Thursday, July 17, 2014
Steven Goddard has a post "categorizing idiot clans" and listing them, to which one commenter added, "I see a missing category, the geran category: Populated by mean, vicious little SOBs (a technical term, I assure you) who limit their knowledge of thermal energy transfer to simple concepts of gaseous convection and the ideal gas law and nothing whatsoever involving radiative energy transfer …". My response follows:
That's probably because the only globally effective (i.e., not localized and transient) radiative energy transfer is from direct solar to atmosphere and to ground (yes, the two separately warmed directly by the Sun, basically) and none from ground to atmosphere (although there is radiative energy transfer from the ground THROUGH the atmosphere, to space), as the comparison of temperatures in the atmospheres of Earth and Venus makes clear (for those with eyes to see--and such are few in this time of general obedience to patently incompetent consensus theories). "Skeptics" who believe in the consensus radiation transfer theory as applied in climate science--which assumes a huge loop of radiative energy between atmosphere and ground, greater than the mean incident solar radiation of 342 W/m^2, and due solely to assuming the ground radiates 390 W/m^2, as much as a blackbody, in a vacuum,at the same temperature as the ground--are unwitting fellow travellers of the "idiots" being considered by Steven Goddard in his post. The lesson of Venus/Earth, in the present context, is that thermal energy transfer--which is the real problem in climate science--encompasses radiative transfer, but radiative transfer--which is the false consensus theory--does not encompass thermal energy transfer (it takes also conductive--don't dismiss that, skeptics--and convective transfer to do that).
Monday, June 16, 2014
Jo Nova has a series of posts on the apparent discovery of a "notch filter" mechanism in the Earth's climate system, that doesn't do anything positive, but only negates, quite improbably, an "expected" dependence of the global mean surface temperature on the total solar irradiation (TSI). I submitted the following:
It is just too pat (i.e., characterized by a highly improbable "coincidence"): You find the temperature doesn't follow the 11-year solar cycle of TSI; now you find that something (apparently, the Sun's magnetic field) is cancelling that "expected" following--with an improbable, 11-year delay, just the same period as the solar cycle--so there is no 11-year cycle in the (global mean surface) temperature (GMST). Considered logically, without regard for any existing theories or common assumptions, by far the simplest, and therefore most probable reason for this "dog that doesn't bark" is that the expectation of a GMST dependence upon TSI is wrong (the dog doesn't bark because there is no dog, or nothing for the dog to bark at, after all).
Everybody wants to ignore the definitive Venus/Earth temperatures comparison I performed in late 2010, and what it indicates for the correction of climate science. Above all, in the present context, it indicates that the troposphere is fundamentally warmed--globally(!)--to the Standard Atmosphere profile (which represents the real, equilibrium vertical profile of the atmosphere, as the Venus/Earth comparison quantitatively and precisely demonstrates), by direct absorption of incident solar radiation, not by heat from the separately warmed surface. But of course that does not mean the TSI, which includes the major portion that warms the surface; it means just that incident portion (obviously in the infrared) which is directly absorbed by the troposphere! Climate and other atmospheric scientists need to identify that portion; I expect it will be found that it simply does not vary according to the 11-year solar cycle.
Friday, May 30, 2014
Steven Goddard has a post on "A Dark Age of Degeneracy", speaking about the state of the Democratic party in the U.S. now. This is no news to me, as I have been referring to them as "The Insane Left" for most of Obama's presidency, certainly since the passage of "Obamacare" in early 2010. But the degeneracy is not limited to politics, nor to recent years. My response to Goddard's post follows:
If you "believe" in undirected (Darwinian) evolution (evolution by "natural selection" of random mutations--the "greenhouse effect" of biological science--which is the consensus theory and the underlying paradigm for all the physical sciences today, particularly the earth and life sciences), you are upholding the major basis for the degeneracy, and you are part of the problem. Just as Obama is the revenge for Bush Jr. (ever hear of the saying, "out of the frying pan, into the fire"?), evolution was accepted into science, and increasingly defended to this day, as revenge for the coercive dogmas of religion (or the very idea of "God", widely misunderstood throughout history as coercive, when it is merely the design of the world which is coercive, just as the design of a car, or anything made by man, is coercive of the things you can do with it). Science went wrong when it thought it could oust the old religious superstitions and magical beliefs with Darwin's amateurish but detailedly argued theory, which simply ignored the logical implications of the designs (often amazingly obvious) he saw in the natural world--and scientists have been on an ever-increasing romp down the slippery slope of unfettered, incompetent imagination ever since, only claiming whenever the need arises that, "anything can happen, given enough time" (such as a runaway global climate, in the present go-round). The future will look back on this and the last 155 years (since Darwin's "Origin of Species") with shame (and it will be abject shame, indeed, before it is through, if we are led to World War for a third time, or if the U.S.A. becomes just another state overly coercive of its citizens, because as I, and so many others, have warned over and over, we, and especially the "leaders", have not learned from our past mistakes--we, taken altogether, are not "evolving", which in reality only means ever more learning, without forgetting--without degenerating).
