I loathe having to write this story because I truly dislike giving any attention to the people who are known as the “slayers” from the “Slaying the Sky Dragon” book. They now operate under the moniker of “Principia Scientific”.
But, somebody has to do it because some really bad mangling of the intent of a NASA press release by the “slayers” group is getting some traction. They have completely misread the NASA study and reinterpreted it for their purpose, claiming in a story titled “New Discovery: NASA Study Proves Carbon Dioxide Cools Atmosphere” :
NASA’s Langley Research Center has collated data proving that “greenhouse gases” actually block up to 95 percent of harmful solar rays from reaching our planet, thus reducing the heating impact of the sun. The data was collected by Sounding of the Atmosphere using Broadband Emission Radiometry, (or SABER). SABER monitors infrared emissions from Earth’s upper atmosphere, in particular from carbon dioxide (CO2) and nitric oxide (NO), two substances thought to be playing a key role in the energy balance of air above our planet’s surface.
Source: http://pjmedia.com/instapundit/165971/
The NASA story is about the thermosphere when it gets hit by solar flares. Here’s the Press release:
http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2012/22mar_saber/
Here’s the relevant part from the press release:
=============================================================
“Carbon dioxide and nitric oxide are natural thermostats,” explains James Russell of Hampton University, SABER’s principal investigator. “When the upper atmosphere (or ‘thermosphere’) heats up, these molecules try as hard as they can to shed that heat back into space.”
That’s what happened on March 8th when a coronal mass ejection (CME) propelled in our direction by an X5-class solar flare hit Earth’s magnetic field. (On the “Richter Scale of Solar Flares,” X-class flares are the most powerful kind.) Energetic particles rained down on the upper atmosphere, depositing their energy where they hit. The action produced spectacular auroras around the poles and significant1 upper atmospheric heating all around the globe.
“The thermosphere lit up like a Christmas tree,” says Russell. “It began to glow intensely at infrared wavelengths as the thermostat effect kicked in.”
For the three day period, March 8th through 10th, the thermosphere absorbed 26 billion kWh of energy. Infrared radiation from CO2 and NO, the two most efficient coolants in the thermosphere, re-radiated 95% of that total back into space.
In human terms, this is a lot of energy. According to the New York City mayor’s office, an average NY household consumes just under 4700 kWh annually. This means the geomagnetic storm dumped enough energy into the atmosphere to power every home in the Big Apple for two years.
“Unfortunately, there’s no practical way to harness this kind of energy,” says Mlynczak. “It’s so diffuse and out of reach high above Earth’s surface. Plus, the majority of it has been sent back into space by the action of CO2 and NO.”
===========================================================
The two lines I bolded are what has the “slayers” in a tizzy.
Yes, of course the upper atmosphere is going to deflect and re-radiate the energy of solar storms, that’s why we don’t burn to a cinder when they happen. There’s nothing new here, this is what the upper atmosphere (thermosphere) does. CO2 (and other greenhouse gases – GHG’s) in the lower atmosphere also re-radiates long wave infra red energy (LWIR) as backradiation coming up from the surface of the Earth as it dumps the shortwave solar energy absorbed returns as LWIR (heat) and makes its way to the top of the atmosphere.
![earths_energy_balance_589[1]](http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/earths_energy_balance_5891.jpg?quality=83)
Source: http://serc.carleton.edu/earthlabs/weather_climate/lab_2.html
I’m writing this for the benefit of some who may have fallen into the trap of thinking the “slayers” interpretation was NASA’s position.
The claim by the “slayers” is the worst form of science misinterpretation I’ve seen in a long time. By itself I would have ignored it, but some of our friends in other blogs have picked up the story, and because of the NASA link, thought it was credible example as the “slayers” framed it. It isn’t, it is a twisting of the facts in a press release about solar flares and the thermosphere to make it look like the lower atmosphere works the same way. To some extent it does, but the direction of the source of LWIR energy is reversed, and CO2 and other GHG’s impede the transfer of LWIR energy to the top of the atmosphere where it is finally re-radiated into space. Without GHG’s, the lower atmosphere would be very cold. (Updated: For those who doubt this, see http://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/12/what-if-there-was-no-greenhouse-effect/ – Anthony)
Because the “slayers” get as irrational in comments as some of the most strident AGW activists, and because it is late and I don’t want to deal with the angry dialog from some of their members who frequent here I know will happen, but would instead prefer a good night’s sleep, I’m not going to enable comments for this post. Maybe tomorrow.
