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.

The climate data they don't want you to find — free, to your inbox.
Join readers who get 5–8 new articles daily — no algorithms, no shadow bans.
0 0 votes
Article Rating
117 Comments
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.