happen — CO2 is out of the bag. The world will be grappling with it from now to forever.

        Results based on fundamental physics don’t change from one decade to the other…. Climate sensitivity might be adjusted a little up or down, but AGW is here to stay.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        @David A …”Unfortunately for you, Salvatore, nature doesnt react to your needs, it simply follows the laws of physics”.

        You have that backwards. The laws of physics come from observations of reality. Reality does not give a hoot about man-made laws.

        There are instances in which physics contradicts its own laws. For example, a photon is defined in physics as a particle with momentum and no mass. The laws of physics define momentum as mass x velocity therefore it is not possible according to physics for a photon to exist.

        Fortunately, momentum is a phenomenon, not a man-made law, therefore it’s possible to speak of momentum without mass.

        Then there is theoretical physics where the most ridiculous situations are proposed, like the Big Bang, black holes, and space-time curvature. How can space-time curve when the human mind invented time, based on the periodicity in the Earth’s rotation, and defined space using a human-invented coordinate system and distances like metres and radians?

        • David Appell says:

          “The laws of physics define momentum as mass x velocity therefore it is not possible according to physics for a photon to exist.”

          Oh jeez…… You badly need to learn some special relativity, and some quantum mechanics.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            “Oh jeez You badly need to learn some special relativity, and some quantum mechanics”.

            You need to study some history. The form of quantum theory en vogue today is the sci-fi version. Both Einstein and Schrodinger were opposed to it because it embraces non-reality and action at a distance. In other words, it scrapped reality and started dealing in obfuscation.

            How convenient, when you don’t have to prove what you are claiming. It just works. If they could only get climate models to work…..

            When quantum theory started going in the direction it has gone since the 30s, Schrodinger retired rather than participate in a circus like that.

            David Bohm, an expert in the field claimed we need to go back to the drawing board with modern quantum theory and Feynman, another genius, claimed it works but that no one knows why.

            Please don’t push something as convoluted and obfuscated as QM on me as an answer you cannot work out for yourself.

            As far as special relativity is concerned, they have put the cart before the horse. Humans invented time, then made it a 4th dimension, squeezing it into a three dimensional world.

            There is no such dimension!!

            Without the illusions of the human mind, time dilation is a non-entity. The only place space-time curves is in the human imagination.

            Only in the human imagination could the twin paradox work. When twins are separated, as one travels off in a rocket ship at the speed of light, special relativity claims the twin left on Earth ages while the one traveling at the speed of light does not.

            What utter rubbish. Humans age due to chemical changes in cells and time has absolutely nothing to do with it. However, you groupies who buy into every cockamamie theory in QM and special relativity are willing to accept the absurd if it can be worked out in an equation.

            Even at that, it is done with bad math. You cannot invent time then make it an independent variable. When you put time on the LHS of an equation and claim other variables cause it to stretch/dilate you are dealing with science fiction.

            So let’s get back to momentum = mv. Does it or doesn’t it? If it doesn’t, then prove it, then prove how a particle without mass can exist.

            The truth, according to Einstein, is that no one knows whether EM is a wave or particles. If you think you know the answer then prove Einstein wrong.

            If you read Planck on his early work on quantum theory, he admitted he had no idea if there was a reality to support the theory. He admitted in a later book that time was invented by humans, as was the metre, which is defined as a fraction of the distance from the North Pole to the Equator.

            Planck admitted in that book on heat that no way exists to visualize probability-based quantum theory. So here we are left with thought experiments in which we are advised not to think about reality and take it on trust that what mathematicians are telling us about quantum theory is true.

            Not only that, we are asked to suspend our innate intelligence and accept a theory that deals in a world no one can experience. It’s like what Wal Thornhill claimed about string theory, it works in every universe but our own.

            Planck freely admitted that he fluked upon the quantum relationships by manipulating math. Therefore, quantum theory is based on fudged math. I am not denying there is a real relationship under the fudging, I am only claiming that a relationship was discovered based on manipulating math rather than by direct observation and experiment.

            Do yourself a favour and read Planck on heat. He shows you how the relationship between entropy and probability was developed and applied to a gas running through a nozzle. It’s rather clever and it is the basis of statistical mechanics, but it not a real relationship. How can it be…probability is not a real, physical entity.

            Until we find a way to replace probability with a real entity, we will never discover the reality underlying atomic theory. In other words, we need to scrap quantum theory, as Bohm suggested, and find the real relationships between atomic phenomena.

            Until then, let’s stop talking about photons as if they are tiny particles running through space. No one has ever seen a single photon or measured one. Same goes for a single electrons.

            Planck was looking to explain why the EM intensity curve dropped off beyond the ultra-violet rather than becoming more intense. The only way he could explain it was to manipulate math till he discovered a quantum relationship between the EM intensity and frequency.

            To this date, no one has proved quantum theory. It’s still very much a mystery as to how it works. It does serve a purpose, especially in fields like chemistry, where covalent bonding can be explained based on the probabilities of finding an electron in a certain orbital.

            Linus Pauling, who introduced quantum chemistry to North America, could work that out without QM and he had to help quantum theorists find the true relationships in covalent bonds. QM alone could not explain it.

            My field is electronics and I use electronics (physics) theory all the time. However, I am not willing to accept the model of tiny particles orbiting atomic nuclei, and I am certainly not going to accept the notion of a mass-less particle with momentum.

            Until someone can show physically what is going on, as Einstein and Schrodinger required, I’ll stay away from your hocus pocus.

        • David Appell says:

          “How can space-time curve when the human mind invented time, based on the periodicity in the Earths rotation, and defined space using a human-invented coordinate system and distances like metres and radians?”

          You also need to learn a modicum of general relativity. Spacetime exists (of course) — hours and meters are just how we label spacetime intervals.

          I still think the best presentation of the topic is Einstein’s “The Principle of Relativity” (for special relativity).

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            @David Appell “…hours and meters are just how we label spacetime intervals”.

            Have you ever taken the time to understand what you are saying? Have you ever investigated the structure of your own mind and it’s relationship to what you are saying?

            You are claiming spacetime exists in a physical sense and that has to mean 3 physical dimensions, (x,y,z) or (r,Ɵ) mapped onto a 4th dimension called time. Not only that, you are claiming there are intervals.

            Where are those intervals in real space?

            Don’t you see the absurdity of that? It makes terrific sense in math, and I have had to work out problems at university in calculus, or vector calculus, that use such a relationship between x,y,z and t. I have no problem with that, however, I have big-time trouble trying to visualize that as a reality.

            Given that reality is a loaded word at times and that people can invent their own personal realities, lets use actuality to define what would be left on this planet should all humans disappear from the planet. Are you suggesting that a part of what is left is a space-time phenomenon?

            I don’t think so, that space-time disappears with the human mind. There is no physical reality called space-time, it is a mathematical thought experiment.

            I suspect that Einstein knew that. It was suggested to him once that people should be able to travel through time. He replied that he did not say that. He knew it was not possible to travel through something that had no physical reality and which was invented by the human mind.

            Science requires a language and it would be tedious for people like Einstein to continually explain that spacetime is only a convenience to visualize the associated physics.

            Consider a mass with a force applied to it. The mass will accelerate. Is anything else required to cause that acceleration? No. Time is not required till humans want to measure the phenomenon of acceleration. Time takes no part in the acceleration of a mass.

            BTW, acceleration, like momentum, is a phenomenon. You can see it when a force is applied to a mass, especially when no resistance opposes the force. To the human eye, the mass goes faster and faster (I did not say wrt time). We can see acceleration without having to measure it, which requires a timebase.

            If you take our planet, with our relative ups, downs, easts, wests, and so on, where does spacetime fit into that? It doesn’t because there is no map relating each point in that space to a non-entity called time.

            Time does not exist in real space, and the space in spacetime is not real space. It’s an imaginary space much like the imaginary space used in complex number theory.

    • David Sanger says:

      And what if it doesn’t?

      • Glenn Martin says:

        I follow your website daily.

        I do this because I want to get the facts rather than the latest politically correct rhetoric.

        • David Sanger says:

          Was that supposed to me an answer to my comment above?

          Salvatore Del Prete said

          “What we need is for the global temperature trend to drop.”

          My question to him is very simple. What it the temperature does not drop?

  5. Bob Weber says:

    That was great Roy! You have plenty of personality and your steady hand shines through as opposed to warmist emotionalism.

  6. Bob Tisdale says:

    Thanks, Roy. I enjoyed that. My thanks to John Stossel, too, for being informed.

      • Doug Cotton says:

        Roy – you will never convince people that carbon dioxide does nothing until you stop going along with the Hansen junk science assuming back radiation can be added to solar radiation and the total used in Stefan Boltzmann calculations. If that pseudo science is applied in the tropics it gives temperatures over 90C in some sunny regions.

        It’s all totally wrong Roy. It’s a totally wrong paradigm.

        The back radiation on Venus is not what causes its surface temperature to rise a little by day, compensating for the inevitable night-time cooling. Planetary surface temperatures can ONLY be explained with thermodynamics, NOT radiative forcing conjectures.

        Your 1.5C or 1.3C warming sensitivity for carbon dioxide is utter nonsense Roy. All the carbon dioxide in Earth’s atmosphere actually cools by a minuscule amount (<0.1C) and water vapor cools by a few degrees – and just as well for mankind.

    • Travis Casey says:

      +1

  7. Steve Ferwerda says:

    Awesome job Roy! Thanks for taking the time to represent the “deniers.”

  8. David L. Hagen says:

    Touche!

  9. Great job Roy! You did very well. I’ve always like John Stossel and I’m glad to see he’s a “climate skeptic” too. Hopefully, bit by bit the truth will conquer.

    I have over 40 years of experience as a meteorologist and I believe science requires skepticism and all scientists should be skeptics. I agree that it is getting ridiculous how every weather and ocean event is being blamed on “climate change” when these events are often not that unusual from a weather and climate perspective and are certainly not caused by anthropogenic global warming (if there is really such a thing). Unfortunately, money talks and most of the money these days is supporting the CAGW hypothesis that masquerades as truth. Thankfully, it seems that the public is gradually beginning to see through this charade, thanks to many outspoken skeptics like you.

    • David Appell says:

      All scientists ARE skeptics. It’s exactly that that has lead to AGW, and the great power of all modern science.

      And they don’t say that all weather events are blamed on global warming. They say that all weather events now include influences from global warming. Big difference….

      • geran says:

        Davie, you are WAY past desperate.

      • Phyte On says:

        “And they dont say that all weather events are blamed on global warming. They say that all weather events now include influences from global warming.”

        Prove it. What is the scope of influence? Please pick one weather event and describe exactly how much influence AGW had on the weather event. Quantify and measure the influence please!

  10. Retired Physics Educator says:

    Roy and others:

    Based on the mean flux of radiation …

    (a) The effective temperature of the Sun’s radiation reaching the surface of Earth is about -40°C. Yes, minus 40.

    (b) The effective temperature of the Sun’s radiation reaching the surface of Venus is about -140°C

    (c) The effective temperature of all the radiation from Earth’s atmosphere to its surface is about 3°C.

    Because these planets are rotating spheres, the actual mean temperature that any of the above radiation could achieve is a few degrees colder than would be achieved with uniform orthogonal flux striking a flat non-reflecting surface. The reason for this relates to the fact that the achieved temperature is only proportional to the fourth root of the flux. So, because the flux varies with the angle of incidence, flux that is above the mean achieves only a relatively small increase in temperature above that achieved by the mean flux.

    From this it is obvious that the mean temperatures of the surfaces of Earth and Venus are not achieved by direct radiation into those surfaces. Some relatively small regions on Earth may rise in temperature due to direct solar radiation, but overall, the observed global mean temperature cannot be explained by solar radiation. Atmospheric radiation would also not keep the mean temperature above freezing point (0°C) either.

    Hence we need to consider a totally different paradigm (based on entropy maximization and the laws of thermodynamics) which can and does explain the actual observed temperatures, not only for Earth and Venus, but for all planets and even the regions below any solid surface. Correct physics produces correct results that agree with data from the real Solar System.

    The breakthrough has come in this 21st Century and the science stands up to the test, being supported by copious evidence from planetary data, studies and experiments such as outlined at http://climate-change-theory.com so you will learn what is really happening if you read and study such.

    • Doug, why do you have to pretend to be somebody else? We all know what your views are, and deception and repetition isn’t going to make more people believers.

      • Gary says:

        This thermodynamic monomania looks pathological. The guy could use some professional help. Same with some of the more rabid warmists, assuming they’re not in it for the money.

        • geran says:

          The clinical term is “self-aggrandizement”. Often, it can be cured, and the individual can then lead a normal life.

          https://outofthefog.net/CommonBehaviors/SelfAggrandizement.html

          • Doug Cotton says:

            Truth will prevail, Gary and Geran. I suggest you read what I have just written to Roy and perhaps try to be the first to fault the hypothesis pertaining to entropy maximization which, as stated by the Second Law, will have a propensity to evolve. You know where to find it at http://climate-change-theory.com and my only interest is to save the burden on society of financial waste, ill health and death caused by the greatest hoax of all time.

            The culprits will be exposed and hopefully pay the price in prison where they belong. Australia will lead the world in this if Germany doesn’t beat them to the kill. Already a majority of Australians are not gullible enough to believe the hoax as we suffer the coldest nights in decades, the deepest snow ever recorded on the Blue Mountains near Sydney and likewise in Tasmania, even Hobart near sea level.

          • David A says:

            Timne has already “prevailed,” Doug. Go get your “papers” published somewhere real besides your silly vanity press, and people here won’t dismiss you as a crank.

          • Doug Cotton says:

            When 300 watch my video in its first 48 hours, I’m not interested in writing papers and being disregarded for 12 years like Dr Hans Jelbring has experienced following his paper in “Energy and Environment.” It’s just not my priority. Papers in journals don’t sway public opinion and many wouldn’t get 300 readers in a year.

            Watch https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL-TXYe4rJp0xmbBh51AD8jptu34LAJc-b

      • Doug Cotton says:

        Roy, over 10,700 have visited my website this year (nearly 40% of them linked from your blog) and yet, have you seen one single person who has read and understood the correct physics thereon, then come back here and demonstrate any fault in the development of the hypothesis? Not one. There are only those who make hand waving comments assuming they know what’s in it, and of course they haven’t a clue and don’t deign to read and study it.

        The question you can’t answer with the old and incorrect 20th century radiative forcing paradigm is why the surface temperature is what it is. For example, even if you incorrectly add the back radiation (without deducting the outward radiation, mind you) and do what K-T, NASA and IPCC do with those energy diagrams, the 390W/m^2 they show as net energy input to the surface would only explain the temperature of a flat Earth receiving homogeneous radiation.

        The energy diagrams do NOT show anywhere near sufficient energy input to “explain” a mean surface temperature of 15C for a rotating sphere. Instead the S-B calculations when applied using integration over the whole surface yield a temperature of between 3C and 4C as a mean, which is obviously not supported empirically. Only my hypothesis is supported by correct physics and empirical measurement, and that’s because it’s correct, Roy.

      • Doug Cotton says:

        And, Roy, how many others among your commenters remain completely anonymous with single names like Bart, RW, Geran, Gary etc?

        I am “retired” turning 70 this year, and I have been involved in physics education for 50 years, marking university assignments etc after gaining First Class Honours in Physics and topping a university course – so you should not be surprised that you could learn some thermodynamics from me, Roy – correct physics, not fictitious, fiddled fissics.

        And, by the way, all your experiment proves is what I wrote in my 2012 paper about how back radiation slows the rate of radiative cooling. Big deal. So what? It doesn’t affect the supporting temperature that stops the cooling in the early pre-dawn hours, and nor does it help the Sun. In fact, the Sun would be the one helping the back radiation because the back radiation has about twice the flux and could support a mean temperature of around -2C. But neither the Sun’s radiation nor the back radiation get a chance to warm the already-warmer surface that is what it is because of entropy maximization.

      • Doug Cotton says:

        Roy, why do you have to pretend you understand planetary core and surface temperatures? Please read this comment above.

        • Doug Cotton says:

          And speaking of videos, Roy, why don’t you spend 10 minutes watching mine noting what this guy said …

          “This is a great video, and spoken with the finesse of a teacher that understands the subject matter with intellectual precision…. “

          (current view count 2,845)

          • David Johnson says:

            2845? That’s not many views, my British Dance Band videos get way more than that 😉

      • David Springer says:

        It did give Doug some name recognition though. Unfortunately it’s recognition as a lunatic.

    • Doug use your real name. Dr. Spencer gives everyone a chance to express their thoughts.

      I may not agree with all you say but I respect the time/efforts you have put into what you have come up with.

      Right or wrong you have put in the effort. I think people respect that and if they do not they should.

      • Doug Cotton says:

        Thanks Salvatore. My time is unpaid, and the many thousands of hours spent have reduced my part-time business income in my retirement. The book cost over $3,000 to publish and I have only received one small royalty cheque.

        What I do is for altruistic reasons because I am 100% certain that the carbon dioxide claims are totally false, and I say that because what is in my hypothesis agrees with Solar System data and experiments with centrifugal force confirm that thermal energy can be transferred from cooler to warmer regions in a force field.

        That key understanding is what the world needs to understand, because that, and only that downward natural convective heat transfer is what maintains the temperatures of all planetary tropospheres, surfaces, crusts, mantles and cores – even keeping the core of our Moon well above 1000C despite the very cold surface temperatures on its dark side.

    • DukeSilver says:

      You had me right up to your reference of “actual observed temperature”.

      Please have NOAA stop adjusting data to fit the CAGW theory and then we’ll talk again. Or, were you unaware of their nefarious activities with regards to data collection/reporting?

      As an aerospace engineer, I used to be of the same opine as you – until I started seeing the reporting discrepancies. Too much and too many and utterly 1-sided to be random.

      • David A says:

        NOAA runs the raw surface data through a model to eliminate known biases.

        How would YOU remove those biases?

        PS: UAH also runs the raw data (which aren’t even temperatures) through a model.

        • mpainter says:

          David A says:

          ” NOAA runs the raw surface data through a model to eliminate known biases.

          How would YOU remove those biases?

          PS: UAH also runs the raw data (which arent even temperatures) through a model.”

          ###

          1. David doesn’t like his data raw, but he wants it cooked.

          2. You don’t remove biases. You don’t tamper with the data. That is fabrication.

        • mpainter says:

          Also, satellite measurements must be converted to demonstrable data. It’s not like thermometers, David. It’s more complicated than reading a thermometer, David.

        • David Appell says:

          You avoided the question: How would you remove known biases from the raw temperature data?

          By the way, NOAA’s adjustments LOWER the trend of global warming.

          L-O-W-E-R.

          • geran says:

            Lower the trend of global warming?

            So, the planet is not “warming”?

            Davie, you tangled yourself up again.

          • David Appell says:

            geran: Yes, the corrections lower the long-term warming trend.