Comments on now.
Update: if anyone wonders why I don’t take this group seriously, and don’t cover their beliefs here,one look at the sidebar or the Principia website tells the story in one image:
If there are any people in the AGW debate that deserve the label “deniers” surely this advertised denial of the existence of the greenhouse effect must qualify.
Mark Bofill,
Mark, no need to apologize, I’ve been swiming upstream most of my life, so being called a “denier” is just another bit of mud on my side. Next rapids I hit will clear that up damn soon.
Cheers, Kevin.
Anthony,
Firstly, thank you for allowing comments on this thread. I understand your objection to “Slayer” material, and I have a similar objections. It does not matter if they arrived at the correct answer, their working is wrong. As we all know from high school and college maths, right answer with the wrong working is still an “F”.
You have written “Without GHG’s, the lower atmosphere would be very cold.”. I understand this is the consensus position, and many CAGW sceptics, including Dr. Spencer accept this. However I will take this opportunity to object and say something suitably controversial –
– AGW due to emissions of CO2 is a physical impossibility.
No, Stop! What I am writing is not material presented by any “Slayer” group or known scientist. It is, as far as I am aware, unique*. I am not asking you to accept or endorse my argument. Just that you read it.
The answer lies not in radiative atmospheric modelling, but in your field of expertise, Meteorology. As you are aware the tropopause can be defined as the altitude above which the atmospheric lapse rate stagnates then reverses. It could be more usefully defined as the upper altitude limit at which the main radiative gas in the atmosphere, H2O, can exist. One of the most notable features of the troposphere below the tropopause is the three main convective cells north and south of the the equator. The Hadley, Ferrel and Polar cells. These are strong convective circulation cells and these only occur in the atmosphere where radiative gases are present.
So what’s all this about convective circulation? Surely just flux into and out of the atmosphere will do? No. Without radiative gases, air masses heated in the lower troposphere will rise, but they will not descend. Adiabatic cooling on accent is matched by adiabatic heating on decent. If rising air masses were truly adiabatic and could not lose energy and thereby buoyancy by IR radiation to space, then convective circulation below the tropopause would stall.
Why is convective circulation important? A simple empirical experiment gives the answer. Build two insulated gas columns. Use hot and cold water cooling tubes to introduce and remove heat from the gas columns. Keep the heating tubes at the base of both tubes, but vary the height of cooling between columns. The gas column with cooling at the top always equalises at a lower average temperature.
Now, go back to the “basic physics” of the “settled science”. Does any of that involve Meteorology and moving air masses? No, it’s turtles all the way down. Their initial modelling involved combining the land, ocean and atmosphere into a single pseudo surface “Thingy”. Much later the atmosphere is treated as a separate body, but without moving gases. Model the moving gases correctly and you will find that radiative gases act to cool the atmosphere at all concentrations above 0.0ppm.
I hate to say it, but the “slayers” are right. Adding radiative gasses to the atmosphere will not reduce the atmospheres radiative cooling ability. However, their working was wrong, so I am still giving them an “F”.
But, “Without GHG’s, the lower atmosphere would be very cold.” could get you an “F- see me after class” 😉
* as to unique, on available circumstantial evidence this is not totally the case. Some AGW “believers” seem to have been aware of this problem for quite some time. The sidelining of any papers on the “high altitude ice clouds cause warming theme” that emerged between 1999 and 2005 is exhibit 1. The actions of Nick Stokes, Joel Shore, Josh Halpern, Jim D and several others in response to the 2010 Makarevia Meteorology paper would be exhibit 2.
REPLY: See my comment to Steven Wilde below- Anthony
I say “Ach, phoey!” to the radiation graph above. Where is the radiation from the base of the cloud to the surface?
No, moderators that will not work. Of course I have a off-line copy of all that was submitted along with screen shots and transmission times. Just do the right thing.
REPLY: WordPress has a SPAM filter, your comment was interpreted as such, it is rescued and on display above. Stow your “do the right thing” conspiracy theories, save them for Lew – Anthony
The harm that the Dragon Slayers do is evident from a number of these comments. As a physicist I have an advantage that I as soon as I read any of their papers I immediately realise that I am reading a load of garbage. But others unfortunately do not, and they are misled into believing that there may be some support for stupid theories that run contrary to all the science of the last two centuries. When this nonsense is repeated, as in these postings, it tends to give all sceptics a bad name. It is easy to understand why sceptics are dismissed with the D-word when Sky Dragon tripe is re-gurgitated so freely.
