I Finally Beat My Blog Into Submission

Guest Post by  Willis Eschenbach

Well, I finally bit the bullet and successfully got my own blog up and running. It’s called “Skating on the underside of the ice“.

my-blog-header

The “About This Blog” page says:

My name is Willis Eschenbach. I am a generalist. My CV is here. This is a blog of my thoughts about this curious and mysterious universe.

I also write about climate science. There is a list of my posts located at Watts Up With That. Autobiographical posts are here, in reverse chronological order.

Misunderstandings are the bane of the internet. If you disagree with someone, please quote the exact words you object to. I can and will defend my own words, but I can only do it if I know which words you disagree with.

I strongly discourage speculations about motive, as I am often unclear on my own motives—how can I judge what drives you when I don’t know what drives me?

I also am not interested in “ad hominem” attacks, attacks “against the man”. That is to say , attack a person’s ideas all you want, but please don’t attack their person (morals, education, style, parentage, personal history, experience).

Finally, as I strive to remind myself, the fact that I am offended doesn’t mean that you are offensive. As such, your expressions of offense on your part may not have the desired effect. My experience of writing for the web is that no matter what I write, someone is always offended by my words …

I moderate this site myself, so there may be longish delays in comment approval. Patience is a virtue.

Opposing views are welcome as long as they are courteous.

Best to everyone,

w.

There are a dozen or so posts at my site. If you read them and you think they deserve wider distribution, there are a few things you can do. For those who find the site worthwhile, II would like to ask everyone’s assistance in getting my new site as much publicity and as wide a reach as possible.

First, if you like the posts I ask that you to click the button at the right side of each page that says “Follow Skating on the Underside of the Ice”. You’ll get email notification of new posts.

Second, please share the site or favored posts on Facebook.

Third, if you are on Twitter, please tweet a link to the site or favored posts. I’m @WEschenbach, you’re invited to follow me.

==============

I will assuredly continue to publish my scientific work here on WUWT. My blog is for my philosophical and political ideas and insights.

Finally, let me say that I have the best opportunity of any scientist I know. I get to do my research and my exploration in the full public view of all of the commenters and lurkers. The best part is that when I make a mistake, someone is sure to point it out, perhaps even politely, within the first few hours that the post is up.

This constant interaction provides me with what I see as absolutely invaluable ongoing course correction, constantly preventing me from investigating wrong ideas and following blind alleys.

So let me thank you all for your part in this continuing scientific enterprise. Science works by someone making a claim, providing all of the data and code, handing around the sledge-hammers, and inviting people to smash it. If it gets smashed, it goes. If it can’t be falsified, it stays … provisionally … until maybe someday somebody smashes it.

Now, for science to work like this, you gotta have people to hand the sledgehammers to, and that’s all of the guest posters and commenters and lurkers here. Y’all are an essential part of the continuing scientific enterprise here.

Anthony has provided the public arena. I and many others put our ideas in the bright light. You folks wield the sledgehammers. Science at its finest.

So, my best regards to everyone, check out my website.

w.

0 0 vote
Article Rating
117 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Robert from oz
December 12, 2016 11:25 pm

Willis , have read your contributions and followed your exploits to our oz , also have been there when you constantly sort out Griff and co and love your work .

Steve (Paris)
December 12, 2016 11:33 pm

Checking it out now. I never mist your climate contributions to WUWT Willis, so very interested to discover where else your mind has taken you.

Rhys Kent
December 12, 2016 11:40 pm

Willis your website is now bookmarked, and placed second in my Global Warming folder, just south of WUWT.
So far it looks great and reads great! Congrats.

Windsong
Reply to  Rhys Kent
December 13, 2016 11:22 am

+1

December 12, 2016 11:46 pm

It’s a great blog and already appreciated here in NZ. I’ve recommended it to several contacts here and in Oz so hope you enjoy it as much as we are going to. I especially enjoyed “How a Businessman Takes Over A New Industry.”
My only hope is that it doesn’t take away too much time from the great pieces you do for WUWT…we all learn so much from them.

Jan Christoffersen
Reply to  Alastair Brickell
December 13, 2016 8:41 am

Alastair,
A Canadian geologist now a Kiwi, are you? From old geologist myself.

Reply to  Jan Christoffersen
December 13, 2016 12:50 pm

Jan@8:41
Sorry Willis..a bit of topic but:
Jan, Yes, it’s true! Get in touch..see our website, we do astronomy/geology tours from our B&B in NZ:
http://www.stargazersbb.com
and please see booking page for our email address and send an email so we can be in touch again!.

Lance of BC
December 12, 2016 11:48 pm

Love the Blogs name (Skating on the Underside of the Ice);sounds like a NEW Pink Floyd song or something very heady! Congrats on the new Blog mate, Its about time!!

December 12, 2016 11:57 pm

Good luck with your new blog, Willis. I invariably enjoy your style of writing so am looking forward to having yet more enjoyment in my life.
One very small word of caution though: I think it most unlikely that you will be able to anyway – and that is to publish too many articles per day. I LOVE WUWT but some some days (with maybe between 6 and 10 new articles appearing in one day) I struggle to keep up. The trouble is that many of them are so damned interesting, along with the comments, that I simply can’t stop myself from being glued to them.

Robert from oz
December 13, 2016 12:05 am

Just checked out your blog and love it , it’s different but relevant .

