21

That CAN'T be true! / Re: Can we conduct a climate model "acid test"?

« on: 05/11/2019 14:59:51 »

Einstein ... in 1919, showed that if a gas was in thermodynamic equilibrium the rate of adsorption by an infrared gas ... was equal to the rate of emission. In other words, if you increase the amount of infrared active gases in the atmosphere you will increase the rate of absorption but at the exact same time you will increase the rate of emission. So if the gas is in thermodynamic equilibrium you won't get a greenhouse effect. It won't store the energy, and what we have shown, by our data, is yes ... the air is in thermodynamic equilibrium. Climate models have decided to ignore Einstein.

Einstein said ... the infrared active gases will aid the transfer of energy from a hot area to a cold area but it won't store the energy

-- Time: 48:38

22

The Environment / Re: What keeps our oceans cold?

« on: 05/11/2019 14:32:31 »

autonomous submersibles show that the water temperatures are warming

Due to the action of sunlight. The so-called greenhouse effect does not heat oceans.
1st. Because greenhouse gas climate warming is pseudoscience. As shown by Connolly's 5 years ago. (papers at "Open Peer Review Journal"). Summarized here.
2nd. Because even if the GHGE was not junk science, down-welling infrared from CO2 15µm band only penetrates mere micrometres into water. It can warm the surface skin. This surface skin readily cools by both of the atmospheric cooling mechanisms - evaporative cooling and black body emission.

So only sunlight warms the oceans. This is mostly absorbed in the top 5 metres. Sunlight penetrates no further than 100m. Ocean bottoms are warmed by nothing apart from tiny geological warming.

Add to that: the lightest water is pushed to the top by convection. The densest, coldest, saltiest sinks.

Nothing makes the oceans cold, apart from cooling. The explanation is: nothing is making oceans warm.

23

That CAN'T be true! / Re: Can we conduct a climate model "acid test"?

« on: 04/11/2019 12:34:40 »

And we can't do the experiment that would really answer the question because that would require us to get  two identical Earths and reduce CO2 emissions in just one of them and see what happens.

So, we are left with modeling the Earth.

Using scientists' preferred models which enable them to tweak for worst case scenarios, AKA climate crisis and catastrophe. Many scientists did just that - proposing models with climate sensitivities as high as 10C.

Meanwhile, away from their armchair modeling, ivory tower musings, and computers, the real behaviour of the mid-atmosphere is now known, and the greenhouse gas effect shown to have no influence or what's really going on.

XR, Al Gore, so-called environment journalists do the real job of scaring little children out of their minds, and sometimes out of their lives. But they are just repeating what climate scientists told them - based on the scientist's made up science and prejudice. We really need to praise climate scientists more for originating this anti-human junk which passes for settled science. They should be given their due for spate of suicides among adolescents.

24

That CAN'T be true! / Re: Can we conduct a climate model "acid test"?

« on: 04/11/2019 10:18:26 »

I proposed the acid test way back. Use the model to back-cast and match it to ice core data, and see if it explains the regular superimposed ripple on the recent Mauna Loa data. You have produced a good test of the validity of underlying assumptions by comparing their predicted tephigram with reality.

Not good enough. To really test a model one needs to try to falsify it, by looking at its all its predictions, under all circumstances. Then comparing model assumptions, projections to reality. Man-made global warming fans never did this. They call people who do it "science deniers".

British science establishment support this demonization of actual skeptical scientists by promoting notion that people interested in testing all aspects of a model are "science deniers".  Beyond mindless leftism, naked careerism, or obsequious conformism, I can't really fathom the motive behind this attitude.

Mauna Loa CO2 atmospheric data has nothing to do with this. If, as we claim, greenhouse gas effect is mere pseudoscience, then it will not matter how much CO2 is in the atmosphere. It is just more plant food.

25

That CAN'T be true! / Re: Can we conduct a climate model "acid test"?

« on: 04/11/2019 10:06:57 »

What do you consider the phrase "equation of state" means?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equation_of_state

Presumably you left that as a comment at their "Open Peer Review Journal" page.  More likely you never watched the video I linked to nor read their demolition of pseudoscience of the greenhouse gas effect.

