the Air Vent

Because the world needs another opinion

Climate Today

Posted by Jeff Id on April 21, 2014

Time, time, we can’t get more time.   The climate grinds though on with or without our opinions.   Rather thoughtless of it to ignore what we think, at least in my opinion, but I suppose that is the point, or perhaps that it should be the point.   Still, people feel the need to insert their opinions in the face of climate, even when it is in conflict with climate itself.  It is as though the self-absorbed belief in the reality of their opinions trumps the reality of climate.   Climate change is real… it has always been real.  The earth warms, cools and was even a ball of lava at one time.   If we look far enough into the future, we can even see a time when the Earth becomes a superheated ball of solar plasma.

Still, our vaunted science has made the decision for us that today’s global temperature is perfect for us.   Those who made this decision are climate scientists.  Global citizens who hold themselves out to be experts in many fields, climate science, economics, government policy, energy generation, food production, ocean chemistry, computer programming, statistics, are among the most common.   These powerful individuals have established certain facts of science, which are indisputable, and utilized them to both predict disaster and recommend a future path to salvation for the entire human race.

As both Goliaths and Galileo’s of science, they see themselves as the brightest points of light, the Gaian Illuminati, those who fight against corrupted human forces for the greater environmental good.   Humanity slowly is bending to their will, following the growing outcry step by step.   The soft words of hope against the harsh reality of basic science hypnotizing them into belief that we must change as a species, and we must do it now.  But there is a disease in the movement, a not-so-subtle disease which is corrupting the message to the people, and the science.   The disease is the same disease the Gaian Illuminati seek to eradicate, yet have contracted themselves.

Money and power

And governments are more than happy to provide them both.

It has become a symbiotic relationship, like plants which require animals to create CO2 and animals which require plants to split the CO2 and release the O2, climate scientists cannot survive without government, and government needs climate science to promote its own growth.  It started in a not so subtle way, with research, then committees, then whole governmental divisions who’s whole purpose is to study climate.  First those groups made recommendations for more study, and the formation of additional subgroups.  Eventually, minor rule making was added to address the groups findings.   This pressed into whole rule-making bodies who’s sole existence was to make recommendations for regulations on industry with the premise that it would somehow help climate change.  Simultaneously, these groups continued to make more recommendations for expanded research and funding. Today, the rule making has expanded until centralized global governmental control of energy production is in sight, and we would have to willfully ignore the history to believe that stopping with energy production is a reasonable conclusion.

The corruption of the system has progressed beyond the merely palpable.  It has bent to the point where conflicting opinions are actively suppressed and misrepresentation of observed data has literally become commonplace amongst the most famous but only where it promotes the cause.   The computer climate models which started with the best intentions, have fallen wildly short of expectations, or rather observed warming has fallen well short of the models, yet our vaunted, world-powerful climate scientists have become unwilling to admit even that painfully obvious discrepancy.

Then there are those who have the gall to write against this powerful climate industry.   Because that is what climate science is.  A smog-belching, economy-sucking, rule-making, profit-taking industry.

COP15-UN-Climate-Change-S-001[1]

Opening ceremony of the UN climate change conference in Copenhagen.

The sheer size of the thing should be enough to give pause, yet growth is the continued agenda, and nothing, including reality, will get in the way of this steamroller’s industrial goals.   Imagine the money to fly these people in, to pay the hotels, food, hall rental, the fuel, annual salaries, education, phone bills. Worse, these people make no product.   No net output of value comes from this group of near-universally overpriced individuals.  No output which can be trusted, believed or even parsed by a normal human is generated from the science or government organizations you see in that picture.   That statement is generally true, no matter which argument they are making. It is too corrupted with nonsense and unrelated agendas, and it is therefore very, very expensive, not because of the plane tickets, but because of the rules they demand from their subjects.   Rules as a genuflection to their beliefs, not their science, but a mash of pro-governmental and anti-industrial climate goals.

Because at the root, taxation is their food, nutrients, power, and hope for the future of their industry.  The best colleges, the most influence, the best jobs.  They need your fear to get your taxes, and whether the root-level minions know it, or admit to it, the leaders are certainly very clear on this.

Belief

Belief is the core of the cause.   Belief that any observed change of the Earth is not only caused by human activity, but is absolutely a bad thing.   Many of us wonder about the magnitude of change caused by CO2 emission, and many wonder whether the changes will create floods or hurricanes, but there is little help for understanding these or other potential consequences from the field of climate science.  Though there is plenty of scientific ‘opinion’ in the literature, the fluff and exaggeration is literally impossible to parse.

I sometimes wonder just how do they know our current global temperature is perfect?  I have seen no study which reasonably demonstrates that our current climate is truly ideal.   It seems extraordinarily unlikely to me that we were born into a perfect climate which could never change for the better in either direction.  Still, from ice ages we know with certainty, that colder is very, VERY bad for people in general.  If 6 degrees colder is so bad, how can it be so certain that only two degrees warmer is going to result in destruction.    As a general concept, it seems extremely unlikely that we have achieved the perfect balance of temperature, and an extraordinary claim such as that, should require extraordinary proof.   Yet we have none but opinion of experts to guide us in this matter.   Not science, just opinion.  And that opinion flies in the face of common sense observation of colder vs warmer climates right here on our planet.