Noel Davies
December 13, 2016 12:17 am

Willis I always look forward to your posts on WUWT. They are always entertaining, insightful and informative. I work in the area of environmental and waste management and I can assure you there are as many ideologues in that field that need to be challenged as there are in climate Science. In my own small way I have been attempting to debunk commonly held views like you do .
If only we could have open debate without rancor and abuse as you promote we would be much better off and we would waste less resources chasing down green rabbit holes.
I look forward to your musings on this site and will definitely subscribe. I expect wide ranging eclectic mix of thoughts, philosophy and theories
All the best and have a great Christmas!
Badger from Oz

Mary Catherine
Reply to  Noel Davies
December 13, 2016 11:20 am

Willis I always look forward to your posts on WUWT. They are always entertaining, insightful and informative. Noel, you took the words right out of my mouse!

jgmccabe
December 13, 2016 12:21 am

Congratulations Willis, I hope you get many hits as your contributions to the debate are both informative and interesting.
One thing though, it might be better if your CV was PDF or some other more portable format 🙂

O R
December 13, 2016 12:47 am

“Skating on the underside of the ice”?
Never heard of, but with the right footwear these guys would possibly be able…
A mind-blowing video that went viral a couple of years ago:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=VIs00QjiJZQ

Man Bearpigg
Reply to  O R
December 13, 2016 3:33 am

Amazing

Jay Dunnell
Reply to  O R
December 13, 2016 5:09 am

Hillarious, but the bubbles gave it away!

climatereason
Editor
December 13, 2016 12:50 am

Good luck Willis with your new endeavour.
Like me, you no doubt get paid by the word for your writing, by big frack, big wind and big oil. Big solar has been making approaches to me recently as well, so no doubt you are also in negotiation with them about a hefty monthly retainer.
As a result you will no doubt, like me, be able to employ a team of researchers, proof readers and publicists. The going rate for a moderator is about 5000 dollars a month and to maintain 24 hour attention you will need four.
It’s a great life being a sceptic and untold riches await those who become involved.
Tonyb

Reply to  climatereason
December 13, 2016 1:19 am

Get in line Tony. You’ll need to try harder 🙂

Reply to  climatereason
December 13, 2016 1:21 am

BTW, I think you meant to write “insolved” rather than “involved”?

Lee L
December 13, 2016 12:59 am

Ok Willis… Here’s, what I think, is an appropriate question for your new blogosworld.
“Skating on the underside of the ice’… why isn’t it smooth like the topside?

climatereason
Editor
Reply to  Lee L
December 13, 2016 4:48 am

lee
cos it is subject to wave action, currents and the tide?
tonyb

Editor
Reply to  Lee L
December 13, 2016 9:59 am

Ice crystals grow into the water branching as they grow.
Ice that forms on the surface (usually!) can’t grow upward and retains the flat shape of the water surface.
Also, the specific weight difference between ice and air is a lot bigger than between ice and water.

Bill Parsons
Reply to  Lee L
December 13, 2016 12:32 pm

Harder to tie your laces?

Griff
December 13, 2016 1:00 am

Well good luck with it… just hope it isn’t arctic sea ice you are skating under…!comment image

Greg
Reply to  Griff
December 13, 2016 1:30 am

yep, it’s freezing fast.

Steve Fraser
Reply to  Greg
December 13, 2016 7:08 am

and advancing on Svalbard. Oh, My!

AndyG55
Reply to  Griff
December 13, 2016 1:45 am

Its going to be hilarious watching you post the NSIDC graph at the end of the month! 😉
But your posts are always clown-like.

Nigel S
Reply to  Griff
December 13, 2016 3:39 am

Only to be expected after ‘Northabout’ burned all that diesel just squeaking out.

AJB
Reply to  Griff
December 13, 2016 4:10 am
Hugs
Reply to  Griff
December 13, 2016 4:58 am

Griff-troll would bet on 1 Wadhams (1e6 km²) before 2017.
By the way, what happens when summer minimum reaches 1 Wadhams?
Pretty much nothing spectacular. Santa drowns, of course, and penguins, unless they can fly south, which we know they can’t, and polar bears will start hunting the most common land prey, humans, which is good according to Holdren.
/sarc – don’t tell me about the penguins

G. Karst
Reply to  Griff
December 13, 2016 8:59 am

Way too much ice for my liking. Someone should do something to get rid of the rest of it. It doesn’t do anyone, any good, until it melts. I tried eating it… once! Gave me a tummy ache and I was hungy 1/2 hour later. Damn rotten ice. GK

Caligula Jones
Reply to  Griff
December 13, 2016 9:13 am

One wonders if Griff gets paid per paste?

erik the red
Reply to  Griff
December 13, 2016 9:21 am

The open Arctic ocean will produce lots of “lake effect” snow and consequent albedo and cooling.

Reply to  Griff
December 13, 2016 10:30 am

Congratulations, Willis. Your new site will be a great success! (I guarantee it… or double your money back. Promise.)
*************************
@Griff:
Why did you pick only the Arctic? The scare is about global warming.
Here’s a chart of global ice. It’s updated daily, and it should feed your confirmation bias:comment image
Obviously, something is wrong with the sensors:
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.recent.arctic.png
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.recent.antarctic.png
Skeptics ask questions, Griff. Try questioning the ‘vanishing ice’ narrative. If you’re honest with yourself, you will find that there is nothing unusual or unprecedented happening. The ‘Arctic ice’ scare is just another false alarm.

Bindidon
Reply to  dbstealey
December 13, 2016 3:59 pm

dbstealey on December 13, 2016 at 10:30 am
Everybody can produce any chart of anywhat, dbstealey. For example:
http://www.noaa.gov/sites/default/files/thumbnails/image/INFOGRAPHIC-greenland-decline-12.12.16-climate.gov-%20700×502%20-%20inset.png
out of
http://www.noaa.gov/media-release/unprecedented-arctic-warmth-in-2016-triggers-massive-decline-in-sea-ice-snow
I know: for you it’s just “warmist propaganda”. With such simple-minded appreciations I can live.
No problem!

Reply to  dbstealey
December 13, 2016 8:11 pm

Bindi,
I asked Griff why he cherry-picked only the Arctic, and reminded him that the scare is over the global warming false alarm. Now you did the same thing, by cherry-picking ‘Greenland’.
Your source admits that their claim rests on an extremely short 37 years to support their claim that Greenland’s ice decline is a “record”.
Really? A “record”? What you both need is a little perspective:
http://www.climate4you.com/images/SummitAndCulture.gif

Reply to  Griff
December 13, 2016 4:12 pm

Congratulations, Willis. Your new site will be a great success! (I guarantee it… or double your money back. Promise.)
*************************
@Griff:
Why did you pick only the Arctic? The scare is about global warming.
Here’s a chart of global ice. It’s updated daily, and it should feed your confirmation bias:comment image
Obviously, something is wrong with the sensors:
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.recent.arctic.png
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.recent.antarctic.png
Skeptics ask questions, Griff. Try questioning the ‘vanishing ice’ narrative. If you’re honest with yourself, you will find that there is nothing unusual or unprecedented happening. The ‘Arctic ice’ scare is just another false alarm.

Reply to  Griff
December 13, 2016 4:14 pm

Congratulations, Willis. Your new site will be a great success! (I guarantee it… or double your money back. Promise.)
*************************
@Griff:
Why did you pick only the Arctic? The scare is about global warming.
Here’s a chart of global ice. It’s updated daily, and it should feed your confirmation bias:comment image
Obviously, something is wrong with the sensors:
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.recent.arctic.png
Skeptics ask questions, Griff. Try questioning the ‘vanishing ice’ narrative. If you’re honest with yourself, you will find that there is nothing unusual or unprecedented happening. The ‘Arctic ice’ scare is just another false alarm.

George McFly......I'm your density
December 13, 2016 1:05 am

Good work Willis. I look forward to reading the blog

December 13, 2016 1:14 am

Willis, I’d just like to say, after reading your report of your latest south seas expedition, one or two photos of your native skin (body?) art would, in my opinion, be appropriate? It sort of grounds you and lends credence otherwise unavailable to your compendium of experience. Just an opinion.

Morgan
Reply to  Bartleby
December 13, 2016 4:17 pm

Yeah Willis you should have a tattoo section, I think many people are interested in knowing about the lives of climate scientists such as yourself. I get here often and when I see you here,
I always know your scientific analysis is going to be what the typical (in my case) non scientist needs to understand about the science of climate change and physics in general. The steel shell experiment you authored really made me think about what is happening with our atmosphere. After studying the Trenberth energy budget and seeing your shell experiment I see how the green house effect works: more energy comes out of the earth, as a blanket of green house gases gets thicker.
This also proves that it is possible to put a blanket between a fire and the thing it is warming, and make that object warmer than if there was no blanket between them. That’s what a blanket does: warms.
I will be very interested in your blog when you talk about science especially.

Reply to  Bartleby
December 13, 2016 8:29 pm

Plus, I’m heading to the south Pacific next year (aboard ship of course) and would appreciate tips. My Mom will be with me (she’s 80) so I’ll need to be discrete.

December 13, 2016 1:14 am

Willis, best wishes with the new blog, have just followed you on twitter @digimus. One thing, on a mobile the blog title is unreadable against your header background.

stuart sgl large
December 13, 2016 1:25 am

I intend to follow each day

December 13, 2016 1:41 am

I had already found and read your blog….commented….and forwarded a post to Facebook. Keep up the good work.

mikebartnz
December 13, 2016 1:58 am

I will not be sharing anything on Twitter or Facebook but put a Google+ link and I would share by that.

robinedwards36
December 13, 2016 2:04 am

This will surely be a valuable and noteworthy addition to the blogosphere. Congrats on your determination to beat “the system”.
I shall be a regular visitor.

December 13, 2016 2:11 am

Hope it works out for you.

December 13, 2016 2:14 am

Nice one, Willis, I just had a look and it is a really attractive site with nice readable print for us old geezers out there. I love your comments about how regime-change in the USA is putting the cat among the green pigeons. I hope the new administration will have a look at how your taxpayers’ money is being used by your embassy in South Africa to teach people how to show solar and wind in a positive light!
John Ledger

December 13, 2016 2:15 am

First noticed your great writing when I read your “Burning Man” post on WUWT 4 or so years ago.
I just sent a link to that post a few days ago to an old HS friend of mine. I will check out your blog – haven’t yet…it’s 3am here in the Baja. Good luck on your presentation this Wed. with AW in San Fran…

December 13, 2016 2:34 am

Good luck with it, hope it doesn’t detract from your scientific / climate elucidations.

angech
December 13, 2016 3:15 am

Well done and all the best.
Wish I had your nous.
Keep the articles up here as well please.

Owen
December 13, 2016 4:15 am

Congratulations and good luck with your very own blog!
Is a bottle of digital champagne in order, to be smashed on the prow? I enjoy and learn a lot from your take on things, and I will visit, I hope often.

ClimateOtter
December 13, 2016 4:23 am

Have added your blog to my climate folder and posted your latest post to FB.

Nigel S
December 13, 2016 4:43 am

Lang may yer lum reek.
Intriguing CV, the naysayers will have trouble picking holes in that. ‘Tok Pisin, Bislama, Solomon Islands Pijin, — Excellent’, top marks for that and in fighting ‘giaman bilong em’!

Greg Woods
December 13, 2016 4:58 am

Well, keep flogging your blog, Willis – we will all be watching…

PaulH
December 13, 2016 5:23 am

I’ll follow your blog via my Feedly account. (I’m not sure if that will show in your stats.) So many sources to read, so little time! 😉

H.R.
December 13, 2016 5:27 am

Here’s another endorsement of your blog, Willis. I immediately put your blog on my Bookmarks Toolbar during the first visit.
For those of you that have enjoyed Willis’ personal tales, travelogues, and economic analyses here at WUWT, you’ll be getting all that and more; politics! Willis has kept his political views to a minimum here on WUWT, so here’s your chance to see another facet of Willis.
There’s alt-right, alt-left, and now there’s alt-Willis; … diagonal parking in a parallel universe. Check it out.

December 13, 2016 5:34 am

I can’t stop thinking about the blog subtitle, ‘Diagonal parking in a parallel universe.’ I just gotta find a way to illustrate that in fractal form…

meltemian
December 13, 2016 5:36 am

Wonderful, another great blog to follow, I’m never going to get any work done!
Καλή Τύχη

stevekeohane
December 13, 2016 5:58 am

Caught your blog the other day when you linked to an article in it. Great stuff, I linked a couple of articles to friends. Congratulations Willis, keep up the good fight.

tadchem
December 13, 2016 6:00 am

I love the statement “the fact that I am offended doesn’t mean that you are offensive.”
May I offer a corollary?
“The fact that someone is offensive does not mean I am required to take offense.”
I use this latter concept to identify when I am being confronted with a fool, and dismiss same.

JohnWho
December 13, 2016 6:04 am

Well, good for you. Me too, since I now have one more place to check with morning coffee or late night adult libation or maybe before or after “nooner”. (Leaves it up to reader to determine what “nooner” might be, but will state that it is pleasurable and involves eye closures)

DHR
December 13, 2016 6:27 am

Good work Willis. I have bookmarked your blog and placed it right under WUWT on my list. Keep it up and I may move you to a notch above WUWT.

Steve Fraser
December 13, 2016 7:15 am

Willis,
I visited, and read your posts. To say that you are a generalist understates the fact! I think your wide experience with many life-and-work roles informs your perspective, and your time leading, managing and working with many kinds of people doing many different things gives you ‘tone of voice’ that carries iover the din of the mass of bullsh*t so often encountered.
Bravo! Best wishes for the site.

December 13, 2016 7:36 am

More and more impeccable information, please Willis! Your contributions are certainly appreciated here in the middle of the colonies. Best, Steve.

Brian Bach
December 13, 2016 8:00 am

Go, Bannaslugs !

Brian Bach
Reply to  Brian Bach
December 13, 2016 8:04 am

I meant BannanaSlugs

December 13, 2016 8:28 am

Hi WIllis, I like it, congrats on getting this online. But you REALLY need to get more active on twitter, and tweet each blog post.

Reply to  curryja
December 16, 2016 5:24 am

For everyone’s reference:
Judith Curry @curryja
Willis Eschenbach
Anthony Watts

The Old Man
December 13, 2016 8:53 am

Looks good! I have always found your interests…..well, ‘interesting”. I set up a follow, and will link to your thoughtful takes on the universe as it and the skating continues to unfold before our eyes.
https://notonmywatch.com/

G. Karst
December 13, 2016 9:11 am

I like it. Break a leg. GK

December 13, 2016 9:38 am

References:
Trenberth et al 2011jcli24 Figure 10
This popular balance graphic and assorted variations are based on a power flux, W/m^2. A W is not energy, but energy over time, i.e. 3.4 Btu/eng h or 3.6 kJ/SI h. The 342 W/m^2 ISR is determined by spreading the average 1,368 W/m^2 solar irradiance/constant over the spherical ToA surface area. (1,368/4 =342) There is no consideration of the elliptical orbit (perihelion = 1,416 W/m^2 to aphelion = 1,323 W/m^2) or day or night or seasons or tropospheric thickness or energy diffusion due to oblique incidence, etc. This popular balance models the earth as a ball suspended in a hot fluid with heat/energy/power entering evenly over the entire ToA spherical surface. This is not even close to how the real earth energy balance works. Everybody uses it. Everybody should know better.
An example of a real heat balance based on Btu/h is attached. Basically (Incoming Solar Radiation spread over the cross sectional area) = (U*A*dT et. al. leaving the lit side perpendicular to the spherical surface ToA) + (U*A*dT et. al. leaving the dark side perpendicular to spherical surface area ToA) The atmosphere is just a simple HVAC heat balance problem.
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=7373
“Technically, there is no absolute dividing line between the Earth’s atmosphere and space, but for scientists studying the balance of incoming and outgoing energy on the Earth, it is conceptually useful to think of the altitude at about 100 kilometers above the Earth as the “top of the atmosphere.” The top of the atmosphere is the bottom line of Earth’s energy budget, the Grand Central Station of radiation. It is the place where solar energy (mostly visible light) enters the Earth system and where both reflected light and invisible, thermal radiation from the Sun-warmed Earth exit. The balance between incoming and outgoing energy at the top of the atmosphere determines the Earth’s average temperature. The ability of greenhouses gases to change the balance by reducing how much thermal energy exits is what global warming is all about.”
ToA is 100 km or 62 miles. It is 68 miles between Denver and Colorado Springs. That’s not just thin, that’s ludicrous thin.
The GHE/GHG loop as shown on Trenberth Figure 10 is made up of three main components: upwelling of 396 W/m^2 which has two parts: 63 W/m^2 and 333 W/m^2 and downwelling of 333 W/m^2.
The 396 W/m^2 is determined by inserting 16 C or 279K in the S-B BB equation. This result produces 55 W/m^2 of power flux more than ISR entering ToA, an obvious violation of conservation of energy created out of nothing. That should have been a warning.
ISR of 341 W/m^2 enter ToA, 102 W/m^2 are reflected by the albedo, leaving a net 239 W/m^2 entering ToA. 78 W/m^2 are absorbed by the atmosphere leaving 161 W/m^2 for the surface. To maintain the energy balance and steady temperature 160 W/m^2 rises from the surface (0.9 residual in ground) as 17 W/m^2 convection, 80 W/m^2 latent and 63 W/m^2 LWIR (S-B BB 183 K, -90 C or emissivity = .16) = 160 W/m^2. All of the graphic’s power fluxes are now present and accounted for. The remaining 333 W/m^2 are the spontaneous creation of an inappropriate application of the S-B BB equation violating conservation of energy.
But let’s press on.
The 333 W/m^2 upwelling/downwelling constitutes a 100% efficient perpetual energy loop violating thermodynamics. There is no net energy left at the surface to warm the earth and there is no net energy left in the troposphere to impact radiative balance at ToA.
The 333 W/m^2, 97% of ISR, upwells into the troposphere where it is allegedly absorbed/trapped/blocked by a miniscule 0.04% of the atmosphere. That’s a significant heat load for such a tiny share of atmospheric molecules and they should all be hotter than two dollar pistols.
Except they aren’t.
The troposphere is cold, -40 C at 30,000 ft, 9 km, < -60 C at ToA. Depending on how one models the troposphere, average or layered from surface to ToA, the S-B BB equation for the tropospheric temperatures ranges from 150 to 250 W/m^2, a considerable shortfall from 333.
(99% of the atmosphere is below 32 km where energy moves by convection/conduction/latent/radiation & where ideal S-B does not apply. Above 32 km the low molecular density does not allow for convection/conduction/latent and energy moves by S-B ideal radiation et. al.)
But wait!
The GHGs reradiate in all directions not just back to the surface. Say a statistical 33% makes it back to the surface that means 50 to 80 W/m^2. A longer way away from 333.
But wait!
Because the troposphere is not ideal the S-B equation must consider emissivity. Nasif Nahle suggests CO2 emissivity could be around 0.1 or 5 to 8 W/m^2 re-radiated back to the surface. Light years from 333.
But wait!
All of the above really doesn’t even matter since there is no net connection or influence between the 333 W/m^2 thermodynamically impossible loop and the radiative balance at ToA. Just erase this loop from the graphic and nothing else about the balance changes.
BTW 7 of the 8 reanalyzed (i.e. water board the data till it gives up the right answer) data sets/models show more power flux leaving OLR than entering ASR ToA or atmospheric cooling. Trenberth was not happy. Obviously, those seven data sets/models have it completely wrong because there can’t possibly be any flaw in the GHE theory.
The GHE greenhouse analogy not only doesn’t apply to the atmosphere, it doesn’t even apply to warming a real greenhouse. (“How Global Warming was Discovered” Spencer Weart) It’s the physical barrier of walls, glass, plastic that traps convective heat, not some kind of handwavium glassy transparent radiative thermal diode.
The surface of the earth is warm for the same reason a heated house is warm in the winter: Q = U * A * dT, the energy flow/heat resisting blanket of the insulated walls. The composite thermal conductivity of that paper thin atmosphere, conduction, convection, latent, LWIR, resists the flow of energy, i.e. heat, from surface to ToA and that requires a temperature differential, 213 K ToA and 288 K surface = 75 C.
The flow through a fluid heat exchanger requires a pressure drop. A voltage differential is needed to push current through a resistor. Same for the atmospheric blanket. A blanket works by Q = U * A * dT, not S-B BB. The atmosphere is just a basic HVAC system boundary analysis.
Open for rebuttal. If you can explain how this upwelling/downwelling/”back” radiation actually works be certain to copy Jennifer Marohasy as she has posted a challenge for such an explanation.

December 13, 2016 9:59 am

“I will assuredly continue to publish my scientific work …..”
I like to slap my hands on the table. I must be a musician. Maybe I should start a blog. I have international experience too.
I worked at nuke plant in Spain. I learned to love how these folks could make music with their hands and feet.
As a young sailor, I thought making electricity with steam was assume. I pursued a higher education in science and engineering that let me do that for the rest of my working life.
After reading Willis background he is about as qualified as Al Gore to speak on science.
As a skeptic, I often check the background of folks. Merely being interested is not a reason take folks seriously.
WUWT would be much better if posters shared what they know and not their agenda.

hunter
Reply to  Retired Kit P
December 13, 2016 10:46 am

Bitter much?

Reply to  hunter
December 13, 2016 12:19 pm

No, I just get tired of self aggrandizing claims. For example how many claim to be an environmentalists but have never bothered to take college level classes about the environment.
I am an environmental professional based on completing course in environmental engineering and being paid for such work.
I am a little bitter about that part of my career. I learned that no good deed goes unpunished. Environmental manager is called the designated inmate.
It is not about protecting the impressing your political base by building shinny things that do not work very well.

Reply to  Retired Kit P
December 13, 2016 10:55 am

After reading your CV, I was so exhausted that I had to rest.
After I woke up, I decided no one person could have done so many different things.
So I re-read the CV, looking for evidence it was fictional, or exaggerated.
But the evidence I found supported your accomplishments being true … and explain the “generalist” label.
I mean, if the CV was fiction, and you were just trying to impress people, you would not have listed old jobs that lasted three weeks (which makes you look like you can’t hold a job!) … and things like remodeling your house!
I urge everyone to read your CV because it is actually interesting (as are your articles here).
You obviously have an advantage over other climate writers because you don’t have a science PhD and do not play climate computer games on supercomputers on the government dole.
Most important is that your articles on WUWT are consistently good, so I’ll bookmark your blog and give it a try.
Hopefully you will have enough spare time to post on your blog — the tittle of this article made me worry about that — with you being so busy “beating your blog”.
Not that there’s anything wrong with that.

Reply to  Richard Greene
December 13, 2016 12:38 pm

Richard the purpose of a resume is not to exhaust the reader but to get someone to pay you for work.
For example, I built a low energy house in California which included 37 pages of hand calculation to meet Title 24 (energy code). It is not on my resume because the only construction is for myself. My resume does not include and experience before joining the navy because it was superseded by more applicable experience.
The point is Willis has found a hobby in science. I won a science fair by building an x-ray machine but who cares.

Reply to  Richard Greene
December 16, 2016 12:19 pm

Kit P,
“Richard the purpose of a resume is not to exhaust the reader but to get someone to pay you for work.”
But Willis isn’t applying for a job, he’s putting his life experiences online for anyone interested.
It would be best to comment on the subjects, facts and conclusions, rather than trying to denigrate the author personally. (Just MHO, FWIW. YMMV. YOYO now.)

Reply to  Retired Kit P
December 13, 2016 11:08 am

You forgot to discuss the climate in your comment.
You had quite a few mean-spirited zingers, however.
The Al Gore comparison was pretty low — Gore took two beginner science classes in college and was not smart enough to get an A or B in either of them.
Gore’s 2007 climate predictions were among the least accurate climate predictions ever made to the general public.
Knowing what the PhD (alleged) “climate scientists” have done to destroy the integrity of science with their wild guess computer game predictions of the future climate — grossly inaccurate for 40 years so far — I would think you’d be happy that Willis is not a PhD who plays climate computer games and then makes wild guess Piled high & Deep wrong predictions of the future climate.
If you had read anything Willis has written, and refuted anything in your comment, we would take your post seriously.
However you just launched one character attack after another.
Which makes you a mean spirited doofus with no obvious climate science knowledge.
YOU WROTE:
“I like to slap my hands on the table.”
MY COMMENT:
You need a few slaps upside your head.
I doubt if you are really a skeptic — skeptics read someone’s writings before debating or insulting them.
Liberals and other climate cult members “debate” with character attacks
… and that’s just what you did in your comment.

Reply to  Richard Greene
December 13, 2016 11:12 am

My December 13 11:08am comment is directed at Retarded Kit P’s mean-spirited character attack comment on December 13 at 9:59am.
I should have typed that first to prevent any possible confusion.

Reply to  Richard Greene
December 13, 2016 1:14 pm

“If you had read anything Willis has written, ….”
I read his resume and then went back and read it again.
“1964-5 University of California, Berkeley, CA.
1968-9 University of California, Santa Cruz, CA.
1973-4 Laney College, Oakland, CA.
1974 California Massage Certificate — Aames School of Massage, Oakland, CA.
1975 BA, Psychology — Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park, CA.”
Welcome to the land of the fruits and nuts. On paper Willis is a California hippie with a short attention span.
“Knowing what the PhD (alleged) “climate scientists” have done to destroy the integrity of science ….”
What do you know Richard? I know many here are not civil. Right after they attack anyone they might disagree with they start whining about character attacks.

Reply to  Retired Kit P
December 13, 2016 2:42 pm

“After reading Willis background he is about as qualified as Al Gore to speak on science.”
Sooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo, if a million PHD’s say the sun rises in the west and Willis shows proof that it doesn’t…………………………..

hunter
December 13, 2016 10:44 am

Best wishes to you. May you build a great success. I look forward to visiting your blog.

H. D. Hoese
December 13, 2016 12:26 pm

You might be interested that Sigma Xi (publisher of American Scientist) community membership digest had a recent brief series of exchanges, one with concern about Trump asking for names (no 19 on your list as I recall ). Some one posted this to allay the concern.
wattsupwiththat.com/2016/12/10/the-doe-vs-ugly-reality
Sigma Xi has mostly stayed out of the controversy, but there were other interesting comments. Probably only available to members. I got the impression some commenting could use more education and writing skills.

December 13, 2016 2:38 pm

Have fun dealing with the trolls !!!

Bernard Lodge
December 13, 2016 3:35 pm

Congrats on the new venture Willis. I was pleasantly surprised with the topics that you find of interest and that it really will be a generalist’s blog. I read everything! Good luck keeping up with that pace of quality posts. If you can, you will have many readers. How come you stopped updating your CV at 2010? I think that was about when you really got going!
All the best

Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
December 14, 2016 6:59 pm

Nice deflection Willis.
Let me cut through the BS. Willis is a freelance writer. He has no formal training in the physical sciences.
It did take a while longer than normal to get a physiology degree. From his resume it looks like he soon lost or could not make a go of it. Willis has done lots of interesting things. Good for him.
I also have had the pleasure of working with people who may not have not a degree in engineer or science but are very accomplished in those fields through hard work and self study.
Willis is not one of those people. All I am saying is Willis is not a scientist.
Sure everyone’s a critic. Willis sure can dish it out.

G. Karst
Reply to  Retired Kit P
December 16, 2016 10:52 am

Kit: I thought a “scientist” was anyone who believes and follows the scientific method. Where in the world did you get the impression that a scientist = PhD. Sounds more like academic snobbery to me. GK

Reply to  Retired Kit P
December 17, 2016 11:18 am

How could you, retarded Kit P, possibly be qualified to judge whether or not Willis makes sense on the subject of climate science?
There is no climate science in your posts — we have no idea if you know anything about climate science.
All you have to offer is character attacks.
That makes you a liberal (that’s how they “debate”), or a mean-spirited dork, or both.
Earth’s climate is always changing.
No one is sure why.
There is nothing unusual about the climate change in the past 150 years except that the climate stayed in a mere 1 degree C. range, which appears to be unusually stable, based on data from climate proxies such as ice cores.
That’s my climate 101 lesson for you, retarded Kit P.
Now you know something about climate science.

Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
December 14, 2016 7:38 pm

Willis says: ” not a full-blown article to be sure.” Correct, but you ought to characterize it properly…..it was a comment that was “reviewed.”
“These are critical comments on recent Nature papers. After peer review, they may be published online as Brief Communications Arising (see 1.1), usually alongside a reply from the criticized Nature authors; alternatively, the criticism may be addressed in the form of a clarification statement (corrigendum or addendum, for example) by the Nature authors.”
http://www.nature.com/nature/authors/gta/commsarising.html
.
.
.
Quit tooting your own horn by even suggesting it was even close to being an “article”
.
.
.
Second Willis says: “The editors of Nature magazine and the other journals were satisfied with my scientific credentials.” ….except that Nature’s editors don’t care about anybody’s credentials. If they required to be “satisfied”, they would have ignored you.

Reply to  Steve Heins
December 15, 2016 4:47 am

I don’t have a problem, but your ego needs to get reeled in buster. You seem to think that getting a comment published in a journal enables you to claim you are a “scientist.” You are hilarious.

Melvyn Dackombe
December 14, 2016 3:02 pm

Hello Willis,
May I make one suggestion regarding the presentation of your new ‘venture’.
I personally prefer your type size to be a little smaller, say like that on the WUWT site. I feel the existing font takes up too much space and reads a little like a children’s book.
Please do not take this the wrong way. Whatever you do I shall continue to enjoy reading your articles.
Melvyn.

talldave2
December 14, 2016 8:09 pm

TMI. Willis.

December 15, 2016 3:10 pm

“You seem to think that getting a comment published in a journal enables you to claim you are a “scientist.” You are hilarious.”
I have to agree with Steve. First it is the totality of your work. Second it is getting paid to do the work.
We while Willis was:
”1975-77 Self-employed, St. Helena, CA — Jewelry Maker. Made and sold sterling silver rings, pendants, and jewelry with precious and semi-precious gems. Part time, 2 years.”
I was personally selected by Admiral Rickover for the navy nuclear program, completed a BSME from Purdue and became a commissioned officer in the navy, went out to sea on a sub, completed extensive training leading to being a nuclear a qualified Engineering Officer of the Watch (EOOW), was assigned to a nuclear cruiser during commissioning, completed EOOW qualifications, and was a division officer supervising 75 enlisted men.
So while Willis was playing hippie some of us were slanding the line during the cold war.
How did Willis build on that experience.
“1983 DTI, Inc. — Trainer, Pre-service Training for Peace Corps, in Micro-Hydropower. Designed and conducted training in construction of micro-hydropower dams and systems ….”
During that time I was a shift supervisor for the reactor designer during commissioning for a 1200 MWe commercial nuke plant. Part of the task was plant specific senior reactor operator certification which was self study after our regular job.
Three points here. Science builds with experience. Because I was good at science, I got to do a lot of interesting things as an engineer. Second there is a test. You have demonstrate you understand the science before doing important work.
Finally, life is an open book test. Not understanding science can get you vaporized or worse you can kill a bunch of children.

Reply to  Retired Kit P
December 15, 2016 3:33 pm

Kit, it’s actually a good thing that Willis as an amateur got a comment published in Nature. He should be commended for that. But when he refers to it as “not a full-blown article to be sure” it’s a clear case of him inflating his accomplishment. A comment isn’t a full-blown, a half-blown, a quarter blown, nor a tenth blown article…..IT IS NOT AN ARTICLE PERIOD. The manner in which he talks of it he is making an implication that it was almost an “article.” But it wasn’t, It was a comment.

Reply to  Steve Heins
December 16, 2016 4:56 am

Steve Heins wrote, “it’s a clear case of him inflating his accomplishment. A comment isn’t a full-blown, a half-blown, a quarter blown, nor a tenth blown article…..IT IS NOT AN ARTICLE PERIOD.”
You have no idea what you are talking about, Steve.
Here’s Willis’s paper, doi:10.1038/nature02689; full text here:
http://sealevel.info/eschenbach2004.pdf
It is what Nature calls a “Brief Communications Arising” article. It is a short peer-reviewed paper, written in response to another paper. This is what Nature says about them:

Critical comments on recent Nature papers may, after peer review, be published online as Brief Communications Arising, usually alongside a reply from the criticized Nature authors…
Brief Communications Arising are exceptionally interesting or important scientific comments and clarifications on original research papers or other peer-reviewed material published in Nature. They are published online but not in print.
Submissions should challenge the main conclusions of the Nature paper and contain new, unpublished data to support the arguments.
Submissions that pertain to a non-central part of the Nature paper are not considered.

Reply to  Steve Heins
December 16, 2016 10:43 am

Again I agree Steve. There is a difference between enjoying something and being good at something. Relative to most people am good at tennis, chess, and sailing. Relative to those who make a living doing what I enjoy, I am not very good. However, I am good enough share the basics with children who might otherwise get to do those things.

Reply to  Steve Heins
December 17, 2016 11:45 am

It was an unusually long comment in Nature — I’d call it a one page article — the magazine thought enough of it to publish it, and the authors of the original article thought enough of it to make an attempt to refute it.
I don’t know if they succeeded.
Heiny, your posts demonstrate no knowledge of climate science — apparently you know nothing about climate science, but are an expert at character attacks.
Why don’t you put that on your resume?
You might have a future job with the Dumbocrat Party.
I’m sure Willis has forgotten more about science than you’ll ever know.
Go away.

Reply to  Retired Kit P
December 17, 2016 11:26 am

Retarded Kit P:
YOU WROTE:
“I was personally selected by Admiral Rickover for the navy nuclear program, completed a BSME from Purdue and became a commissioned officer in the navy,”
MY COMMENT:
Another tedious post from you, and it provides more evidence you know nothing about climate science.
This is a climate change website.
Willis has contributed climate science articles.
You have contributed character attacks, and are now bragging about yourself.
You apparently have nothing to contribute about climate science..
So why are you here?

Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
December 16, 2016 12:16 pm

“why you are attacking my education and experience so vehemently”
Wow! I find it hard to believe that Willis is so thin skinned and worked in construction. What a little girl!
To answer Willis’ question which he should have not have to ask because he has a psychology degree; certain titles command respect such as medical doctor, engineer, and navy seal. It takes brains and hard work. Other like to coop these titles to make their job sound important.
In high school and college before joining the navy, I was a sanitation engineer. That right I cleaned toilets and mopped floors. It is an important job and I did it with pride.
If Willis want to call himself a scientist, it is a free country. The mistake Willis made is posting his resume. It screams California hippie bumming from one interest to another. Willis is ‘special’ because he participated in life.

Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
December 16, 2016 12:25 pm

Willis, you need to learn one important thing. Writing for a blog is not doing science. So, when you say: ” ,,,hundreds of scientific researches and investigations which I’ve published here on WUWT.” They don’t count. Why? No peer review.
.
.
Getting a comment into Nature is fine, but it was only a comment. Now your stuff in E&E, well, I won’t talk about Boehmer-Christiansen, but I will reference what Roger Pielke Jr. said:
“[E&E] has published a number of low-quality papers, and the editor’s political agenda has clearly undermined the legitimacy of the outlet. If I had a time machine I’d go back and submit our paper elsewhere.”
..
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2011/feb/25/real-climate-libel-threat

PS, just because you can build a house, doesn’t mean you can do science. It seems you have a pressing need to “prove” yourself, which is serious character flaw. If you were self-confident, you would brush aside any criticisms instead of digging in your heels and trying to prove your abilities in science by posting something about your construction skills. You strike out at the anyone that offers any valid criticism.
.
.
Saying the COMMENT is not a full blown article is correct, but it is still just a comment and not an article. Suggesting it might be similar to an article is a serious misrepresentation.

Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
December 17, 2016 11:34 am

Willis, they are obviously liberals who went to your blog, and saw you were conservative and liked Trump.
They blew their tops, and started character attacking you.
The primary goal of character attacks are to put you on the defensive.
Every minute you spent defending yourself is one minute less to contribute articles on climate science or any other serious issues.
Ignore Steve Heiny and Retarded Kit P.
I’ll deal with them using the Alinsky-style ridicule they understand.
I’ve read both Alinsky books and his Playboy interview.
Trump won the election because he attacked Alinsky-style.
I recommended in a mid-2014 three-page newsletter article that Republicans had to do that to win.

Johann Wundersamer
December 16, 2016 3:26 am

Mr.Willis Eschenbach,
a good start.
Proceeding as good as you’re known here.
Cheers

December 16, 2016 4:28 am

Nice. I’ve added a link on my blogroll:
http://sealevel.info/blogroll.html#eschenbach

December 16, 2016 11:01 am

“You have no idea what you are talking about, Steve.”
Apparently DaveB does not understand the difference between a comment and a research paper.

Reply to  Retired Kit P
December 16, 2016 12:24 pm

Kit P, when are you gonna stop digging that hole you’re in?

Reply to  dbstealey
December 17, 2016 11:47 am

Please use his full name to show respect because he was once in a submarine:
Retarded Kit P.

%d bloggers like this: