tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-456970430923597281.post6949286955795245321..comments2024-01-04T00:51:23.625-08:00Comments on The Earth and Man: Setting the Stage: The Enchantment of "Settled Science"Harry Dale Huffmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03210275295826050501noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-456970430923597281.post-31775066277595592092012-04-23T10:10:02.622-07:002012-04-23T10:10:02.622-07:00Good Morning, RKS,
I am no more prepared to analy...Good Morning, RKS,<br /><br />I am no more prepared to analyze your calculation properly, nor inclined to take the time to do so, than are Bishop Hill and Tallbloke, and I am man enough to stand up and tell you that, plainly and directly. (So after this response, I will take no further comments on it.) I am sorry. I see no need for making unphysical assumptions, in order to demonstrate the consensus numerically (albeit grossly) wrong, when I know the consensus is really THEORETICALLY wrong, on the most basic level. As a merely competent physicist, my central creed is "keep it simple", so I would just stop you at the beginning, where you wrote "...energy flux at the surface of 390Wm^2 is some 40% greater than insolation of 240Wm^2, and that this is all simply explained by Back Radiation from CO2." <br /><br />You and I both know that the surface cannot be emitting 390 W/m^2, when the only input power, the mean insolation, is only 240 W/m^2, as I pointed out in <a href="http://theendofthemystery.blogspot.com/2010/10/runaway-global-warming-is%20scientific.html" rel="nofollow">"Runaway Global Warming is Scientific Hysteria"</a>. So your (consensus-mimicking) introductory statement is, you and I both know, a gross violation of the conservation of energy. The surface emission and backradiation claimed by the consensus is merely a fictitious free-energy dynamo, a useless loop of power of monstrous proportions, invented only to "delay" heat transfer to space, as a function of the level of CO2, and it should not be taken seriously. (It would have been better if you had calculated absolutely zero backradiation, not just something vanishingly small.) You and I both know that consensus defenders will not admit that there is no backradiation, from the cooler atmosphere to the warmer surface (because there is no 390W/m^2 "blackbody emission" from the surface in the first place); so why would they even bother looking at the calculation you have presented here, and to Bishop Hill and Tallbloke?<br /><br />No, whatever errors of assumption or calculation there may be in your analysis, you are in the end trying too hard to be reasonable using the unreasonable assumptions of the consensus. I suggest a "Million Man March" on Washington, against pseudoscientific climate madness, by level-headed physicists, would be more appropriate.Harry Dale Huffmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03210275295826050501noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-456970430923597281.post-27573944906079594122012-04-23T07:48:11.535-07:002012-04-23T07:48:11.535-07:00I posted the following post on Bishop Hill and Tal...I posted the following post on Bishop Hill and Tallbloke with no response from either.<br /><br />They claim to be sceptical but still discuss radiative transfer as if it had a worthwhile effect on climate.<br /><br />post below:-<br /><br />I had a bad dream last night. I dreamt I was a born again 100% non sceptical warmist zealot tasked with preparing a presentation showing the effect of back radiation from CO2 on Global Warming.<br /><br />I'd start with Trenberth's cartoon showing that energy flux at the surface of 390Wm^2 is some 40% greater than insolation of 240Wm^2, and that this is all simply explained by Back Radiation from CO2.<br /><br />A quick look at the properties of CO2 would show an emissivity of 0.001 [for a presentation I'll call this 0.01] and, being a gas, emitted radiation [stick to Back Radiation] would be in all directions with perhaps at best 10% having any meaningful interaction with the surface.<br /><br />I'd set up the model with 1m^2 of the surface radiating with a flux of 240Wm^2<br /><br />To demonstrate the principle I'd initially assume emissivity of 1 - or better still represent CO2 as a perfect reflector with 100% of Back Radiation directed to the surface.<br /><br />Obviously the reflector must be less than 1m^2 or I'd end up with 480Wm^2 so I'd have to resize it to represent the atmospheric concentration of CO2 of .039% which leaves me with a reflector size of 0.00039m^2.<br /><br />This means a Back Radiation of 0.039% of 240Wm^2, that is 0.0936Wm^2.<br /><br />Multiply that by emissivity of 0.01 and multiply by 10% to allow for the multi direction nature of the 'Back Radiation' and I end up with a total Back radiation of 0.0000936Wm^2 [0.000039%].<br /><br />Bugger!, Where has all my Back Radiation gone?<br /><br />I started out looking for 40% and end up with nowt.RKShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00045176848412070692noreply@blogger.com