You are probably still ignorant now regarding the how and why of greenhouse gas pseudoscience <- I guess you just don't care to learn how earth's climate really works?

26

That CAN'T be true! / Re: Can we conduct a climate model "acid test"?

« on: 30/10/2019 23:03:14 »

Immediately after 9/11 there  was an absence of vapor trails over the USA

None of the components I tested was likely to be plated with FeS2

Would you consider changing your name to Naked Science Forum TROLL!, or perhaps Naked Science Forum Red Herring merchant?

I posted this to discuss climate models. Every post you make is designed to derail the thread with pointless red herrings. Please stop acting like a child.

27

That CAN'T be true! / Re: Can we conduct a climate model "acid test"?

« on: 30/10/2019 21:57:20 »

You can find their equations here at the Open Peer Review Journal - where you can submit your peer review of their article.

28

That CAN'T be true! / Re: Can we conduct a climate model "acid test"?

« on: 30/10/2019 19:27:17 »

When radiosonde data (atmospheric balloons), is analysed from the point of view of density, the lower atmosphere can be explained by up to 3 equations of state (only 2 at night & early morning; 3rd one merges into 2nd) corresponding to 3 regions:

• Tropopause/Stratosphere
• Troposphere
• Boundary Layer (water dominated). Nearest surface.

When we compare this reality with the radiative model of Manabe and Strickler, we see one is real. The other is fantasy.


Balloons in the Air: Understanding weather and climate, Dr. Ronan Connolly & Dr. Michael Connolly; CERES.

The moral of this tale is Do not confuse your model of the world with reality - if in doubt - look at the data.

29

That CAN'T be true! / Re: Can we conduct a climate model "acid test"?

« on: 29/10/2019 19:17:21 »

Keatings paper, cited by you, is more speculation. Itself citing speculation in its support. That speculation then cites even more speculation. In my OP I asked,

Then look for the science behind those basic assumptions.

In addition, Keatings speculative paper isn't a key modeling paper; so I don't want to waste time on it; pointing out its assumptions and guesses. I'd much rather ask (again) "What is the science (as opposed to the speculation) behind anthropogenic climate change?"

I should clarify what I mean by science. I mean those things we know for sure as opposed to the things we're guessing (speculating) about. For example: scientific laws. They are laws because we know for sure; as they can be clearly demonstrated, in a replicable way.

30

That CAN'T be true! / Re: Can we conduct a climate model "acid test"?

« on: 29/10/2019 00:28:58 »

I presume that you know  that it has been verified.

You want me to take that on trust and you think you can sell me some gold?  You must think me very gullible. In my OP, I implied I wanted to see the studies you read which convinced you of this. The data. The studies. Can you really not remember a study you read showing what you claim?

Carbon dioxide absorbs IR which "traps" heat.

If so, that can be demonstrated by publishing a scientific study, can't it?  Please cite the study so that we can read it, and see precisely what was measured.

My studies indicate:

CO2 absorbs IR, and emits IR; more or less at the same frequency and intensity.
Absorption and emission vary depending on temperature. Using Planck's Law, one can calculate the equilibrium temperature for CO2 main band (15µm). It is -77.8C. Which is very cold. At, or below, -77.8C CO2 absorbs IR. Above that temperature it emits IR. There are very few places on Earth or in the atmosphere which get that cold. So it looks to me that the equilibrium position (w.r.t. temperature) for this CO2 'absorption band' is to emit. It, no doubt depends on the temperature of the molecule. An energised molecule should emit a photon, taking the activated electron back to a minimal energy orbital. (is that a 'ground state').  No IR photons will be trapped. No trapped heat.

Other people, say that CO2 makes the atmosphere more opaque to IR. Can anyone show me a citation from the people who measured that?

31

That CAN'T be true! / Can we conduct a climate model "acid test"?

« on: 23/10/2019 09:02:23 »

In chemistry the term acid test means a basic test which gives one precise information. A bit like a flame test tells you whether a substance contains calcium, sodium, copper or iron. Hoping you did flame tests at high school, so you know what I'm on about!