            Again, I refer you to Figure 2b of the Karl et al paper. Please look at it before responding.

            “Possible artifacts of data biases in the recent global surface warming hiatus,” Thomas R. Karl et al, Science 26 June 2015: Vol. 348 no. 6242 pp. 1469-1472.
            DOI: 10.1126/science.aaa5632

          • geran says:

            Let me guess. The planet is not warming, it is just “cooling slower”?

            (It is no longer “pseudoscience”, it is now “pathetic science”.)

        • David Appell says:

          See the graph in Karl et al, Figure 2b (“With Corrections Versus Without Correctoions”) for the temperature data with and without adjustments. Compare the trends.

          “Possible artifacts of data biases in the recent global surface warming hiatus,” Thomas R. Karl et al, Science 26 June 2015: Vol. 348 no. 6242 pp. 1469-1472.
          DOI: 10.1126/science.aaa5632

          • mpainter says:

            David,
            The one graph (uncooked data) shows no trend.

            The other (cooked data) shows an increasing trend.

            But David does not understand. Poor, confused fellow.

          • mpainter says:

            A new word has been added to our science vocabulary:
            “Karlized” data.
            David, in your fantasy world you cling to fantasy data because real data does not show warming.

  11. Andrew_FL says:

    Judging from the things Nye has said, he’s forgotten more of the physics of heat transfer than he remembers.

    • Chris Hanley says:

      Borrowing a passage from Dickens his knowledge of the science is almost awful.

    • Doug Cotton says:

      It’s not a matter of just “forgetting” physics.

      There is new 21st century breakthrough physics that gives us a far better understanding of both radiative transfers and, in particular, MEP – maximum entropy production.

      This guy’s website here may open your mind a little as to the overwhelming influence of entropy maximization on all planetary temperatures. Then my website and the linked papers explain all planetary core and surface temperatures, being based on the new understanding of the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

  12. Ossqss says:

    Proper etiquette would dictate placing you hand over your mouth while coughing the word while on air, animal house style 😉

  13. Erik Magnuson says:

    Roy,

    Nice retort to Bill Nye. I’ve got some heat transfer and fluid flow (including two phase flow) from some NE courses, but that doesn’t make me an infallible expert on climate. I have no doubt there are still a lot of surprises in the path to understanding weather and climate, e.g. there are still open questions on lightning.

    I’m also appalled at the lack of a healthy skepticism over numerical climate models. The late Bob Pease made many comments about how SPICE will lie about electronic circuit performance and circuits are much easier to simulate than a global climate. Henry Petrosky has been critical of structural analysis software and a Finite Element Analysis is also much easier than a global climate model.

    • David Appell says:

      If you don’t think there is skepticism about climate models — real scientific skepticism — you haven’t read the 5AR. The chapter on evaluations of climate models is the longest chapter in the WG1 report….

      • geran says:

        No, Davie, they are forced to admit the failure of the models. But, they still cling to their belief system, as do you.

        • David Appell says:

          When in the 5AR WG1 did anyone admit that? Citation please….

          • geran says:

            Your own “promises”:

            “If you dont think there is skepticism about climate models…”

          • Phil Cartier says:

            If the folks doing the CIMP5 models understood what they were doing only one model would be needed. The fact that the IPCC tried to draw conclusions from averaging the output of models showed their ignorance.

            From IPCC AR4 WG-1
            “we should recognise that we are dealing with a coupled nonlinear chaotic system, and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.

            Since the basic mathematics hasn’t changed since Lorenz first made the proposition coupled, non-linear differential equations are still not amenable to definite solutions.

            The Navier-Stokes equation is still on the Clay Mathematics foundation Millenial Prize list. Figure out if there is a proof for the most basic questions one can ask: do solutions exist, and are they unique?

            While computers are used to get answers in climate models computers cannot evaluate the N-S equation. Computer numerical methods require restating the problem in a form that can estimate values for it, but not solutions.

  14. Joe Born says:

    Great job.

    I particularly liked the response to Bill Nye’s being a mechanical engineer, namely, that he could learn this stuff. The basic physics a mechanical engineer learns is the same physics that applies to climate. But applying the physics is hard, and not all who have the credentials do it right. For that it takes serious, talented people who will put in the time, and even they get it wrong sometimes.

    One point I’d like to see made more often is that almost none of those who call themselves climate scientists really make observational studies of the central issue: climate sensitivity. The rest are just like the general public, accepting theories put into computers by those who haven’t done such studies And, among those who have done them, I believe most think the sensitivity they’ve found puts expected temperature increase in the beneficial range.

    It’s not a criticism that Dr. Spencer didn’t get such a comment into the Stossel piece; it’s probably too complicated a point to have been shoehorned in. And I think I’ve seen Dr. Spencer make it elsewhere. But I also don’t think it can be said enough.

  15. John W. Garrett says:

    Your use of a synonym for “bovine excrement” was both justified and effective at conveying the depth of your disgust.

    Well done, Dr. Spencer !!!

  16. Brent Passarella says:

    You have placed forth a logical, passionate, articulate and accurate counter-argument to global warming hysteria. While I thank and respect you, the fact this aired on Fox means it will be wholly ignored, and you will be labelled as a right wing extremist by the left (probably too late for that). It is indeed sad when science gets politicized to the point that what channel you’re aired on will label you politically, regardless of the quality of your work and statements. Don’t worry, my political affiliation is libertarian/voluntaryism and I get labelled a right wing extremist anytime I talk to a liberal for more than 5 minutes! Thanks for continuing to be a voice of reason in a crowd of panicking chicken littles.

    • David Appell says:

      It is, of course, Fox News that has shown itself to be right-wing and extremist. Their goal is to support the conservative cause. You can’t blame people for believing what they see.

      • geran says:

        Leftists believe FOX is right-wing and extremist.

        But, to them, any semblance of truth is “right-wing and extremist”.

  17. Joe says:

    I’m no expert in any of this, but it all seems to hinge on one issue, and I’d like to ask a clear question and get a clear answer. What is the mechanism that allows CO2 to amplify its warming effects?

    We all know, the physics demonstrates, and the IPCC is on record supporting that CO2 is a weak greenhouse gas and is unable to heat the planet much all by itself, so researchers commonly says that CO2 “forces” extra heating by water vapor. Fair enough, but how exactly does that happen? And what scientific papers contain experimental verification that demonstrate what the amount of heating is?

    It seems to me that it’s big deal whether the extra heating is 1 degree or 7 degrees so we need get that right to figure out what to do next.

    • Doug Cotton says:

      There is absolutely no such mechanism. All IR-active gases reduce the temperature gradient, causing the tropospheric thermal profile to rotate downwards at the surface end. See this comment regarding breakthroughs in physics which do explain all planetary core and surface temperatures.

    • David A says:

      CO2 isn’t a “weak greenhouse gas.” Doubling its atmospheric concentration produces a warming of, at current Earthly temperatures, 1 C. That’s about 1/8th of an inverse ice age.

      But that warming creates other warming from positive feedbacks — the atmosphere holds more water vapor at a higher temperature, which is itself a potent greenhouse gas; ice melts, reducing the Earth’s albedo leading to more warming. And otehrs.

      • Doug Cotton says:

        I suggest, David A, that you stop making assertive statements claiming doubling CO2 causes 1 degree of warming. You cannot prove that with any valid physics. Correct physics proves water vapor and CO2 cause the surface temperature to be lower. In making such claims you are participating in a world-wide political-motivated fraudulent hoax. Radiation cannot explain the surface temperature.

      • David Springer says:

        David Appell,

        If water vapor raises mean annual temperature then how is it explained the the climate type with the highest mean annual temperature is the tropical desert instead of the tropical rain forest?

        Positive water vapor feedback is not supported by observation, David. Without it catastrophic global warming becomes beneficial global warming.

      • bit chilly says:

        why is the ice not melting as co 2 continues to rise then david ?

      • gbaikie says:

        — David A says:
        August 6, 2015 at 11:57 PM

        CO2 isnt a weak greenhouse gas. Doubling its atmospheric concentration produces a warming of, at current Earthly temperatures, 1 C. Thats about 1/8th of an inverse ice age.–

        We know that CO2 hasn’t dropped below 150 ppm or plant life can’t survive, and plant life did not go extinct.
        And it’s thought that during the glacial periods that CO2 did not rise above 300 ppm?
        Do you think CO2 level rose above 300 ppm during any glacial period?
        If not and the range was within 150 to 300 ppm, then CO2 did
        not double glacial period.
        Now it would correct to identify the last +2 million year as an ice age, so the interglacial period can be consider to be part the ice age, and so if include the interglacial periods
        and doubling of CO2 could occur.
        But anyhow, most people now accept that rising CO2 level follow warming, and that falling CO2 follow cooling temperature, which is to say the rising and falling levels of CO2 during your current Ice Age, was caused by changes in temperature rather than CO2 levels causing warming or cooling.
        I understand that some people believe that once warming cause increase in CO2, that the created higher levels of CO2 helped cause further warming, but such idea supports the idea that rather than strong forcing, CO2 is weak greenhouse gas.

        Of course the doubling of CO2 depends upon where one starts, broadly it doesn’t matter, but if you want accuracy in terms of 1/10th of degrees, it does.
        So despite earth never having 40 ppm of CO2, you start with
        40, 80, 160, 320, 640 in terms of doubling.
        Or you start with say 180 ppm, 360, 720.
        Or from zero in Earth atmosphere at what amount does CO2
        cause 1 C of warming.

        Or do you agree with what JDAM says:
        August 7, 2015 at 6:59 AM:
        “20 ppm 16.03 w/m2
        200 ppm 28.35 w/m2
        280 ppm 30.15 w/m2
        400 ppm 32.05 w/m2
        560 ppm 33.85 w/m2
        800 ppm 35.76 w/m2”
        If not, can you starting from 20 ppm and ending at 800 ppm,
        give what you consider more correct values?

        • David Appell says:

          If CO2 went from 175 ppmv to 275 ppmv, its radiative forcing went from zero to

          5.35*ln(275/175) = 2.4 W/m2

          That’s a significant change.

          “I understand that some people believe that once warming cause increase in CO2, that the created higher levels of CO2 helped cause further warming, but such idea supports the idea that rather than strong forcing, CO2 is weak greenhouse gas.”

          No, it doesn’t. Physics shows CO2 is a strong GHG, both now and then.

          • geran says:

            “Physics shows CO2 is a strong GHG, both now and then.”

            It just that there is NO proof of Davie’s imagined “physics”.

          • David Appell says:

            I’m curious: which textbooks have you read? Any?

          • geran says:

            Just put up the derivation of the infamous AGW equation, ∆F = 5.35 ln(C/C0).

            Put up or shut up.

          • David Appell says:

            See Table 2:

            “Radiative forcing at high concentrations of well-mixed greenhouse gases,”
            Brendan Byrne and C. Goldblatt, Geophysical Research Letters, Jan 13 2014.
            http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2013GL058456/abstract

          • gbaikie says:

            — David Appell says:
            August 8, 2015 at 5:06 PM

            If CO2 went from 175 ppmv to 275 ppmv, its radiative forcing went from zero to

            5.35*ln(275/175) = 2.4 W/m2

            Thats a significant change. —

            Is it?
            Let go back to this time.
            And let’s go somewhere warm- as North America has large glacier which over 1 mile high.
            So, how about where Singapore is today?
            Near the beach.

            So I am going to measure this effect, and what do I a need to best measure this change of 2.4 W/m2?
            So I am going to measure for say 10 years and say every day
            when it’s 175 ppm and and the same when it’s 275 ppm.

            And so what difference can I measure?
            [Other than obviously the change in CO2 level].
            And if went to Singapore today and measure it, what would the difference be?

            And would there a better place to measure this effect of 2.4 W/m2, to get the most easily measurable result?

          • geran says:

            We’re still waiting for the derivation of the GHE equation, Davie.

            No links to misleading papers that are behind paywalls, no spin, no coverup,
            just the mathematical derivation.

            ….

            (…crickets…)

      • David Appell says:

        “I suggest, David A, that you stop making assertive statements claiming doubling CO2 causes 1 degree of warming. You cannot prove that with any valid physics.”

        Doug, because you choose to stick your head in the sand doesn’t mean the rest of us do.

        This scientific fact is well established, published long ago, and not in doubt.

        Until you publish science that disproves it, take you junk elsewhere.

    • Doug Cotton says:

      You see, Joe, no one here can present any valid physics to “explain” the assertively claimed warming – not a word in nearly 24 hours. If you want the facts they are at http://climate-change-theory.com and in the linked papers.

    • David Appell says:

      Joe: Feedbacks. Water vapor feedback, ice-albedo feedback, cloud feedback, and more.

  18. Andrew Lomax says:

    Roy – nicely handled. You showed grace in just getting bleeped once!

    I am listening to some of Dr. Richard Feynman’s lectures on science and culture during my commute and I came across this quote. I felt it was quite applicable to the topic at hand:

    “It is necessary and true that all of the things we say in science, all of the conclusions, are uncertain, because they are only conclusions. They are guesses as to what is going to happen, and you cannot know what will happen, because you have not made the most complete experiments.”

    I doubt Dr. Feynman would have believed in the concept of “settled science”.

    • David A says:

      Ironically, Feynman’s own formulation of quantum electrodynanmics (QED) correctly predicts the electron’s anomalous magnetic moment to 10 significant digits.

      How settled do you need such science to be?

      • geran says:

        Davie, when you DON’T “believe” in some aspect of science, then that is probably some pretty good evidence the science is correct.

  19. richard verney says:

    Doug Cotton

    ….
    The energy diagrams do NOT show anywhere near sufficient energy input to “explain” a mean surface temperature of 15°C for a rotating sphere. Instead the S-B calculations when applied using integration over the whole surface yield a temperature of between 3°C and 4°C as a mean, which is obviously not supported empirically. Only my hypothesis is supported by correct physics and empirical measurement, and that’s because it’s correct, Roy.

    /////////////////////////

    May be we are misguided when we take an approach that the Earth (at surface) has a temperature of about 15 degC.

    Perhaps we would do better to take account of the true temperature of the oceans which account for most of the energy in the Earth system. After some 4.5 billion years of receiving solar irradiance and DWLWIR, the oceans only have an average temperature of about 3 to 4 degC (obviously the very top surface layer is warmer, but the bulk ocean is cold). It is because the deep/bulk ocean has such a low temperature that we get ice ages.

    If the oceans were at a universal temperature (ie., the bottom, bulk, mid and surface equally warm) of about 15 degC, the planet would not have ice ages since there would be enough energy in the oceans to keep the onset of growing ice at bay.

    Perhaps we should be viewing our planet (as a water world0 as having an average temperature more in the range of 3 to 4 degC.

    Just a thought, putting it out as something to ponder upon.

    • Doug Cotton says:

      No, we are in an ice age now. What we get are glacial periods. The frequency of glacial periods is most likely governed by changes in the eccentricity of Earth’s orbit that are due to Jupiter’s gravity and which happen in an approximately 100,000 year cycle, causing the annual mean distance between Earth and Sun to vary.

      No, the surface temperature of the ocean is what matters (not the deep waters) and it is surface temperatures that influence nearby land temperatures, as we see in Singapore, for example. In any event, both land and ocean surface temperatures are controlled by the supporting tropospheric temperatures, and the “control” mechanism is maximum entropy production. It has nothing to do with the total heat capacity, although it does have to do with specific heat.

      I agree that the 15C is perhaps a little overstated and I think it may be closer to 12C, but not less. In contrast, direct solar radiation would only explain -40C to -55C and atmospheric radiation would do better by explaining around -2C. But the point is, Hansen was totally mistaken in thinking that the two can be added to get a higher temperature. Even if you incorrect do add them, then you get a mean of around 3C to 4C but maximums over 90C, both these kind of temperatures obviously being wrong.

      My hypothesis explains what really happens at
      http://climate-change-theory.com where you’ll find the correct physics, supported by experiments and all Solar System data.

    • David A says:

      “It is because the deep/bulk ocean has such a low temperature that we get ice ages.”

      No, it isn’t. The recent ice ages are due to changes in Milankovitch factors — the forcing due to Earth’s orbital configuration — augmented by carbon feedbacks.

      • mpainter says:

        Augmented by carbon feedbacks? You have popped a blood vessel in your brain.

      • geran says:

        Davie and Duggie might be able to get a discount on group therapy. Give it a try guys, there is a chance you can obtain at least a partial recovery.

        https://outofthefog.net/CommonBehaviors/SelfAggrandizement.html

        • David Appell says:

          David Springer: Yes, Milankovitch factors are relatively small, but they cause a sequence of changes — especially due to solar insolation around 65 deg North — that lead to huge changes in climate.

          Says something about our climate’s sensitivity to pertubations, doesn’t it? (Hint: AGW.)

      • David Springer says:

        No David. You miss the point as usual. The Milankovitch cycle in and of itself is only a small change in amount and distribution of solar energy input into the global energy budget. The major heat reservoir is the global ocean and its average temperature is 4C from top to bottom. The result of that low average basin temperature is that only a small change in the energy budget of the warm shallow surface layer is enough to tip the balance of power from glacial retreat to glacial advance. We’re the average basin temperature 15C instead of 4C there would be too much thermal inertia for the small Milankovitch change to tip the balance of power to favor glacial advance.

      • Aaron S says:

        Dave,

        Then why was sea level 6m higher last interglacial and CO2 was 275 or whatever? Im struggling with that one.

      • David Appell says:

        “Augmented by carbon feedbacks?”

        Yes. The ~8 C difference between the recent glacial and interglacial periods would only be about half as much without the feedbacks due to the CO2 released by warming temperatures.

      • David Appell says:

        “Then why was sea level 6m higher last interglacial and CO2 was 275 or whatever? Im struggling with that one.”

        Because the Eemian lasted for 15,000 years, and we are only 150 years into our global warming.

        It is sometimes difficult to understand that our global warming is only in the earliest stages. We will get to 6 meters of sea level rise, and more, and quite quickly compared to the natural changes of the Eemian.

        • geran says:

          “It is sometimes difficult to understand that our global warming is only in the earliest stages. We will get to 6 meters of sea level rise, and more, and quite quickly compared to the natural changes of the Eemian.”

          But, your hero was going to stop sea level rise!

          (The hilarity never ends.)

          • gbaikie says:

            This hero is a god.

            [[Now, this is a bit tricky.
            He not actually a god, yet, but if you all believe
            in him, he will ascend and be god- but don’t say
            he not god, yet- because then it wouldn’t happen.]]

            It’s only after he ascends that he stops the
            rise of sea level.

            But then again, all Dear Leaders
            have a fatal flaw, and for Obama it’s golf.

            So darn it, we might need to elect another socialist.

            Now the question is do you elect the only declared socialist
            in the Dem primary, or the woman who pretends to be
            the true socialist [who is actually a wicked witch- incapable
            of doing magic- her only innate ability is melting].