The change is too fast they say – belief not science.

The change is crossing thresholds they claim – belief not science.

We must use green energy – belief not science

We must avoid fossil fuels – belief not science

Climate models match observation – belief not science

I will stop there because the examples are truly endless and the evidence that belief trumps all in the climate industry stares us in the face.   From anti-nuclear rhetoric to authoritarian government promotion, all the symptoms of the disease of tobacco industry style industrial corruption are exhibited.   Politics and nonsense have trumped common sense and reality.  Science has taken a necessary back seat to results, and those who wish to be most successful in the field provide the most sensationalist claims.

All for the cause.

It was a proud day when I told mom that a group of psychologists on another continent had intentionally misrepresented my opinions in order to discredit me.   It is just another very clear symptom of a greater disease that such activities are considered reasonable and allowed through a review process.

Where will it end

In short, I don’t know, but I do have a tiny piece of understanding which I learned from industry that I like to tell people in paraphrase.   Businesses in general are very tough things to break.     They can be bent, twisted and redirected, but will fight very hard when survival is the requirement.   Climategate, as big and obvious as it was, barely touched the climate industry.   Not because it wasn’t horribly embarrassing, and not because it didn’t expose corruption, but rather because it did not affect funding of the scientists involved.     Even the specific individuals involved, continued on their previous paths as though nothing had happened.  The media capitulated to pressure from the climate industry and failed to report the real issues.  But most importantly, the willing governments continued and even expanded the money flow.

Yet observations continue to defy prediction and lag ever farther behind models, some in the field are making corrections for the problem while simultaneously denying the problem even exists.  The very existence of the problem represents a condition that is impossible to rectify in the context of science yet again makes perfect sense in politics.

Perhaps it is for wiser minds than myself to visualize the future of this industry, but in general it looks pretty bleak and unstoppable to me.

Addendum – because it happened

I made the mistake of turning on Bill Maher (for the first time in my life) while writing this and just learned from a man on the panel that we need 6 garbage cans in our houses to save the planet.   He literally said 6 and the audience loudly applauded.   None of them apparently know about the industrial sorting of garbage in developed countries with only one garbage can

But they do know what they believe.

 

 

 

 


57 Responses to “Climate Today”

  1. Thanks for a great rant worth much discussion. As I am busy right now I will pick up on one minor popint:

    “Still, our vaunted science has made the decision for us that today’s global temperature is perfect for us.”

    How true! Yet the dominance of mammals can be traced to a much warmer era, namely the Paleocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum when polar seas were almost 20 K warmer than today:

  2. Serioso said

    Jeff —
    I am afraid I found your post overwrought. Your complaint about the religion of climate science is not so much wrong as it is over the top. Yes, we spend money funding climate science. But how much? What percentage of worldwide GDP? I’m sure the percentage is trivial, far less than the world spends on other religions. People like religion. They spend money on it. Get used to it.

    Is your complaint that this particular religion is government funded? That it has too much influence? Give me a break. The climate guys have a unique selling proposition: (1) CO2 is a greenhouse gas – in very broad terms, its concentration affects temperature; (2) Humans are responsible for increasing the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere; and (3) more CO2 means rising temperatures at a rate that is bad for humans. This is a wonderfully simple story, far better than the myths that most religions try to sell, and it has the unique advantage that two of the three statements are true. In addition, some of the arguments about consequences (rising sea levels; failing coral reefs) are probably valid.

    So much of human activity is “unproductive” and “uneconomic.” It doesn’t produce any “goods.” But humans are willing to spend money on these activities. So what? Is it bad that the “climate scientists” have persuaded us to replace incandescent bulbs with LEDs? No way! LEDs are (unarguably) a great technological advance that surely benefited from government interference in the market place. What about windmills? Some are surely better for our race than coal-fired power plants. And solar? I have an off-grid summer house that is solar powered. I’m happy to see cheaper panels. And if the cost is some economic inefficiency, so what. I think government spending on solar has been, on balance, a great success, albeit a success mostly due to markets and market penetration.

    I don’t think you are wrong. Just excessively angry.

    • omanuel said

      Jeff’s anger is well justified.