I've had much difficulty communicating with the climate faithful (those poor souls who've lost their minds to climate hysteria). Over very basic things. For example, when I talk about basic climate models I mean, for example, the model of Manabe and Wetherald, 1967, or one of Jim Hansen's models. Most of them published in science journals. I don't mean computer code from a General Circulation Model. Because I'm a computer programmer and I know it's senseless to reverse engineer computer code to try to work out the coder's intention.

I going to deal with this ambiguity about what basic climate models mean by proposing the climate model acid test™. It's not really trade marked, you, too, can do it. I will propose to the climate faithful, that we go online, find one of these basic climate models, and we do a textual analysis  looking all basic assumptions and predictions made. Then look for the science behind those basic assumptions. For eample, when they say "more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere makes the atmosphere more opaque to infrared". Let's look for the basic scientific studies showing this. If the climate modeler says: "more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere results in less out-going longwave radiation energy emitted to space", then this too is a clear, simple, assumption which must be verified and quantified by basic experiment. Eventually, by finding all these basic experiments, we can figure out what assumptions, and predictions, made by climate models are rock solid, and which may not be quite right.

The point of the climate model acid test is not to win believers to my side. It is to show naive people how science should be done; how genuine skeptics should think.

32

The Environment / Which scientists say we've just 18 months to "save planet from climate change"?

« on: 29/07/2019 16:18:22 »

BBC Twitter account says we have "12 years to save the planet from climate change? A growing number of scientists say we actually have just 18 months." https://twitter.com/BBC/status/1155795385354510337

From this BBC "fake news" story: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-48964736

Please name those scientists.

For example, does Hans Joachim Schellnhuber actually say anywhere "we've just 18 months to save the planet from climate change".  OK, maybe over a glass of wine in a bar; but surely not in any publication he wrote?

33

The Environment / Re: Is the Greenhouse gas effect (GHGE) basic physics?

« on: 27/03/2019 15:47:29 »

James Hansen's 2011 description of the GHGE clearly says that more CO2, absorbs more outgoing longwave radiation, OLR, so less OLR is emitted to space, leading to an energy imbalance causing climate warming. This is not just a sentence in English. It is core to how climate models work. He is wrong. Over 33 years, since 1985, OLR emitted to space increased. Showing exactly the opposite of the GHGE hypothesis predictions.

So the central climate GHGE model is wrong.

34

The Environment / Re: Is the Greenhouse gas effect (GHGE) basic physics?

« on: 22/02/2019 02:20:30 »

I noticed both replies ignored my 3rd question, which I shall copy in again (because it is short).

What are the magnitudes of surface warming due to downwelling longwave infrared (LWIR) "forcing". Per material, especially, most especially, for water? Because water covers 71% of earth's surface, and LWIR penetrates mere micrometres into water.

Has any experiment ever been done to discover the hypothetical warming of water?  Some scientists told me downwelling LWIR will only produce a warm skin; that much of the heat from that skin goes into latent heat of vapourization, LHV, which evaporates water. So taking energy from the ocean up kilometres into the air by convective cooling. Other scientists say that "downwelling LWIR warms the surface". They do not distinguish types of surface.

Which group of scientists are you with and what is your evidence? You can just cite the paper which observed the effect of, say 2W/m² downwelling LWIR on water. That should be a doddle for you - given the billions in funding spent on climate research over the past 30 years. I've asked other scientists and they just ghost me. It's as if they have no data.

If you, yourself cannot find observations or experiments on the precise warming of water by downwelling LWIR, can you, at least, have the decency to admit it?  Rather than saying: "Do your own research". I have neither the skills nor the equipment to do this.

35

The Environment / Re: Is the Greenhouse gas effect (GHGE) basic physics?

« on: 22/02/2019 02:04:01 »

"there is a decrease in the rate that energy is getting from the surface to the top of the atmosphere"

You did not actually say less OLR was being emitted to space, but you implied it.

The research I've done shows that more OLR is emitted to space today than 33 years ago. Care to explain the paradox?

Please see the attached chart. The source of my image is: Dewitter & Clerbaux; Remote Sensing 2018, 10, 1539; doi:10.3390/rs10101539 It plots 4 OLR sources, 3 fully and 1 partly over the past 33 years. It shows 2W/m² more OLR today than in 1985.

36

The Environment / Is the Greenhouse gas effect (GHGE) basic physics?