      • Phil Cartier says:

        Many geologists entertain the theory that the closing of the Panama Straight some two million years ago started the current ice age by re-directing ocean currents primarily in the Atlantic.

        • gbaikie says:

          It seems that having South and North America separated
          would change El Nino. Such as always have El Nino and
          not have La Nina.

    • David Springer says:

      Verney

      +1

  20. Laurie says:

    My Hero Hands Down!

  21. Steve Fitzpatrick says:

    Bleeped on national (OK, national cable) TV! Perhaps more effective would have been something like “That is factually wrong” followed by why it is wrong.

  22. Steve Fitzpatrick says:

    Roy,
    It’s your blog,and you have to do what you think is right, of course. But I (gently) suggest that allowing Doug Cotton to comment is detracting from the blog’s usefulness. He is absolutely nuts, and you should not allow his crazy comments on your blog.

    • Erik Magnuson says:

      I agree with your sentiments, though Roy may have a lot more patience than I do.

      What I would like to see on the blog is more discussion of the subtleties of atmospheric physics and how that relates to the discussions of climate change.

      • Doug Cotton says:

        Good point, Eric when you write: “What I would like to see on the blog is more discussion of the subtleties of atmospheric physics” so I suggest you yourself start by studying the correct physics at http://climate-change-theory.com and I’ll be happy to discuss the physics and explain why it is correct and is based on the laws of thermodynamics.

    • RW says:

      Roy has tried, but Doug keeps coming back like the mildew on the shower curtain.

      • Doug Cotton says:

        That’s because Roy still keeps promulgating the fictitious fiddled fissics of radiative forcing which is NOT what determines a planet’s surface temperature, as is easily proved when you understand maximum entropy production.

        • David Springer says:

          Doug when the sun is shining the cement on my patio heats up and when the sun goes down it cools down. The darker tarmac on the road in front of the house gets burning hot when the sun is shining and also cools down when the sun goes down.

          Please explain how the sun beating down on those surfaces is not radiative forcing. Your problem Doug is you are spouting nonsense that is recognizable through even daily experience of a physics illiterate as nonsense. Even small children recognize that things sitting out in the sun warm up and the darker the color the warmer it gets. That is radiative forcing regardless of whether the child knows the name of it. A rose by any name smells as sweet.

    • Doug Cotton says:

      No, allowing you and others to continue to promulgate the radiative forcing hoax is doing more than just detracting from a blog.

    • geran says:

      Doug has been banned on several sites. However, Dr. Spencer has too much respect for the scientific method to arbitrarily start “censoring”. Spencer has hinted several times that he is annoyed with Doug. But, it is getting to the point where Doug must be somehow “restricted”, as he is now actually harming the debate here.

      Besides, since Doug has his own “highly successful” blog, why does he need to troll here?

      • fonzarelli says:

        Geran, i actually think it’s important to have “crazy davy” and “cotton mouth” here. If elements such as these are out there (and they are), then we’re going to have to learn how to deal with them in order to overcome agw…

        • geran says:

          Well, yes, they do provide the best evidence against themselves, and I abhor censorship of science.

          But, at some point, they become the “censors” by overwhelming a decent blog site. So, a temporary “ban” might just be necessary to censor the “censors”, thereby allowing openness of scientific debate. Maybe just to get their attention so they appreciate being allowed here.

          • fonzarelli says:

            I certainly agree that the both of them have become “de facto censors”. But, let me give you an example in my personal life that might convey what i’m getting at. I’m an insomniac. And part of my therapy is to include what i’d call “chaos”. Some nights i’ll stay up past my bed time just to keep me off balance so that i can learn how to deal with it. I’ll even have an occasional cup of coffee (or rum & coke!). If i wrap myself in bubble wrap (eliminating “chaos” altogether) then i’ll never learn to deal with such situations as they arise. Now, granted, it would be counter productive to over do the “chaos”. (you won’t find me partying until dawn) But, some measure of “chaos” is a good thing. I think the key word you’re using here is “overwhelm”. Cotton and Appell do overwelm the blog site. Some have suggested that appell is being paid to do just that. (my hunch is the same with engelbeen) Now, i don’t let my “chaos” therapy overwhelm me. But, then again circumstances in life aren’t likely to overwhelm me either. In the case of agw, it IS overwhelming out there. And to have appell and cotton represent those elements that are out there, i think, is a GOOD thing. Sure, it would be nice if we could all exchange ideas here in a (relatively) pleasant manner, but that’s not reflective of the real world out there. These days we live on a real ugly polarized planet, where bad behavior has become the norm. Thus, i think it is productive to have these two (clowns) here to represent that…

          • David Appell says:

            “Some have suggested that appell is being paid to do just that.”

            Those people are lying.

      • David Appell says:

        My guess is that Roy Spencer’s blogging platform does not allow him to ban individuals…..

  23. David A says:

    Stossel has got to be the most cloying smartass ever to appear on television.

    • mpainter says:

      What about that Roy Spencer, David? Did he not do a fine job of puncturing the pretentions of the pseudo-scientists?

    • gbaikie says:

      Yes, but Stossel isn’t making a huge effort to be stupid.
      Generally if you act like mindless twit, less people will think you are a smartass.
      And Stossel has the problem that he is a male, whereas with Oprah most people are less offended.

      In terms of being a reporter, I think Stossel is fairly unique.
      Which is difficult and dangerous in world of herd animals.

      I see him as the classical liberal, who realizes he is a libertarian these days. There are different types of libertarians, just as there different types of conservative,
      and you need to follow the correct talking points to be a proper lefty- as some Dem pols are discovering- it’s becoming more strident about the correct talking points. Eg, only black lives matter, rather the wrong talking of every one’s life matters. Etc. I am fascinated what talking point will evolve for the right to murder babies and how compassionate and brave it is sell their body parts.

      • David Appell says:

        Stossel’s problem is that he can’t mask the fact that he talks down to everyone else.

        His entire career has been based on this cloying approach, and he has finally tumbled down to the bottom of the barrel, Fox News.

        • geran says:

          You might want to compare Stossel’s annual income to yours, Davie, since you mentioned “bottom of the barrel”.

          • gbaikie says:

            — geran says:
            August 8, 2015 at 9:41 PM

            You might want to compare Stossels annual income to yours, Davie, since you mentioned bottom of the barrel.—

            I think he meant morality- though he is lefty and lefties are busy denying there could be anything right or wrong.

            But nevertheless, they do tend blather obsessively about morality- as a talking point.
            It’s rather odd- and perversely amusing.

        • David Appell says:

          I wouldn’t want Stossel’s position for all the money in the world. Some of us still have our pride.

  24. JDAM says:

    CO2 levels have increase 40% since the industrial age began but CO2s effects have only increased 6%.
    CO2 forcing is logarithmic ΔF=5.35 ln(C/C0), increasing amounts have a diminishing effect.
    In fact doubling it will only increase its effects 11%.
    At 280 ppm 53% of the forcing comes from the first 20 ppm.
    At 400 ppm 94% of the forcing comes from the first 280 ppm.
    20 ppm 16.03 w/m2
    200 ppm 28.35 w/m2
    280 ppm 30.15 w/m2
    400 ppm 32.05 w/m2
    560 ppm 33.85 w/m2
    800 ppm 35.76 w/m2
    You can see from the table the doubling of CO2 from 280 to 560 ppm will only add 3.7 w/m2 (watts per meter squared) of forcing.

    The Earths effective temperature is 255K but the surface temperature is 288 K. To raise the temperature from 255K to 288K requires 150 w/m2 of energy.
    ((5.6710^-8)(255^4)=240.16)-((5.6710^-8)(288^4)=390.76)=150.6 w/m2
    That additional 150.6 w/m2 of forcing at the surface energy is the result of the greenhouse effect

    We know it would take an additional 10.95 W/m2 of surface flux to raise the Earth’s surface temperature from 288 K to 290 K (2 C).
    ((5.6710^-8)(290^4)) – ((5.6710^-8)(288^4)) = 10.95 W/m2

    We know how much 3.7 w/m2 would warm the atmosphere at a temperature of 255 K using the Stephan Boltzmann equation (T = p/εσ 4√) 255 K to 255.97 K or about 0.97 C.

    We know how much 3.7 w/m2 would warm the surface at a temperature of 288 K using the Stephan Boltzmann equation (T = p/εσ 4√) about 0.69 C.

    Radiative forcing is only part of the equation the other part is feedbacks the AGW hypotheses claims feedback will amplify CO2 warming more than three fold.
    What we dont know is the value for Climate sensitivity is the equation radiative forcings change in equilibrium surface temperature (ΔTs)
    ΔTs= λ ΔF
    ΔTs = equilibrium surface temperature
    ΔF = radiative forcing
    λ = climate sensitivity coefficient
    They have a problem there is no consensus on the value for climate sensitivity (λ).
    Even the IPCC has admits it No best estimate for equilibrium climate sensitivity can now be given because of a lack of agreement on values across assessed lines of evidence and studies. IPCC AR5 WG1 note 16

    Formulas
    ΔF=5.35 ln(C/C0)
    Where:
    C0 = Is the reference level in ppm
    C = Is the new level in ppm
    ΔF = Radiative forcing at the top of atmosphere in w/m2.
    Ln = Is the natural logarithmic function

    T = p/εσ 4√
    Where:
    T= temperature in degrees Kelvin
    p= power w/m2
    ε= emissivity (1)
    σ= Stephan Boltzmann constant (5.6710^-8)

    • Aaron S says:

      Thats cool… im going to study this math… thanks. Curious since CO2 is steady state at earth temperatures and water vapor is dynamic… can u ever envision the quantification of the water vapor cycle? It just seems infinetly complex bc clouds are so dynamic and can cool or warm depending on type, position, and density.

      Anyway great post.

    • geran says:

      I sure hate to burst your bubble(s), JDAM, but:

      1) There is NO derivation or proof for the bogus equation ΔF=5.35 ln(C/C0).

      2) The bogus “effective temperature” of 255 K is not comparable to Earth’s surface temp of 288K, That “comparison” is akin to comparing unicorns to reality.

      3) You stated: “That additional 150.6 w/m2 of forcing at the surface energy is the result of the greenhouse effect”

      Bogus Science! You are saying the atmosphere can supply (force) 150.6 W/m^2 to the Earth’s surface of 510 (10)^12 m^2, or 76.8 (10)^18 Watts!!! That calculates to about 63% of the energy Earth’s “disk” receives from the Sun!!!!!!!! Do the math!

      And, those are only the first three things I found wrong in your comment….

      • JDAM says:

        Geran I think you missed the point what I said was human activity has only added 1.8% to the greenhouse effect.
        Its not my work this is what main stream science is claiming.
        The constant 5.35 is from Myhre el at 1998
        The energy balance stuff is from Trendbert BAMS el at 2009 and NASA Earth observatory.

        • geran says:

          No, JDAM, you missed the point that you are starting from IPCC “science”. IPCC “science” is a “belief system”, it is NOT science. “Main stream (IPCC/GHE/AGW/CO2) science” is wrong. There is NO GHE! (Null hypothesis.) What folks “see” are the heat transfer properties of the atmosphere. There isn’t 33K warming, it is 33K COOLING. Earth’s surface is heated by the Sun. As the troposphere moves the extra heat to space, you see a gradient, due to heat transfer. (Some folks call it “lapse rate”.)

          If you can’t deal scientifically with my three points (above), then your “belief system” impedes your “science”.

          • gbaikie says:

            “There isnt 33K warming, it is 33K COOLING.”

            It seems plausible that clouds have a net cooling effect.
            It also seems plausible that the contention that cloud cause around 50% of the warming effect of the Greenhouse Effect.

            I would say that clouds may have cooling effect in the tropics and warming effect outside the tropics.

            Contrary to what might be commonly assumed, I think there little warming [or cooling effect] from clouds or greenhouse gases in the tropics.

            Or the tropics are warm, but this warmth is not due to the greenhouse effect. If what you imply were true the tropics
            would be cooler than it is.

            The most dominate greenhouse gas is water vapor [and water vapor is commonly put in the same box as clouds, whereas clouds are actually droplet of water rather than H20 gas].
            The atmosphere is commonly said to have more H20 gas than H20 liquid.
            And there is large amount of H2O liquid suspended in the atmosphere,
            “There is always water in the atmosphere. Clouds are, of course, the most visible manifestation of atmospheric water, but even clear air contains waterwater in particles that are too small to be seen. One estimate of the volume of water in the atmosphere at any one time is about 3,100 cubic miles (mi3) or 12,900 cubic kilometers”
            http://water.usgs.gov/edu/watercycleatmosphere.html

            The tropics [a region which is about 40% of total area of earth] is said to have 3 to 4% water vapor, and whereas the rest of world has 1% or less.
            Therefore the tropical zone has more water droplets and more water vapor [H20 gas] then compared to the greater part [60% of area of earth].
            But the reason the tropics has the most amount of H20 droplets and gas, is because this zone receives the most amount of sunlight.
            The reason the tropic receives the most amount of sunlight
            is because earth is a sphere. And additional factor is earth spins on 23 degree axis relative to the sun.
            Were Earth not to have an atmosphere it would also receive the most amount of sunlight in the tropics- more total watts
            of sunlight as compared to 60% of the remaining surface of this airless planet.
            So without considering the atmosphere the tropics would be warmer.

            As is known, the tropics warms the rest of the world, and the main mechanism that transfer tropical heat to the rest of the world is ocean currents such as the Gulf Stream which warms Europe. The tropics also warms the rest of the world with air convection, Hadley cell, ect. Wiki:
            “Atmospheric circulation is the large-scale movement of air, and the means (together with the smaller ocean circulation) by which thermal energy is distributed on the surface of the Earth.”
            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_circulation

            [[Despite what Wiki says/implies [smaller ocean circulation] it seems obvious that oceans transports more energy poleward, but since ocean is only about 70% of earth’s area and atmosphere is 100% the ocean is smaller in this sense [but the ocean currents are much more massive and kg to kg water has 4 times the heat capacity as compared to air].]]

            So tropics warms the rest of the world, or conversely, the rest of the world cools the tropics.

            Despite the rest of world cooling the tropics, I don’t imagine the rest of the world lower the temperature of the tropics, by much if any.
            So I don’t think greenhouse gases, nor the transport of heat to rest of the world, lowers the temperature or the average temperature of the tropics by much.
            It might be about the same as turning your air conditioner on with the performance of your car engine. It has an effect, but one could probably still manage to to go 80 to 100 mph.
            I would say were the rest of the world warmer [therefore “require” less warming by the tropics or less heat loss from the tropics, that tropic could have have a higher temperature of about 5 C. Or the tropics would have a more uniformity warm temperature, rather than it’s present slight seasonal periods of it being cooler- or I don’t it’s going to cause higher highest temperatures, but rather warmer coolest temperatures.
            Or I think the rest of the world could manage to cool the tropics by as much 15 C. So in coldest periods of any ice age the rest of world might make tropics 10 C cooler, during warmest times in Earth history it added 5 C, and at the present it’s about minus 5. And this in terms of average temperature.

            Now, were greenhouse gases [including clouds because this seems to be custom [rather than make any sense]] to cause 33 C cooler, because the tropics has more greenhouse gases
            [or more greenhouse effect] it therefore would have a greater effect on the tropics.
            And that does not seem to conform to reality.
            It seems the greatest effect of “greenhouse effects” in terms of the tropics, is it effects how much the tropics warms the rest of the world.
            And I divide this effect of tropics upon warming rest of the world into two parts: ocean warming and air circulation warming of the rest of the world.
            And these two effect are also interacting with each other- so separating them, is a bit tricky [or wishful thinking/delusional].
            But the purpose of separating these circulation processes is that they work at different speeds [time scales]. The ocean is a long term process and atmosphere is shorter term process.
            And it’s complicated. And post is too long, already.

          • Doug Cotton says:

            Please go to this comment.

          • Doug Cotton says:

            Well gbaikie, what is the “sensitivity” for each 1% of water vapor, given that the concentration varies between about 1% and 4% with a mean just over 1%?

            Roy or Anyone? What is the “sensitivity” for each 1% of water vapor?

          • David Appell says:

            Doug Cotton wrote:
            “Roy or Anyone? What is the sensitivity for each 1% of water vapor?”

            Doug, this may be the most unscientific thing you’ve ever written here.

            Water vapor is a feedback, not a forcing.

            You don’t seem to know what that means. You don’t understand the Clausius-Claperyon equation, and you don’t understand why water vapor isn’t a durect forcing, or how it behaves in the atmosphere.

            There simply isn’t any reason to take you seriously — that’s why so many people here ignore you. Your understanding of physics is just bad. I don’t care how many years you taught — you do not understand physics, and this question of yours proves it.

          • gbaikie says:

            — Doug Cotton says:
            August 8, 2015 at 4:10 PM

            Well gbaikie, what is the sensitivity for each 1% of water vapor, given that the concentration varies between about 1% and 4% with a mean just over 1%?

            Roy or Anyone? What is the sensitivity for each 1% of water vapor?–

            I have to first say, that this requires the greenhouse Effect theory is accurate. And I will repeat I think the Greenhouse Effect theory, has been disproven, and it’s pseudo science to boot. That it’s pseudo science is not hard to see- I believe most people are aware of this fact. But like other pseudo science- say latest diet fad, people tend to lend more belief or credit to the pseudo science, then they should.
            I don’t like pseudo science has few things have caused more harm. Racism is another pseudo science. As is Marxism. Just those two alone have caused massive damage to humans.
            The fact that greenhouse theory has been disproven [and normally very hard to disprove pseudo science- because it’s not science- it’s like proving the lobotomies are bad idea- though it’s easier when it’s recommend as go to answer for every mental problem- and this similar to why anyone bothered to disprove the greenhouse Effect.
            But rather proving it’s been disproven, it should enough to recognize it’s not science.
            With that said.
            Generally the doubling concentration of greenhouse gas, adds 1 [whatever value 1 is].
            So 2% is a doubling of 1%, and 4% is doubling of 2%.
            So water vapor should have more than 4 times the effect in tropics and in other part of the world.
            Let’s assume the committee of idiots who crafted the greenhouse effect theory, knew basic earth climate, and therefore knew the tropics receive most of the sunlight.
            A problem is that according to wiki:
            “By their percentage contribution to the greenhouse effect on Earth the four major gases are:

            water vapor, 3670%”
            So other then confusion over clouds, let’s guess it’s 36% for the tropics. So , 36% of 33 is 12 C.
            So rest of world is 3 K warming from H20 gas. Or going with flow of using very rough guesses: 3 to 7 K.
            CO2 for rest of world is about 3 K. Or 3 to 10 K.
            I would say there tendency to think CO2 warms the poles more [or more significant than H20 because cold air doesn’t hold much water- or some such nonsense].

      • David Appell says:

        “1) There is NO derivation or proof for the bogus equation ΔF=5.35 ln(C/C0).”