    • Adam Gallon said

      Serioso, it’s not so much what is spent upon the climate “science”, it’s what’s the results are used for.
      The millions hosed into the “climate change” bucket is a mere fraction of what’s obtained from its fruits.
      I’m in the UK, customers who use a fair amount of electricity, >33KWh/day, pay an extra 0.541p/KWh (Increasing to 0.554p/KWh in April 2015, up from 0.524p/KWh prior to 4/4/2013, IIRC)
      More details here. http://customs.hmrc.gov.uk/channelsPortalWebApp/channelsPortalWebApp.portal?_nfpb=true&_pageLabel=pageExcise_ShowContent&id=HMCE_PROD1_031183&propertyType=document
      Here’s what we pay in fuel duty for our motor vehicles.
      http://www.whatgas.com/car-finance/fuel-duty.html
      (Oh, just noticed, they’re 2012 rates too, but planned rises have been abandonned in the past 2 budgets, the Government not having the nerve to implement them!) And you Yanks complain about the cost of “gas”!
      We pay an annual duty on our cars, calculated according to how much CO2 the (theoretically) emit per km driven.
      http://whattaxband.com/
      Take away the reason for these “Indulgencies” and our money junkie Government will either have to borrow even more, spend less or tax us some other way.

      • wws said

        Allow me to rephrase Serioso’s complaint, in a way that I think is both justified and makes our objections a little bit more clear:

        “Jeff –
        I am afraid I found your post overwrought. Your complaint about the Fraud of climate science is not so much wrong as it is over the top. Yes, we spend money funding Fraud. But how much? What percentage of worldwide GDP? I’m sure the percentage is trivial, far less than the world spends on other frauds. People like Fraud.. They spend money on it. Get used to it.”

        My position is that ANY money spend funding an obvious fraud is far too much.

        And we could go on and on about climatism being a STATE SPONSORED RELIGION. Hadn’t Western Civilization decided that State Sponsored Religion was a really bad idea quite a while back???

    • Jeff Id said

      Serioso,

      You are demonstrably wrong on almost every point here, except for the subjective ones like my anger. I had good fun writing the post and didn’t feel angry at all while writing it, just irritated with the general stupidity of the human population. Nothing new there.

      First, yes I am complaining about a state religion being government funded and no I will not give you or any other wrong-thinking individual (including myself) a break to make logical errors. So that said, lets dissect your post.

      “at a rate that is bad for humans.” – I complain about this because you only have belief to support your statement. There is literally zero evidence to base this statement on so you are making a logic error here. Review the literature yourself and prove me wrong.

      ” far better than the myths that most religions try to sell” – There is nothing better about being wrong so that is another logic error on your part. Religion is the whipping boy of the left but they do produce a product in that they modify behavior based on beliefs, generally toward a more moral conclusion. I see religion as an early form of government, which is entirely different from whether I believe in god or not. Either way, wrong is wrong and that statement by yourself is illogical.

      “Is it bad that the “climate scientists” have persuaded us to replace incandescent bulbs with LEDs?” Again, this is illogical. There is no proven damage by warming so there is no advantage to use LED. In addition, in colder climates incandescents are equally as efficient as LED’s as the extra warmth heats the house. Requiring me to send money on LED lights as a replacement for an already efficient bulb simply wastes my money and empowers morons to take something highly effective and efficient away from me. Your belief that you are so certain of is flatly 100% wrong. Oh, and I just sold 6 of them while typing this last sentence.

      “a great technological advance that surely benefited from government interference in the market place. What about windmills?” The population has bought into windmills and green energy despite their incredible non-functionality. What drives your belief that they work? It ain’t math, that’s for sure. All they have done is add cost while reducing reliability and THAT sir is what the science says.

      Same for solar, except solar costs are even worse and panels are far more damaging to the environment. I happen to like solar for some projects in the distant future but government interference has jumped production way ahead of the technology. The result has been massive cost, huge (and real) pollution from production with literally zero net benefit. Nada. Your beliefs are the same as those religious people you seem to despise.

      So your left-wing news sources have convinced you that these items are a great success, with literally zero evidence to back any of it up. Still in every instance I have discussed, you have failed to understand the true nature of what happened. I have done the math myself on biofuels, solar and windmills, some of it on this very blog and it ain’t what you seem to think.

      I doubt much that you will listen to me on any of this, but for me, I need to stick with the science. I need to go back to making LED lights now though.

      • Serioso said

        Jeez, Jeff, you read too fast. The sentence fragment you quoted in your third paragraph above is obviously the one I DON’T agree with. Check the context, please!

        As for LEDs, the reason they are “a good thing” is not that they have an effect on climate. It’s that they save the buyer money. Same with SOME windmills (I’m thinking of the trio on Vinalhaven that saved the locals a small fortune). I think you mis-read what I wrote!

        • Jeff Id said

          Sorry about the context. The Red Wings just lost too!!!

          I’m grumpy about the green nonsense. It certainly doesn’t save me any money to use LED lighting and I do know a little about that. If you add the true costs in a northern cliamte, you don’t save a thing.

          The windmill insanity has got to stop. Intermittent operation means that need to carry the production load from the things in separate plants for days with no wind and the costs are way out of whack with normal energy. Now if you had written nuclear, I would be interested.

    • kuhnkat said

      Serioso,

      Please list the accomplishments of the Climate Religion to offset its costs.