Saturday, May 17, 2014
The WUWT site has a post on alarmist "pseudoscientists' claims debunked", containing a statement that I find absolutely incompetent, and to which I respond here:
"Let us be as precise as They are vague. The existence of the greenhouse effect is definitively established both in theory and in experiment and needs no 'consensus' to prop it up."
You call that precise? The "greenhouse effect" touted to the world's citizens is this, and this alone: The global mean atmospheric temperature at the Earth's surface (or at any given pressure level) supposedly increases with an increase in the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide. I have presented the definitive evidence against this "greenhouse effect", 3 and 1/2 years ago, now--so stop trying to "prop it up" with the claim that carbon dioxide gas absorbs infrared radiation (at wavelengths in the range emitted by the Earth's surface)--no one denies that--and then calmly but irrationally claiming that there must then be SOME global warming with increasing carbon dioxide, despite the definitive fact (which you all have kept yourselves determinedly blind to) that the Venus/Earth comparison shows there is NO SUCH WARMING WITH INCREASING ATMOSPHERIC CARBON DIOXIDE, ALL THE WAY FROM 0.04% (Earth) to 96.5% (Venus). Unless and until greenhouse effect believers can show, using the consensus theory, that the Venus/Earth temperature ratio MUST BE--coincidentally--just what I showed it to be, and yet just what it must be if only the distance from the Sun matters in the comparison of these two planetary atmospheres (at points of equal pressure, over the range of Earth tropospheric pressures), you are all being, not merely imprecise, but incompetent in ignoring the results of comparing those two real, detailed planetary atmospheres--the largest and most definitive experimental result in all of climate and atmospheric science. You can't just say it's a "coincidence", you have to show how the consensus theory predicts precisely that temperature ratio, while taking account of all the supposed effects that consensus theory says must affect the temperature (including the great differences in albedo and cloud cover, mass of the planetary atmosphere, and state of the planetary surface)--YOU HAVE TO SHOW HOW CONSENSUS THEORY PREDICTS THE OBSERVED FACT, THAT ALL THOSE OTHER SUPPOSED EFFECTS ADD UP TO PRECISELY(!) ZERO, FOR VENUS AND EARTH, AND ONLY THE DIFFERENCE IN DISTANCE FROM THE SUN MATTERS IN THE FINAL, DEFINITIVE RESULT. UNTIL YOU DO, YOU HAVE NO EXCUSE FOR CLAIMING "THERE IS A GREENHOUSE EFFECT" at all. Until you do, there is no valid climate science, and no competent climate scientists, whether alarmist or lukewarm believers in the consensus "greenhouse effect".
Saturday, May 3, 2014
Steven Goddard has a post, "My 35th Year as a Global Warming True Believer". My response is the following:
"Global warming" hype is just the latest step in a creeping degeneracy of science--particularly in the earth and life sciences--that has been going on since long before I was born. As a physicist, I am astounded by the poor quality of introductory university physics texts being written today, and can only hope undergraduates are encouraged to study earlier, classic texts, from the first half of the 20th century. In fact, I consider it imperative not to embrace any current theory, but to inform myself of the entire field, going as far back as needed to get to the origins of those theories, when everyone still KNEW they were just a certain set of assumptions and makeshift hypotheses.
I know, as no other scientist on Earth does, that the current scientific paradigm, of uniformitarian, undirected "evolution" of all that we observe on Earth, is wrong, and has failed. I watched--and offered my two cents, over and over, in letters to the editor--as the steamroller of Darwinian evolution (theory, NOT fact) has put down all honest criticisms, over my adult lifespan (and of course, long before). More than 30 years ago, I had already concluded that the main failing of today's scientists was their inability to handle basic probabilities, and thus to govern their imaginations, and especially to rigorously match the strength--not to mention the kind--of their proposed causes to the strength--and kind--of the observable effects (0.04% CO2 as the "control knob" of global mean temperature, for example--or, Steven, "salinity differences" driving the Gulf Stream).
"Climate science" today (and every other field of science tied to troubled and failing theory) is just a massive and absurd waste of my time, not to mention the aggregate time being devoted to it by everyone else in the world. That the science community and the world should be so deluded as to take it seriously, much less let it run amuck in the political world, is insane. I dismissed the "greenhouse gas" scientists 20 years ago, when I encountered them in passing at atmospheric science conferences, and I have only had my attention called to the "global warming" world agenda since late 2009, barely two months before the climategate e-mails broke. Within a year, I had identified the most basic errors in the consensus theory, learned of the actual governance of global mean temperature by the hydrostatic vertical temperature lapse rate, and definitively confirmed it and the stable Standard Atmosphere model that assumes and rigorously quantifies it, in my elementary but (amazingly, insanely) seminal Venus/Earth temperatures comparison (which should have been done by competent scientists over 20 years ago, or even as far back as 1979, when the earliest pertinent Venus data was obtained).