        See:

        “Radiative forcing at high concentrations of well-mixed greenhouse gases,” Brendan Byrne and C. Goldblatt, Geophysical Research Letters, Jan 13 2014.
        http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2013GL058456/abstract

        • geran says:

          There is NO derivation or proof for the bogus equation.

          • David Appell says:

            The results of this paper — and many before — prove the equation. Sorry you can’t understand it.

          • geran says:

            Davie, proof of an equation only requires a few lines of derivation. But, you probably have never seen a mathematical proof.

          • David Appell says:

            You didn’t read the paper.

            Read it.

            Radiative forcing at high concentrations of well-mixed greenhouse gases, Brendan Byrne and C. Goldblatt, Geophysical Research Letters, Jan 13 2014.
            http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2013GL058456/abstract

          • geran says:

            Davie, you keep using the same tricks. That’s because that is ALL you’ve got. You don’t have the science, you don’t have the observations, all you have is tricks.

            I say there is NO derivation for the bogus equation [∆F = 5.35 ln(C/C0)], and what do you respond with? You respond with another “paper” (that is paywalled) that merely USES the equation to “prove” itself. That’s called “circular reasoning”. “Circular reasoning” is just another one of your tricks.

            When you pervert and corrupt science, it is no longer science.

          • Doug Cotton says:

            The greenhouse radiative forcing is cogently refuted in the first of these two videos, and what is correct physics, confirmed by extensive observational facts, on Earth and other planets, is explained in a more comprehensive fashion than I have ever done in my papers, article, comments and book, so my response to you all is in 43 minutes of sound physics explained here …

            Watch https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL-TXYe4rJp0xmbBh51AD8jptu34LAJc-b

    • gbaikie says:

      — JDAM says:
      August 7, 2015 at 6:59 AM

      CO2 levels have increase 40% since the industrial age began but CO2s effects have only increased 6%.
      CO2 forcing is logarithmic ΔF=5.35 ln(C/C0), increasing amounts have a diminishing effect.
      In fact doubling it will only increase its effects 11%.
      At 280 ppm 53% of the forcing comes from the first 20 ppm.
      At 400 ppm 94% of the forcing comes from the first 280 ppm.
      20 ppm 16.03 w/m2
      200 ppm 28.35 w/m2
      280 ppm 30.15 w/m2
      400 ppm 32.05 w/m2
      560 ppm 33.85 w/m2
      800 ppm 35.76 w/m2
      You can see from the table the doubling of CO2 from 280 to 560 ppm will only add 3.7 w/m2 (watts per meter squared) of forcing. —
      That’s interesting.
      But:
      Suppose one had a world which half was heated to 255 K [-18 C] and the other half was heated to 303 K [30 C]
      So this is average of 279 K [5.85 C]

      A 255 K surface which was perfect blackbody would radiate the most energy and it would radiate about 239 watts.
      And same surface which was 303 K would radiate 478 watts.
      So this is average of 358.5 watts.
      The same surface which was 279 K would radiate about 344 watts.

      358.5 watts is somwhat close to 344 watts, but it’s also a difference of 14.5 watts and also more than 3.5 times 3.7 w/m2.

      Now, Earthlings have been forced by their governments to spend over 2 trillion dollars, and the justification given by the governmental politicians for this payment of over
      2 trillion dollar is prevent a possible future increase of 3.7 w/m2 said to be caused by CO2 emission.

      The over 2 trillion dollars spent has not lowered CO2 emission, except possiblity is sense of making people poorer so they have less money to buy things such as energy for their needs. But the global governmental effect has
      actually increased CO2 emissions.

      The only way to have the same amount of energy used by the people in the world, is to reduce energy production which creates the most CO2 per energy generated which can then be used. and increase the amount of energy production
      which creates the less CO2 emissions per the amount of energy generated.

      To generate electrical power from burning wood, causes the least amount of energy to be produced compared to the CO2 emission emitted. As compared to burning coal, crude oil, or natural gas.
      And governmental policy has been to give a small portion of the 2 trillion dollars to business which generates electrical power from burning wood. {because it’s called a sustainable source of energy [which it’s not].

      Burning coal creates less CO2 per the amount electrical power generated as compare to wood, and coal is more efficent way to get energy as compared to wood- and because it’s a more efficent [or cheaper way to harvest energy] coal is generally used more than wood.

      But burning coal makes more CO2 than crude oil or natural gas.
      Though it should be mentioned that there ways you burn coal, oil, or natural gas can make significant
      differnce in terms of this efficency- it can be improved, but also coal is ultimately limited by chemistry to produce less power vs the CO2 it emits.
      Also a general rule is the larger the powerplant the easier it’s to make it more efficent.

      So one thing that governments have done, is discourage local industry, with the result industry going to countries which have less regualtions discouraging them.

      This has resulted in China becoming the largest emitter of CO2 in the World.

      To deal with or create the economic growth, China is largely burning coal to to make electrical
      power- 80% is from burning coal.
      And these coal powerplants have been mostly focused
      making as much power available rather than make more expensive powerplants which burn coal in a more efficent manner.
      So, China burns the most amount of coal as compared to
      any other other, and burns it the least efficently of any modern country.

      In short, and keeping it as simple as possible, governmental policies has been utterly assbackward.
      And to date no governmental policy which is said to reduce CO2, has actually done so.
      And if buring wood were sustainable, why would Chinese government use wood instead of coal.
      There many answers, but one possible answer is that burning wood would cause more air pollution than burning coal, and the chinese government currently has huge problem with
      air pollution- or they would posioned the entire population had they tried to use wood instead of coal.
      Not sustainable.

      But despite spending over 2 trillion dollar for destructive and counterproductive solutions said to lowering CO2. The media tends to say we aren’t doing enough to reduce CO2- basically denying trillions of dollars have been wasted, and desiring many more trillion of dollars to be wasted in the future- in order to prevent 3.7 w/m2 of warming.

      • fonzarelli says:

        http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/from:1959/mean:24/derivative/plot/hadcrut4sh/from:1959/scale:0.22/offset:0.10

        Carbon growth runs lock step with temperature, NOT human emissions. China can build as many factories as it wants. It won’t make an iota of difference…

        • gbaikie says:

          –China can build as many factories as it wants. It wont make an iota of difference–

          Yes China can build as many factories as it wants. And this applies to any country. And I don’t know any war ever started regarding such issue, and I think you have to be crazy and flaming Lefty to think a government should attempt to limit this in other countries or in their own country.

          China emits far more CO2 than any country- of course it also has a large population, but per capita it’s now equal to the EU, and should exceed the EU per capita in less than 10 years.
          Assuming the Chinese State isn’t completely lying- that government is something one should be too trusting about anything it says, as it does remain a very oppression government.
          And the government has history of lying- and this lying resulted in about 30 million Chinese starving to death- and I don’t think much has really changed much since that time.
          The big different between Soviet Union and China is the Chinese tend to be more practical than the Russians.

          Though I am sure the greenhouse effect theory is wrong- which is polite thing to say about this pseudo science,
          I am not certain that greenhouse gas don’t cause some warming. I don’t believe assertion that the fingerprints of CO2 have detected in global average temperature, but it seem that if a doubling of CO2 caused 1 C of warming that such a small effect would difficult to measure.
          I also think if one considered that CO2 does only cause about 1 C increase, that a lot of climate projection would not have be so far off in there projection of future warming.
          So it possible that in the future I will change my mind in accordance with new evidence, and decide that doubling CO2 can not cause 1 C increase, at the moment I think it’s possible. I believe the most significant factor causing the warming over last couple centuries has been the warming of the entire ocean.
          I also think the role of CO2 warming the ocean is probably insignificant. Or I think the role to CO2 in warming the tropics is insignificant and warming of the ocean is mostly occurring at or near the tropics- as this where most of the sunlight is.
          And not sure if China will add much CO2 to the atmosphere, but if there is one country which could add a significant amount, it will be China. Unless China runs out of coal.
          And China can’t import enough coal- most of it must be mined domestically- or without enough domestic coal the Chinese are too practical to allow their nation to continue use so much coal- it would simply bankrupt them.
          And Chinese are making as many nuclear reactor as they can, and they have lots of natural gas, if they choose to mine it.
          Btw, in a similar way that China may cause a significant rise in CO2, it seems possible that the Chinese could actually cause measurable drop in global CO2 [which is a long term effect]. Or they in their crazy bureaucratic fashion run it into the wall- until there no coal left to mine- and switch to different fuel- like say natural gas- in rapid fashion. Mainly because they could think there is political advantage to doing such a crazy thing.

          But anyhow my point is I don’t think the public should be paying trillion of dollar doing something that does not work. And the added government corruption is harmful to freedom and liberty.

          • fonzarelli says:

            Gbaikie, not sure if you got my point… Seeing how carbon growth is set by temperature, China could emit a lot or a little, either way it would NOT impact carbon growth. Any nominal cutbacks in emissions are an exercise in futility. AND it remains to be seen whether even wholesale cutbacks (kyoto…) would make any difference in carbon growth.

          • gbaikie says:

            — fonzarelli says:
            August 8, 2015 at 12:07 PM

            Gbaikie, not sure if you got my point Seeing how carbon growth is set by temperature, China could emit a lot or a little, either way it would NOT impact carbon growth. Any nominal cutbacks in emissions are an exercise in futility. AND it remains to be seen whether even wholesale cutbacks (kyoto) would make any difference in carbon growth.–

            well, I watched Murry Salby video and it was fairly impressive but not a completely new concept, though it seemed to be to a pretty rigor analysis. So like I said, impressive.

            So we could have two different view, CO2 is all added by human emission [and nature in the future will be completely overwhelmed by Human CO2 emission- which the hysterical alarmist view- which is completely pseudo science and very ignorant of Earth carbon cycle.
            And then view that Human activity [including fossil fuel emission has no effect upon global CO2.
            I think Marry Salby results were that is it quite difficult to discern human activity as causing a increase in global CO2 level, but he able to qualify it as being less than 1/2, but more importantly that effect from human emission has very short duration. Or the idea that global CO2 levels are still elevated from say, 1950 is false. As I recall he said something like, were human not to exist, present CO2 level would about same as 20 years ago. So 1995 was somewhere around 375 ppm, so human have added 20 to 25 ppm, rather 120 ppm [or more].
            Or another way to say this is that past human CO2 emission have less or not effect and ever increasing human emission would smaller percentage having effect, it would have increased effect. Or if we to reach say 450 ppm by say 2050, it would mostly have to do with China and India exponential increase in CO2 emission, and nothing to do CO2 emission before say 2000. Or it would push back to 30 years rather than 20 year.
            Or without humans existing, by 2050 we might be around 400 ppm or more, with mad exponential CO2 emission it might be 450 ppm.
            And maybe it’s couple 1/10ths of degree increase due that
            increase in CO2 and human cause less than 1/10th of degree to warming by adding 50 ppm of CO2 to global CO2 levels.

            Or the amount of warming caused by the increase of CO2 is too small to measure, and the amount warming added from human emmission of CO2 added to global is more hopeless too small to measure.
            But it’s possible humans have warmed the planet by some amount and humans at moment might have added more than 20 ppm of CO2- and might add as much 50 ppm in the future.
            If we don’t have such exponential increase in global CO2, the amount added would remain around 20 ppm added above what would have occurred naturally.

            I had generally thought that human added about 1/2 and Salby
            says it’s less than that. And perhaps Salby is correct.
            Eventually it will have further review and maybe modified, one way or the other- that generally the way science works.

          • David Appell says:

            gbaikie says:
            “Seeing how carbon growth is set by temperature….”

            Do you really think the world is waiting for temperatures to increase before they shovel coal into their power plants?

          • gbaikie says:

            — David Appell says:
            August 8, 2015 at 11:43 PM

            gbaikie says:
            Seeing how carbon growth is set by temperature.

            Do you really think the world is waiting for temperatures to increase before they shovel coal into their power plants?–

            Seeing how carbon growth is set by temperature.
            fonzarelli said that

            As for your question. Perhaps fonzarelli can answer it.

            But generally speaking I don’t think the world is waiting for anything. In either case of whether you mean a planet or the people of the world.
            But would about 1/3 of the people in the world would like to make more than $2 per day, and some might be doing something about that and some might be merely waiting.

          • fonzarelli says:

            Gbaikie, by saying that carbon growth is set by temperature i am in no way implying that the rise in co2 is natural. The thinking is that as temps rise the carbon sinks become less efficient therefor more anthro co2 gets added to the atmosphere. Since it is temperature that regulates the anthropogenic rise, more human emissions do not equal more carbon growth. That’s why china can build as many factories as it wants without adding anything to the atmospheric rise in co2…*

            * the fact that co2 tracks with temps does not preclude the possibility that the rise is natural. I’m just giving you the alarmist take on what this means. At any rate, anthropogenic or natural, more human emissions do not mean more carbon growth…

        • David Appell says:

          fonzarelli says:
          “Carbon growth runs lock step with temperature, NOT human emissions.”

          Interesting. Where exactly do you think our CO2 emission are going?

          • geran says:

            To crop production. You see Davie, plants know to only use CO2 that was from fossil fuels.

          • malph says:

            Appell, why don’t you go fall out of a tree?

          • David Appell says:

            For wheat, maize and barley, there is a clearly negative response of global yields to increased temperatures. Based on these sensitivities and observed climate trends, we estimate that warming since 1981 has resulted in annual combined losses of these three crops representing roughly 40 Mt or $5 billion per year, as of 2002.

            Global scale climatecrop yield relationships and the impacts of recent warming,” Environmental Research Letters Volume 2 Number 1
            David B Lobell and Christopher B Field 2007 Environ. Res. Lett. 2 014002 doi:10.1088/1748-9326/2/1/014002
            http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/2/1/014002

          • geran says:

            “Based on these sensitivities and observed climate trends, we estimate that..”

            Some more of your “settled science” Davie?

          • David Appell says:

            Any response to avoid having to take a study seriously, huh?

          • geran says:

            I tend to only respond seriously to serious work. I tend to ridicule “nonsense”.

            I wonder why I haven’t ever taken you seriously….

  25. Trovan says:

    This interview just told me burning fossil fuels is peachy and that because the UK attempted to save energy last winter they subsequently killed a thousand people?

    Fox news.

  26. Trovan says:

    This segment just told me burning fossil fuels is peachy and that the UK killed one-thousand people in hopes of saving energy.

    Yay Fox news!

  27. Ron Brooks says:

    Dr. Spencer,
    Great job on the Stossel program. The truth will prevail…eventually. One question I ask the alarmists If the evidence supporting your position is so strong, why do you refuse to debate? The obvious answer is the evidence does not support your position.

    • David Appell says:

      No one wants to debate because science isn’t about sound bites. It’s a complicated subject that relies on details and careful exposition. None of that fits on television, or in a debate format.

      But I’ve done a couple of debates on the radio, one against Tim Ball. The audio was once up, but the show (Victoria Taft) was cancelled.

  28. Jim Steele says:

    Well Done. Stossell needs to interview more skeptics.

  29. Doug Cotton says:

    Please read this comment as that is all I have to say for today.

  30. Doug Cotton says:

    Oh what a wicked web we weave
    When in our head we do believe
    That we can rule another’s mind
    And with some hoaxsters lead the blind
    To fear and tremble at the warning
    That CO2 does all that warming
    By sending all its radiation,
    Fooling leaders of the Nation
    ‘Til they from flooded houses sailing
    Join the weeping and the wailing
    While Mother Nature calmly ruling
    Turns that warming into cooling.

  31. Brett Keane says:

    Atmospheric physics may not allow CO2 gas anything more than to displace enough water vapourisation to minutely lower the total amount of this. Nothing else significant. Comments?

    • geran says:

      Yes, Brett, you get into the Gas Laws now, which is just one more way to disprove the AGW nonsense. The Warmists do not want to discuss how the Atmosphere handles “too much” CO2. They want folks to believe mankind can somehow “violate” some upper limit.

      As you hint, the atmosphere can handle all the CO2 we can put out.

  32. Doug Cotton says:

    OPEN LETTER TO ROY SPENCER

    Roy, you spoke well in the talk, but you will not be convincing until you stop sitting on the lukewarm fence.

    If you understood what I have explained about how gravity traps the energy, not back radiation, then, instead of doing experiments about the rate of cooling, you would be attacking the fundamental fallacy in which the hoaxsters bluff you and politicians into thinking that the solar radiation is helped by back radiation to actually raise the surface temperature each morning. There’s no point in talking about the rate of cooling when you can’t explain how the surface temperature gets to be what it is in the first place. In fact the majority of the required thermal energy does NOT come from radiation into the surface at all, and I can prove that beyond a shadow of a doubt.

    That is the real bull(beep) Roy!

    If you had been bold enough, and confident of the correct physics, then it would have had far more impact if you had invited any warmist to come on air with you and debate the real physics. I can coach you in that Roy, by phone or email. Maybe today’s email I wrote for politicians will be a starting point in your understanding of the 21st century new (and totally different) paradigm that explains all temperatures on all planets and moons. After all, you must know you can’t explain why the base of the nominal troposphere on Uranus is hotter than Earth’s surface, despite there being no solar radiation and no surface there.

    You need to be saying that the cold radiation from the atmosphere cannot be added to the Solar radiation, and that the solar radiation is itself far too weak to explain how and why the surface temperature ever got so hot. Even the combination is too weak, but it is also far too strong in tropical regions.

    You need your own studies like mine that prove more moist regions are cooler because water vapor cools rather than warms. Mine took less than a day, and you have the methodology as a flying start.

    You need to explain to the public that the IPCC assumes a mean of just over 1% of water vapor causes 25 to 30 degrees of warming. The public will know that rain forests with 4% water vapor are not 75 to 90 degrees hotter than dry deserts with 1% water vapor. But you need to keep stressing that this is what the IPCC effectively claims. You need to discredit their physics, not with temperature data but with valid physics. You need to point out that they can’t explain what happens on other planets like Uranus with their nonsense science. You point out their political motives to destroy capitalism and manipulate world governments.

    But above all, Roy, you present the correct paradigm which no one ever has in the media, and which never could be refuted by correctly applying the laws of physics.

    You just need a bit more knowledge Roy about thermodynamics. The website http://entropylaw.com should be read before reading all I have written at http://climate-change-theory.com and in the linked papers. I’ll send you a free book if you give me a mailing address via my email which you have in the emails I’ve sent you.

    It’s time Roy to back down off the “Luke” position, because it is just as incorrect as Hansen’s garbage, and it just leaves people and politicians thinking in terms of acting “just in case” anyway.

    • Slipstick says:

      OPEN LETTER TO MR. COTTON,
      On your website you prominently display a centrifugal device which uses electrodes to slow, and thus cool, gas molecules to a temperature of 1 K, by trapping the molecules between the electrical field and the centrifugal force induced by the machine. As these molecules slow, they must “bleed” energy. Note that because the molecules are guided by the electrode system, there is no contact between the molecules and mechanism, and the energy must, necessarily, be released by photon emission. In fact, if there was contact, the molecules could not be cooled to the ultracold temperatures the system achieves.