    • page488 said

      And I’m sure you’ll be the first to complain when the mercury from LED’s gets concentrated into certain dumps. Also, you don’t seem to have a very good handle on the environmental industry. It is profit driven, as are all industries that I know of, and funded not only directly from the government, but by every sale made of any energy product. Also, because the environmental industry produces no usable product, it is entirely dependent on pollution – real or not- for its existence. Think about that for a while.

  3. omanuel said

    Thanks, Jeff, for your contribution to restoring sanity to government science.

    Climategate has been a blessing in disguise. It caught the attention of many talented citizens, like you, and gave each one of us the tools to decipher the New World Order, “settled science,” “consensus science,” “standard models,” etc., for ourselves by:

    _ a.) Studying reliable observations of the Sun – Earth’s heat source – and
    _ b.) Diligently putting together the pieces of this 69-year old puzzle:

    https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/10640850/A_69_Year_Puzzle.pdf
    https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/10640850/A_69_Year_Puzzle.doc

  4. Iain Hall said

    Reblogged this on Iain Hall's SANDPIT and commented:
    An Excellent Post from Jeff Id about the nature of the Green Religion to be recommended for all who still have a working brain and an open mind on the climate Issue
    Cheers Comrades

  5. The “industry” is the crew of the titanic re-arranging deck chairs on the Titanic after it hit the iceberg. But that is not unique to climate. It is the definition of any government “committee”. They will still be planning for the end of the world when it happens. And of course be shocked that nature dared to interrupt their consortium.

    I am waiting for the nature tax to be enacted.

  6. pete said

    Just a point regarding, “Climate models match observation – belief not science”. Whether or not models and observation match is a point of fact and not of belief. Either the models do match, or they don’t.

  7. […] disease the Gaian Illuminati seek to eradicate, yet have contracted themselves. Money and power Read more Sign in or Register Now to […]

  8. Jeff Id said

    Another example of the gaian monks theory gone wrong:

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/04/22/gasoline-greener-than-biofuels/

  9. Conspiracy Theory Denialist said

    Wow, what an incredible conspiracy theory! It’s an interesting story, but there is an abundance of assertions and noticeable lack of evidence in support. Let’s start with the premise:

    “climate scientists cannot survive without government, and government needs climate science to promote its own growth.”

    This is clearly false. A government does not need climate scientists to “promote its own growth.” Throughout history governments have not only had centralized “control of energy production,” but centralized control of ALL of the means of production in entire economies. Without any help from climate scientists!

    Is climate science the only scientific field that is unable to exist without government? I don’t see what it is that would make this problem unique to just climate science, especially given it’s reliance on many different areas of science. Climate scientists are so passionate about their need to exists as climate scientists, they are willing to… not actually do climate science? Just fake it? You’ll have to explain how you can make that fit your story.

    “The sheer size of the thing should be enough to give pause” – at least you are willing to admit the massiveness of the conspiracy you are proposing. Oh, and isn’t there a saying about more people a conspiracy involves the more likely it is to be true?

    “Because at the root, taxation is their food, nutrients, power, and hope for the future of their industry. The best colleges, the most influence, the best jobs. They need your fear to get your taxes, and whether the root-level minions know it, or admit to it, the leaders are certainly very clear on this.”

    Who are these leaders you speak? I assume there must be thousands of them given the number of qualified scientists contributing to the research in support of man-caused climate change. Do all of them know this is the root of their life’s work? How do you know?

    How many scientists have become rich because of their research supporting man-cause climate change? How do you know? Is the average scientist who endorses the IPCC position wealthier than the average scientists who disputes the seriousness of climate change? How do you know?

    • You seem to confuse “need” with “require”. The statement:

      “climate scientists cannot survive without government, and government needs climate science to promote its own growth.”

      Is essentially true. The government “needs” excuses to grow (even your own anecdotes indicate such). In years past it was the cold war and MAD. Since that has been dissipated, they had to come up with a new excuse. Government does not require it to be climate change, but they do require some sort of calamity to justify the abrogation of basic rights. Climate scares fit the bill.

      Now, your next statement is some weird interpretation of what was said:

      Is climate science the only scientific field that is unable to exist without government?

      Perhaps you can help us there and show us where that was stated? No one said only. But climate science, to the tune of a billion dollars a day, owes its very existence to government. Where is the revenue generated from private enterprise? And what percent is that of their total funds? Clearly the article was talking about what is, not what could be. So how many scientists would be living off the dole if that $1b/day was not there?

      So the point is made. Without government, climate science becomes a backwater voodoo forecast of shamans and truth seers (wait! it is anyway).

      As for “conspiracy”. greed is not a conspiracy. it is human nature. No conspiracy was alleged. But a commonality of greed was described. Perhaps you just did not understand what you read?

      If I charter a Helicopter, and fly over a city, dropping thousands of $100 bills, is it a conspiracy that people start gathering to grab it up? That seems to be your justification for your mis-understanding and/or ignorance of what is being said.

