On Monday, I wrote a very personal piece that describes my personal trials and tribulations over the last 18 months. It was very well received and I had hundreds of comments of support. I sincerely thank everyone who left a comment of support and understanding. Out of 428 comments, almost every comment was this way, almost, save one. Even the normally irascible “Eli Rabbet” provided a thoughtful comment of support.
That one comment (which was never published due to multiple policy violations) is presented below for your amusement, along with a follow up comment.
Of course, the person writing it was a coward, hiding behind a fake name, a fake email, and an IP address on a proxy server. But the m.o. and the content is a dead giveaway, because who else writes high pressure craziness like this hoping to convince somebody you are right by hurling insults? There’s only one person I know of.
I recall Einsteins definition of insanity:
So here is the comment I got on the personal thread Monday:
2016/07/25 at 9:52 pm
YourWifeCouldntStandTheStupid
Quick, Magic Gais Watts, what’s the name of the law of thermodynamics for solving temperature, and how long was it before your dumb ass discovered ”Green House Gas Effect” is nothing but the compression warming removed from standard gas equations?
LoL Watt a f***g HicK.
I guess if you can steer an entire scientific movement into the trash with the likes of that thermo-billy Eschenbach, you can wreck a woman’s life.
GO FIGURE.
You’re a fraud.
You’re a fake atmospheric chemist.
You’re not even skeptical about a story so simple it involves leaving compression out of the mathematics of atmospheric temperature then claiming MAGIC makes the sky hot.
You’re a f***n’ bum. You never thought or cared about anything
but your self. – and the way you’ve acted, you deserve all the dismissal by those who know you WELL, you get.
You’re a f****g HaCK.
You’re the back door man
for a pseudo science movement so stupid it has you claiming that immersion of a fire warmed rock into frigid fluids,
makes it warmer than when there WAS no bath of frigid fluids,
and the full light of that fire assured maximum surface energy density for the distance.
Your fans and friends are pretty much the K-Mart of Signts and you’re as disgusting as you feel. When you know you’ve been being bad, you can always get ”your public” to run it’s tongue up and down the crack of your sweaty, stupid a*&, and get yourself some kook-kiks.
Typically you’re another Repugnican, and somewhere is a woman who spent years watching you over-eat and act like a vindictive little dilettante.
You’ve been at the HELM – the PUBLIC HELM of the BIGGEST MOWING DOWN of SCIENTIFIC INTEGRITY in COMMUNICATIONS in the RECENT HISTORY.
Too STUPID to know MAGIC GAS EFFECT is nothing more than REMOVAL of COMPRESSION from ATMOSPHERIC MECHANICS
Oh, but wait, there’s more!
2016/07/28 at 11:24 am
GasCompressionMathematics
princeofpomegranites@gmail.com
If WATTS HADN’T TRIED TO TELL THE WORLD THERE IS A GREEN HOUSE GAS EFFECT HE WOULDN’T HAVE TO HAVE
OTHER FAILED PHYSICISTS
APOLOGIZING FOR HIS/THEIR IGNORANT, ANTI-SCIENTIFIC DRIVEL
AND THEIR BOOKS WOULD SELL.
A BUNCH of F*KG HICKS.
ANTI SCIENTIFIC f*kng HICKS who CAN’T PROPERLY READ & WRITE
the LAW of THERMODYNAMICS
that SOLVES FOR TEMPERATURE of GAS.
*THAT SOLVES TEMPERATURE of GAS*
THAT solves TEMPERATURE of the SIMPLEST PHASE of f*kng MATTER known to MAN.
WATTS IS THE ANTI SCIENCE HICK WHO SET THAT THERMO-BILLY ESCHENBACH ONTO THE WORLD’S SCIENTIFIC SCENE TO LIBEL, INSULT and LIE to REAL SCIENTISTS who TOLD YOU ALL
who TOLD YOU ALL –
THERE IS NO SUCH THING as a GREEN HOUSE GAS EFFECT WARMING.
GREEN HOUSE GASES are the COOLING FLUIDS of the PLANETARY SYSTEM.
YOU can not WARM a ROCK with a FIRE in VACUUM
then WARM it through IMMERSION in a SHALLOW FIELD of FRIGID FLUIDS you HICK – that’s YOU
WATTS.
That’s YOU STEELE.
YOU CAN NOT RAISE SURFACE ENERGY DENSITY you IGNORANT HICKS,
THROUGH IMMERSION of a LIGHT WARMED OBJECT
into a LIGHT BLOCKING FRIGID BATH of TURBULENT FLUIDS
and YOUR LEGACY
is BRANDED WITH THE FACT YOU CLAIMED YOU THINK THAT CAN HAPPEN.
GREEN HOUSE GAS
GARBAGE
is NOTHING BUT
THE STRIPPING OF COMPRESSION MATHEMATICS
from STANDARD GAS EQUATIONS
and FILLING IN that 30 + DEGREES with WATTS/STEELE/MANN/HANSEN/TRENBERTH CLASS
THERMODYNAMIC
G A R B A G E.
Gosh, I didn’t realize I’m in the same league with Mann, Hansen, and Trenberth. With my elevated status, it seems critical mass has been reached again.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Anthony,
It’s sad that you have to put up with this kind of shameful unpleasantness. It’s like seeing a bad motor accident – you move on with your life but you cannot ‘unsee’ it. It does take a toll and no doubt adds to your stress.
There is one point in his despicable rant that I have to admit I do struggle with myself. I almost feel reluctant to raise it lest he feels in any way justified in making his personal attack on you. I often wonder why you seem to discourage discussion if it attempts to challenge the science behind the greenhouse effect?
I have read and enjoyed your site for many years now but I have never actually seen an article that goes into the greenhouse effect in detail and confirms that it is actually real and is scientifically proven. I have also noticed that whenever the science of the greenhouse gas effect is challenged, a blizzard of vicious troll attacks immediately ensues which succeeds in its probable objective and destroys any real discussion on the topic.
I am an economist by training so I cannot scientifically prove of disprove the greenhouse effect but I would like there to be an honest, open and courteous discussion about it. I have done a great deal of reading into the topic and I see at least four, real, scientific question marks that cast doubt on whether the greenhouse effect is in fact real. I would like to briefly describe them here and hope that some of the talented scientists here can explain them.
The four big doubts that I have that the greenhouse gas effect is real are:
1. Infra-red emissions are ‘Isotropic’
Isotropic means that the LWIR is emitted equally in all directions by any matter, such as a molecule of CO2. This means that when a molecule of CO2 emits LWIR radiation, as much of it goes up as goes down. That means at least half of the emissions are lost to space. If the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is increased, then the amount of LWIR emitted to space must increase proportionately. Since the CO2 is in the atmosphere, the atmosphere must cool down as a result. This seems to be an obvious conclusion that directly disproves the greenhouse effect.
2. Temperature changes before CO2 changes.
I believe that it is generally accepted that, surprisingly, changes in atmospheric CO2 follow changes in temperature and do not precede them. This is true in the short term and the long term. In the short term, the Mauna Loa CO2 record shows that that monthly atmospheric CO2 fluctuates up and down by 3% in line with seasonal temperature fluctuations. It’s safe to assume which way the causality is here in that changes in CO2 do not cause the seasons to change. In the long term, many ice core studies have shown that changes in atmospheric CO2 seem to lag changes in temperature by several hundred years. Both these examples indicate that CO2 is the dependent variable and temperature is the independent variable. My statistics training tells me that a dependent variable cannot be an independent variable at the same time (absent evidence of a runaway warming effect). Again, this seems to be an obvious conclusion that directly disproves the greenhouse effect.
3. A radiating body cannot heat another body above its own temperature.
The sun has a temperature of about 5500 degrees C. No matter how close the Earth gets to the sun, the temperature of the Earth cannot rise above 5500 degrees C. Even if there were two suns, each with a temperature 5500 degrees C and the Earth was right next to both, its temperature still would not go above 5500 degrees C. The maximum temperatures of two radiating bodies are not additive with respect to the maximum temperature of an an absorbing body.
OK, now consider CO2. CO2 emits LWIR with a range of wavelengths centered around 13-15 microns. This equates to a black body emitting at a temperature of -50 C to -80 C. If that is true then the LWIR emissions from CO2 cannot raise the temperature of the Earth above -50 C, no matter how much CO2 is in the atmosphere. Again this seems to be an obvious conclusion that directly disproves the greenhouse effect.
4. There is no statistical evidence.
Despite all the CAGW models, there is no actual evidence that proves that CO2 drives up atmospheric temperatures. In the last century, Temperatures have gone up, down and stayed flat for decades at a time while CO2 levels have steadily risen. There is no clear correlation, let alone proof of causation. Whatever evidence there is of causation (see 2. above) seems to be the opposite of the greenhouse effect. I have seen some studies claim a correlation between temperature change and cumulative levels of CO2 but that seems to me to be a rather sneaky attempt to not have to explain the period between 1945 and 1975 when temperatures fell despite CO2 steadily rising. Again, this lack of actual evidence seems to lead to the obvious conclusion that the greenhouse effect is not real.
These four reasons to doubt the greenhouse effect seem very strong to me. Any one of them I would think was enough to disprove the greenhouse effect. I hope they are considered strong enough by you to allow, and even encourage, an open, honest and courteous debate as to whether the science behind the greenhouse effect is in fact wrong.
I would ask the real scientists here if they would explain why these four doubts are in fact wrong or indeed right. Please, every one else – no rants – or appeals to authority – I am genuinely looking for explanations.
I wouldn’t ever deny the “greenhouse effect” since it is real and very tangible. The scientific arguments are around the effects and actual impacts in temperatures.
Without the greenhouse we’d be very uncomfortable cold and maybe planet earth wouldn’t be supporting any lifeforms at all
You are talking about the ‘blanket’ effect where the atmosphere that is held in place by gravity helps keep the Earth warm. In the blanket effect, we are warmed by nitrogen and oxygen as well as CO2. I am talking about the ‘greenhouse effect’ whereby CO2 is claimed to keep us even warmer than if we just had nitrogen and oxygen in the atmosphere. That is what I have doubts about.
Andi, that’s a statement of faith.
It’s obvious the atmosphere does not cause warming by comprison with the Moon.
The lit side of the Moon gets hotter, the dark side colder, than the Earth.
The atmosphere has a _moderating_ effect, not a “greenhouse” effect.
Bernard 4:55pm – Your comment on the blanket effect is good insight for an economist. You just need a reason N2, O2, CO2 are not equal in (your term) blanket effect.
Experimentalists have shown N2 gas has a lower measured extinction coefficient than O2, that of O2 is lower than CO2 meaning the amount of light made extinct over same distance in each gas is different. Thus light energy absorbed increases from N2 to O2 to CO2. An economist (layman, general public) can think of this coefficient difference as successfully thicker bedtime blanket effect. No faith here, all facts from test.
——
Sleepalot 5:10pm – Sure the moon has more extreme temperatures due much slower rotation wrt sun and some due the moderating atm. effect.
However the annual global Tmedian of the airless moon surface receiving the same amount of annual sunlight is measured roughly 200K to approx. 240-250K which is lower than Earth system at approx. 288K. That annual global Tmedian difference is Bernard’s blanket effect. Some faith in the precise numbers, fact is they are made substantially different by Earth atm.
Seconded.
My comment is for Bernard.
Andi Cockroft July 29, 2016 at 3:30 pm says:
I wouldn’t ever deny the “greenhouse effect” since it is real and very tangible.
Are you kidding? Tangible? Really?
Sure, tangible. Water vapor for instance. This is why dry Arizona deserts drop to 50F at night in the summer while a place at the same latitude, such as Atlanta, with high humidity might not drop below 70F if each had the same high temperature of 90F that day.
Does that mean Greenhouse? No, it doesn’t. There are other possibilities and you know that.
Anthony,
You say:
‘Sure, tangible. Water vapor for instance. This is why dry Arizona deserts drop to 50F at night in the summer while a place at the same latitude, such as Atlanta, with high humidity might not drop below 70F if each had the same high temperature of 90F that day.’
Atlanta is warmer at night because the high water vapor in the air condenses as temperatures decline. This phase change releases a large amount of ‘latent heat of evaporation’ which is what slows the temperature decline compared to a low humidity Arizona desert. It is ‘phase change’ energy, rather than water vapor LWIR emissions. The phase change energy is a flash-release as the water vapor transforms into water droplets. The LWIR emissions from the remaining, non-condensed, water vapor are just like the CO2 LWIR emissions – they go upwards as well as downwards so the more water vapor there is, the more energy is lost to space and the faster the atmosphere cools.
Anthony Watts July 29, 2016 at 4:48 pm wrote:
“This is why dry Arizona deserts drop to 50F at night in the summer while a place at the same latitude, such as Atlanta, with high humidity might not drop below 70F if each had the same high temperature of 90F that day.”
Yes, the desert is colder at night because it’s dry – but that’s only half the story, it’s also hotter by day because it’s dry. You not only neglected that fact – you covered it up by saying “if each had the same high temperature of 90F that day.” Why on Earth would you do that?
Bernard 3:12pm, 5:17pm – ”LWIR is emitted equally in all directions by any matter….they go upwards as well as downwards so the more water vapor there is, the more energy is lost to space and the faster the atmosphere cools.”
There would not be a preference to cooling since you correctly write emitted in all directions.
Actually, tests show with added CO2 there is a preference to cooling in the stratosphere (lower density, pressure) and equal warming in the denser lower troposphere. Atm. global annual Tmedian measurements in the stratosphere are too sparse (compared to near surface thermometers) to render planet size precise numbers. To an economist, I think that means something like: need more funding.
The responses about water vapor not being [part of the] GHG effect are truly amazing…and misdirected. Folks who have not completely;y closed their mind might want to read what Dr. Roy Spencer has to say about this issue in a new post. http://www.drroyspencer.com/2016/07/the-warm-earth-greenhouse-effect-or-atmospheric-pressure/
Hello Bernard, let me explain to you the flaws of some of your argumentation, which will at the same time answer your questions.
1.- “That means at least half of the emissions are lost to space. If the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is increased, then the amount of LWIR emitted to space must increase proportionately” >> No. CO2 cannot emit more than it traps in the first place. If CO2 were to emit twice as much in your scenario, then that would mean that it would be absorbing now half of what it would need to absorb in that one. Which would mean that the rest, not CO2-absorbed LWIR would already be fully escaping without any CO2 molecule touching it. In your scenario there would be “x” ammount of additional LWIR emitted from CO2, but “2x” less ammount of LWIR escaping the Earth without interaction with it. So in the end, there is less LWIR escaping Earth when there is more CO2.
2.- Temperature changes before CO2 changes, as long as the main source of added CO2 is the outgassing from the oceans. This outgassing is a very slow process because ocean temperatures change slowly. And the CO2 changes that it triggers are small. But in our current century, the main source of additional CO2 in the atmosphere is not the oceans. It is the burning of fossil fuels. To put in perspective, the outgassing of the oceans from the last glaciation, meant that a ~10K warming of the oceans as a whole triggered a CO2 increase of ~70ppm through milennia. There is no way that a warming of ~0.7K in the last 150 years could be the trigger of a CO2 increase of ~130ppm which is about the ammount of the increase since the start of the industrial revolution.
3.- The one thing that prevents Earth from being at temperature close to the Sun’s, is that the Earth also cools itself by radiating energy out. This radiation out is proportional to the Earth’s temperature among many other things. These other things can modify the Earth’s surface temperature at which the outgoing radiation will equal the incoming radiation. One of these things is the GHGs. Change the concentration of GHGs and you are modifying the temperature that the Earth’s surface needs to reach in order to emit as much radiation out as radiation it receives from the Sun. CO2 is not what warms the surface, it just prevents the surface from cooling enough. It makes the energy comming from the sun be greater than the energy leaving Earth’s surface. As a result, the Earth’s surface where we live, warms. It is warmed by the sun at 5500C, as it has always been and will always be. CO2 is just not letting the surface cool so easily in the same way that a blanket warms you at night despite it being colder than your body. The heat is generated by your metabolism, not by the blanket. The blanket just allows you to keep most of that energy, instead of letting it escape from your body by convection and radiation.
4.- You are right that there is little statistical evidence. But this doesn’t mean that CO2 isn’t a driver, it only means that it is not the MAIN driver. There are many more things in play which can add or substract from any effect that the CO2 may have, sometimes cancelling it and other times amplifying it.
I hope it helped.
Hi Nylo,
Thanks for your response. It was helpful and a great example of discussion that we get here on WUWT. With respect to your comments, I would respond:
1. I agree that CO2 cannot emit more energy than it has previously absorbed. I did not mean to imply that the CO2 emissions are doubled, I meant to say that, whatever they are, half of them will be lost to space. Thus if you increase CO2 you are increasing emissions to space which must cool the atmosphere.
2. You mention that oceans out-gassing is a slow process. You might be right here but the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere go up 3% then drop 6% to a net 3% decline each and every year, presumably driven by seasonal temperature changes. I don’t don’t think anyone really knows the precise mechanisms that drive this. My point is that these CO2 changes are caused by the temperature changes, not the other way round.
3. I agree with your point that the Earth’s temperature is driven by many factors, including ‘green house gasses’. You mention the ‘blanket effect’ – please see my response on that above to Andi Cockroft. I believe the blanket effect’ is different to the ‘greenhouse effect’. My conclusion is that all gasses act to provide a ‘blanket affect’ but the ‘greenhouse effect’ claimed for CO2 (and uncondensed water vapor) is backwards – I still believe that they in fact act to cool the atmosphere rather than warm it as I describe above.
4. I agree that a current lack of evidence doesn’t prove the ‘greenhouse effect’ is not real. However, I hope that you would agree that the lack of evidence indicates that it is currently not proven to be real.
Thanks again for your response.
Hi again Bernard,
1.- Let’s simplify a bit and consider that Earth’s surface, because of its temperature, emits LWIR for a total value of 10 (ignore units), CO2 absorbs 4 and radiates half of that ammount back. Total emissions from planet Earth are 6 (untouched by CO2) plus half of the 4 absorbed and re-emitted by CO2 = 8. That’s how much planet earth cools. Now double CO2 and make it absorb 8 instead of 4. Total emissions from planet Earth are 2 (untouched by CO2) plus half of the 8 absorbed and re-emitted by CO2 = 2+4=6. That’s how much planet Earth cools. It is cooling LESS than before. 6 < 8. CO2 itself is emitting more to outer space, but the planet as a whole emits less, so if it is receiving the same energy as before from the sun, it inevitably warms.
2.- I was talking about long-term gains and losses of CO2. The yearly cicle is well known to be a mix of ocean outgassing and biological activity. But if it were solely by outgassing, do you know how much the overall ocean's surface temperature is changing during a year in order to achieve those 10ppm changes throughout the year? We are talking about several degrees causing that 10ppm change. Impossible to reconcile with a 130ppm CO2 change caused by a 0.7K average temperature change. DIfferent orders of magnitude. The outgassing effect, which indeed exists, is just too small to be the explanation for the "recent" (last 150 years) increase in CO2 concentration by itself.
3.- Given that the Earth only cools through radiation to space and that Nitrogen and Oxygen do not block in a significant way such radiation, they are not "blankets" in any sense. Earth would be almost just as warm without them… Well actually no, because the existence of an atmosphere helps, through convection, to keep the Earth's temperature more uniformly distributed than it would be without them. This reduces temperature extremes at the surface which would make the average temperature of the surface colder overall (because emissivity relates to the 4th power of the temperature, rather than linearly). So they do keep the average temperature higher, but in an indirect way not at all related to the way a blanket works. They keep the overall temperature warmer by promoting convection and exchange of heat between different parts of the surface, while a blanket will keep your body warm by not allowing convection (which cools the total emissions from the room overall). The moon's overall temperature is quite smaller because there is nothing carrying heat from one place in the surface to another, so temperature extremes are huge and this makes the average temperature drop. I agree that a thicker atmosphere does this better. The thicker, the more heat it carries from one place to another, and the more uniformly temperature can be distributed at the surface, but this can eventually reach a limit – when the surface has a totally uniform temperature. And it doesn't mean that the GH effect doesn't cause warming as well.
4.- Yes, from a statistical point of view, earth's temperature is no evidence. Evidence of the GH effect comes from experimentation at smaller scale.
Nylo
July 29, 2016 at 4:57 pm
There is no way that a warming of ~0.7K in the last 150 years could be the trigger of a CO2 increase of ~130ppm which is about the ammount of the increase since the start of the industrial revolution.
———————————————-
Nylo.
Two things:
First, you forget, ignore or dismiss another ~0.4K warming, from the depth of LIA to the Industrial revolution period……..and that is a lot of warming dismissed, in your argument.
The thermal variation you are counting on is much bigger and steeper in reality than as claimed in your argument.
Second, if you look carefully in your comment, you may find that you make this “usual” very often made mistake of considering the emissions of CO2 the same as the CO2 concentration (ppm).
The direct relation of the thermal variation with CO2 is with the emissions not the concentrations.
The actual relation between the emissions and concentrations depends mostly in the residence time of CO2 in atmosphere, something that totally not considered in your argument, as with any other argument that tries to push the anthropogenic effect in to the CO2 concentration…..
But remember emissions are no concentration.
Hopefully you get the point.
cheers
whiten,
Take 1.1K or 0.7K, it is still insufficient to provoque a 130ppm rise in CO2 concentration according to geological evidence. Never done it before. The rise that a temperature change of that ammount has caused in the past was just a few ppm. Minimum one order of magnitude lower. And it happened with an 800 years lag that obviously we are not seeing here. There is no dispute that the cause of the rise is man-made and I will not continue to argue about it.
Second, yes, the direct relation of the thermal variation with CO2 is with the emissions not the concentrations. But this has a reflection in the concentrations, if emissions increase and there are no increases of the absorption by other CO2 sinks (or not enough to compensate it), concentrations increase as well. In fact, the only evidences that we can find in the geological past relating temperature and CO2 emissions, is through the rise in concentrations. So it is the one thing that we can compare between the distant past and nowadays. And by comparing it, we know that what we are seeing is way too much CO2 concentration rise to be caused by a mere increase in the outgassing caused by temperature.
Nylo
July 31, 2016 at 3:32 am
Take 1.1K or 0.7K, it is still insufficient to provoque a 130ppm rise in CO2 concentration according to geological evidence. Never done it before.
———-
Hello again Nylo.
If you have misted, the point in my reply to you, let me make it clearer.
You had an argument build and upholding in a false premise.
Therefor the whole of your argument was considered in my point of view as such a falsity.
Now, considering what you say above, still you argument is upholding in further falsity.
Is no way that the resolution of the geological data the way it stands will provide geological evidence as you claim, that is a “blasphemy” so to speak in a rational approach to such data.
The most you can conclude, with a stretch, is that for the last 7 K years yes there is not such as this kind of event happened.
But beyond that you can not claim the same, simply because the geological data and the resolution of such data do not provide us with such a luxury as to estimate or conclude that it did not ever happen before.
Is beyond the capability and the purpose of such data the way the data stands.
“Never done it in the last 7k years”, yes, acceptable to a degree. But that does not stand or mean as “never before”.
Exploiting that deficiency of the geological evidence in a “devious” false way is no more or less than simply proving that your argument again is based in a false premise.
In my opinion no any king of reasoning can repair that mistake…..and from my point of view, regardless of the innuendos it still remains a logical fallacy and an attempt to deceive.
cheers
whiten,
It is fine to consider our geological evidence coming from ice cores faulty. Even myself I consider that there is a lot of averaging in that evidence as to consider it an absolute truth, it probably omits lots of ups and downs that probably did take place. But if you disregard this evidence as faulty for any reasons, you are left with… NO EVIDENCE supporting any point of view. So at this point your position is pure wishful thinking, not based in ANY evidence but the fact that CO2 is rising at the same time as the temperatures do, which tells nothing about the cause of both. Correlation is not causation. Any PROOF that you can provide of this causation being true in the past will be based on the same geological evidence that you are here trying to say that it is faulty. Ignore it and you are left with nothing. What you cannot do is rewrite the evidence to your convenience. You cannot say “if the evidence wasn’t faulty, it would look like this, therefore it proves my point”. You have not proven a sh*t with that kind of argumentation. It reminds of alarmists trying to rewrite past temperature evidence so that it agrees with their models.
Bernard Lodge, I see Nylo has already taken a crack at your questions, but I’ll add my 2 cents anyway:
1) “If the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is increased, then the amount of LWIR emitted to space must increase proportionately.”
So does the LWIR emitted downward. All else being equal, the net effect is warming of the surface. I highly recommend you read Willis Eschenbach’s article “The Steel Greenhouse”, IMHO still one of the best articles to appear on WUWT:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/17/the-steel-greenhouse/
Note that when one adds a second shell (as if adding more CO2 to the atmosphere), the surface temp goes up, not down. Note also that not everyone in the comments section “gets” the concept.
2) “Temperature changes before CO2 changes.”
Yes, when coming out of a glacial period, due to influences other than CO2. That tells us nothing about CO2’s effect when independently varied. Also see my answer to 4) below.
3) “This equates to a black body emitting at a temperature of -50 C to -80 C. If that is true then the LWIR emissions from CO2 cannot raise the temperature of the Earth above -50 C…”
If your interpretation were correct, then a CO2 laser could not cut steel.
Note that so-called “greenhouse gasses” don’t “heat” the Earth’s surface, they “insulate” it against radiative heat loss, which is conceptually similar to the way “cold” insulation slows convective/conductive heat loss from your house.
If that’s still not clear, I recommend the “Yes, Virginia” article on Dr. Roy Spencer’s site, although again not all the commenters “get” it:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/07/yes-virginia-cooler-objects-can-make-warmer-objects-even-warmer-still/
4) “In the last century, Temperatures have gone up, down and stayed flat for decades at a time while CO2 levels have steadily risen.”
The so-called “greenhouse principle” says: All else being equal, increasing the concentration of atmospheric “greenhouse gasses” will increase the Earth’s surface temperature. Since all else is never equal, it’s not surprising that there’s poor correlation between CO2 and temperature. However, the so-called “greenhouse effect” is both real and measurable. This article has charts of both up- and down-welling infrared radiation:
https://scienceofdoom.com/2011/04/03/understanding-atmospheric-radiation-and-the-%e2%80%9cgreenhouse%e2%80%9d-effect-%e2%80%93-part-ten/
It’s an alarmist site, but both sides of the CAGW debate agree on the basic physics (except for a few on the fringes, not to name names).
Roy Spencer also did some back yard sky measurements:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/08/help-back-radiation-has-invaded-my-backyard/
To summarize, there are good reasons to doubt the alarmists’ Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming scenarios, but the existence of the so-called “greenhouse effect” isn’t one of them.
The warm blanket theory of planetary atmosphere suffers the devastating flaw that the sun side stream of infrared is five times more powerful than the earth side stream,
and the resulting effect is a double digits’ percent decrease in radiant energy density striking the earth’s surface. It’s identical to being in a sunny area and spreading a translucent tarp overhead catching/refracting away 20% of the sunlight.
You’ll get under it because it’s cooler if only by that 20%.
This is why the warm blanket theory was immediately run from in public, but leaked to the uncomprehending public again and again by government agencies anxious to mollify the public, after the initial inquiries into potential fraud in the AGW movement.
The very first resort by AGW proponents was warm blanket. The problem is that people can analyze the use of blankets to block heat. In fact in basic fire safety people are taught,
that if you are in a structure and there is a fire, to *grab a blanket and wrap yourself so you can block the higher-energy stream from reaching your own clothes and skin.
When the high energy stream is on the outside of any blanket type structure, this is always the case. The blanket constitutes a cooling baffle, reducing energy density
and temperature along with it.
Blankets too cool things are also used heavily in engine compartments.
People latching onto this devastating blow to warm blanket atmosphere explanation immediately was one of the first things that drove AGW proponents under ground somewhat, where they stopped doing guest blog posts, and answering questions about the truth of their claimed analogies.
That analogy’s just wrong if the sun-side stream of infrared is larger than the earth’s by any amount at all, and it’s five times stronger than the earth’s infrared emissions density.
Gary, thanks for the great reply … it will take me weeks to go through your links, but I will do that.
Bernard Lodge,
Discussions of the so called greenhouse effect have occurred numerous times over the years on this site and other climate science blogs to the point that the arguments seem to be going nowhere. Dr. Roy Spencer has articulately explained the greenhouse effect on his website and suffered thread bombing by the indefatigable nut bar Doug Cotton to the point that he suspended comments for a while. So before asking Anthony to reopen the can of worms that is the greenhouse effect, I suggest you search for and read the discussions that have already taken place. I get weary of digging out my boilerplate “greenhouse effect” explanation every time somebody wants to reopen the subject.
The “greenhouse effect” works well in a greenhouse and similar structures. However, you only have to look at things like Trenberth’s Earth energy budget diagram to see it is nonsense in the open atmosphere. Notice in the diagram that only about a third of energy absorbed at the earth’s surface comes from the sun. They have to invent about two thirds of the energy absorbed coming from a mythical source of energy in the atmosphere. If ever you coma across a full 3-dimensional time dependent model of how the greenhouse effect works in the earth’s atmosphere, please let us all know.
“… a mythical source of energy in the atmosphere.”
I’m not following this argument. Are you saying the Earth’s atmosphere (on the dark side of the Earth, for example) doesn’t radiate energy toward the surface?
I assume that some sort of cut backs in psychiatric services is allowing such people out in the real world amongst rational folks.
Good rant though – typically expresses the diatribe of those with no argument other than ad hominem.
Reading through the barrage there were some compliments to be found. Especially the following:
“You’ve been at the HELM – the PUBLIC HELM of the BIGGEST MOWING DOWN of SCIENTIFIC INTEGRITY in COMMUNICATIONS in the RECENT HISTORY.”
That is a compliment (more of an acknowledgement on the author’s part) to WUWT if you can get past the initial slap in the face.
Almost reminds me of Chevy Chases rant on “Christmas vacation” , they call us the flat earth society what a joke .
Good that you can brush it off and see it for what it is .
He just finished burning the American flag and is angry that Bernie lost.
He must have been the one who caught his clothing on fire when he tried to burn the American flag.
And consider that Anthony only got this one negative post out of 428 total. It doesn’t get much better than that.
Feelin’ the Bern! Triggered SJW.
YourWifeCouldntStandTheStupid has posted here under lots of different screen names. Among them:
Allen Eltor/Allen B. Eltor
Norman Woods
James Rollins, Jr.
Climate Science Researcher
Steven Richard Vada
Physics_of_Climate
A.E. Soledad
Bill from Nevada
Aaron C
Richard Vadal
Bill Wright
Climate Physicist & Researcher
Steven R. Vada
Science Author
Aaron C.
S.R.V.
That’s a partial list.
dbs 4:35pm – Thanks for that interesting list. In other news, given the top post, are y’all looking into these developments:
“…a three judge panel concluded Power violated the CFAA because the company continued using Facebook’s website even being explicitly warned to stop.”
http://fortune.com/2016/07/12/facebook-cfaa/
Why would anyone need so many alias’s .
NCC1701 also, IIRC
Arnie Schwarzenegger was amusing this week
“Give me your clothes your boots and your carbon taxes” – The Therminator
Sounds like you’re living in his head, rent free. I bet he’s cross. Lol!
Eamon.
From afar, my guess would be female, seeking adulation for her proposals to change consensus
understanding of the way things are.
A putative first lady?
Revisit the tone of that acceptance speech, delivered in upper case.
Geoff
Anthony, I think your village fool has Coprolalia:
“Coprolalia is involuntary swearing or the involuntary utterance of obscene words or socially inappropriate and derogatory remarks. Coprolalia comes from the Greek κόπρος (kopros) meaning “feces” and λαλιά (lalia) from lalein, “to talk”.[1] The term is often used as a clinomorphism, with “compulsive profanity” inaccurately referred to as being Tourette syndrome.
Related terms are copropraxia, performing obscene or forbidden gestures,[2] and coprographia, making obscene writings or drawings.[3]”
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coprolalia
In a previous lifetime, I was doing some consulting work as a supervisor installing low NOx burners at a coal fired power plant. The company I worked for sent me to a work in a place where there was an internecine war going on and I was the convenient target. When I got emails similar to this (but not as bad), I forwarded them without comment. And CCd the author. Much more effective than replying.
Be careful Mr Watts as I fear we could all be bombed for not taking this scientific guru seriously-
http://www.msn.com/en-au/news/world/forget-tornadoes-rain-bombs-are-coming-for-your-town/ar-BBv2xvj?li=AA4RE4&ocid=spartanntp
Ah well that settles it and at least we won’t be thrown about and ripped apart by the vengeful tornado Gods, so we can be thankful for small mercies.
Yep,
Gosh, I didn’t realize I’m in the same league with Mann, Hansen, and Trenberth. With my elevated status, it seems critical mass has been reached again.
______________________________________
maybe more than that one in your dust bin.
All thumbs up.
______________________________________
Thanks for just survive. Hans
Pop Piasa on July 29, 2016 at 10:16 am
Let them destroy themselves, but steer clear of their collateral damage.
Always easier said, than done…
_____________________________________________
Yes, and yes. Hans
I have decided to match dementia with dementia. The following poems were written by Jessica Wood McKeand. She wrote in Laguna Beach, California. These poems come from her one chapbook –“Sunshine And Shadows” which she commissioned in 1970. I have one of the few surviving copies since most (over the years) were deliberately destroyed. I got mine about 20 years ago at an estate sale, finding it tucked inside a copy of “Dante”s Inferno” at the page with the famed saying — “Abandon all hope, ye who enter here”.
The chapbook does contain a few poems about Chuck, her son dying of cancer and a couple about her two grandchildren and some about her travels — yet the bulk of the poems deal with her Cocker Spaniel named Buckles — to whom the book is dedicated (and who had recently just died). The first page is a picture of the blonde highly combed dog underneath which are the words “My Darling”. The dedication of the chapbook goes —
A LOVING TRIBUTE
Dedicated
to
My Very Devoted and Precious Little Pal
BUCKLES
Whose dear heart
and complete loyalty
did so very much for me
giving me by far the
happiest years of my life
In an opening prose piece entitled WAIT FOR ME DARLING, i’M COMING she says a number of interesting things — but I will only give one quote — “You gave me the only REAL, TRUE, and SELFLESS devotion I have EVER known. (All the commas are hers as are all spelling errors.)
Alright, alright, I will give you the ending of the piece.
Ours, were kindred spirits.
The LIGHT has gone out of my life. You were the ONE JOY in my life.
You rest so silently, outside my window, in your little garden you dearly loved — surrounded by your own rose bushes, camellias, chrysanthemums, heather, and pansies, sent to you, by your own loyal and loving friends.
My heart is buried out there with you.
Life without you , is so empty, so incomplete.
OH, DEAR LITTLE BUCKLES, i MISS YOU SO!
But on to her poetry.
MY LITTLE TAIL-WAGGER
His faithful little tail
Never ceased to wag.
I used to think
How tired, it must get!
And yet, — in his very own
Friendly little way, he was
Saying “Hello, I love you”
As he would greet
Everyone, we’d meet!
REQUIEM
Our little birds sing for you
A requiem, every day —
They miss you, too
I am very sure
As they sing, and fly away.
But they always come back
Looking for you
In the little garden you loved
Where now you rest, so silently
And while in your sheltering tree above
They sing for you
And want you to know
That THEY miss you, too!
Jessica was a true believer. Here she sends a poem to God titled — YOUR NEWEST LITTLE ANGEL. MY BUCKLES. I will quote just the first nine lines
Dear heavenly Father —
Please love, and take good care of him
He was my DEAREST friend —
So loving, loyal, gentle, too —
And Oh! So FAITHFUL, to the end!
He knew no guile, as humans do,
No jealousy, nor hate,
His kind, and loving spirit —
And Oh! How PATIENTLY, he’d wait!
She ends her chapbook with a poem entitled — I’LL MEET YOU OVER THERE, MY DARLING. I will only quote the first four opening lines.
I know that love never dies.
Love is Eternal.
And I know that your beautiful soul, lives on, little Buckles.
God would not deny you this.
The above is just a taste of Jessica Wood McKeand.
Eugene WR Gallun
Good grief, Anthony, what did you do to this guy? Draw pictures of his prophet or something?
YourWifeCouldntStandTheStupid
Yes, that good ol ‘my wife lives on my behalf. Careless.’
+++ for sharing. Hans
Allen Eltor is likely him:
https://climateofsophistry.com/2013/05/27/the-fraud-of-the-aghe-part-12-how-to-lie-with-math/#comment-2379
http://www.cfact.org/2015/12/12/german-scientist-researchers-fiddling-with-temperature-data/#comment-2427556165
https://uk.linkedin.com/in/allen-eltor-1aa09a57
“Manchester, Greater Manchester, United Kingdom, Accounting”
http://moonbattery.com/?p=66825#comment-2428650015
“I worked and do in the atmospheric radiation fields and have been an applied chemist for forty years. […] I was a computer programmer my self who saw what was happening because I WAS ALSO a GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEE for awhile.”
The guy is a serious brain-damaged drug addict. He exhibits all the tell-tale signs.
“…because I WAS ALSO a GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEE for awhile.”
Even the public circus couldn’t handle him and he got the boot…Gulp!
My last post went into the filter.
[done. mod]
I still don’t see it.
I suspect someone has been drinking alcohol AND taking those anti-depressants!
Allen Eltor is a riot…
“I started out my life in my first part time job as an applied atmospheric chemist, and was at the time he told me attending school to complete my Bachelors’ in Radiation Communications Electronic Engineering – the generation, encoding and transmission, capture and recovery of intelligence from atmospheric radiation,
radiation through vacuum of space, and inside the solid state components of the chemical compounds making up the field of electronic engineering and the worlds we radiate intelligence to, and capture radiation from – it was simple as pie,”
http://notrickszone.com/2016/06/11/alarmist-real-climate-scientist-stefan-rahmstorfs-bitter-defeat-as-theory-gets-falsified/#comment-1113765
Anthony,
I am late to this wake. My apologies. I’ve been on vacation, and I completely missed your Monday post.
I’ve been there. It sucks. You’ll get through it. Your Ex in the long run will regret her dcision, but you shouldn’t. Prosper my friend. If you can manage a trip to Tucson, you have a car, a house, and a friend at your disposal.
My experience is that feminism is destroying this country through a divisiveness that Barack Obama is clever at exploiting… dividing the US for political power along social boundaries, with the inevitable consequnce of dividing men and women, whites and blacks, rich and poor. He is evil. And the Catastrphic Climate Change lie gullibility is just one of his tools. He creates envy and a “covet they neighbor’s wealth and good fortune “sin” the bible warns of. He is the Devil in our modern society. He destroys marriages, he destroys faith, he destroys families, just as he is destroying the fabric of our society and its governing institutions of law.
Those posts are proof that there are some sick people in this world.
As would be said in the South, “Bless his little heart.”
(It doesn’t mean what many of you think it means.)
https://www.quora.com/Is-Bless-your-heart-Bless-his-her-heart-always-considered-snide-and-pejorative-in-the-American-South
Must be that dill, Cotton, from the dragonslayers or skydragons or whatever that bugged Dr Spencer for so long!