I had no reason to be really surprised by the foolishness of the global "global warming" hysteria, however. I've seen the hysteria build, and the dogma ever emotionally and unscientifically defended and reinforced, over my lifetime, in the evolution debates (which from the first to the last, outlawed the very idea of design in or of the natural world), the continuing introduction and too-quick acceptance of poorly-quantified and hypothesis-multiplying theories (like plate tectonics--separate from provable "continental drift" observations--and Milankovitch theory), and the public adulation heaped upon the glory-hounds in science, intent only upon trumpeting the current consensus, men like Isaac Asimov and Carl Sagan (and most recently, Neil deGrasse Tyson, and Bill Nye). The vehement, dogmatic rejection of "Intelligent Design" in recent years was but a telling prelude, the previous step in the growing religious self-righteousness of science.
I know that I, and I alone as yet, hold open the door to the next scientific paradigm, and to a once-again truly competent modern theoretical science, with my discovery of the world-encompassing design of those who were remembered among ancient man as the "gods", that, ironically and not at all coincidentally, started all of the misbegotten, religiously-held dogma that besets mankind on Earth. The present difficulties are but the tip-most hair on the tail of the runaway dog of basic scientific misconceptions, diligently nurtured through most of the last two centuries.
Monday, March 31, 2014
Steven Goddard has a post on the "Big Lie" of climate alarmism, and says: "Climate change politics is straight out of the worst annals of human history, back to the days of burning witches for cooking the weather. Who could have imagined this would happen in the 21st century?" I submitted the following response:
Yet there are clear antecedents--albeit totally within science, and no political coercion--going all the way back to the inauguration of the current scientific paradigm, of undirected evolution of all that we observe in the world today. The origin of today's climate science tyranny lies in the long years of dogmatic assertion of favored theories as unquestionable fact, with the ever increasing suppression of contrary facts; it is no surprise to me that the process of promulgating scientific dogma as fact finally has spilled over into political abuse, on a worldwide scale (it was science that first made its dogmas sacrosanct, worldwide--literally "throwing the baby out with the bath water" for the last 160 years, in order to demonize any idea connected with, or even falsely imagined to be connected with, religion or a belief in God).
And only my scientific research, into the true origin of all the "ancient mysteries", of ancient religious import, gets to the heart of the fundamental human problem, that has plagued mankind through all of known history. Mine is the greatest discovery in all of history, yet the world is so awash in unreasoning anger and fear, and science so abused as to be just another religion, that I literally have no scientific peers--really competent, and honest, scientists--to turn to (as I have found out over the last 11 years of seeking such).
Thursday, March 6, 2014
I have submitted the following comment to the Steven Goddard site, where the subject of Venus's hot surface is erupting again:
Convection does NOT dominate in the global troposphere, the constant vertical temperature lapse rate (temperature gradient) does; that is the stage upon which weather (and climate) plays its part. Convection just drives the weather (primarily horizontally), it does not create or maintain the vertical lapse rate--the hydrostatic condition does that (and Jerry Gorline needs to understand that his derivation above is even more easily, and effectively, done as: mcΔT= -mgΔx, as provided by the hydrostatic condition). The stable lapse rate means heat rises naturally "down" the temperature gradient--convection would only destabilize such a precise structure, and so cannot dominate, rather that structure dominates, on the global scale (too many--incompetent "experts" and lay citizens alike--in the global warming debate continue to be confused by local and transient effects that have no global effect).
The critical piece of evidence remains (I brought it out in November 2010) that the Venus/Earth tropospheric temperatures comparison shows that essentially the only difference in temperatures in the two atmospheres, at points of equal pressure over the range of Earth tropospheric pressures, is due to the difference in distance from the Sun--and that is a PRECISE quantitative fact above and below the Venus cloud layer (so clouds don't affect the global lapse rate structure either, nor does planetary albedo, at least for Venus and Earth, because that great difference between them also has no effect (obviously, unless you want to try to explain how these various effects DO matter, but add up to PRECISELY zero in the comparison of Venus and Earth). The only explanation for this is that both atmospheres are warmed by direct absorption of incident heat (infrared) energy from the Sun (so, for example, it doesn't matter that they have quite different reflections of VISIBLE light--albedos--or that little light reaches the Venus surface to heat it--atmospheric warming, to the ruling temperature lapse rate structure, has already occurred. So I concur with Jason Calley, that the astronomers are not experts--or really, all that competent--in their attempts to understand, and in their claims to fine new discoveries. (Nor do I claim to have all the answers myself. Nor am I as interested in the climate field as are most of those engaging in the unending "debate", which consists of vainly lobbing theoretical points past each others' unheeding heads, in an insane controlling political environment to boot.)