    • Jeff Id said

      What part of this is a conspiracy?

    • omanuel said

      It is not a conspiracy that frightened world leaders agreed to forbid knowledge>/b> of the source of energy that destroyed Hiroshima and Nagasaki on 6 and 9 August 1945.

      It is a conspiracy that leaders of the “settled” scientific community in National Academies of Science (NAS, RS etc.) and editors of major research journals now refuse to address in public nine pages of precise experimental data that falsify post-1945 consensus models of nuclei and stars.

    • omanuel said

      Correction:

      It was NOT a conspiracy when frightened world leaders agreed to forbid knowledge of the source of energy that destroyed Hiroshima and Nagasaki on 6 and 9 August 1945 in order to save the world from nuclear annihilation.

      It IS a conspiracy when leaders of the “settled” scientific community in National Academies of Science (NAS, RS, etc.) and editors of major research journals refuse to address in public nine pages of precise experimental data [1] that would:

      a.) Embarrass them, and
      b.) Falsify their post-1945 consensus models of nuclei and stars.

      1. See pages 19-27 Chapter 2, A Journey to the Core of the Sun
      https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/10640850/Chapter_2.pdf

    • omanuel said

      I.e., it may even be a treasonable conspiracy for the leaders of the scientific community and the editors and publishers of research journals to have access to, and to refuse to address in public, or to allow others to present to the public, irrefutable evidence that the Sun:

      1. Is a pulsar that
      2. Made our elements
      3. Birthed the solar system
      4. Sustained the origin and evolution of life, and
      5. Still exerts dominant control over our fate today.

      With this in mind, I recommend that the climate debate be halted while the proponents of AGW have time to consider the implications and possible adverse consequences of continued debate.

  10. Howard said

    Jeff:

    Gaian theory, as I understand it, would dictate that our mother earth responds to our CO2 with negative feedbacks. This may be why the father of Gaia is not a CAGW believer.

  11. Orson said

    “Conspiracy?” Tosh. Plenty of things can look like conspiracies – ‘invisible-hand’ explanations like markets, especially – do, but are not.

    What stands out about ‘climate science’ is the fact that in the US federal science budget, it is number two – only after medical research. And unlike medical, climate science’ (other than weather satellites, for example) has far little of any real consequence or usefulness to justify the $40 to 80 billions spent on it.

  12. omanuel said

    Thank you, Jeff, for your courage to speak out against tyranny. Thanks to folks like you, the conclusion to this battle may be near at hand:

    The following message was just sent to staff members of the United States Congressional Space Science & Technology Committee:

    Are you willing to use your position as members of the Congressional Space Science and Technology Committee to resolve the dilemma that now threatens to destroy our society?

    1. FEAR of nuclear annihilation catalyzed an alliance of world leaders
    and scientists to form the United Nations in 1945 and to forbid
    knowledge of the source of energy that destroyed Hiroshima and
    Nagasaki.

    2. FEAR of retaliation for sixty-nine years (2014 – 1945 = 69 yrs) of
    deceit now blocks this alliance of world leaders and scientists from
    accepting reality and being grateful to the “Sustainer of Life.”

    http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-London/2014/04/26/Former-NASA-Scientist-Global-Warming-is-Nonsense#comment-1362732418

    WE (all) inhabitants of planet Earth (Democrats and Republicans, alike, AGW deniers and believers) need your help so that we can join together at the start each day with a song of praise for another day of life, like this!

    Grateful the spiritual and physical “Sustainer of Life” are comprehendable via religion and science (See second & last pages of this document):
    https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/10640850/Chapter_2.pdf

    Thank you for taking the time to read and respond to this and my prior (April 26, 2014) request for your assistance in getting science and society back on track.

    With kind regards,
    – Oliver K. Manuel
    Former NASA Principal
    Investigator for Apollo

    OKM

  13.  Me  said

    Fly a helicopter to the top of Mt Everest in summer (July) and lower a large drum of very salty water (heated to near boiling point and opened at the top) onto the surface at the start of a nice sunny day – as it would be above the clouds up there. We will assume there is enough salt to lower the freezing point to -10°C. In July, the warmest month, the average summit temperature is -19°C. Will the water freeze? Yes. So how good is the Sun at raising ocean temperatures below the clouds with all its direct radiation? How absurd is it to imagine that the 1cm thin transparent surface layer of the oceans is warmed to 15°C by direct solar radiation? How absurd then are all the models which use ocean emissivity in Stefan-Boltzmann calculations and expect to get the temperature due to absorption?

  14.  Me  said

    You all still follow J.H. and not H.J.

    You follow James Hansen rather than Hans Jelbring, and that’s your problem.

    You think it’s all about radiative heat transfer, when in fact it is mostly about non-radiative heat transfer which obviously is what keeps warm the thin transparent surface layer of Earth’s oceans, the base of the Uranus troposphere, the surface of Venus, the core of our Moon etc etc etc .. throughout the Solar System.

    I repeat ….