Ron C. says:
March 29, 2013 at 8:43 am
It is based on Kiehl and Trenberth. The level of ‘backradiation’ is monitored by a network of stations around the world. They record a typical level of about 340 W/sq.m coming from the atmosphere day and night. Because the radition is monitored in the infrared beyond 5 microns we know it is from the atmosphere and not the Sun. In any case, there is not much variation between day and night.
.
http://scienceofdoom.com/2010/07/17/the-amazing-case-of-back-radiation/
John Francis says:
March 29, 2013 at 6:51 pm
YES!
It may be interesting for you to work out by how much. The advantage of calculating is that you first need to understand, mathematics focuses your thoughts and permits no hand-waving – and so you enhance your understanding.
Rosco says:
March 29, 2013 at 8:33 pm re-the Steel Greenhouse
The Steel Greenhouse is a hypothetical scenario and yet it provides a very good model of a simple radiative greenhouse effect. Again I suggest you work through the maths to make sure you understand it. If you do, you will find that adding a 2nd shell will indeed increase the temperature of the planet – but not by double. And yes, adding more and more concentric shells will increase the temperature ad infinitum.
The problem you have Rosco is ‘conceptual’. That is why you must do the maths to convince yourself that the temperature increases as you add successive shells.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/17/the-steel-greenhouse/
I have been in communication with one of the ”slayers”, Joseph E. Postma, who has not as yet commented on this. His papers have included information about the thermosphere and its temperature and its causes. This ties in with NASA so no problem there. I will wait for his interpretation, he is an astrophysicist, when it comes out.
Your energy graphic looks similar to the Trenberth AR4 abomination which violates 2nd and 1st laws. You explain how these violations can happen and I might believe in AGW.
REPLY: I’m really not concerned what they think about it. – Anthony
I do not know if any one mentioned before me posting ,
Was there a X-5 flare on March 8 ?
No there was not, it was a year ago,
Correct me if I am wrong I think some of the comments are a little hotheaded.
The GHE was introduced because of an imagined shortfall in surface heating by the sun. Never mind the measured surface insolarion or the TOA insolation being far higher than that ”advertised” by Trenberth in AR4. His model is a flat earth with no night/day cycles, which is why he divides the insolation by 4 to spread it over the whole planet surface. His surface energy is TOA reduced for albedo and atmospheric absorption to the rediculously low figure of 167W/m2, giving a radiative equilibrium temperature of -49C which is even lower than the -18C chosen as the start point for alarmists, which gives the 33C shortfall which brought in the GHE theory. Reality is somewhat different. Surface input has been measured at the zenith position as ~1000W/m2 which gives an RET of 88C more than enough to warm the planet. Average surface energy is half this at 500W/m2 giving an RET of +33C.
Arguments that heasured LIR from the atmosphere MUST be back radiation are not valid. So called GHG’s adsorb SIR and emit LIR so that solar heating, not radiated surface energy, is but one source of this the other will be released latent heat from the H2O molucules. Water is the only atmospheric gas able to hold and release heat, heat release comes when clouds form at height when these molecules have cooled adiabatically. Under 2nd law heat can ONLY be transferred from hot to cold so how can this cooler atmospheric heat warm the hotter surface?
The fact that this GHE science has been around for 200 years does not make it right, or even possible. Think about it, the small volume of GHG’s in the atmosphere need to raise the temperature of the whole atmosphere by 33C, according to the theory. This means that they must be so hot so as to glow in the near UV. Another aspect of the theory that has yet to be shown to happen.
I have yet to see the ”slayer’s” version of the NASA report so I will not comment on this now.
The steel greenhouse looks like a modified vacuum flask. This does not warm anything inside but delays cooling. Not the same as the GHE theory at all. This claims a heating effect of 33C for the whole atmosphere.
George Steiner says:
March 29, 2013 at 9:50 am
Mr. Watts, how much of that 26 billion watts of energy was back radiated?
Why, at least Half of it of course, didn’t you notice that pulse of energy when it occurred.
davidmhoffer says (March 29, 2013 at 9:37 pm): “I attempted to link to the Heinz Hug experiment on John Daly’s site and discovered it has been suspended. http://www.john-daly.com/cgi-sys/suspendedpage.cgi
It would be unfortunate to lose all the content that was available on that site. I thought his family was still maintaining it? Does anyone have copies of the content?”
===========================================================
You have to search for the URL “http://www.john-daly.com/artifact.htm” here: http://archive.org/web/web.php . Then a calendar will appear and an earlier version can be chosen.
[snip – policy violation – mod]
Sheesh.
I too have problems with some of the work of some of the slayers but in addition:
i) Anthony is wrong because even without GHGs the atmosphere would heat via conduction from the ground and would have little means of cooling other than by conduction back to the ground so I don’t see how an absence of GHGs would make it cold.
ii) Konrad says that there would be no adiabatic descent without GHGs but there is no reason why not because air that has risen adiabatically will still cool adiabatically as it rises because of the declining pressure gradient and if it can cool it will contract and become more dense so that it can indeed descend without GHGs being necessary.
REPLY: I say “Without GHG’s, the lower atmosphere would be very cold.” That includes water vapor, the most potent GHG. From Dr. Roy Spencer’s excellent essay: What If There Was No Greenhouse Effect?
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/12/what-if-there-was-no-greenhouse-effect/
I thought 0F to 45F qualifies, your perception of cold may vary.
– Anthony
MikeB says (March 30, 2013 at 3:39 am): “The harm that the Dragon Slayers do is evident from a number of these comments. … a load of garbage. … stupid theories…. When this nonsense is repeated, as in these postings, it tends to give all sceptics a bad name.”
=======================================================
Other people can only give you a bad name if they prove that you are wrong or if they misrepresent your point. But them giving you a bad name by making their point? This is absurd, sorry.
If adding CO2 truly warms the planet then there is an unexplained paradox. The existence of this paradox is strong evidence that CO2 does not warm the planet, regardless of whichever theory is currently popular. Until this paradox can be fully explained there is no justification for claiming with any certainty that CO2 warms the planet.
The paradox is of course that as we warm the oceans more CO2 is released to the atmosphere, and as we cool the oceans more CO2 is absorbed by the atmosphere. Given the very small change in solar energy received due to the Milankovitch cycles, this change in CO2 should more than overpower any tendency towards ice age cycles.
Once we are in an ice age, the reduced CO2 should keep us there forever. Once we are in an interglacial, the increased CO2 should prevent the next ice age. However, this is not what is observed. Thus, since observation does not match our theory, that CO2 causes warming, our theory must be wrong.
The reason I came to WUWT was the censorship and intolerance displayed at Real Climate towards competing theories. I was very disappointed to see a positing that was apparently attacking a competing theory with comments turned off.
I have no problem with anyone attacking a competing theory – that is the essence of the scientific method. My disappointment stems from effectively censoring all comments by turning off comments.
However, I am encouraged to find comments restored and wish to thank our host for restoring my faith in WUWT.
What is ignored in the GHG theory of CO2 is that radiation is not the only means of energy transfer in the atmosphere. In a real greenhouse warming is not a result of radiation, no matter how many scientists promote this false idea.
In a real greenhouse the warming is created by reducing convection. If you open small windows in the ceiling of a greenhouse it has almost no change on the radiation budget, yet it has a huge effect on temperature.
Adding CO2 to the atmosphere increases the amount of energy radiated by the atmosphere to space, as well as increasing the energy radiated to the surface. This must reduce the temperature of the atmosphere and increase the temperature of the surface. This increased temperature differential must increase convection, removing the increased energy from the surface and carrying up to the atmosphere where it warms the atmosphere.
So we have CO2 cooling the atmosphere and warming the surface, and convection cooling the surface and warming the atmosphere. As we increase the amount of CO2, the amount of convection should also increase, reducing the effects of CO2.
At the same time, the added CO2 is also blocking incoming solar radiation, much of which is IR. The question is this – is the amount of blocked IR incoming for the sun more than the net effects of CO2 and convection on surface temps. If so, then CO2 will have a net cooling, not warming effect on surface temps.
Wow, hehehe, devolving conversation. Interesting. I see Venus interjected here and there, and I see we are also back to the Willis “thought” experiment. And the Dr. Spencer “thought” experiment (cold objects making warmer object warmer still) which is so laughable it is difficult to understand why he would even attempt such a conversation. This posting has turning into “dancing with the stars”.
Three things, one, the Willis thought experiment is a perfect example that refutes the GHE hypothesis. The Willis thought experiment is complete and utter garbage on many levels, not to mention the total lack of competent mathematics. Second, Venus is another excellent example that refutes GHE and is proof that there is no GHE on Venus, Mars or Earth (or anywhere else in the universe for that matter). And finally, the Spencer thought experiment (Yes Virginia, cold object can make warmer objects warmer still) is an embarrassing display of the application of the physics thermodynamics. I recommend reading ALL of the conversations regarding that topic, as you will find that Spencer’s thought experiment completely fails physics 101.
Kevin, your spot on! .. Konrad, great writing! ..
MikeB, your a physicist? you won’t ever be working for me, that is for sure. DavidMHoffer, go back to school…
The importance of the NASA paper is that it recognizes that CO2 does block incoming IR from the sun. Something that is missing in most climate energy diagrams, including the one used in this article above. (carleton)
Take a look at the energy “cartoon” show in the article. It shows incoming radiation as “absorbed by atmosphere 22.9”. Where is the incoming radiation being shown as “absorbed by GHG”? It doesn’t. The NASA paper now establishes that this is incomplete.
Instead the cartoon only shows outgoing radiation as “absorbed by Greenhouse gases 104.4” Now look at this 104.4. It shows that almost all of this 97.7 is back-radiated to the surface and 49.6 is radiated to space. However, 97.7+49.6 = 147.3, not 104.4.
So, in the process of absorbing energy, not only has GHG somehow managed to reflect almost all the energy back to the surface in violation of physics which requires radiation to have no sense of up or down, it has also managed to create energy also in violation of physics which maintains energy cannot be created or destroyed, only changed in form.
So, if this cartoon is to be used as justification that the “slayers are wrong”, I’d say the evidence is at best weak.
HELP WANTED
Does anyone know of any experimental data on whether the surface reflects any part of the back radiation which in the energy diagram is shown as a perpendicular downward energy flux.
Backradiation is omni-directional so it follows that when back radiation ‘hits’ the surface not much of it is interacting in a perpendicular plane, and much of it is interacting at low incidence. Is any of this low incident back radiation just simply reflected by the surface and not absorbed by it?
Water is an effective LWIR absorber. LWIR gets absorbed by water within microns (very little LWIR penetrates more than 10 microns). But does anyone know whether this hold true where the angle of incident is say less than 10 degrees to the surface? Incoming solar is largely absorbed by water but at low incidents water reflects solar, so too does ice. May the same be so with LWIR?
The energy diagram shows that of the incoming solar radiation some 6.7% is reflected by the surface. In practice this gives a somewhat misleading impression since 46.1% (ie., 22.9 + 23.2) of incoming solar never reaches the surface. The 6.7% of incoming solar which is reflected comes from the 53.9% that makes it way through the clouds and the atmosphere so the percentage of solar that makes it way through the atmoshere and past the clouds is greater than the 6.7% figure suggests.
I am pondering upon whether there may be some error in the absorption of LWIR in the energy diagram said to be 97.7 since it may be that some small part of that is simply reflected by the surface.
Clouds are shown in the energy diagram as high. But what about low lying clouds, and sea mist? Would these in effect re-radiate upwards some of the back radiation so that not all of the 97.7 of back radiation interacts with the surface.
These possible effects may only be small. However, in a balanced budget, even an error of 1% can make significant differences.
Anyone got any comments, or better still some experimetal data.
Boris Winterhalter says:
March 29, 2013 at 12:15 pm
Since N2 and O2 are not greenhouse gases and thus not capable of radiative transfer of energy to space, the warm N2/O2 gas would rise to higher altitudes and remain there because of buoyancy.
=================
I built a kinetic gas model to test this, using the equivalent of perfectly elastic balls in place of molecules. The model result was confirmed independently by other modellers over on Talbloke’s site who independently built their own models.
In all cases the molecule arranged themselves over time to be nearly isothermal. A result that is consistent with the previous article in WUWT. A result that I found surprising at the time, which is why I tested it.
What was happening is this. Molecules high in the atmosphere have potential energy. As they fall under the effects of gravity the PE is converted to kinetic energy, raising the temperature of the molecules. However, when molecules collide there is a slight statistical advantage in energetic molecules bounding upwards rather than down, because the atmosphere is slightly less dense above them than below. Over time these two tendancy balance out almost exactly, so that the atmosphere is isothermal without GHG.