      According to your physical model, photons cannot be absorbed by matter at a temperature higher than that from which they were emitted. If this is true, can you tell me what happens to the photons emitted by the gas molecules at the final stages of their cooling, when they are at temperatures below the cosmic microwave background? Since these photons, and the energy they carry, are, according to your model, effectively removed from interacting with any other matter in the universe, except, perhaps, in the presence of a singularity, can you explain how this does not violate the First Law of Thermodynamics?

      Unless you can explain these simple implications of the model you so grandiosely proclaim as a “new paradigm”, your model is, in fact, useless as a description of reality and you should cease promoting it forthwith.

      • Doug Cotton says:

        Electrodes could only add energy to the molecules. They merely steer them to the center, but in the process they gain potential energy at the expense of some of their kinetic energy, because it is mostly their own kinetic energy and random motion between collisions which leads to some molecules getting to the center. The energy involved in that exchange of KE and PE is far greater then the energy imparted by the electrodes.

        In any event, the same kind of thing happens in a Ranque Hilsch vortex tube (without electrodes or moving parts) where a radial temperature gradient is produced by centrifugal force.

        Did you read the physics which explains why this happens? It is physics developed directly from the Second Law of Thermodynamics. There may not necessarily be photons emitted when the coldest temperatures are approached, because, as I explained, there is conversion of kinetic energy to potential energy relative to the force field and that is what cools. The quantum energy gaps would be such that a photon could not be emitted because it is highly probable that all electrons are already at ground state before such cold temperatures are reached.

        That said, there’s no problem in my mind regarding a photon eventually drifting off into space with energy less than the mean energy for matter in space. Obviously there is a distribution of energy contributing to that mean. Radiation from Space has a Planck function, also, as you should know, and that function extends down to zero K.

        Frankly, your red herring shows serious lack of understanding of the process of maximum entropy production corresponding to the dissipation of unbalanced energy potentials. You seem to think all temperature change is related to radiation, so it sounds like you’ve been educated with the fictitious, fiddled fissics which the infant science of climatology promulgates, and it also sounds like you have a vested interest in maintaining the biggest hoax in human history.

        I suggest you study this guy’s site at http://entropylaw.com before moving on to study the 21st Century physics explained in my paper “Planetary Core and Surface Temperatures” linked from the ‘Evidence’ page (which you should also read) at http://climate-change-theory.com . If you have genuine questions based on correct physics next time, then I’ll be happy to provide more detailed explanation.

        • Slipstick says:

          I usually avoid the ad hominem, but after that incredible string of handwaves and mumbo-jumbo mixing matter and energy, my reticence is eroded. It is clear you do not even understand how the MPI centrifuge operates. Oh, and by the way, the release of photons is how atoms reach ultracold temperatures.

          Your model is as wrong as your interpretation of the 6 cube problem, even more so. As was previously stated by others, I pity your students. Stop promoting this ridiculous model that bears no resemblance to reality.

          • Doug Cotton says:

            SS writes: “Oh, and by the way, the release of photons is how atoms reach ultracold temperatures.”

            That’s one way (if they are not already at the ground state) but it’s not the only way. If you think it is, you just demonstrate your lack of understanding of thermodynamics, just as you demonstrate no understanding at all as to how the atoms or molecules at the center of a Ranque-Hilsch vortex tube get so cold – without emitting photons, by the way – just by the transfer of thermal energy by non-radiative processes to the warmer ones at the circumference. I explained this in the Talk page at Wikipedia some time back.

            The rest of my response to you (and others) is contained in a 3.1Gb full HD video currently uploading to YouTube which I’ll link here in about six or seven hours from now.

          • Doug Cotton says:

            Here’s the link – why not add your explanation SS for all to read? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Vortex_tube

          • Doug Cotton says:

            And Dear Slipstick, my “ridiculous model” (as you call it) also applies to centrifugal force (just as it does for gravity) and so, back in April 2014, I was the first to use it to correctly explain and quantify correctly in the Wikipedia Talk Pages how the Ranque-Hilsch Vortex tube works. Correct physics is supported by calculations that agree with empirical observations, just as my hypothesis does in the calculations that I “published” on that page.

            Far from my stopping, it is you and fellow hoaxsters who are the ones who should be stopping the promugation of fraudulent fiddled fissics (as demonstrated in this half page ad in The Australian newspaper last week) and the “Deliberate Corruption of Climate Science” that I wrote my little poem about on Saturday …

            Oh what a wicked web we weave
            When in our head we do believe
            That we can sway another’s mind
            And, with some hoaxsters, lead the blind
            To fear and tremble at the warning
            That CO2 does all the warming
            By sending down its radiation,
            Fooling leaders of the Nation,
            ‘Til they from flooded houses sailing
            Join the weeping and the wailing …
            While Mother Nature calmly ruling
            Turns that warming into cooling.

            by Doug Cotton, 8 August 2015

          • Doug Cotton says:

            Ooops – typo: promulgation

            Don’t forget to watch the 22.5 minute video I recorded yesterday (Sunday) which will be linked from http://climate-change-theory.com after I catch a few hour’s sleep while it finishes uploading. “Cease promoting” (LOL)

          • Slipstick says:

            Mr. Cotton,
            You provide yet another misapplication of physics as a response. I wrote regarding ultracold atoms, on the order of 1 K, and you cite the Ranque-Hilsch vortex tube, which produces temperatures on the order of 200 K and is incapable of reaching 1 K.

            This is one of an unending stream of examples of the primary flaw in all your work. You accept as “evidence” anything that vaguely resembles the nonsense you believe, irrespective of its true applicability, accuracy, or the extent of documentation, while rejecting immediately any real evidence, or even logic, to the contrary, no matter how well supported.

            You appear incapable of applying any critical analysis of your own conjectures. When faced with a clear physical contradiction of your model, you either simply ignore it or fabricate another unsupported conjecture, with its own internal contradictions, to explain the discrepancy.

            An excellent example of this is your “resonance” and spectrum conjectures, which “explain” how a molecule can sense the temperature of the source of a photon from the spectrum of photons emitted, in support of the conjecture that photons in the absorption spectrum of a molecule are magically rejected when the emitter of the photon is at a lower temperature. Neither of these conjectures has any supporting physical evidence and there is a multitude of obvious problems with this model, several of which I have posted before and you chose to ignore. I list some below for your convenience.
            – How does the single electron of a hydrogen atom “remember” the energy of previously received photons to analyze the spectrum, especially when the electron is restricted to specific quantum energy states in the atom?
            – How does the atom not absorb the first photon received from a cooler molecule, since, at that point, there is no spectrum information?
            – Doesn’t the absorption of any photon reset the “history”, thus making the spectrum analysis impossible?
            – How does a molecule, surrounded by millions of other molecules, all in motion, determine which molecule was the source of a particular photon so as to include it in the spectrum analysis?
            – It is exceedingly unlikely, to the point of impossibility, that the photons emitted by a molecule will all be incident on the same receiving molecule. Thus, a receiving molecule will not see the spectrum of the emitter and no analysis or resonance is possible.

      • Doug Cotton says:

        Footnote:

        The description of the centrifuge machine that cooled molecules to about 1K (-272C) reads …

        “Molecules lose speed drastically when they are guided against the centrifugal force to the center of a rotating disk.”

        It is not the “guiding” but the work done against the centrifugal force which is causing the principal variation in PE and KE. The molecules are still moving mostly with their (now attenuated) original KE. For example, at room temperature their speed would have been nearly 1,800Km/hr. As they “climb the mountain” against the centrifugal force, of course they slow down. The guide rails (electrodes) at the sides of the path leading up the mountain have little to do with the total energy exchange involved.

        Likewise, when molecules in a planet’s troposphere move (between collisions) against the force of gravity, they also gain (in this case, gravitational) potential energy at the expense of their own kinetic energy. At thermodynamic equilibrium (maximum entropy) there is no further transfer of mass or energy across any internal boundary (by definition) and no further unbalanced energy potentials (a fundamental requirement of maximum entropy) and so (assuming no reactions or phase changes) the only remaining energy that affects entropy is the sum of gravitational potential energy and kinetic energy, which sum must thus be homogeneous at different altitudes. Since only the kinetic energy component of that sum contributes to temperature, and since the potential energy varies with altitude, there must be a temperature gradient.

        You could have read all that in my website or linked paper, so please stop wasting my time by your failure to put in the effort to understand what has been available for you to study since early in 2013.

  33. MikeB says:

    Doug
    Why not just send all your free books directly to the address below. In this way you cut out the middle man and speed up recycling.

    Garbage Bin No.1
    Drivel Street
    Idiotsville
    BS 12
    Mumbo Jumbo Land

    • Doug Cotton says:

      So I take it that you, MikeB could not understand the development directly from the Second Law of Thermodynamics, presumably because you have no correct understanding of maximum entropy production and thermodynamics. You could start learning from this guy’s site: http://entropylaw.com

      • David Appell says:

        Doug: Why hasn’t your work been published in any real scientific journals?

        • Doug Cotton says:

          Why haven’t you David Appell, published a refutation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics (upon which my hypothesis is based) in some “real” scientific journal? Dr Hans Jelbring published something similar to my hypothesis about the gravity effect in “Energy and Environment” (linked here) which thus removed that journal from the list of “real” journals whose editors are coerced to publish Pal-reviewed articles based on the fictitious fiddled fissics of the infant science of climatology. I would not want to provide such valid science to journals like that, which have a very-smeared reputation in the eyes of those who understand what physics really tells us.

          What I have written is based on (and developed from) the Second Law of Thermodynamics about which you can read here: http://entropylaw.com – that site providing correct information whether or not you choose to believe such.

        • Doug Cotton says:

          And it’s worth repeating what Hans Jelbring (with a PhD in Climatology) wrote in 2012 regarding the above-mentioned peer-reviewed paper published in “Energy and Environment” in 2003 …

          ” … investigating professional climate scientists should just reach one of three results; a) my logic is wrong, b) the major part of the Greenhouse Effect is always at hand in any (dense) atmosphere and c) any of the first law of thermodynamics, the second law of thermodynamics or the ideal gas law is invalid. It turned out that there was a fourth option: My article could be ignored by the establishment which it has been during 8 years. This seems to be a significant result relating to the moral of leading climate scientists in western countries. If my conclusions are correct it would have had far reaching impact on climate science and climate politics in 2003. It might still have for a number of reasons.”

          • Norman says:

            Doug Cotton,

            Where I might disagree with David A on the climate sensitivity debate I would not choose to disagree with him on the basic of the GHE since he does actually understand what is going on where you really do not comprehend it. You attack it but do not understand the process. If you would stop and invest a little thinking to work to understand it you would no longer attack the radiation content of the GHE.

            Understanding the GHE in STEPS:

            Step 1): The GHE does not warm the surface of the Earth in a real way. Under GHE the Earth surface still cools. GHE does not violate 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. The supply of energy for the GHE comes from the surface and is redirected by GHG back to the surface.

            Step 2): Earth’s surface radiates 396 watts/m^2 (averaged value, not a specific regional number). GHE returns 333 watts/m^2 to the surface with a net loss of energy at the rate of 66 watts/m^2 (that would be a minus sign in a thermodynamic equation which would cool the surface).

            Step 3): If you increase the GHE the result is still cooling! If water vapor can increase the GHE and now you return 350 watts/m^2 instead of 333 you still are losing energy at the rate of 46 watts/m^2. The surface is still cooling just at a slower rate. So at a set time in the two cases the one losing less energy (a watt is a joule/second so it is time dependant) will be warmer than the other (a relative state). THIS does not mean the GHE is now warming the surface or sending down magic energy!!

            Do you understand this so far? If you do you will no longer bring up your points about more water vapor should make the surface much hotter or that GHE violates 2nd law of thermodynamics because it does not! Nor do ice cubes heat turkeys as some ignorant posters try to make fun of a concept they have no ability or desire to understand and for some reason think this is a clever or intelligent argument. If they had a clue they would never post such things and expose complete ignorance on their part.

            Step 4): Since the GHG keep the surface from cooling at the fastest possible rate (no GHG, the moon’s surface) it will not cool as fast and with a constant input of solar energy at 161 watts/m^2 the surface will be warmer with a GHE going on than in a case without. The GHE is not adding energy to the surface. It is redirecting surface energy back so it is not leaving the system allowing for a warmer surface with a constant input of new solar energy.

            It is not a hard concept. It is strongly rooted in real thermodynamics. It violates no known laws of physics and it quite well explains why the Outgoing IR measured from satellites is not 396 watts/m^2 or why the Outgoing IR from Venus surface is not 16000 watt/m^2.

            The 1st Law of Thermodynamics would be violated if you do not have a valid explanation of where this energy is going. First law, Energy can neither be created NOR DESTROYED. This energy is not being destroyed but if it is returning to the surface it is keeping the surface at a higher temperature. No violation.

            Hope this helps you understand the concept better so when you launch attacks at Roy at least you really know what you are saying.

          • geran says:

            Norman, you have moved away from GHGs “warm the surface” to GHGs “slow the cooling”.

            You’re trying to claim a colder atmosphere can “slow the cooling” of a warmer surface.

            You’re STILL wrong. But, since you really love simple analogies (like baking the turkey with ice), here’s another one for you.

            When you drop an ice cube in a cup of hot coffee, does the ice cube “slow the cooling” of the hot coffee?

            Now, you can begin your rambling pseudoscience, and attempted insults. (Hint: I can’t be insulted by babbling confused adolescents, who don’t even understand the pseudoscience they strive to promote.)

          • Norman says:

            geran,

            My post was for Doug Cotton. He may be able to understand basic physics where you cannot. You do not desire to, you have no ability to learn new things and are set in your PSI cult belief so it is useless to present reality to you as you are unable to comprehend what is being said.

            That is why I asked if you had any physics studies at all. You claim you had some in High School but you may have been sleeping in class.

            You understand nothing and can anyone explain simple ideas to you. No you reject them if they do not fit your cult program and you call real valid tested science pseudoscience.

            I have not claimed GHE warms the surface or the atmosphere will send more energy to the planet surface than what is leaving. I have communicated with you in the past but it is always a fail. I talked with you of Thermos bottles and how they slow cooling so a hot liquid will remain in that state much longer than outside.

            Your point about a ice cube in coffee. Stupid on many levels since you do not understand radiative energy transfer. Cooling rate is based upon how many calories are leaving a system. An ice cube in coffee will cool the coffee faster than one without because the flow of energy and the energy required to convert solid water to liquid. Why do you bring this up? What possible reason does this have to do with GHE?

            But will a solid block of ice warm a bath of liquid nitrogen? You really should quit posting for awhile and read a REAL text on thermodynamics. Only then will you understand how really lacking in knowledge of physics you possess.

          • geran says:

            Norman, thanks for proving me right with your “rambling pseudoscience” and “attempted insults”. That’s all you have, so your response was easy to predict.

            It turns out that a simple ice cube destroys your pseudoscience. That is why you hate it when I use the simple-to-understand analogies. The “radiative forcing”, that you so desperately cling to, fails with my very simple analogies.

            Ice at 25 F (-3.9 C) emits over 280 Watts/square meter (W/m^2). A block (cube) of ice, about 16″ (40.8 cm) on a side would then be emitting about 280 Watts. If you put 10 such blocks in a walk-in freezer, you would have a total emission of about 2800 Watts. So, if the IPCC nonsense were correct, you should easily be able to bake a turkey with that much “heat”. Of course it won’t work, but what you don’t want to admit is this is also why the atmosphere can NOT warm the planet.

            And, of course, the same holds true for the “ice cube in a cup of hot coffee” analogy.

            Your pseudoscience isn’t working for you. All you have are your “rambling pseudoscience” and “attempted insults”.

            BTW, I’ve had WAY more physics than just high school. And, that’s just education. I also have many years of using physics to solve complex technical problems, in fields from nuclear power plants to 800-ton ammonia refrigeration systems to aviation electronics systems.

            Now back to your “rambling pseudoscience” and “attempted insults”.

          • Norman says:

            geran,

            I really doubt you have any advanced physics and you post things that you do.

            You have your turkey and ice. You still do not understand thermodynamics. The turkey is also radiating away energy. To do any thoughtful meaningful understanding you would have to calculate the surface area of the turkey. You would have to determine how much of the ice energy would reach the surface of the turkey and they you would have to calculate the rate of energy loss by the turkey.

            I am not actually insulting you in my posts. I am pointing out you really do not understand energy transfer at all. You seem to only think in one way energy transfer and nothing else.

            You have already agreed that the GHE is real in an earlier post if any energy (that would leave the surface like on the moon) is returned to the surface it will slow down the rate of cooling. What do you keep arguing about and calling things you agree with as a false science?

            Now answer this one. You have two frozen turkeys on the moon’s dark side. One is surrounded by a wall of ice (starting at freezing temp) and the other has no wall of ice. Do you think they will then cool at the same rate or will the energy the ice contains keep the turkey it surrounds warmer for a longer time frame?

            Also why do you think my posts are rambling?
            http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/rambling

            Your failure to follow logic (in a step wise fashion) would not dictate that my posts are rambling it just sounds like it to you because of your inability to understand what is being said so it confuses you even when it is rational, flows in a logical path and leads to simple understandable conclusions.

            Your lack of comprehension is not a failure on my part but a flaw within your own thinking structure.

          • geran says:

            Norman, your rambling is now hilarious, once again.

            The ice/turkey analogy shows how ridiculous the GHE nonsense is. Ice can not heat a turkey, just as the atmosphere (in toto) can not heat the Earth.

            Now, you have rambled off to the Moon! Where next, Uranus? Venus?

            Where did you ever learn to go to other places in the solar system whenever your pseudoscience gets busted?

            Next, you’ll be making up “sciency” sounding phrases like inverse gravitational proton cavitation, or dielectric sub-muon polarization disruption. (“Heat creep” has already been taken by some other planetary traveler.)

            Hint: Stay on this planet and try to learn from your mistakes.

          • gbaikie says:

            –Now answer this one. You have two frozen turkeys on the moons dark side. One is surrounded by a wall of ice (starting at freezing temp) and the other has no wall of ice. Do you think they will then cool at the same rate or will the energy the ice contains keep the turkey it surrounds warmer for a longer time frame?–

            Ice will evaporate and cool to about -150 C in the vacuum of
            the moon. So if ice and turkey starts at say -5 C both will evaporate and cool rapidly to to about -100 C.
            Or it you put a block of ice which is -5 in sunlight, it will cool to about -100 C and this would also be true if it was on Planet mercury when it’s sunlight is at about 9000 watt per square meter- the difference is the all the ice in sunlight will evaporate quicker compared to 1360 watts per square meter, and be a bit warmer.

            As far as which turkey on moon at night cools faster- there number factors make this unclear.
            If replace the turkey with another block of ice, then it’s easier, due to the increased surface area evaporating there will be increase local partial pressure of H20, therefore
            it will cool slower.
            If replace the ice with chunks steel a -5 C, it will slow cooling rate considerable [as you have more thermal mass],
            if made the chunks of steel hollow- thereby reducing it’s thermal mass, it would cool faster compared to the chunk of steel. And all this depends on how big and close they are to each other.

            Lets say you had aluminum garden shed with no door [there was opening the size of the door]. It’s unheated. And sits on moon and cools as rest of the surface Moon cools.
            You also have a card table [also unheated].
            Now put the turkey on table and another one in the shed.
            The one is shed will cool slightly faster than turkey on the card table.
            Both turkeys will cool the most due to evaporate cooling, until such time as expose surface of turkey is dry. But to have the entire turkey dry out and be drier than a mummy it would take days and therefore one get intial amount of high amount of cooling at it’s surface and probably lose about half it’s weight in water mass evaporated in short time period.
            So say 20 lb turkey would become a 10 lb turkey in about 1 hour. Or say 5 kg.
            So the heat loss would 5 times the latent evaporation loss.
            So 2,270 kJ/kg * 5
            ice has specific heat of about 2 kJ/kgK)
            So say 10 kg of moisture at -5 C to 100 C is
            95 k times 2 times 10 kg, which is 1900 kj
            So about 10,000 kJ loss and only has 1900 KJ.
            which roughly means surface will cool quickly and rate
            of cooling would largely depend on the heat conductivity of dried and frozen turkey flesh [and bones and skin].
            And the open door should prevent very much partial pressure of H20.
            And the table or the shed don’t effect this by much, they should not have much difference.

          • gbaikie says:

            The one is shed will cool slightly faster than turkey on the card table.

            Should be:
            The one is shed will cool slightly slower than turkey on the card table.

          • Norman says:

            geran,

            Your words: “The ice/turkey analogy shows how ridiculous the GHE nonsense is. Ice can not heat a turkey, just as the atmosphere (in toto) can not heat the Earth.”

            The GHE theory is not what is ridiculous. The ridiculous is your lack of understanding what the theory is claiming. This is why I have to reject your claim that you have actually studied physics other than reading articles on the PSI website.

            I have explained the simple concept to you many times but it is beyond your level of comprehension. The GHE theory does not claim the atmosphere is heating the Earth. This is the claim the PSI people make but the climate scientists do not. The energy returning from the atmosphere is less than the energy leaving the surface. Where do you see climate scientists making any other claim than this?

            The only reason for the moon is for pure radiative effects to simplify for YOU since any system with more than one thing going on totally confuses you.

          • Norman says:

            geran,

            Here I will help you learn some physics (real deal not the crap on PSI make believe). You may not want to learn it but at least I will show you why your mind is confused and why I really completely doubt your claims of any formal study of physics. These are not insults but realities based upon your posts showing how little you understand well established physics.

            http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/radiation-heat-transfer-d_431.html

            Please take the time to look at the Net Radiation Loss Rate equation in the above link. This is for your benefit not mine, your posts will have more intelligence. Look at the equation and work to understand its implications. The rate of heat loss of a body is directly related to the temperature of the surroundings!! The warmer the surroundings the less heat loss from the body. Now why is this? It is because the surroundings are also radiating along with the body and the radiation is moving in all directions. The warmer the surroundings, the more energy they radiate to the body slowing its cooling rate. I have hopes you may learn yet. Get away from the cult of PSI and start to learn REAL physics. It will do your brain good!

          • geran says:

            Norman you are hilarious! What a perfect example of a pseudoscience believer. You pontificate constantly about how you are going to “teach” me, yet it is I that have had to explain the simple analogies to you. I even had to explain your own pseudoscience to you. And, then there was the double-negative that you did not comprehend, and I had to explain!

            You can’t even get it right that I do not accept the GHE nonsense. Your quote, from upthread, “You have already agreed that the GHE is real in an earlier post I, of course, NEVER agreed to that at all. That is just another example of how your belief system confuses you. Hilarious!

            In your belief system, you know it all, are never wrong, and understand everything perfectly!! You are the absolute perfect example of a pseudoscience believer–a completely closed mind with nothing in it! All you can do is cut and paste. You probably haven’t had an original thought in years, if ever. And, your lack of higher education is revealed not only by your confused science, but also by your poor writing ability.

            You are the “poster boy” for the AGW cult. Hilarious!

            It is now time for more of your hilarious effort to “educate” me. And, don’t forget those attempted insults, they are really funny. What a clown!

          • Norman says:

            geran,

            I think you describe your own mind and thinking correctly in your post (directed toward me but matches your thought process closely):
            “In your belief system, you know it all, are never wrong, and understand everything perfectly!! You are the absolute perfect example of a pseudoscience believera completely closed mind with nothing in it!”

            I like science and will fall back to reality. The cut and paste are for ease of discussion. They are the reality of physics. The equations are real and work in real world. They are not the product of my own mind, if you do not want to accept them that is your loss.

            In the real world, posters have pointed out flaws in my thought process. I did not argue endlessly that they were wrong and I was right. I went back to research and correct my flawed thinking. Another day is another day to learn. Whatever you think about me does not really matter. Science will continue to move on and you will still be wrong at the end of the day. Sorry to break the news to you but you have a long way to go to get your science correct and only if you realize you know very little about it will a breakthrough take place.

          • geran says:

            Hilarious!

            Norman, your actions and deeds fall “somewhat short” of your words.

            (Do I need to list, again, all the mistakes you have made?)

          • Doug Cotton says:

            My response to you Norman is that you display a very poor understanding of entropy and thermodynamics in general. Thus you could potentially learn heaps from my new videos, the first of which has been viewed about 300 times in its first 2 days here https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL-TXYe4rJp0xmbBh51AD8jptu34LAJc-b

        • David Appell says:

          Doug, I don’t think you CAN get your “work” published in a legitimate journal.

          I think you’re afraid to even try. Rejection would shatter your illusion that you know more than the rest of the world.

          • Doug Cotton says:

            And you, DA, can’t even write a sound refutation of the hypothesis “published” here free and without hassle on Roy’s blog. The rest of my response to you (and others) is contained in a 3.1Gb full HD video currently uploading to YouTube which I’ll link here in about six or seven hours from now.

          • Doug Cotton says:

            Go and read the half page advertisement in an Australian national paper here and then my comment at 7:55am below.

          • Doug Cotton says:

            DA:

            Papers of any form – books, articles etc are not high on my list of priorities. And no, I don’t feel particularly “rejected” when about 300 view my video in the first 2 days at https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL-TXYe4rJp0xmbBh51AD8jptu34LAJc-b

            But you probably feel threatened, I suspect. Have you a vested interest in maintaining the hoax by any chance?

  34. Mark Douglas says:

    I’m sorry, not to take-away from the core content of this interview… as it’s decent for as short or the responses are allowed, you gotta love the calling BS Doc does on Gore! nicely done. Go Blue!

  35. rah says:

    Plain and simple. You were GREAT Doc!

  36. dave says:

    “Plain and simple.”

    Global Temerature Anomalies, Degrees C:

    Remote Sensing Systems University of Alabama

    April 1998 + 0.8573 + 0.74

    July 2015 + 0.2886 + 0.18

    Change in
    17 1/3 years – 0.5687 – 0.56

    August 8, 2015, Swansea-Chelsea 2-2

    • Slipstick says:

      Comparing two single points is not a valid trend analysis technique.

      • dave says:

        I must tell that to the IRS. Comparing the price I sold to the price I bought is not a valid means of calculating my liability for capital gains.

  37. dave says:

    Formatting gremlin strikes again!

    + 0.74
    + 0.18
    – 0.56

    are meant to show in an obvious column, under ‘University of Alabama.’

  38. nigel says:

    2-2: Arfur will be pleased.

    We might get a temporary, further “up-spike” from the continuing El Nino. This is in “anomalies.” The brightness of the Earth as a whole will show its regular “cooling” by 2.7 C, over the next six months, as the land-rich Northern Hemisphere tilts away from the Sun.

  39. Doug Cotton says:

    The time is fast approaching when the “decisions” by governments pertaining to carbon emissions (and acceptance of the “carbon dioxide warms” hoax) will be swayed by the voting public.

    The process of disseminating science through pal-reviewed journals and lobbying of the Obama’s and Gore’s of the world will yield to direct persuasion of the voters, accompanied by believable facts.

    The recent half page advertisement in The Australian for example (here) is an indication of what some of us in climate groups in Australia are now “publishing” in the media, rather than in journals that participate in the “Deliberate Corruption of Climate Science that Dr Tim Ball wrote about.

  40. Billyjack says:

    Excellent interview. Thank you for taking the time to eviscerate clowns like Gore, who couldn’t pass a theology course, Bill Nye, who needs to go back to middle school science, and Neil Degrassy, who keeps his head in the stars. In short, the MSM representing these journalists as scientists only confirms the weakness of the warmist. They epitomize my opinion of journalism when rated with honorable professions- journalism falls slightly above pedophilia, but certainly below armed robbery.

  41. Norman says:

    geran (and others)

    You claim I am making mistakes in my understanding of the radiative process. You believe it to be pseudo science.

    Here is the real science and I hope you check out the link.

    http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/radiation-heat-transfer-d_431.html

    From this link:

    Net Radiation Loss Rate
    If an hot object is radiating energy to its cooler surroundings the net radiation heat loss rate can be expressed as

    q = ε σ (Th4 – Tc4) Ac (3)

    where

    Th = hot body absolute temperature (K)

    Tc = cold surroundings absolute temperature (K)

    Ac = area of the object (m2)

    geran, do you see the implications of the above equation? The surroundings and the hot body radiate in all directions. The warmer the surroundings relative to the hot body, the net radiation heat loss from the hot body decreases. What does that mean? It cools at a slower rate. If it is cooling at a slower rate and now you add a new source of energy to the system what
    happens? Do you end up with less overall energy? Same? More?

    • geran says:

      Norman, nice “copy and paste”! You really seem to be able to copy/paste quite well. Now, if you could only understand what it means.

      In the equation you pasted, there is NO time factor, yet you claim “it cools at a slower rate”, “It is cooling at a slower rate…” The equation deals with “quantity” of energy, not flow rate. You can’t tell anything about “time” from the equation. You don’t know if the heat transfer rate is instantaneous, or takes 14,287 years.

      Try to at least understand the equations you find and paste. What a clown!

      • Norman says:

        geran,

        Your claim is that you studied physics. Please stop with your posts until you learn physics.

        Do you know what the units of heat are expressed as? You use the term “clown” is that what actual science looks like to you?

        Heat transfer is expressed in watts. Now from your physics (at least from your claim to have studied it which is very doubtful now) what is a watt?

        If you do not know it is the flow of energy in joules/second.

        Do you know what a second is? Do you know what it measures? Maybe you do but from your post it is debatable.

        Do you know what a joule is? If you are not sure it is the basic unit of energy.
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joule

        Watts determines how fast energy (joules) is leaving a system. Losing 100 watts means the system is losing energy at the rate of 100 joules/second.

        I think you may have to go back to your PSI website and stay off a blog run by an actual climate scientist. You should go back to a community college and take a course in physics to get your level up since I really do not know where your current level of scientific knowledge is at but it is impossible to communicate with you if you do not even grasp the most fundamental basic aspects of the science you are debating. Please go and learn and come back rather than demonstrating to a larger audience of just how ignorant you actually are. Thanks. Hope the classes work out for you. Be much more fun debating with you if you understood the basics.

      • geran says:

        Norman, every time I think you can not sink any lower, you just fall deeper and deeper into the abyss!

        What is hilarious is that you are so arrogant in your confusion. You are definitely the “poster boy” for the Warmist/Lukewarmers. You will probably not be able to understand these three points, but I will include just for the amusement value.

        1) The unit of “Watts” is power, which is a “rate” of energy transfer, (Joules/sec). The radiative heat transfer equation you found, and copy/pasted above, provides a “rate” based on two temperatures. The “rate” tells you NOTHING about the time involved.

        An analogy to make it simple for you: A car moves at a “rate” of 60 mph. How long does the car travel? You see, you do not have enough information. The rate the car travels in insufficient information to tell you how long it will travel.

        2) Work these two examples, using the radiative heat transfer equation, to see if you can possibly understand.

        Situation A–Th = 290 K, Tc = 205 K
        Situation B– Th = 320 K, Tc = 268 K

        Notice that in both situations the “rate” (Q) is 300 Watts!!! You see, Norman, my poor confused cult follower, the “rate” of radiative heat transfer tells you nothing about temperatures, temperature differences, or “slowing the cooling”!

        3) So, now that you have totally committed to the radiative heat transfer equation, notice something VERY important. The equation contains NOTHING about CO2. That’s correct, Norman. By copying and pasting this equation, you have NOT proved the GHE, you have demonstrated one of the mechanisms the atmosphere uses to cool the planet. You have inadvertently made my case for me! Thanks.

        More hilarity, please.

        • Norman says:

          geran,

          Hilarity is only in your total lack of understanding of basic physics. You say I dig a deeper hole for myself yet you can’t see how lame your points are.

          On the car. Goofy as you are you can tell rate of cooling using your car example? Does a car moving at 60 mph go faster or slower than one at 30 mph?

          I really think you need help of some kind but I am unsure of what it would be. You are completely lacking in knowledge of physics and have some woven patches together and somehow you think you know what you are talking about.

          Your point 2) is really sad to read. Your point (why you make it I do not know are you proud of your ignorance on science and you want to display it proudly or something): You say “Notice that in both situations the rate (Q) is 300 Watts!!! You see, Norman, my poor confused cult follower, the rate of radiative heat transfer tells you nothing about temperatures, temperature differences, or slowing the cooling!

          You are correct in one thing, the results of the equation (the heat transfer), if that is all I am given 300 watts I cannot tell what the temperature of the body and surrounding is or their temperature difference. But you can definitely determine cooling rate (how rapidly the hot body is losing energy). You won’t be able to determine how hot or cold it is after a time period unless you know the initial temperature but you will know the rate of cooling. You will know that if you are losing 300 watts from the hot body, it will be cooling faster than if you are losing 200 watts.

          Like your car, you may not know how far each car travels if one is going 60 mph and the other 30 but you can certainly state the 30 mph car is moving slower just as you can clearly state an object radiating at 300 watts/m^2 (which is the units in the equation it is based upon the area of the body) will cool at a faster rate than one cooling at 200 watts/m^2. Can you even try to understand these concepts?

          On the Carbon Dioxide. Your point 3 really demonstrates you need some real help in learning, maybe get a tutor that knows some physics because you do not! Do you know what is the function of a science equation? Carbon Dioxide absorbs IR (of certain frequencies) and can then re-emit the energy in all directions (up, down, sideways etc). It acts like the surrounding material in the equation except it is confined to specific frequencies. Some of the radiation absorbed by carbon dioxide from the surface will be redirected back to the surface…it will not leave the system…the system will not cool as fast since now the radiation is not free to leave the system.

          I do believe if you would really stop and think about the material and concepts I am posting you would see they are very logical. I have little hope of you doing this but keep responding if you want. Maybe someday you will understand why you are wrong but it won’t be today and I doubt tomorrow.

        • geran says:

          Norman, thanks for more humor. Not only is it entertaining, but it is also very instructive. Do you realize that over 50% of what you write is an attempted insult? Do you know why you feel you have to do that? It is because all of your pseudoscience is so easily busted. That only leaves you with your attempted insults.

          So, for more laughs, let’s review your pseudoscience. You started out, upthread, with the radiative heat transfer equation you had stumbled onto. You’d probably never seen it before, because you didn’t understand how to apply it. In fact, you implied the equation would prove your point. Your exact quote:

          “geran, do you see the implications of the above equation? The surroundings and the hot body radiate in all directions. The warmer the surroundings relative to the hot body, the net radiation heat loss from the hot body decreases. What does that mean? It cools at a slower rate.”

          Quite obviously you did not understand the equation. So, when I explained why your belief was wrong (points 1&2 above), what did you do? You dropped the equation, like a hot potato, and went to “observations”. You claimed you could tell a 30 mph car was slower than a 60 mph car! You dropped your equation, that was going to prove your pseudoscience, and opted for a new “proof”. What a clown!

          Please continue. More attempted insults and rambling pseudoscience, please!

          • Norman says:

            geran,

            If you think I am insulting you then you are wrong on this point. When I say you don’t know physics, it is not an insult against you, it is an observed fact. You cannot debate any physics point at all and throw out some garbage to make it appear to someone (not sure who) as if you know something.

            You will not do it but I will try and see. Will you prove some of your statements such as when you claim I dropped the equation? When did I do this and why do you think I did this?

            Or your point 1 “The unit of Watts is power, which is a rate of energy transfer, (Joules/sec). The radiative heat transfer equation you found, and copy/pasted above, provides a rate based on two temperatures. The rate tells you NOTHING about the time involved.”

            When you make the statement “NOTHING about the time involved” what does that mean to you? Why is that a consideration to determine if something is cooling faster or slower? If you have identical hot objects at the same temperature but one is surrounded by a warmer environment, this one will cool slower. What did you read different in my post than this?

            You do not even answer questions intelligently. Not sure you know how (not an insult but an observed fact from your posts, you have not answered questions intelligently yet, you answer them with your own brand of humor but nothing of substance).

            So here is a question. If you have two identical objects (within reason) each enclosed by a surrounding space. They start at the same initial temperature before you start measuring.

            I can give some actual numbers. Each object starts at 100C. In one enclosure the surrounding material is at 0C in the other the surrounding enclosure is at 50C. You start taking measurements at 5 minute time intervals of the hot objects. What do you think the rate of cooling will be for the object in the 0C enclosure and that of the hot object in the 50C enclosure? Will they be the same? Will they cool at the same rate so a graph of temperature will be identical? I leave it to you. Let me know what you come up with.

          • fonzarelli says:

            Norman, i think your experiment here with the 100C objects being cooled by two differing surrounding temperatures is what i had in mind (in my comment to you). In both cases the objects are surrounded by air temps that are cooler than the objects. And yet one of the objects after a time will be warmer than the other. In neither case is the second law violated because both objects cool (not warm)…
            Just one question (to which i don’t know the answer), are these objects cooling strictly through kinetic energy being transferred through molecular collisions or is there some radiative heat transfer involved here? Thanx much…

          • Norman says:

            fonzarelli

            My answer to your question about heat transfer would depend upon what is between the hot objects and the surroundings. If a vacuum exists between hot objects and surroundings then nearly all (support columns would transfer energy by conduction) the energy transfer would be by radiation. Air is a really good insulator so the heat transfer across air would be much slower than radiation. Both types of heat transfer are present with the Earth’s surface. I have been convinced of GHE because the energy leaving the Earth’s system is less than that being radiated by the surface. Only radiant energy can leave the Earth system, there is nothing to conduct molecular collisions past our atmosphere.

            Here is a link to actual satellite measured IR specta. You can see large chunks of energy missing. Where did this energy go? It is being given off by the surface but it is not making it out to space.
            http://www.geo.mtu.edu/~scarn/teaching/GE4250/AtmoEmission_lecture_slides.pdf

    • fonzarelli says:

      Norman, i would like to see, perhaps, you develop your argument along the lines of heat transfer by molecular collisions comparing it then to radiative heat transfer. (In other words, take a night with a certain surface temp and certain temp for the air above it. Then compare it to another night with similar surface temp, but this time a cool front moves in thereby cooling the surface faster.) That might lend some clarity to the situation here. The reason i ask this of you is that i really enjoy your work and would like to see just how you would phrase it. (You ARE the poster child for why every young person should stay in school…) Turkeys on the moon is a very helpful analogy; however i think a comparison of heat transfer by molecular collisions verses radiative heat transfer would lend even more clarity. Thanx and keep up the good work…

      post script, maybe you should have named the turkeys “davy” and “dougy” (that might have helped)…

      • Doug Cotton says:

        What you’re talking about regarding natural convective heat transfer (that is – kinetic energy transferred in molecular collisions) is covered in today’s new video …
        https://youtu.be/QtXwN10qnLw where you’ll find the correct physics which is supported by real Solar System data.

      • Norman says:

        fonzarelli,

        Thanks for the kind words. I would have difficulty in getting that data as the primary surface temperature data is really from a few feet up from the surface. One thing about air is that it is a very good insulator.

        http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/heatcond.html

        From this link it takes you to thermal conductivity of different materials. Air has a super low heat flow through it. This is why Doug’s conjecture is not founded on any solid physics. Any diffusion of energy or heat flow through the air would be too slow to maintain a surface temperature as the loss by rapid radiation would cool the surface at a rate many times faster than a slow diffusion process could warm it.

        http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/tables/thrcn.html#c1

        I think Ball4’s link to measured radiation is very valuable in seeing what is going on in the real world.

        http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/grad/surfrad/dataplot.html

        • Doug Cotton says:

          No Norman

          Firstly, I’m not talking about conductivity from Point A to Point B.

          Secondly, the troposphere has had the life of the planet to trap Solar energy, as has the crust, mantle and core.

          You are way, way off track in your guesswork as to what my hypothesis says, and thus you don’t understand how and why it is derived directly from the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

          You might understand if you’re an intelligent man and can follow what I have explained here: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL-TXYe4rJp0xmbBh51AD8jptu34LAJc-b

    • Doug Cotton says:

      That’s pretty basic stuff, Norman. You’ll find it and much, much more about radiative heat transfer in my paper “Radiated Energy and the Second Law of Thermodynamics” published on several websites back in March 2012. You should read it some day!

    • Doug Cotton says:

      Your new source (like the Sun at dawn) does not necessarily cause there to be a rise in temperature of a planet’s surface that is due to radiation.

      The Sun’s direct radiation to the Venus surface has never raised its temperature one millionth of a degree, not even over the course of 4 months – not on any such Venus ‘day’ in the last million years.

      And the reason you don’t understand why is because you haven’t studied and understood the relevant physics.

      https://youtu.be/QtXwN10qnLw

  42. Doug Cotton says:

    This is the message you need to get across next time, Roy:

    NEW 2015 VIDEO – COMPREHENSIVE COVERAGE of JUST PRECISELY WHAT IS WRONG with the GREENHOUSE CONJECTURE and what the new 21st CENTURY PHYSICS TELLS US – it’s all in 22 minutes at: https://youtu.be/QtXwN10qnLw

    • gbaikie says:

      The video was interesting.
      I believe I now have some clue of why
      you imagine a 6.5 is “cooling effect”.
      It sort of makes sense if you don’t think
      the earth is heated from the Earth’s surface.
      Whereas if you consider the obvious that Earth is warmed
      by the sunlight warming the surface, it’s more
      difficult to think that a cooling of 5 or 6.5 C
      per increased elevation per 1000 meter is a cooling
      effect compared to 9.8 C of lower temperature per 1000
      meters.
      Simply because you looking at backwards.
      It seems to make more sense when looking at it inverted, but not sure if it’s actually true in regards to Earth.

      Now I believe Venus is not warmed by sunlight reaching
      it’s surface, rather Venus “surface” is actually the dense opaque and widespread clouds of droplets of concentrated sulfuric acid.

      And I believe that were one add a lot of water [trillions
      of tons] to the Venus atmosphere that it would lower the temperature of Venus.
      But not because I thought it would lower the lapse rate. Rather my reasons would related to water having lower boiling point, water is less dense than droplets of concentrated sulfuric acid, water would dilute the sulfuric acid [and lower it’s boiling point]. And I think whitish clouds would reflect more sunlight than the yellowish clouds.
      Or I think the acid droplet can get pretty hot, and water droplets can’t get very warm- or roughly they remain about as cold as droplets of water do in Earth atmosphere, and like on Earth, on Venus one could also have ice particle [rather than droplets of water] if one has clouds high enough in the atmosphere.
      Though I don’t think one needs to add so much water that it would lower Venus lapse rate.
      Or Venus has about 20 ppm of water in it’s atmosphere [which amounts to trillions of tons of water in total in atmosphere].
      And I think to lower Venus temperature by 100 K or more, one needs to increase it to somewhere around 100 to 200 ppm- which is lower ppm of water than Mars [which has 210 ppm].

      And I don’t think 200 ppm of of water vapor on earth alters it’s lapse rate [or I believe that’s very dry air].

      Now I think if you added enough water to make it 10,000 ppm or 1% then that should begin to alter the lapse rate, and I also think that would result in cooling Venus, also.
      I just think a lower amount would be required.

      Anyhow, I assume you would agree that if added enough water so their was 1% or more, and so it altered the lapse rate that the result would be to cool Venus?

      If so, how much do think it would cool Venus?

      • Doug Cotton says:

        The Moon’s mean temperature is below freezing point (0C) and yet its surface receives about twice the flux that Earth’s surface receives.

        So it is damn obvious that the Earth is NOT warmed by the solar radiation (with a global mean of about 168W/m^2) reaching the surface.

        Have you never heard of Stefan-Boltzmann calculations? Let’s see your computations!

        There are too many hand-wavers writing on this thread.

        • gbaikie says:

          — Doug Cotton says:
          August 10, 2015 at 4:00 AM

          The Moons mean temperature is below freezing point (0C) and yet its surface receives about twice the flux that Earths surface receives.

          So it is damn obvious that the Earth is NOT warmed by the solar radiation (with a global mean of about 168W/m^2) reaching the surface.

          Have you never heard of Stefan-Boltzmann calculations? Lets see your computations!–

          Hmm. I will use Earth “Bond albedo 0.306” and Moon: “Bond albedo 0.11” As given here:
          http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/moonfact.html
          And use 1362 watts which is solar constant at solar max:
          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_constant

          So 1362 times 0.306 is 416.8 reflected and 1362 times 0.11
          is 149.8 reflected.
          945.2 divided by 4 is 236.3 watts averaged
          1212.2 divided by 4 is 303 watts averaged.

          And twice 236.3 is 472.6 watts averaged.
          And difference of 472.6 and 303 is 169.6.
          Which is not very close to twice the flux, from that way of looking at it. And I don’t another way which would make it more favorable to your claim of: “receives about twice the flux that Earths surface receives”.

          Now I would say the main difference of the Moon and Earth
          is that the earth *absorbs* far more energy than the Moon.
          And by absorb, I mean gains thermal energy.
          So if you have solar water heater, and it take cold water and warms the water, and then it puts in a tank, and continue to gets more cold water and heat it and put into the tank until tank is full of hot water, I would say one absorbing and gaining thermal energy.
          And if you turned off the tap so the warmed water could not
          be put in the tank, you would have absorbed less thermal energy.
          And the reason the moon doesn’t absorb much heat is because the surface conducts heat very poorly.
          Were the moon could absorb heat fairly well- say like the sand on the surface of Earth’s desert it would have higher average temperature. And another factor is relate to absorbing heat is it’s slow rotation and lack of rotational tilt relative to the Sun.

          Now an ocean absorbs a lot of heat- far more than the sand of a desert. The sand of a desert can get much hotter than a ocean, but this does not mean the sand absorbs more heat.
          And the atmosphere above the sand absorbs far more heat than the sand- again unrelated to how hot the air gets.
          Or the total air above a square meter of sand is 10 tons.
          And the sunlight of a day does not warm a ton of sand per square meter- or a foot under the sand does not heat up during a day.
          And though atmosphere can hold more heat than the sand, the ocean holds far more heat than the entire atmosphere.

          Let’s say we put 1 billion 2 meter diameter which were made of copper a few inches thick and filled with water.
          Moon has total area of 38 million square km or 38 billion square meter. And I want spheres put in 20 billion square meter nearest the equator. So sphere take up about 4 square meter and so 4 billion square meter of 20 billion- about 1/5 of area which is a billion more than 1/2 area of the moon and is about 40 degree north and south latitude.

          Now this would be weird, of course. But it would also look weird from earth. First thing is they are too small to see- they too small to see from with the largest telescope we have from Earth. But it seems to me they would have visual effect. Or with your just looking one’s eyes at the moon you see some difference, but a question is what different could you notice.

          If we painted them red, it should make the moon look more pink. If painted them black it could maybe look more cloudy.
          Or you would see some kind of belt around the Moon’s equator.
          And made them highly reflective, it might be weirder than red or black.

          Anyhow, the question is how would it effect the moon’s average temperature.

          So 2 meter diameter sphere has volume of 4.19 cubic meters.
          And we could assume that over many hours in the sunlight, they should reach around 120 C.
          But question is after 14 days of night what would their temperature be?

          • geran says:

            Doug says: “The Moons…surface receives about twice the flux that Earths surface receives.”

            gbaikie says: 945.2 divided by 4 is 236.3 watts averaged [Earth]
            1212.2 divided by 4 is 303 watts averaged. [Moon]

            geran says: gbaikie is correct, Doug is wrong.

          • Norman says:

            gbaikie

            I could be wrong in your answering your question of how cold would spheres filled with water get on the dark side of the moon.

            I would think it would be the same only the inertia with water vs the rock might make the curves of temperature change more gradual.

            My humble opinion seems to think the water filled spheres would cool to the same cold temperature of the ground but may take longer to reach the coldest point.

          • gbaikie says:

            So with our Moon, the entire surface covered with fine powderd
            dust. And this dust varies in color but is blacken because it’s oxidized. Most people are familiar with the black and white pictures of it. Here color picture from Apollo:
            https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a15/AS15-96-13085.jpg
            [from orbit]. Here’s Chinese picture, plus included Apollo in color at surface:
            http://www.technology.org/2014/01/20/change-3-lander-beams-back-new-lunar-panorama-photos/
            It’s grayish but has other color. And thing to keep in mind is
            the sunlight is very bright wash out color. Or show business
            under bright light of studio [which extremely dim vs sunlight on earth and more so on the Moon] they use a lot of makeup
            to appear less pale and pasty.
            Anyhow the color doesn’t matter much compare texture of fine dust. And in terms of less than 1/2 cm deep it’s translucent, but also fluffy like powered snow. And if you have about 2 or 3 inches of powdered snow on concrete and walked on it you would get something like the footprints you get on the Moon.
            And under the 2 to 3 inches of this powder, the compacted powder like the surface plus less fine powder. And most of the energy of sunlight does heat much below the thin layer of dust which covers everything which settle over entire surface over a period of million of years, and is made by a bombard of micrometeorites over the eons. Earth’s “shooting stars”, don’t have atmosphere burn up in, and impact the lunar surface instead.
            So guessestimate that say 10 cm per depth of surface could warm up, and the density is 2. So per square meter, 100 cm
            would have mass of 2 tonnes, so 10 cm is 200 kg of material per square meter which can be warmed over days of sunlight.
            The top couple cm warms and cools by 250 K and bottom couple cm has range of 50 K and averages 150 K.
            And say it has .8 KJ per K per kg: 200 times 150 times .8 Kjoules = 24000 KJ or 24,000,000 joules.
            Or if it radiate at 100 watts per square meter it does
            so for .24 million seconds or 2.78 days.
            Now the high heat of lunar surface [120 C] cools by 100 K in about 2 hours. Or the top 2 cm cools in tens of minutes, but 2 cm of the top layer insulate against the lower levels
            from conducting and allowing the top layer from radiating into space.
            Now say you at the equator of the Moon and it’s almost sunset. And one has many hour of cooling the surface because the sunlight at low angle. Or roughly can be equal to 2 hours of no sunlight- the top of surface could be
            about 20 C, but 2 cm under the surface it could be 90 C.
            And it’s going to be like hot coffee put into a thermos.
            And roughly speaking on the morning side of equator, 2 cm under the surface is like hot coffee kept in a thermos for 2 week and then you put it in sunlight. It’s cold coffee.

            Now it get as cold as 100 K, and 100 K radiates 5.67 watts.
            so say 20 watts over 14 days is about 24 million joules lost
            per square meter.
            As for the 2 meter diameter spheres 4 cubic meter of water
            is 4.2 KJ per kg per K. 4000 kg times 4.2 KJ per 1 K is
            is 16,800 KJ or 16.8 million joules per K. And if lowers
            100 K, it total 1680 million joules.
            So 20 watts for 2 week was about 24 million. 200 watts is
            240 million joules. 400 watts is 480 million per square meter. And of course a 2 diameter sphere has far more surface area than 1 meter.

            Now we just put the sphere on the surface- we could also bury them half way under the surface and thereby 1/2 the total surface area of a sphere. But total area of sphere is
            12.57 square meters and we not going to bury them.
            Because it’s easy and more amusing not to bury them.

            Without the spheres buried, roughly half of the surface area doesn’t radiate into space, rather roughly half of it radiate or conduct heat to the lunar surface.

            Lets look at this in more detail. The equator of each sphere is parallel to the level lunar surface [I am defining what is meant by it’s equator]. And it’s north pole is zenith.
            It’s equator is roughly 1 meter above the lunar surface.
            So from a point anywhere along the equator, IR light will radiate in a random direction. Or it’s like a lightbulb 1 meter above the lunar surface or I guess it’s better if lightbulb attached to the sphere at the equator, and some of the light head off to space and some going light the lunar surface.

            Now take a flat and level table, line up your eyes to see across the top of the table, do you only see the sky?
            If you are on top of a hill, then yes, maybe. But if you are not on a complete flat area and not on hill, then no.
            Or one could say the highest region is not common. And if look along below the table [unless you one a hill] you will not see the sky.
            So general rule sphere aren’t put on the summit of hills- they could roll off anyhow:).
            Now as you move more north of equator on sees more and more sky, and as you move south one has less chance to see the sky. Of could another aspect if say in football field area- or 5000 square meter area, there is about 1000 other spheres. And if look across a 1 meter table the people are going to block the horizon- and under table will blocked with many legs.
            Now if look from north pole, then all you see is sky. Even if halfway between pole, it’s a lot sky, but 45 degree to pole part of sphere is only about 1/4 of surface area of the sphere.
            So roughly 3 square meters will radiate into space and also about 3 square meter will also receive the vast majority of the sunlight.
            Now a rather interesting aspect of this is that the spheres are not going to cause a net loss of heat to the lunar surface. It’s pretty easy to see the sphere are not going to cause the average night time temperature or under the skin surface temperature to lose heat, but it also not going to lower the highest surface temperature- or shaded ground will be heated from the sphere via conduction from hot sphere.
            Also it does not matter much what color the sphere are- and reflective sphere might make the higher daytime temperature of the lunar ground hotter.
            So, 400 watts is 480 million per square meter. And times 3 is 1440 million joules lost.
            So roughly about 10 to 15 C temperature at night for half the moon, or roughly a higher average temperature as compared to Earth.

          • Doug Cotton says:

            303 watts averaged for Moon – more like a quarter of 1368W/m^2 solar constant, less a small percentage for surface reflection, say 6%, gives 322W/m^2

            NASA figures: 168W/m^2 averaged for solar flux reaching Earth’s surface – you forgot to deduct absorption by atmosphere. This is about 52% of the above 321W/m^2.

            A typical energy diagram is at the foot of this page.

          • gbaikie says:

            – Norman says:
            August 10, 2015 at 5:29 PM

            gbaikie

            I could be wrong in your answering your question of how cold would spheres filled with water get on the dark side of the moon.

            I would think it would be the same only the inertia with water vs the rock might make the curves of temperature change more gradual.–

            Yes, one could also use spherical rocks- it’s a lot of work to round the rocks and they don’t work as well.
            The specific heat of water is about 4.18 KJ per kg depending a little bit on temperature. Or ice is about 2 KJ per kg- again depending on how cold it is.
            Granite is 790 joules per kg, but because it’s denser- it’s
            density is 2.6 – 2.8 per kg and water is 1.
            http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/density-solids-d_1265.html
            We times 790 joules by say 2.7 to equal same volume as water. So it’s 2.13 KJ per volume compared to water of 4.18
            or granite about same a ice.
            Of course it requires a enormous amount heat loss to make ice from water, or 334 kJ/kg:
            http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/water-thermal-properties-d_162.html
            But ice expanse and don’t want to the sphere become ice or they destroy the container of copper.
            Copper other than being a good conductor of heat also has high specific heat per volume comparison, it’s only 385 joule per kg, but density is 8.79. And time 385 is
            3.384 KJ in terms heat comparison to volume water at 4.18 KJ.
            So solid copper which was 2 meter diameter sphere is close
            to water and rock [depending on rock] is about 1/2 the time
            to cool, or water/copper emits twice the watts with an equal drop in temperature with equal volumes [and same surface area].

          • gbaikie says:

            — Doug Cotton says:
            August 10, 2015 at 6:58 PM

            303 watts averaged for Moon more like a quarter of 1368W/m^2 solar constant, less a small percentage for surface reflection, say 6%, gives 322W/m^2

            NASA figures: 168W/m^2 averaged for solar flux reaching Earths surface you forgot to deduct absorption by atmosphere. This is about 52% of the above 321W/m^2.

            A typical energy diagram is at the foot of this page.–

            Well according to that diagram, 198W/m^2 of solar flux reaches the surface and 30W/m^2 is reflected, and 168W/m^2
            is absorbed by the surface.
            And before reaching the surface 67W/m^2 is absorbed by the atmosphere.

            So, you saying you don’t want in include the 67W/m^2 as part of the solar flux which heats the earth surface.

            I myself have said on numerous occasion that Earth is very poor place to harvest solar energy. And I said a couple times that if not for the dust problem on Mars, that Mars would be better planetary surface to harvest solar energy, as compared to the earth surface. and at mars distance it’s about 40% of solar flux as Earth.
            Mars without dust, does have cloud reflecting, and atmosphere doesn’t absorb or scatter the light.
            Or average Mars and average earth, and without the dust, Mars is better than earth. Also poleward and in the Sumner period one get longer hours- or polar region get 1/2 a Mars’ year of constant sunlight. So better because it can be anywhere and some places are particular good for specific types of purposes.
            But Earth sunlight is more intense than Mars [obviously] but normally it’s only good for about 6 hours per day- whereas on Mars it’s more like 10 to 11 hours per day- more consistent levels of power through out the day, a longer period of getting energy- though weaker than the 6 hours on Earth on cloudless day and in better locations on Earth.

            And better locations on Earth are locations without many cloudy days, and below 40 degree latitude- so most of Europe is not such a better location, nor Japan, about 1/2 the US, and no region of Canada. And then you have consider
            how cloudy it usually is. If you between 40 degree north and south and are in a desert type region then that could be a good location. But not a lot people in the world live in desert locations.
            And the Moon for harvesting solar power one can get about twice as much solar energy anywhere on the moon as better places on Earth and about 8 times more than Germany.

            But this not because sunlight is twice as intense- it’s about 30% more intense, but like Mars one harvest the solar energy with consistent intensity for 1/2 of the day on average, compared to about 1/4 of a day on average with Earth.
            Or Earth’s thick atmosphere and it’s clouds make it a poor place to harvest solar energy.

            But solar collector can’t harvest the energy of sunlight if it’s *very* diffused [though apparently they can harvest indirect sunlight [or less diffused sunlight], but the ocean can be warmed by diffused SW sunlight.
            And roughly of the 168 watts on average absorbed, I would say about 80% is absorbed by the Earth’s ocean. And I believe a portion of what counted as being absorbed by the atmosphere [67W/m^2] is being absorbed by the ocean.
            Or generally speaking I don’t think the total amount absorbed by the ocean is being accurately measured.

            But anyhow, the sunlight is intense enough in large regions of Earth, to heat the ground to about 70 C, and the intensity of sunlight at Mars distance can only heat the ground to about + 20 C.

            Or if in Alaska, during winter, and it’s clear skies and at noon with sun low on horizon and it’s -40 C, the sunlight is not heating the surface much {and reason not even colder is because it’s being warmed from the regions closer to equator].
            So I think a lot of energy of the sun is warming the earth surface in tropics and more poleward near season of summer but more than 1/2 of other part of the world does not have enough direct warming of the surface by the sunlight to cause it to be as warm as it is on average.
            So the averaging of sunlight with night time, and polar region in 6 months of darkness, winter days with short hours of sunlight and very weak sunlight reaching the surface, to regions which get more intense sunlight gives the impression that sunlight is weaker than it is, still even tropics don’t get a lot of sunlight as compared to same region of the moon [it’s tropics].
            Or less than 1/2 of the world is warmer greater than 1/2 of the other part of the world. And the Moon does not do this, and that is one reason why the moon has lower average temperature.

          • Doug Cotton says:

            Gbaikie and Roy:

            The solar flux absorbed by the atmosphere does not subsequently become radiation which can raise the surface temperature for the simple and obvious reason that its energy has been converted to thermal energy in the troposphere and above. Once in the form of thermal energy, that energy can be converted back to radiation, BUT the Planck function for that subsequent radiation is not remotely like the Planck function for the Solar radiation. So that 67W/m^2 that you want to add to the 168W/m^2 of direct solar radiation absorbed by the surface cannot be thus added, any more than any of the 324W/m^2 of radiation from the colder atmosphere can be added.

            But even if you did incorrectly add not just 67W/m^2 but all the 324W/m^2 then you are doing what the IPCC & Co claim you can do to assume the net 390W/m^2 (after non-radiative heat losses) is causing the mean temperature to be 15C. But it simply could not do so, because of the T^4 relationship in S-B.

            This is continued here …

            https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL-TXYe4rJp0xmbBh51AD8jptu34LAJc-b

          • gbaikie says:

            — Doug Cotton says:
            August 12, 2015 at 6:42 AM

            Gbaikie and Roy:

            The solar flux absorbed by the atmosphere does not subsequently become radiation which can raise the surface temperature for the simple and obvious reason that its energy has been converted to thermal energy in the troposphere and above. —

            How do you know it’s not re-radiated.

            Now if some part of the solar flux by droplets of water, some of the solar energy could go towards warming the water droplet and the water droplet then could emit the energy of the shortwave sunlight as Longwave IR.

            But if think that H20 gas absorbs most of the SW, then the H20 gas should emit the same wavelength as it absorbed- whether one one to call this emit or re-radiate it’s SW.
            And if SW, it’s like reflecting or scattering sunlight.

            So if sunlight is absorbed, what is absorbing it, and what wavelength is it radiating.

            Or cloud reflect sunlight, but everything we know of which reflects light also absorbs light. And it seems if clouds are absorbing light, the neat the gas around them via convection.
            And if gas is heated at elevation [by convection with warmed water droplets] it warm gas at lower elevation via kinetic energy transfer of gas molecules.

            So it seems one is going to warm the air, or if SW is re-radiate/emitted it will be transparent to the ocean and will warm depths of the ocean.

          • gbaikie says:

            –Once in the form of thermal energy, that energy can be converted back to radiation, BUT the Planck function for that subsequent radiation is not remotely like the Planck function for the Solar radiation. —
            Of course.

            –So that 67W/m^2 that you want to add to the 168W/m^2 of direct solar radiation absorbed by the surface cannot be thus added, any more than any of the 324W/m^2 of radiation from the colder atmosphere can be added.–
            Except CO2 absorbs Longwave IR and H20 absorbs SW and therefore can emit SW, just like CO2 can emit the same wavelength it absorbs.
            And I don’t want the add 67W/m^2 to 168W/m^2- I was saying they probably didn’t measure some portion this scattered SW.
            And of course they completely not even considering the air warmed at elevation can result warmer air at lower elevation. Either way it’s not being accounted for.

            –But even if you did incorrectly add not just 67W/m^2 but all the 324W/m^2 then you are doing what the IPCC & Co claim you can do to assume the net 390W/m^2 (after non-radiative heat losses) is causing the mean temperature to be 15C. But it simply could not do so, because of the T^4 relationship in S-B.–

            In case you missed it in my long post- I agree that Earth is poor place to harvest solar energy- even the best locations on the earth Surface.
            Or earth is poor place to harvest energy energy for number of reasons, but one reason is on average there little direct and indirect sunlight which solar panel or other device to collect solar energy can harvest.
            Or even if everyone lived in the tropics, and there were not clouds, one’s average solar flux one can harvest is less than 1/2 of the Moon [and because you point at the sun- as compared to anywhere on the Moon. Or only slightly better than Mars with all it’s Mars global dust storms, etc.
            Though above 40 latitude on Earth, Earth gets less solar energy than the dusty Mars.

          • Doug Cotton says:

            “How do you know its not re-radiated.”

            Some of the energy will be re-radiated of course.

            But, gbaikie, you cannot assume “H20 absorbs SW and therefore can emit SW”

            To emit SW the temperature would have to be way higher. Likewise the Earth’s surface can absorb visible light (especially in the ocean) but it does not emit visible light in general. It will reflect it of course, but, apart from a few glow worms, it won’t emit much SW.

          • gbaikie says:

            — Doug Cotton says:
            August 15, 2015 at 12:35 AM

            How do you know its not re-radiated.

            Some of the energy will be re-radiated of course.–

            Some is more than a couple or a maybe a few.

            –But, gbaikie, you cannot assume H20 absorbs SW and therefore can emit SW–

            With gases, I believe I can.

            –To emit SW the temperature would have to be way higher. Likewise the Earths surface can absorb visible light (especially in the ocean) but it does not emit visible light in general. It will reflect it of course, but, apart from a few glow worms, it wont emit much SW.–

            The earth surface is liquids and solids. Liquid, solids, and plasma emits according to a blackbody spectrum. Gases don’t emit in accordance to a blackbody spectrum.
            Liquid, solids, and plasma have molecular structure [Plasma is kind of odd, but nevertheless it’s a structure bonded together]

      • Doug Cotton says:

        No, inter-molecular radiation by carbon dioxide on Venus has already lowered the magnitude of the temperature gradient (and thus cooled the Venus surface) so I doubt that 1% of water vapor would make a huge difference after that, but it may lead to slight additional cooling.

  43. Doug Cotton says:

    QUESTION FOR YOU ROY

    Given that back radiation slows that portion of the cooling of the surface which is by radiation, but does not raise the surface temperature by supplying it with thermal energy from a colder source, how do you calculate a mean surface temperature

    (a) for a flat disc receiving the mean solar flux continuously?

    (b) for the rotating, spherical Earth receiving the same mean flux but very different flux in different regions?

    http://youtu.be/QtXwN10qnLw

  44. Norman says:

    geran,

    You state you do not agree with the GHE.

    Questions: Does Carbon Dioxide gas absorb and emit certain frequencies of the IR spectrum?

    What direction does the emitted radiation go? Up? Down? Any direction?

    If some of the energy (IR emitted) returns to the source what is the effect upon that source?

    • geran says:

      Norm, this is not the norm!

      Where are the “attempted insults”? Where are the pontifications?
      You always wanted to claim you were the “science guy”. You always wanted to “teach” me.

      You proclaimed I did not know science.

      Now, you are asking ME questions?

      Don’t tell me you are giving up your position as “climate clown”.

      You will be missed….

    • geran says:

      Norm, not behaving normal, poses the following:

      Question: Does Carbon Dioxide gas absorb and emit certain frequencies of the IR spectrum?

      Answer: Norm, your dead cat emits IR.

      Question: What direction does the emitted radiation go? Up? Down? Any direction?

      Answer: Ask your dead cat.

      Question: If some of the energy (IR emitted) returns to the source what is the effect upon that source?

      Answer: Your dead cat will come back to life and scratch your face off. Be very afraid….

      Any more questions?

      • Norman says:

        geran,

        I believe you think yourself as a funny guy with this outstanding gift for humor.

        So what does your use of “dead cat” explain science in any way or fashion. Maybe you have fans that think your humor is the best but it really does not fit any debate or science.

        So what are your answers to the questions? I did not ask about cats now can you answer the questions? Just wanting to know where your mind is at. It is an investigation. I already get that you are a comedian. Now I would like to know if you have any science in you. I guess this might upset your many fans out there if you actually debate in a rational scientific way.

        So will you answer the questions or not? It is your choice. If the need for comedy is your primary drive I suppose we will not have any real answers.

        • geran says:

          norm, you are only here for comedic entertainment.

          Please give us more “rambling pseudoscience” and “attempted insults”.

          That’s what we expect from you.

          • Norman says:

            geran,

            Does that mean you will not or cannot answer my questions in scientific way?

            Who are the “we” in your statement: “Please give us more rambling pseudoscience and attempted insults.

            Thats what we expect from you.”

            I have not seen anyone jumping in to defend your posts or agree with you on any physics points. Where are all your followers?

            So you will admit sometime you do not understand physics. You post on various blogs for entertainment value. I do like some of your jokes and we all need to lighten up a bit. But humor is only a cover for lack of knowledge in your case. I hope you continue to make us laugh and amuse the posters. I hope you don’t go away. I guess these series of posts are amusing to some and I hope they got a good laugh from them.

          • geran says:

            normie, how about this? Let’s exchange questions. You answer mine, and I’ll answer yours.

            I’ll start.

            1) Do you live with your parents?

          • Norman says:

            geran,

            More humor from the wild and crazy guy!

            No I do not live with my parents. My mother died a couple years ago. I am married with two children. One in college the other in high school. So now the ball is in your court.

            Will you answer my questions or pass?

          • geran says:

            It does not compute.

      • Norman says:

        geran,

        You make claims and statements. I am a “clown” in your view. I peddle pseudoscience by the bucketful (even though all the physics I state I support with links).

        You have had your fun, now time for reality. Since you are making statements about my understanding of physics why don’t you impress your followers with some real physics, some links anything instead of just calling people clowns or throwing out pseudoscience to cover your own lack of knowledge on the subject.

        Since you won’t answer the questions it is obvious you are the clown you accuse others of being. You are not here to discuss science or increase your knowledge. You are here to pretend you know something and try to stir people up. Why is this such a valuable thing to do for you? When I want humor or comedy I might look at a funny You-Tube video. I am sure there are several comedy blogs for you to post on and amuse people. Why do you come on a science blog and add zero science to your posts and degrade people you can’t possibly understand since you have no ability to grasp the content of their words.

  45. Doug Cotton says:

    Roy and others:

    There’s a second 20 minute video uploading now which should be available in about 9 hours. The first has had over 100 views in its first 24 hours. That wraps it up, with explanations of sub-surface planetary temperatures as well.

  46. Doug Cotton says:

    There you go, Roy … it’s all sewn up and watertight …

    https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL-TXYe4rJp0xmbBh51AD8jptu34LAJc-b

  47. Norman says:

    geran,

    Another question. Since you are an internet Troll in the classic sense (have no contribution to the blog just trying to stir people up emotionally so they fire of some insult that turns you on). Why do you trolls do it? I am wondering what is the motivation to trolling. I have been accused of being a troll on Skeptical Science for questioning their views (not by calling them clowns or the science pseudoscience) you are a real troll.

    If you have a chance let me know what drives you. When I see it on other sites I will have some understanding of the motivations since currently I really do not know why people have this need or desire to troll internet sites.

    Thanks if you let me know. Curious and interested in the mind of a troll.

  48. geran says:

    Norman, I get paid big bucks to drive pseudoscientists crazy. In your case, I’ll be getting an extra bonus.

  49. Norman says:

    geran,

    Sorry to disappoint you. You do not drive me crazy nor are my posts pseudoscience (again who are the “we” in all wee need do is read your comments). I am wondering if you can help me understand the motivations of an internet troll. Will you be generous and explain what your motivation to troll is? I can continue to interact with you if you like or it amuses you on some level. I know talking physics or climate science with you is a pointless task since you really do not care about this topic at all. Happy trolling. To each his own. Live well and have a nice day.

  50. geran says:

    Okay, Norm, until next time. Be studying up on your pseudoscience.

    Don’t let that pesky back-radiation not keep you from not cooling not more than not!

  51. Norman says:

    geran,

    I have to give a “like” to your last sentence, that was funny and good with the multiples of double negatives. Thanks for the humor.

  52. Doug Cotton says:

    This is where Roy, Ball4 and others get it wrong and can’t answer the question below:

    In common with many “scientists” churned out by the university sausage machines these days, they carry around equations and formulas in their heads, but completely forget, or never did understand, the assumptions and prerequisites for computations based on such to be applicable.

    The Second Law of Thermodynamics (well explained at http://entropylaw.com) is about maximum entropy production, which is equivalent to the autonomous dissipation of (unbalanced) energy potentials.

    The word “energy” refers to all forms of internal energy including that which changes due to phase change and chemical reactions, electron energy that changes as photons are absorbed or emitted, molecular kinetic energy (the only energy related to temperature) and molecular gravitational potential energy.

    I cited Wikipedia’s explanation as to why gravitational potential energy changes are ignored for a small “engine” but they cannot be ignored over the height of a planet’s troposphere.

    So the question you should try to answer (and my videos will help) is along these lines …

    Consider an “ideal” region between two given altitudes in a planet’s troposphere, perhaps like the nominal troposphere of Uranus. Ignore any inter-molecular radiation (eg between a few methane molecules on Uranus) and assume no solar radiation reaches the region and that there is no surface at the base. Now, we know that pressure is proportional to the product of temperature and density, and so any variation in pressure is merely a result of changes in temperature and/or density. The question is: How would you explain and quantify, using the Second Law of Thermodynamics, the evolving of a stable density gradient (varying with altitude) and any temperature gradient?

    • Doug Cotton says:

      You see Roy neither you nor Ball4 can answer the question in the last sentence above. I have done so, and the answering of such represents the major 21st century breakthrough in our understanding of atmospheric physics because, until you come to grips with the fact that the Second Law of Thermodynamics is not just about temperatures, but about total energy potentials, including gravitational potential energy – and thus about density gradients as well – then, until you really understand this, you do not understand why the Earth’s surface temperature is what it is, or how it gets the required energy. Nor do you understand why the core of the Moon is still so hot, nor a host of other observations, even the radial temperature gradient in a vortex tube, which I was the first in the world to explain and quantify in Wikipedia Talk pages.

      If you genuinely want to learn, Roy, and defeat the hoax, then watch these videos and ask me any questions. I will give you the answers and valid physics you need for your next TV interview. You are now getting this publicity – use it effectively with the truth, not half baked “lukewarm” stuff.

      And, by the way, your little experiment just confirms I was right way back in 2012 in my paper which clearly stated and explained how and why radiation from the atmosphere slows the rate of radiative cooling of the surface. How ironic that Ball4 thinks it proves me wrong!

  53. Doug Cotton says:

    TO ALL READERS:

    Unless and until you can answer the above question, you have no correct understanding of atmospheric physics, or why planets’ surface temperatures are what they are. Until your understanding of the Second Law of Thermodynamics and the associated maximum entropy production is correct, then you will have no idea as to why, for example, the density gradient is stable, or whether or not we should expect a temperature gradient forming simultaneously with a density gradient, and likewise becoming stable when maximum entropy is attained in an “ideal” troposphere. Visit here to learn about this 21st century advance in our understanding of these matters.

  54. Doug Cotton says:

    The Sun’s radiation would have to be twenty times as strong for it to be able to raise the mean surface temperature of Earth to the observed values.

    The calculations are in this comment, and so we can deduce that Roy’s “experiment” (proving, quite correctly, that radiation from a cold atmosphere can slow that portion of the the cooling of a warmer surface which is by radiation) is totally irrelevant, because it is not radiation into the surface which sets the temperature in the first place. What does is explained here and that correct physics clearly refutes the radiative greenhouse hoax. Only those without a correct understanding of entropy maximization fall for the AGW fictitious fiddled fissics.

    Yes it is the Sun’s energy which maintains the temperatures in the atmospheres, surfaces, mantles and cores of all planets and satellite moons in our Solar System, but the required energy is not supplied by radiation striking any surface.

  55. Alicia says:

    Great job, Dr. Spencer! You got essential points said in what amounted to almost no time allotted for them.

    And frankly, your personality works fine on television. I hope to see more appearances like this.

  56. Doug Cotton says:

    Roy

    If you want correct material for your next TV appearance, spend the time listening to my video presentation because that brings it all together, refuting the greenhouse garbage and explaining with valid physics what really happens.

    The $5,000 reward is still on offer based on the requirements outlined in a comment yesterday. If you were to post an article on this Roy it would get over 3,000 comments I bet.

    Doug

  57. Aaron O says:

    Dr. Roy –

    Thanks for doing what your are doing. It’s probably not easy holding the views you have while being in the limelight. I appreciate the effort and work you put into all this.