« on: 21/02/2019 13:43:46 »

"basic physics" <-- I've been told this often. Here are 3 questions and 1 point asking for the science behind this "basic physics".

1. Is the carbon dioxide (CO2) greenhouse gas effect (GHGE) due to CO2 "trapping" heat?
2. Does GHGE warm earth by emitting less outgoing longwave radiation (OLR) to space?
3. What are the magnitudes of surface warming due to downwelling longwave infrared (LWIR) "forcing". Per material, especially, most especially, for water. Because water covers 71% of earth's surface, and LWIR penetrates mere micrometres into water.

When, where, by whom were observations/experiments done, since 1978, to validate statements made about the GHGE?

My point. Climate scientists measure the temperature of the atmosphere close to the land surface (about 1.5m above the surface).  This is not the same as the actual surface temperature. On a sunny day, the surface is considerably warmer than the air above. At nighttime, the atmosphere above can often be warmer than the surface. Given that the rate of radiative cooling is proportional to the 4th power of temperature, by Stefan-Boltzmann Law, after 30 years of climate alarmism, and upto $100 billion funding for "The Science", why are climate scientists still not measuring the temperature of the surface which they claim to be "warming"?

37

The Environment / Re: Media lies against nuclear power. What can I do to stop it?

« on: 02/10/2018 16:11:07 »

1) The nuclear waste here is all imaginary.

2) If I went on Radio and said "Mr ......, and his friends are child rapists and ISIS supporters, something should be done about it". How long before they kick me off. Quite right too. We do not want racists, psychopaths, vigilantes on the radio.  OK lets tone that down. Suppose I go on radio merely inciting shop-lifting or burglary. Will the interviewer continue to give me a voice after I incite? No.

Yet this interviewee was boasting of how he will support criminal behaviour to stop nuclear waste which does not exist. You seem to support his point of view. Should we really act according to what we believe rather than what's true? If that is not practical epistemological relativism, then what is?

Once a person can invoke speculative evidence to support their criminal actions, all bets are off for something we can call society.

38

The Environment / Re: Media lies against nuclear power. What can I do to stop it?

« on: 02/10/2018 13:18:39 »

It's depressing to read so-called scientists defend epistemological relativism, the speculative fallacy, and sloppy journalism.

I guess you are either sloppy thinkers, 6th-form smart alecs, or loony greens. You are certainly not responsible people.

39

The Environment / Re: Media lies against nuclear power. What can I do to stop it?

« on: 02/10/2018 12:22:20 »

Plutonium is an unnatural element because the longest lived isotope has a half-life too short to have survived these past 4.3 billion years since earth was created.  Unnatural plutonium is made inside nuclear reactors. Inside fuel assembies, inside a reactor, covered by a containment dome. It can only escape via a major accident. There have not been any major accidents there.

So it is impossible for the mud to contain any plutonium particles. In much the same way it is impossible for my front garden to contain any plutonium particles.  Because this stuff is regulated in the most severe manner. There are no reprocessing plants there. No way any fuel can go astray.

My expertise on nuclear power far out-weights yours and all of your anti-nuke green friends.  Because I've studied the subject.

40

The Environment / Media lies against nuclear power. What can I do to stop it?

« on: 02/10/2018 10:50:07 »

I heard BBC UK national radio allowing an interviewee to tell lies about nuclear power today. If they were interviewing me, and I told a whopper I'd be cut off straight away with no retort nor explanation But this green campaigner was not even challenged on the false statement he made.  He implied that nuclear waste containing plutonium is being dumped off the coast of Wales.  At GMT: 8:54" 20', he said "This mud could have plutonium particles". On UK National Radio (BBC Radio 4 Today). Our premier news & politics radio show.

BBC Radio 4. Presented by Martha Kearney & Michelle Hussain. Listen to last 10 minutes of show here :

At the very least it demands a complaint to the media regulator, BBC regulator, my MP, ...

This is a typical green ploy. They make something up. Tell it to the media. Then they quote the lie reported to their followers as evidence that plutonium is being dumped off the coast of Wales. The interviewing journalists are but stooges; too ignorant to know that it is impossible for that mud to contain any plutonium.