(note: While this seemed at first a remarkeable coincidence, thinking more on the point it does seem consistent with many effects we observe in physics, that somehow the natual word always manages to choose the path of least energy, almost as though it already knows the future.)
What this result confirms is that the lapse rate results from adding GHG to the atmosphere. This allows some of the molecules to radiate some of their energy to space, reducing the temperature of the atmosphere at altitude, and these molecules having less energy will tend to fall towards the earth (rather than bounce upwards). Their average rate of fall is limited by gravity, and thus the dry air lapse rate is determined (limited) by the force of gravity.
When the molecules eventually reach the surface they gain energy from the warmer surface and rebound upwards, carrying this energy hgher and higher. Some of this energy is in the form of water vapor that consenses and releases its latent energy. This additional energy warms the atmosphere above the amount that would otherwise be pedicted by the conversion of KE to PE, which is why the moist air lapse rate is less than the dry air lapse rate.
I did not find confirmation for the explanation given in wikipedia for the lapse rate, that the work done by rising air expanding is what cools it. None of the modellers were able to recreate this, in spite of numerous attempts and many different approaches.
Oh my gosh… having worked through yet another thread ultimately reduced to a “he says – she says” to and fro about backradiation I am even more encouraged in my considered opinion that “if you lay all the physicists in the world end to end they still would not reach a conclusion” about this. (Apologies to the economists to whom this is normally applied)
ALL admonish all others to learn the physics and do the math but no two of them can agree about the correct physics and math to do. Do you people even listen to yourselves?
For me, ignorant sceptic and denier and whatever else I am, but with pretty reasonable logic skills (engineering studies and been making a living from application software development, working solo, for 25 years now) the only path is to say that if an explanation does not make intuitive logical sense to me, I care nought for yet another version of the math or physics but want to see replicated experimental evidence.
Failing that, my own (long and deeply considered) view is as valid as that of any of you guys. I say the AGHE is b***s**t. So there.
In contrast, the adiabatic lapse rate explanations make perfect logical and intuitive sense. I have considered it thoroughly. So there.
REPLY: but not thoroughly enough to see that you are deluding yourself – Anthony
****
DaveG says:
March 29, 2013 at 3:04 pm
Anthony. You got your nickers in a knot and have gone off half cocked. check your coffee. The dragon slayers are good guys. The same as you!
****
Nope. They don’t understand radiational physics, and so are a liability to correct science.
GabrielHBAy;
ALL admonish all others to learn the physics and do the math but no two of them can agree about the correct physics and math to do. Do you people even listen to yourselves?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Physicists from both sides of the debate are in general agreement about the GHE. It may not seem so from threads like this because it is difficult to tell who has a real understanding of the physics and who doesn’t. But when you line up say Joel Shore, an ardent warmist with a PhD in physics who is a professor at Purdue, with say Richard Lindzen, an ardent skeptic with a PhD in physics who is a professor at MIT, you’ll find very little daylight between them on this issue. Where they disagree is on the order of magnitude and sign of direct and feedback effects.
That is what makes this debate so difficult. From this thread, you might conclude that I’m a warmist. I’m not. I’m a skeptic. Find as many actual physicists as you want and you will find that very few of them disagree on the main aspects of the GHE itself.
Westy says:
March 29, 2013 at 2:26 pm
REPLY: See http://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/12/what-if-there-was-no-greenhouse-effect/ – Anthony
===========
Our kinetic gas model was in broad agreement with the observations and conclusions Dr Spencer presents in the above article. The model offered a somewhat different explanation for the observations, but did not alter the conclusions.
squid2112
the Dr. Spencer “thought” experiment (cold objects making warmer object warmer still) which is so laughable
The Willis thought experiment is complete and utter garbage
Venus is another excellent example that refutes GHE
the Spencer thought experiment (Yes Virginia, cold object can make warmer objects warmer still) is an embarrassing display
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Anthony.
I’m beginning to think that your initial instinct to simply close comments was the right one.
REPLY: Yeah I think I’ve had enough. This is going nowhere, it is the same tired arguments over and over again from the Slayers – Anthony
Comments are closed. I’m taking the weekend off rather than waste time on this circular argument with the Slayers.
Feel free to be as upset as you wish, and have a happy Easter.