    The greenhouse conjecture adds back radiation to solar radiation and uses the total to “explain” the surface temperature. But of course this is wrong. The original NASA net energy diagram showed only about 165W/m^2 entering the surface, but that gave a far too cold temperature in Stefan-Boltzmann (S-B) calculations, so it had to be nearly trebled with back radiation.

    The problem is, no one should be using S-B and be expecting to get the right answer.

    All that S-B calculations can be used for is the mean temperature of the whole Earth-plus-atmosphere system, and it does give about the right value when you deduct about 30% of incident solar radiation due to reflection, but retain about 20% that is absorbed by the atmosphere itself.

    Now, the big problem with all this is that 70% of the real surface is a thin layer of transparent water, let’s say 1cm deep. If you were to use S-B calculations to determine the temperature of that layer, bear in mind that over 99% of incident solar radiation that is not reflected passes right through it. So you should only use 1% or less of the 165W/m^2 of solar radiation and thus get ridiculously low values. Back radiation doesn’t have a hope, because it does not even penetrate a hair’s width into that first 1cm of water, and if all its energy were converted to kinetic (thermal) energy in that hair’s breadth, it sure would be hot and evaporate rather quickly without warming anything else. The fact that it doesn’t, confirms what I wrote in my paper over two years ago about resonant (or pseudo) scattering.

    So you see, you cannot explain Earth’s surface temperature with radiation calculations, for the simple reason that, like the Venus surface, it receives a significant amount of energy by non-radiative processes as is explained in the Amazon book “Why it’s not carbon dioxide after all.”

    • suricat said

      This is odd because I am me. However, I, myself, concur with me because me says things that I, myself, agree with. This is good because I’m in agreement with both myself and me. Thus, I am sane.😉

      I concur.

      UVa and vis blue penetrate deepest into ocean depth, whilst vis red penetrates least into ocean depth. The IR wave lengths associated with the near surface ‘Planck weighted temp emission’ penetrate only microns into ‘ocean depth’ (‘ocean depth’? More like ocean surface!).

      I also, can’t understand how a ‘SB surface radiation’ can exist above a water surface. Why? Let me explain.

      The Clausius Clapyron Relationship explains why a wet surface is always cooler than a dry surface. Moreover, that a wet surface ‘can’t’ be ‘hotter’ than a dry surface at the same ‘ambient’ temp. This is due to the ‘vapour pressure’ of the fluid involved (in this case the fluid is water) and its ‘diffusion ability’ property for ‘mixing into any surrounding gasses’ (‘vapour pressure’ opposing ‘gas pressure’ and ‘Molar weight’ within its surroundings).

      Thus, sea surface temp is always = or < near surface atmosphere temp. The 'SB' theory proves that energy is transmitted from 'the atmosphere' and 'not the surface' in this scenario.

      It's late and I think you've got the gist of my persuasion, I'll post again later.

      Best regards, Ray.

      •  D C  said

        There is a published paper which proves that some solar IR (nearly half the Sun’s total spectrum) does indeed penetrate several metres into the ocean, so you are not correct. In any event, the “surface” could be considered to be even just a millimetre in depth, because there are ample molecules in such a depth to be those that have the major influence on air temperatures just above the surface due to conduction and diffusion.

        Now, according to the original NASA energy diagrams, the solar energy penetrating the surface is about 165W/m^2 and that only warms the surface to 235K (not 255K) even assuming all of it did remain in that first millimetre of the ocean. So does the addition of water vapour back radiation increase the surface temperature by over 50 degrees – let’s say at least 10 to 15 degrees for each 1% of water vapour above a certain region? No it doesn’t, and hence the whole radiative greenhouse conjecture is totally false.

        The rest of my response is in the Amazon book “Why It’s Not Carbon Dioxide After All” where there is also a study of real world data showing water vapour cools, not warms as the IPCC would like it to do.

        • suricat said

          D C, I didn’t mention the wide spectrum of IR ‘insolation’ (INcomming SOLar radiATION) that achieves surface fall, but you are correct in saying that some wave lengths of IR insolation achieve several metres of penetration into the ocean’s surface. It’s often difficult to differentiate between macroscopic and microscopic scenarios without properly ‘setting the scene’. Sorry.

          My intention was to indicate towards the radiative interface between ocean surface and ‘ambient’ (back) radiation. Thus, insolation, per se, plays no direct part in my comment and is why I mentioned “the near surface ‘Planck weighted temp emission’”. My apologies if this threw you off from the logic of my dialogue.

          I’ll restrain from further comment on your reply.

          Best regards, Ray.

      •  D C  said

        And yes, Ray, you are partly right about energy transmitted from the atmosphere to the sea surface by non-radiative processes (and a little by radiation) when there are temperature inversions, as can happen just after dawn when the Sun starts to heat the air just above the surface. It’s all in my book.

        • suricat said

          D C, I’ve not read your book, but the temperature inversion that I mention is at the interface between ‘ocean surface’ (in reality, any body of water, wet soil and even ‘area of vegetation’ [evapotranspiration at ‘tree canopy/savanna top’]) and ‘atmosphere’ (but the bit of the atmosphere that’s really close to the surface).

          Best regards, Ray.

      •  D C  said

        Ray – I hope you get to read this (perhaps in email) before Jeff deletes my comment(s)

        All bodies radiate electro-magnetic energy. That does not mean however that they are transferring the same amount of thermal energy out of their own supply of thermal energy, because only a portion of the EM energy is converted to kinetic (thermal) energy in the molecules in cooler targets, and none at all in warmer targets. This was explained in my paper “Radiated Energy and the Second Law of Thermodynamics” March 2012 – easily found on Google.

        Furthermore, much of the radiation from Earth’s surface is using EM energy that was provided by the back radiation, that energy being immediately re-emitted (because of a resonating process) without its energy ever being converted to kinetic energy. In other words, electrons gain electron energy (higher quantum states) but this energy is immediately emitted and does not go through the complicated process of being converted to kinetic energy in the molecules in the target. This is a critically important fact in understanding why back radiation only slows that portion of surface cooling which is itself due to radiation. It does not slow conduction or evaporative cooling, and these may speed up to compensate.

        • suricat said

          Yes. I got to read it here D C, but ’email’??? Why would Jeff delete your comment here on a ‘rant’ subject??? Surely, this posting by Jeff is the next best thing to an ‘open thread’.

          Please excuse the quotes below. I find it easier to communicate ‘word for word’ when multiple analogies are addressed.

          “All bodies radiate electro-magnetic energy. That does not mean however that they are transferring the same amount of thermal energy out of their own supply of thermal energy, because only a portion of the EM energy is converted to kinetic (thermal) energy in the molecules in cooler targets, and none at all in warmer targets.”

          I concur, but just as ‘nature abhors a vacuum’, nature also always finds a way to use and channel energy. It’s only the timing that’s in question here.

          Whilst some insolation spectra provide ‘warmth’ (~immediate effect), other insolation spectra provide ‘chemistry and life’ (~delayed effect). When the Sun rises the Earth begins to warm, before once again, cooling at/after Sunset. This is an “immediate effect”.

          However, insolation wave lengths that don’t lead to direct ‘warmth’ are used in ‘other ways’. For example, some non-warming insolation leads to photosynthesis and general ‘plant life’ (~delayed effect). Thus, leaving ‘other pathways’ for energy transport to diverge.

          Your paper now resides on my HD. I’ll read it (I promise) when I get the chance to.

          “Furthermore, much of the radiation from Earth’s surface is using EM energy that was provided by the back radiation, that energy being immediately re-emitted (because of a resonating process) without its energy ever being converted to kinetic energy.”

          I disagree. Electron shell transition doesn’t occur at near surface pressure from ‘local’ ‘photonic energy’, so ‘re-emission’ just doesn’t happen because the pressures are too great and perturbation energies too low. However, you do seem to recognise here that “(because of a resonating process)” the ‘converse’ may also be possible and ‘electron shell perturbation’, caused by the kinetics of local pressure, that prevents emission may be overcome by energetic standing wave systems, but these don’t occur naturally.

          ” In other words, electrons gain electron energy (higher quantum states) but this energy is immediately emitted and does not go through the complicated process of being converted to kinetic energy in the molecules in the target.”

          Quite the opposite to my understanding D C. At near surface pressure ‘electrons’ don’t alter their ‘shell’ occupation without strong forcings from an ‘electro-static nature’ (lightning is only one of these scenarios, with semiconductors following at a close, inappropriate, second place).

          It’s beginning to look as though you are attempting to analogise low Earth atmosphere with LASER propagation. It doesn’t work. ‘Light’ ‘Amplification’ requires that an atom’s electrons are forced into a state where their population can be manipulated/’Stimulated’ for a span of 3, or 4, electron shells with the lower and upper shells forced to be unpopulated (the lower shell absorbing energy, and the upper shell ‘Emitting’ energy in the form of a focused ‘Ray’).

          “This is a critically important fact in understanding why back radiation only slows that portion of surface cooling which is itself due to radiation.”

          I don’t understand what you are trying to say here D C. Surely, the ‘specific heat’ of a mass determines ‘the rate’ at which it ‘cools in its surroundings’. Emphasis on “surroundings” and “specific heat” (reminder that we are in near surface tropo)!

          “It does not slow conduction or evaporative cooling, and these may speed up to compensate.”

          This part of your reply is a bit garbled. Radiation ‘does’ “slow conduction or evaporative cooling” by ‘de-centralising’ the source of the energy.

          Please elucidate.🙂

          Best regards, Ray.

          •  DC   said

            My response is in the March 2012 paper.

            However, radiation is not the primary determinant of planetary atmospheric, surface, crust, mantle and core temperatures. My comment below refers,

          •  DC   said

            By the way, radiation is not always a “two-way” affair. Solar radiation penetrates the ocean thermocline but there is no radiation back to the Sun from the ocean depths. One way radiation must obey the Second Law of Thermodynamics, and it does so because of the resonating processes described in my 2012 paper and the cited reference. If you wish to argue about the mathematics in the cited reference, then go and do so with Claes Johnson, Professor of Applied Mathematics, on his climate blog I am satisfied that the Second Law always applies to independent (one way) processes in nature, and that is confirmation enough for me. Does back radiation penetrate the ocean surface or not? Do you scald your fingers in the first few nanometres of the ocean where you think all the electromagnetic energy from such back radiation is being thermalized contrary to the Second Law?

          •  DC   said

            Meteorologists know that heat transfer by convection can stop altogether in calm conditions in the early pre-dawn hours. When there is no further energy transfer across any internal boundary in an isolated system physicists know that this happens when there are no unbalanced energy potentials. The state is called thermodynamic equilibrium. You can read about it in modern statements of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. For some strange reason climatologists call this state “convective equilibrium” as in Pierrehumbert’s writings for example. Why they think they need to invent a new term when one already exists I don’t know. But then nothing would surprise me any longer in their pseudo fissics.

            Because energy transfers stop, the rate of surface cooling has also stopped (near enough) and we have a nice normal temperature gradient in the troposphere just above. The air is keeping the surface warm just like a blanket – all those good oxygen and nitrogen molecules being kept warm by energy that has been trapped … . wait for it …. by gravity – just like in the 5,000K Uranus core nearly 30 times further from the Sun than is Earth. Thank heavens for good old gravity – it certainly does held us keep our feet on the ground.
            .

  15. suricat said

    Bravo Jeff! Your rant addresses most of the monsters in my ‘id’.

    Best regards, Ray.

  16. kuhnkat said

    DC:

    “…as must happen when the Venus surface rises in temperature.”

    Nothing like closing your argument with an arm wave to the kids!!

  17.  DC   said

    Radiation is not the primary determinant of planetary temperatures. There is no solar radiation, for example, at the base of the nominal Uranus troposphere where it is hotter than Earth. The required thermal energy gets there by “heat creep” which is a term I coined for “convection (both diffusion and advection) which transports thermal (kinetic) energy from cooler to warmer regions as it restores thermodynamic equilibrium with maximum entropy in accord with the process described in statements of the Second Law of Thermodynamics.” Likewise for most of the required energy for Venus, and much of that for Earth. The 165W/m^2 of solar radiation reaching Earth’s surface would, at the most, raise its temperature to 235K (not 255K) but it can’t even do that because water is fairly transparent.

    All the Trenberth and Pierrehumbert garbage about radiation is a complete travesty of physics, because layers of the atmosphere and the thin surface layer of the oceans do not act remotely like black or grey bodies.

    Take a look at the solar radiation absorbed by the atmosphere (mostly by water vapour) and the distribution of that which is absorbed is nothing remotely like a Planck function. Besides that, these layers all absorb thermal energy by diffusion from nitrogen and oxygen molecules that were warmed by non-radiative processes. So Kirchhoff’s Law cannot be applied to layers of the atmosphere, as Pierrehumbert claims it can be.

    Consider the fact that over 99% of solar radiation is transmitted through the ocean surface, so how could it be warmed like a black or grey body?

    Consider the evidence that regions with higher precipitation are cooler not warmer, and there is obviously something very wrong with the whole radiative forcing conjecture.

    I have published in my book “Why It’s Not Carbon Dioxide After All” valid, authentic mainstream physics which explains all known temperature data in the atmospheres, surfaces, crusts, mantles and cores of planets and satellite moons. It’s your choice whether or not you spend an hour or two studying what I have written, because I don’t have the time to write it out again here.

    • gallopingcamel said

      I think you will like the Robinson & Catling model that corresponds with reality on all seven bodies in our solar system that have significant atmospheres. I took a look at their model of Titan and found it quite impressive:
      http://diggingintheclay.wordpress.com/2014/04/27/robinson-and-catling-model-closely-matches-data-for-titans-atmosphere/

      This model is based on measured physical parameters such as pressure and gamma (Cp/Cv). When pressure is greater than 0.1 bar the model shows a temperature gradient of -g/Cp regardless of whether the transfer of heat is dominated by convection or radiation.

      Next up is Venus where I plan to use the model to determine the effect of changing the atmospheric composition from 97% CO2 to 97% nitrogen.

      • suricat said

        Cp, Cv and Ct only applies to ‘gasses’. The ‘hole’ between ALR and ELR can only be corrected by intelligent use of ‘latent properties’!

        Best regards, Ray.

  18. Pops said

    This was very well stated. The only thing I would change is that there are a couple of instances of “who’s” that ought to be “whose”. This is going to be required reading for all my relatives and friends who struggle with the idea that a concept that is so widely accepted might, in fact, be dead wrong.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

 
%d bloggers like this: