Tuesday, February 21, 2012

Incompetent Skeptics III: Roy Spencer, PhD

I have made the following comment on Roy Spencer's web site, concerning his defense of the greenhouse effect.

Roy Spencer wrote: "
...the cooler object (the atmosphere) keeps the warmer object (the ground) warmer than if the atmosphere was not there. That’s the (so-called) greenhouse effect."

Two points of simple fact, no three:

1) That is NOT the greenhouse effect that the IPCC and all of our suborned institutions are foisting upon the public. The greenhouse effect is an increase in atmospheric temperature with increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide. You are dissembling (intentionally or not) in refusing to admit that, and adhere to it. (And so is "steveta_uk", who commented above, "The absurd idea that GHE results in INCREASING surface temperatures is simply a misreading of the theory." That statement itself, in the face of the public debate over "global warming", is the height of absurdity, and in a sane intellectual atmosphere, could rightly be called a bald-faced lie. However, I understand that it is just the madness of those whose religiously-held belief in the greenhouse effect--and in the inerrancy of an overwhelming, albeit incompetent, consensus--is being strongly challenged by skeptics.)

2)I have DISPROVED the greenhouse effect, in my comparison of the temperatures in the atmospheres of Venus and Earth. YOU ARE INCOMPETENT as a physical scientist if you cannot see that simple fact.

3)You delude yourself by thinking the atmosphere keeps the surface warmer due to "backradiation", a.k.a. "downwelling longwave radiation". Since there is no greenhouse effect, I think it should be obvious that the atmosphere at night is keeping the surface from cooling faster, because upward heat transfer is not by radiation alone, with an atmosphere present, but also by convection and conduction, and these are SLOWER THAN RADIATION, and I would think can even reverse direction, against the temperature gradient, and even reverse it locally (downdrafts, precipitation, temperature inversions). That's what the radiative transfer theory does to you: It makes you forget there ARE even convection and conduction.

Your miseducation makes you part of the problem, Dr.--and of course you are not alone, climate scientists have been miseducated for, what, forty five years (I have read that 1967 or 1968 is when the current radiative transfer theory, applied to atmospheric warming, was brought out and accepted), and there has not been a competent climate scientist for at least the last 20 years, since the detailed temperature and pressure data of Venus, which should have signaled the death of the greenhouse effect as accepted science, was obtained by the Magellan spacecraft. Of course, the bottom line is, the very idea of "runaway climate", and thus of looking at climate as something balanced on the knife edge of "radiative forcings", only came into science through a mass turning away from, or forgetting of, the stability of the Standard Atmosphere (which of course my Venus/Earth comparison confirmed). Climate scientists' faith in radiative transfer theory is blind to the definitive facts, and has caused the failure--FAILURE, SIR--of their science. I am ashamed of all of you, and of what you continue to do, unseeing and undeterred by the strongest admonitions, to the integrity and natural authority of science.


  1. Harry: Your "proof" only holds for the case albedo=0, which, of course, is not true for any real planet.


  2. Readers,

    David Appell is a self-styled "science journalist" who also claims to have a PhD in theoretical physics. I cut him off from commenting on my blog for his continuous refusal to look at the simple facts I have brought out, but I have let this comment in so that you, the reader, can look at and consider those facts for yourself, and make your own judgment of David Appell. Here is my answer to him:

    No, David, as any competent scientist should be able to quickly see (and I have repeated this innumerable times on many web sites), my proof holds for the very real case of my Venus/Earth comparison, where the ratio of the temperatures in the two planets, over the full range of Earth tropospheric pressures, is precisely, entirely due to the ratio of their distances from the Sun, and nothing else--even though the albedos of the two planets are very different (30% for Earth, 70% for Venus). There is simply no "greenhouse effect" and no albedo effect for these two real, detailed atmospheres. I have explained, repeatedly and simply, that the only way this empirical result can be explained is that the two planets must absorb the same portion of the incident solar radiation (diluted only by the distance of each planet from the Sun), and that portion is entirely different from the portion that is reflected by either of the two atmospheres and contributes to the albedo. Now, once and for all, you have been simply revealed as one who is incompetent to judge in the climate science debates, and you are instead obviously a prejudiced, activist inciter of false reasoning, deliberately intent upon misinforming the public of a most important truth.

    PS-- Don't write in again, David. Your presence in any climate science debate is obscene, and I won't allow any further comments from you on my blog.