How Steve Goddard a.k.a. Tony Heller does bad science

Steve Goddard, or as I like to call him, Dorothy (because Dorothy of the Wizard of Oz is his avatar, and I think he might live in Oz) is one of those science deniers who now and then produces a graphic that shows that global warming isn’t real. He is increasingly being ignored by even the ingenuous, but his latest attempt to deny reality has been slapped down so effectively by scientist and blogger Tamino that thought you should see it.

I’m just going to give you a little bit of the story, and then send you to Tamino’s excellent post.

First, here is Goddard’s graphic attempting to show that global warming is not real.

See how temperatures are going down? How can that be? Note that this is average maximum temperature over time, 1918-present, in the US.

Why 1918 (the data set goes back farther)? Why the US? Also, why is he using absolute temperatures instead of the usually used anomalies? Maybe he knows something we don’t know. Or, maybe he is counting on his audience not knowing some stuff that all the experts know.

Now look at this graph, produced by climate scientist Tamino.

That’s a silly graph, isn’t it. It appears to show the mean latitude of something over time. Of what? Of the stations used to estimate temperatures. How is this relevant to the present discussion?

To learn the answer to that and other important questions, see: USA Temperature: can I sucker you?

Spread the love

94 thoughts on “How Steve Goddard a.k.a. Tony Heller does bad science

  1. Haha. Nice step by step articulate work as usual at open mind. I’d love to be as articulate as he is.
    Funnily, Tamino got very pissed at me once cuz I commented on his idea some TV star called Oprah would make a great political and military leader in the position of President of USA. Asking about his preferred hypothetical candidates ideas on nuclear weapons seemed to be like a bee sting allergy. Yanks love their fucking nukes. No If s or buts. No discussion allowed on a subject of grave import.
    Also funnily, someone accused Heller of being racist, he denied it, and I said there was at least the impression he could possibly be cuz he hassled the old President about some birth certificate along side many who were undeniably racist, and Heller cracked the shits at me for a completely reasonable idea.

    By coincidence, I was reading an old denier blog last night from 2012 ( try it sometime. The older they are the funnier they get. This one’s subject was the fucking Pictet experiment of all things! Such utter graspers they are), and the loons on it were putting down Heller too!

  2. I see the innumerate – Laden the Hillbilly – is still barking that the cold nitrogen-oxygen atmosphere’s a heater.

    Still believing the cold atmosphere warms the Earth Laden?

    Science is what’s called ”repeatable” – can you show anyone anywhere, another cold nitrogen/oxygen bath that warms the object it conduction chills ?

    Of course you can’t. Just like you can’t tell us why your church can’t calculate the temperature of our global atmosphere and resolve to the known true temperature of our planet’s atmosphere,

    the one against which we calibrate all our aeronautical, aerospace, and heat sensing equipment, globally, the International Standard Atmosphere.

    You’re personally such an illiterate and innumerate kook, Lade, you think the climate is changing.

    The INTERNATIONAL PHYSICAL and CALIBRATION STANDARD against which the world’s INSTRUMENTATION are CALIBRATED, – well, back there somewhere, all standards that mean anything are calibrated against known, Sea-Level pressure, temperature, and humidity or our computerized space-age wouldn’t be flying properly –

    the International Standard Atmosphere’s *fundamentals in CLIMATE DATA suitable for COMPUTERIZED LANDING of PLANES worldwide, were first correctly resolved and published in 1 8 6 4.

    They published those data and their calculations in arriving at them to help bootstrap the fledgeling FLIGHT industry which must have correct temperature/density calculations to function.

    By the 1920s flight organizations worldwide had begun using their data after WWII showed their calculations to be spot on,

    by the late 1950s the entire WORLD adopted those NEVER CHANGED CLIMATE FOUNDATION PARAMETERS,

    and used them until the Americans, disgusted at the FAKE claims of climate changing from Hansen and other scammers – Hansen, the founder of your church who can’t even calculate the temperature of the planet properly – telling people climate was changing,

    and realizing the world needed their computer and instrument information moving into ORBITAL FLIGHT, published the AMERICAN Standard Atmosphere. That was in about 1976 and the AMERICAN Standard Atmosphere is the ORIGINAL INTERNATIONAL Standard Atmosphere with

    additional data inputs taking it’s boundaries UP another couple hundred thousand feet.

    If the climate had actually change, the entire PLANET’S schools from the finest theoretical physics institutions to WELDING, SCUBA, and AIR CONDITIONING VO-TECHS,

    would have a SECTION included noting how, since CLIMATE has CHANGED, the NOMINAL REGULATORY,
    CALIBRATION,
    and LIABILITY-ESTABLISHMENT organizations in physics and engineering,

    had to REVISE their KNOWN-GOOD Atmospheric TEMPERATURE globally, through REVISION of the STANDARDS FOR TEMPERATURE, PRESSURE, and COMPOSITION.

    There’s been no such revision because climate hasn’t changed.

    You’re so dumb Laden, you actually think there’s such thing as a COLD NITROXY BATH WARMING the SUN-WARMED ROCK it stops 29% from ever reaching to warm,

    so it’s no surprise you’re utterly illiterate about the ACTUAL REGULATORY and CALIBRATION TEMPERATURE for our global atmosphere and the planet surface.

    Did you ever learn why your church falls 33 degrees short when they claim to calculate the global atmospheric & surface temperature?

    Did you ever even learn the name of the LAW used when calculating the known-good temperature of gases, hence – Atmospheres?

    What’s the significance of the Law, Laden? You claim you’re correcting Heller’s work.

    Tell me the name of the law the scientists who calculate the KNOWN GOOD temperature for gases use or you’re so FAKE you don’t even know what law of physics you’re talking about.

    You also need to be prepared to show me and any other atmospheric chemist and radiation expert, another instance of COLD NITROGEN and OXYGEN making a ROCK they buffet, COOLER than when there was NO cold nitroxy BATH.

    That’s your personal claim isn’t it? The planet is WARMER because there’s a cold nitrogen-oxygen atmospheric bath?

    The VERY first step in solving for the planet’s temperature is to FIND OUT HOW MUCH SUNLIGHT ENERGY the ATMOSPHERE REMOVES from EARTH TEMPERATURE CALCULATION.

    Right now that’s about 29% and roughtly 22, 23% of that is by the GHGs ALONE.

    The other six or eight percent is from all the other gases, and dust, etc, sending light to space and absorbing a VERY small amount. The amount is so small that if it doesn’t REACH Earth it’s COUNTED as being refracted to space nevder to HEAT Earth.

    That’s why the Atmospheric temperature calculations start out 29% LOWER than ”if there were no cold nitroxy bath at all.”

    That’s also why, thou DULLARD, all charts of ”sunlight top-of-atmosphere vs @ surface”

    show the COOLING GHGs to be almost the SOLE ones, STOPPING that ENERGY from ever REACHING the planet to cool it.

    That’s BEFORE the actual CONDUCTION cooling by the COLD nitrogen/oxygen atmospheric bath start.

    So you’re almost utterly illiterate in Atmospheric Chemistry, and in the basic principles of ”hotter vs colder.”

    There’s no such thing as ANY cold BATH that stops 29% of total available warming firelight spectra from reaching a LIGHT-WARMED object,

    WARMING that object, therm-0-billy.

    Which is why when you see the planet’s temperature PROPERLY CALCULATED, there si 29% total energy TAKEN OFF the TOP of TEMPERATURE CALCULATIONS.

    Since you’ve never measured anything for money in your life, you’ve just got no idea how easy it is to spot a scientifically illiterate clown.

    One way to tell you people is that you believe the cold atmosphere, warms the Earth.

    And that the more light blocking insulation you mix into the cold, turbulent, nitroxy bath,
    causing less and less light to REACH the
    light-warmed rock,

    the more light sensors show,
    REACHING the less-&-less light-warmed, ROCK.

    You’re a clown, the way you were several years ago when I mocked your stupid &#$ to scorn as Bill from Nevada and you had nothing to say for yourself AT ALL.

    “Yew see what weun’s whu undurstands abowt the
    magical gaissiness,
    what dun turn”t a COALED BATH in TWO uh HEEDUR, has got two deel with, YaW?”

    That was what you had to say to yourself then and you’ve got nothing but whining to say for yourself now.

    Incidentally this is being linked over there —–> so everyone can watch me ridicule you till you flop around like a truck-struck goose.

    Tell us all the name of the law of physics governing the temperature of the Atmosphere.

    Tell us all why your church can’t reach the correct temperature of our planet’s Atmosphere, which we calibrate all our flight and life-saving, and thermal devices against, coming up 33 befuddled degrees short.

    Tell us why you aren’t taught about the law that governs this: how your church doesn’t use the law, and why. Your church DOESN’T use it, which is WHY you come up 33 degrees SHORT.

    Explain to us all why you personally believe it’s possible to resolve the final radiant temperature of compressible fluids, not using the law written SPECIFICALLY for that, because NO OTHER LAW can handle the _______________________ aspect of that job.

    What is the element of the calculation process that goes in the blank there, dipstick?

    What part of the calculation of compressible fluids’ temperature, can Stefan-Boltzmann calculation not account,

    there being no provision for it within Stefan-Boltzmann process?

    What’s that called? Ok stupid I’ll tell you, it’s called ”compression warming” and your church of ignorant hicks who think cold nitrogen atmospheres are heaters, are so stupid, you don’t know anything about that so it’s easy for your handlers to simply tell you that you don’t need to know anything about it, if you believe in the magic heater it proves you’re an expert.

    Like those other hicks who believed the government when they were told pot’s like heroin, and worse for their children than methyl amphetamine addiction.

    Oh! Look! You got your name in lights for believing the cold nitrogen/oxygen atmosphere heats the planet!! BWAH HA HAH HAH HA HA Hah Ha Haaa!!!

    https://climateofsophistry.com/2017/11/03/the-alarmist-radiative-greenhouse-effects-final-end/#comment-35268

    1. Excuse me you fucking loon, could I just enquire as to which country you did the majority of your primary education in?
      I’ve got this theory about education and teaching standards in a certain country ya see, ( its about teachers leaving students behind, which is terrible ) and I’m always looking for new evidence for or against.
      Li D
      Australia

  3. “Yaw sea wut we’n’z gotta put up with,

    with peepul comin ovur heeyur sayin coaled nitchurgin baths, ain’t heedurs?”

    Wats dun come two this werld, whin yew say ”COALED NITCHURGIN BATH” and evurbodie doant eemediately think,

    ”magic heedur!”

    “YaW’!”

    Go back over your calculations Laden and watch your overlords show you HOW to SOLVE the TEMPERATURE of the PLANET.

    The FIRST thing DONE is REMOVAL of 29% of otherwise available warming firelight spectra from the sun,

    from Earth Surface/Atmospheric temperature calculation, BECAUSE of the ATMOSPHERE.

    This COOLING is ALL you can PRODUCE to show you think the ATMOSPHERE heats the PLANET.

    Your church BARKS: WITHOUT no ATMUSFEAR the PLANNIT wood bea MINNIE deGREAZ COLDER, the ATMUSFEAR WARMS the ERTH, 33 DEGREES! YaW!

    The REAL truth: the FIRST thing done in RESOLVING Earth global Atmospheric temperature is REDUCING the temperature of the calculated Earth surface by 29%,

    DIRECTLY and SOLELY because that COLD ATMOSPHERE REMOVES it.

    And in fact it’ the COOLING GHGs that remove MOST of it.

    You’re just another FAKE who thought COLD nitrogen baths, with some oxygen mixed in, WARM what they’re COOLING although your very first HINT that’s WRONG comes when you SEE with your OWN EYES, the ATMOSPHERE removing 29% total incident sunlight energy, BEFORE you even start the ACTUAL calculations.

    Something else your clown church can’t do, is show anyone the KNOWN 33 DEGREES COMPRESSION WARMING which is part of the TRUE temperature of our atmosphere.

    Tell these people the name of the law of physics responsible for solving the temperatures of the gases of the Atmosphere or – as I’ve told everyone several years ago at that other place you were

    vomiting science darkening GARBAGE that the cold nitrogen atmospheric bath is a HEATER – you’re just an ignorant FAKE so stupid you can’t name the law of thermodynamics you think you’re more an expert in than the people

    pointing out to you,
    there’s no such thing as the atmosphere warming the planet,
    and in fact the FIRST STEP in planet temperature calculation
    is
    REMOVING the 29% the ATMOSPHERE COOLS the planet before your calculations
    even start.

  4. “Thimuns what cain’t buleave in the coaled nitchurgin bath bein’ uh HeeDuR ain’t evun signtsie.”

    Is that your final word on the matter Laden?

    “Evurbodie can’t buleave in a coaled nitrogen-oxygen bath heatin up the plannit ain’t nevur seen somebody calkewlaydit?”

    Well, I HAVE seen it calculated and the FIRST thing done is the REMOVAL of
    29% of total incident warming firelight spectra from the sun,
    because of the Atmosphere.

    SHOW ME ONE REFERENCE in REAL mathematics to the ATMOSPHERE NOT cooling the planet 29% through REMOVAL of 29% of total otherwise available warming sunlight spectra from Earth/Atmospheric global temperature calculation Laden.

    You’re a fake which is why you never produce anything except whines,

    when someone who understands Atmosp heric Chemistry inside-out comes by and points out you’re so dumb you can’t even name the law your church skips when it comes up 33 degrees short in it’s ERRONEOUS Earth surface temperature calculations.

    Go get the smartest magic gas barking hick you know, Laden, and have him show you an Earth surface temperature calculation that does NOT involve

    the Earth being at LEAST 29% COOLER than if there were NO cold bath at all.

    Bring that hick before us here and watch what happens when I tell it start barking the good news,

    about the magical gaissiness,

    what dun turn’t a cold nitrogen-oxygen atmospheric bath,

    into a HeaTeR.

    Go to ALL your MAGICAL GAISSINESS DUN MADE a COALED BATH UH HEEDUR

    friends,

    and say ”THIS MAN SHOWED ME that WE TAKE 29% off the TOP of EARTH SURFACE TEMPERATURE when we CALCULATED IT. I THAWT WEUNS DUN ADDiD UH BUNCH!”

    COME BACK HERE and SHOW us all the big SIGNTIFICK REVULAYSHUN yew DUN GOT

    whin yoar MAGICAL GAISSINESS FRIND, doant no no uthur WAY to CALCULATE it EITHER.

    Except to COOL the planet by 29%.

    Again, stupid the VAST MAJORITY Of that being BY the COOLING GHGs.

    Which is why on all charts of sunlight REMOVED from the surface by the atmosphere,

    the GHGs cover nearly ALL those REGIONS where SUNLIGHT doesn’t reach Earth.

    Including ALL that VISIBLE light that never warms the planet. Thats all due to THE MAIN

    COOLING GHG,
    WATER.

    Very little of the cooling takes place due to CO2 but COOL it DOES,

    WHICH is kow I know that YOU don’t know the NAME Of the LAW GOVERNING the TEMPERATURE of the ATMOSPHERE.

    THAT LAW
    assigns CO2 as having LOWER internal ENERGY per MOLE than standard Air.

    SO YOUR HANDLERS TOLD YOU a COLD BATH is a HEATER and ”yew doant nead two no, abowt no laws, this is abowt beleaving in cold nitrogen making stuff warmer than it would be without no cold nitrogen.” “YaW.”

    1. There are some spacing and spelling errors due to poking out letters in a moving car.

      It’s forgivable because I said it is. And I’m the Atmospheric Chemistry & Radiation expert and radiant transfer Electronic Engineer.

      You sell shoes at some strip mall.

  5. I am in fact an atmospheric radiation specialist Electronic Engineer Laden, whose FOCUS is in ATMOSPHERIC and SURFACE FEATURES INFRARED, the VERY LIGHT GLOWING out of this PLANET: whose FIRST career

    was as an Environmental and Atmospheric chemist.

    In my parents’ oceanic and freshwater rare and endangered fish breeding laboratories.

    I started getting my allowance for monitoring atmospheric and water chemistry in sensitive environments when I was SEVEN.

    And that was 50 years ago, therm-0-billy, so you go ahead and use the BIGGEST WORDS you can THINK UP as LONG as you START with ”There was the EARTH and a STAR named SOL,”

    and finish up with ”And THAT’S HOW a COLD NITROGEN/OXYGEN ATMOSPHERIC BATH, is a BIG OL’ HEEDUR, YAW!”

    I want to hear your STORY about WHO convinced YOU the COLD ATMOSPHERE does ANYTHING but WARM this PLANET.

    I want you to tell me the name of the LAW used in SOLVING for temperature just so we can all make sure you’re not SO INSANE YOU’RE TRYING to TEACH ATMOSPHERIC CHEMISTRY without EVEN KNOWING the NAME of the LAW the men USED who CALCULATED IT CORRECTLY and GAVE YOU INTERNATIONAL ATMOSPHERIC STANDARDS you can LET a ROBOT LAND an AIRCRAFT with.

    I want you to write the EQUATION of the LAW and TELL ME HOW MANY PARTS,
    THE LAW HAS.

    What are the other parts to the law, BESIDE the Equation, shoe salesman?

    Because if you know how to differentiate between we REAL scientists and the CLOWNS who told you UH COALED BATH is uh HEEDUR

    you had better damned know the name of the law of f***g physics you’re discussing,
    or obviously,

    you’re shortly going to wish you did know.

    I’ll wait, and YOU go get reinforcements to back up your story.

    I’ve already been waiting THREE YEARS for your stupid a&* to say something in my presence to defend your LOOP TARD, SCIENCE DARKENING CLAIMS.

    About the COLD NITROGEN-OXYGEN BATH, thermobilly
    that yOU SAY is a HEATER.

    I say: you’re so DUMB you can’t even tell a COLD NITROGEN BATH from a HEATER.

    You’re MYSTIFIED why everyone doesn’t hear ”COLD NITROGEN-OXYGEN BATH” and think ”HEEDUR yaW!”

    You are actually SURPRISED nobody on earth want to hear your story about the COLD NITROGENOUS/OXYGEN ATMOSPHERE

    being a HEATER

    even though your OWN CHURCH SHOWS YOU THEM,

    COOLING the PLANET 29% BEFORE THE REST of CALCULATIONS even START.

    You’re undeterred, when they let you watch them REMOVE 29% of total sunlight energy

    and then tell you ‘REPEAT AFTER ME, I JUST ADDED 33 DEGREES to the TEMPERATURE by REMOVING 29% FROM TEMPERATURE CALCULATIONS”

    here you are YEARS LATER STILL NODDING ”oh YEAH that sounds REAL To ME!”

    Talk to us about your church, nitwit.

    Or send someone here to talk about it for you.

    Your lack of literacy and numeracy are an embarrassment to hicks who think cold nitrogen atmospheric baths are heaters.

    You sat around and squirmed and squalled 3 years ago.

    Hurry up the world’s going to end if you don’t spread the word that cold nitrogen baths are heaters. And that using fire made the sky get hot.

    HicK.
    Which means your attempts to tell anyobody around me, that a COLD nitroxy atmospheric bath is a HEATER are going to get you just about as far as if you tried to tell them how to design a circuit in a SPECTRUM ANALYZER.

    1. I am in fact an atmospheric radiation specialist Electronic Engineer Laden, whose FOCUS is in ATMOSPHERIC and SURFACE FEATURES INFRARED, the VERY LIGHT GLOWING out of this PLANET: whose FIRST career

      No you aren’t. The screeds of tripe you’ve provided above are clear evidence of that.

      4
  6. Which means your attempts to tell anyobody around me, that a COLD nitroxy atmospheric bath is a HEATER…

    You clearly have yet to grasp the existence of a powerful heater beyond the atmosphere.

    A simple experiment, if you look look upwards during a cloudless day you should notice this yellowish orb in the sky. That is the sun, our nearby star.

    The rest is physics and you could do worse than to study Principles of Planetary Climate by Raymond Pierrehumbert. You can now also download a pdf of the book.

    Alternatively, but much better also, study:

    Global Warming: Understanding the Forecast by David Archer. Note there are even lecture videos to watch and learn from amongst that repository of science gold.

    2
    1. As soon as you innumerate, illiterate people show the world another instance of

      refractive insulation
      mixed into a cold nitrogen-oxygen bath,

      creating a 29% loss in energy to the object it CHILLS

      WARMING it

      you won’t be in here swearing you’ve finally found the FIRST
      cold nitrogen-oxygen bath,

      that’s a heater.

      Lionel this isn’t a negotiation, I told you that your own church SHOWS you,

      THEM

      taking away 29% of otherwise warming firelight spectra from the planet’s surface temperature calculation,

      then TELLING you the COOLING
      COLD NITROGEN-OXYGEN atmosphere HEATED the planet.

      YOU go GET us something showing WHERE that energy comes from,

      to overcome the 29% TAKEN AWAY – spontaneous regeneration of 29% of the sun’s light is YOUR CHURCH’S CLAIM and I say anyone who believes it is as stupid as a stump who thinks a COLD BATH is a HEATER.

      Your church’s claim is also that after that FIRST 29% the atmosphere TAKES AWAY

      is SPONTANEOUSLY GENERATED,
      there is ANOTHER

      spontaneous generation of energy causing FURTHER warming of 33 degrees above what 100% sunlight would create.

      When you can show me the source of that spontaneous generation of first,

      29% of total incident sunlight,

      then sufficient energy to warm not just the cold nitrogen-oxygen atmosphere but the entire planet SURFACE, 33 degrees further,

      you won’t be in here telling me about a magical perpetuum mobim that spontaneously generates more than 30% of total incident sunlight energy.

      Till you do that: that’s EXACTLY what you’re trying to do, and it’s why you’re not anxious at all to discuss your church’s KOOK-a-ZOID teachings.

      Like I said go to your own church’s websites and try to find the source of this spontaneous re-generation of the 29% the atmosphere takes completely out of all computation of Earth surface temperature.

      When you find that you be sure and come tell us all your exciting discovery.

      HA ha ha ha ha ha!

    2. I am in fact an atmospheric radiation specialist

      Doubtful, but giving you the benefit of the doubt: if your education didn’t lead you to be able to write a coherent argument without random capitalization it’s a fair bet you didn’t learn anything useful.

      4
    3. When you find that you be sure and come tell us all your exciting discovery.

      You are the one writing lunatic, capitalised rants claiming to have overturned the consensus understanding of atmospheric radiative physics. The onus is entirely on you to publish your results in a high impact journal. Bollocks on blogs convinces nobody, especially when it is as incoherent and incorrect as yours.

      So – not another word out of you here until you have a paper accepted by a serious climate journal.

      Goodbye.

      2
  7. Dean you’re the one who’s shown up believing a cold nitrogen-oxygen bath, which is responsible for REDUCTION in temperature of the LIGHT WARMED OBJECT it CHILLS,

    is a HEATER.

    People have reasoned with your church for the past ten years and every one of you are so illiterate you can’t go to your own CHURCH’S website and find any excuse for your church’s claims.

    When speaking to people who think cold nitrogen-oxygen fluids are HEATING the object they stop 29% of warming firelight spectra from reaching – more than simple English is required – or you people would have stopped darkening science with your tales of

    (1)improperly calculated Earth surface temperature, falling 33 degrees short of the REAL known-good Earth surface temperature – telling the world ”yew ain’t gotta have thim gais laws tuh calcyalayte thim timpurchurs, we got compewturs now!”

    That’s grounds for termination of your status as numerate enough to know hotter from colder, right there –

    (2) tales of the very gases creating MOST of the atmospheric losses, actually being responsible for the spontaneous generation – out of nowhere – of not just the energy lost due to their own refraction but also those energies – about 6% – refracted away by the other gases and dust – crass, in-your-face faked energy creation

    (3)tales of further spontaneous energy creation in warming the entire cold nitrogen-oxygen bath AND PLANET 33 degrees OVER what 100% of sunlight energy would create:
    by the SAME gases claimed to have spontaneously generated that first 29% the atmosphere actually REMOVES.

    This is another instant “You’re out of the science fields” faked generation of sunlight energy that doesn’t exist and your own church can’t tell you and show you, whence it comes, because such faked spontaneous energy generation never happens.

    What DOES happen is when you go to your church’s site they SHOW YOU – T.H.E.M.
    REMOVING 29% of otherwise available warming firelight spectra from the sun,

    and NEVER showing you where all that FAKED energy comes from.

    They SHOW you: “Here, we COOL our TEMPERATURE CALCULATION by 29%
    by REMOVING from our temperature calculation the 29% never arriving
    DUE
    TO
    the COOLING ATMOSPHERE.

    They then tell you to NOD that “Oh yes I just saw MUCHLY uv WARMING YAW!”

    And HERE you ARE trying to convince people it really HAPPENED.

    SHOW me what makes you think you see spontaneous regeneration of 29% of total incident sunlight. This isn’t a religious class. In scientific discourse what you say can be REPLICATED by ANYONE and YOU can SHOW others your WORK.

    So you SHOW me, somewhere, the SOURCE of your church’s claims, that the COOLING green house gases – responsible for MOST of that 29% energy taken off the top of Earth’s temperature –

    spontaneously regenerate not just the light THEY refract to space but also all that refracted away by DUST and the other GASES – or YOU’RE BARKING RIDICULOUS FRAUD.

    And THEN, you SHOW me and everyone else here,
    just WHERE your church taught you that ADDITIONAL 33 degrees’ warming’s energy
    CAME from.

    Since no one from your church has EVER shown ANYONE where such FAKE imaginings came from, YOU won’t be the FIRST to lOCK Up and SHUT DOWN,

    unable to utter the first COHERENT SENTENCE about how 29% ENERGY LOST

    became spontaneously RE-GENERATED
    and then
    additional energies to warm the entire cold atmosphere and planet 33 degrees more.

    Your answer is ”yew ain’t signtsie liek us what’s buleavurs.”

    That’s ALL your answer is because that’s the kind of person THIS kind of LUDICROUS FRAUD draws.

    People who believe even when their own CHURCH shows them 29% REDUCTION in temperature due to the atmosphere, that they saw warming, PAST what 100% energy to that object would create. OVER UNITY generation due to 29% LOSS.

    It’s YOUR story
    and it’s not gonna be explained by anything except “LooK! Something to discuss other than my ludicrous OVER UNITY ENERGY CREATION story!”

    Go ahead: SHOW us all your church’s explanation for where all that energy comes from when they’re ACTIVELY SHOWING YOU THEM, REDUCING EARTH’S TEMPERATURE 29% as the FIRST STEP in CALCULATING EARTH SURFACE TEMPERATURE.

    1. Go ahead: SHOW us all your church’s explanation for where all that energy comes from

      There’s a good synopsis here.

      I am not going to waste time ‘debating’ with you about the efficacy of CO2 as a climate forcing.

      Read the link if you want to understand the actual science.

      3
    2. Given your repeated referrals to established science as a “church” — the only intelligent conclusion is that you are simply another science denying troll. The barely middle-school writing level supports that conclusion.

      2
    1. Yup. By reducing the rate at which energy is lost to ‘space’ above the blanket…

      Doesn’t matter whether the energy is produced internally (human metabolism) or externally (the Sun / Earth), the key feature is the degree to which energy loss from the system through LW radiation is inhibited. That sets the energy balance and so the temperature of the system.

      2
  8. spontaneous generation of energy causing FURTHER warming

    It is a build up of energy in the Earth’s systems due to you know, the results of radiative physics, that causes the warming. Solar energy continues to come in, is stored and converted in energy that cannot all escape through the atmosphere because of the build up in greenhouse gases.

    Now some selections from your ravings, the last two of which are enough:

    Lionel this isn’t a negotiation, I told you that your own church

    you’re not anxious at all to discuss your church’s KOOK-a-ZOID teachings.

    Like I said go to your own church’s websites

    you can’t go to your own CHURCH’S website

    somewhere, the SOURCE of your church’s claims

    just WHERE your church taught you that ADDITIONAL 33 degrees’

    Since no one from your church has EVER shown ANYONE where such FAKE imaginings came from,

    People who believe even when their own CHURCH shows them 29%

    SHOW us all your church’s explanation for where all that energy comes from when they’re

    That is enough to demonstrate that you have lost the plot and it is you in need of that COLD BATH. Calm down and carry out analytical thought on this or are you one of those classed as incapable by Peter Medaware.

    2
    1. Be highly amusing to see a dialogue between certain commenters and Medaware in the bell curve thread.

      Sky dragon slayers are no different to creationist types imo.
      There’s a block somehow in being able to visualise how mechanisms work, no matter how well articulated and drawn out a mechanism is.

      1
    2. Which reminds me. I still need help describing rising OLR in a rising GHG scenario, in layman’s language, if anyone can assist.

    3. What you need to do, is figure out when you can name the law of physics governing resolving atmospheric temperature.

      You need to bear firm testimony of why your church can’t calculate the temperature of the atmosphere and match the known good temperature of the atmosphere which is ETCHED in INTERNATIONAL CALIBRATORY STONE as the International Standard Atmosphere.

      Since it’s obvious you can’t do that you’re referring to OTHERS as having lost the plot, therm-0-billy but YOU’RE the one left claiming you

      who can’t even name the LAW of PHYSICS for RESOLVING the Atmosphere’s temperature.
      Another STUMPED and stump stupid believer a COLD NITROXY BATH,
      HEATS the object it stops 29% of all energy from a firelight source from warming.

      That’s YOUR grasp on ”the plot.”

      TOO dumb to name the LAW used to solve the temperature of the Atmosphere

      and AMAZED that someone apprises you that your own CHURCH – SHOWS you,
      THEM
      REMOVING
      THOSE SPECTRAL ENERGIES from EARTH TEMPERATURE
      refracted to space and absorbed by the COLD NITROXY BATH.

      They SHOW you the temperature REDUCED by THOSE percent,
      then DON’T show you any accounting the REAL compression warming

      of 33 DEGREES that’s IN the REAL temperature of the atmosphere

      and TELL your DUMB @#$ to NOD that YEAH, you saw the TEMPERATURE of the planet, INCREASE that full 29% it obviously REMOVED – they SHOWED you them REMOVING it when temperature calculations START –
      THEN increase MORE to the point the ENTIRE cold nitroxy bath AND the planet,

      warmed by 33 degrees.

      THAT sounds like it’s REAL to you,
      and you ADMIT you don’t even know the name of the LAW used for solving Atmospheric temperature,

      but it’s not YOU who think a COLD NITROGEN BATH is a HEATER who’s CRAZY

      it’s all the people who don’t hear ”COLD NITROGEN BATH removing 29% of the ENERGY from a ROCK” and think ”OH YEAH that’s what a HEATER DOES!”

      You’re an intellectual invalid to have the nerve to claim you think the people pointing out to you that COLD NITROGEN BATHS aren’t HEATERS

      have lost some PLOT.

      The PLOT is to KEEP YOU SO DUMB YOU CAN’T NAME the LAW of PHSYICS

      GOVERNING the ATMOSPHERE’S MATHEMATICAL TEMPERATURE RESOLUTION.

  9. At that level the climate system is very complicated, and it may be very difficult to come up with a layman’s explanation that really teaches what is happening.

    I can think of a few analogies that would help, but engaging in analogies with the hyper-literate is not really worth it, because the analogies just sail by.

    But for anyone with an honest desire to understand it, here is one way to think about it. Increase of CO2 in the atmosphere warms the earth a little directly, and a lot indirectly. It is like hiring a group of department heads to whom you give a great deal of latitude, to improve your company’s output. Hiring them makes it happen, but the actual work that gets done is by the minions they hire. So if you need a direct measurement linking work and output, you measure the minions (shortwave, not longwave) not the bosses.

    1. You’re spouting ridiculous bull shoot. There’s noplace in the solving of the planetary atmospheric temperature CO2 is resolved as doing any warming, the fact you believe CO2 added to Air is proof YOU don’t know the name of the law of physics written to solve the temperature of the Atmosphere.

      If you DID know the NAME of it you’d know how many parts it has and you don’t,

      because if you knew that, you’d know there’s ONE CHART ON THIS PLANET for RESOLVING TEMPERATURES of GASES in the ATMOSPHERE

      and it’s the chart of law of the Ideal Gas Law, which FORMALLY, MATHEMATICALLY ASSIGNS CO2 as containing LESS energy per mole average than AIR.

      Addition of CO2 to AIR volumes LOWERS it’s energy holding rate – not RAISES it.

      This is why you never replied to me above, because * you don’t even know how the proper temperature of the atmosphere is FORMALLY RESOLVED.

      Every fraudulent word you bark about CO2 and ANY of the GHGs warming the planet is refuted by simply referring to the Chart of Law

      THIS is the SOLE chart in ALL thermodynamic law for resolving temperatures of the major gases of the Atmosphere, and the Atmosphere itself.

      https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/specific-heat-capacity-gases-d_159.html

      This is the chart of law that unified and bonded the four major laws before it and which is the LAW used to SOLVE the TEMPERATURE of our global atmosphere FORMALLY for regulatory and calibration of our HEAT sensing and flight and aerospace flight/sensing instrumentation.

      There is NO QUESTION what the real temperature of the Atmosphere is.

      There is NO QUESTION you magic gas barking frauds arrive 33 degrees short.

      There is NO QUESTION the reason you do is that you don’t resolve the

      33 degrees’ atmospheric compression, the REAL calculations take care of, and which are one of the several MAIN reasons the gas law MUST be USED.
      If you don’t,
      you come up 33 degrees SHORT.

      Your story is that a COLD nitroxy BATH, which your own CHURCH shows you, causes them to remove some 29% of all otherwise available warming firelight spectra from the sun, and calculate the global TEMPERATURE – that EXACT 29% LOWER BECAUSE of it –

      isn’t actually LOWERING temperature of the planet by that 29% even your CHURCH doesn’t hide when they show you how to solve for the temperature of the atmosphere by TAKING AWAY the entire value of ALL atmospherically removed light available to WARM the surface –

      your story is that because they told you AGAIN and AGAIN this is proof a COLD LIGHT BLOCKING BATH is RAISING planetary temperature, 33 degrees, so – it must do that.

      Because you can’t IMAGINE a COLD light blocking NITROGEN-OXYGEN BATH, being ANYTHING but a HEATER.

      Your claim and that of your KOOK science darkening church

      is that – EVERYONE knows,
      COLD nitrogen oxygen baths,
      REDUCING energy to rocks by29%
      MAKE sensible people think – OH yeah,

      it’s making the Earth 33 degrees WARMER
      when it TAKES 29% off it’s TEMPERATURE.

      Greg Laden: YOU are a FRAUD. If you WEREN’T, you’d have TOLD your followers the NAME of the LAW of PHYSICS used, in resolving the REAL Atmospheric temeperature,

      and you’d have SHOWED THEM the CHART: SHOWING CO2 having MORE – not LESS energy than AIR in ALL temperature-related CALCULATIONS.

      The REAL chart – the ONLY chart on earth
      authorized to ASSIGN CO2 an energy value in

      temperature calculations,

      assigns CO2 LESS energy and therefore, LOWERS temperature calculations when it’s energy loads are calculated into gas volume temperatures.

      Every word you said about CO2 EVER being recorded warming an air volume is fake.

      Every word you’ve said about ANY green house gas warming the planet ANY – is FAKE, as is shown you

      by your OWN CHURCH when they EXPLAIN to you:

      you SOLVE Earth Atmospheric temperature like THIS: YOU TAKE AWAY ALLLL the ENERGY

      the ATMOSPHERE stops from WARMING Earth,

      and PROCEED from THERE.

      The GHGs are responsible for the VAST MAJORITY of those losses, some 22, 23% of all otherwise available warming sunlight spectra.

      That’s why they are shown CLEARLY as nearly the SOLE contributing gas GROUP, removing sunlight from Temperature calculations,

      in ALL charts of sunlight top-of-atmosphere vs sea level.

      ALL charts show this to be CLEARLY the case.

      Every word you say otherwise is contradicted by EVERY chart of sunlight top of atmosphere vs sea level,

      and EVERY global atmospheric temperature resolution process on the PLANET shows ALL those ENERGIES

      REMOVED from global atmospheric temperature nearly FIRST THING.

      There is NO calculation seen ANYWHERE to explain your claim,

      that the gases REMOVING 23%

      spontaneously RE – GENERATE that 23% THEY blocked PLUS
      the energies the OTHERS blocked, – it’s YOUR church’s claim, therm-0-billy,

      and that they THEN – WARM the ENTIRE cold nitrogen oxygen bath,
      AND the PLANET, 33 more degrees.

      YOU think THAT’S real.

      Show me ONE instance where someone calculates the temperature of the planet,
      and the ATMOSPHERE is not responsible for about 28 29% REDUCTION
      in surface temperature
      because if REMOVAL from the physical systems hence mathematical ones,
      ENTIRELY.

      Show us ONE to support your claim CO2 has WARMED the planet.

      ANY reference to ANY chart of sunlight top of atmosphere vs @ sea level,
      shows CO2 RIGHT THERE with WATER
      REDUCING sunlight to Earth.

      Participating in that OVERALL 29% Earth temperature reduction OFF the TOP.

      as the INITIAL CONSIDERATION in your CALCULATIONS.

  10. At most, Tamino’s post might show that graphical representation is more of an art form than many people will admit.

    Choose the appropriate limiting factors, and you can pretty-much create the appearance of any truth that you might wish to proclaim.

    This is precisely what advocates of the Greenhouse “Theory” have always done, as I have come to see it, and I speak as a once-staunch supporter of that nonsense.

    1
  11. LiD’s comment is interesting, in that I would not feel improper applying those exact words to the views that LiD defends:

    [“Sky dragon slayers are no different to creationist types imo. There’s a block somehow in being able to visualise how mechanisms work, no matter how well articulated and drawn out a mechanism is.”]

    Consider a basic description of the Earth’s atmosphere: The atmosphere blocks much of incoming sunlight, thus enabling the sun-lit side to remain cooler than it would otherwise be without the atmosphere. In short, Earth’s atmosphere cools the daylight side, if we are to state the facts in the most generalized terms.

    Now, of the warmth that the atmosphere enables on the sunlit side, the atmosphere “holds onto” some of this warmth on the dark side of the planet, and it “holds onto” just enough of this warmth to make life possible until the dark side sequentially progresses into the light side again, progressively infusing the surface with energy to maintain this cycle of warming-just-enough-to-keep-night-survivable (i.e., warmer than it would otherwise be at night).

    The one-sided statement of the Greenhouse “Theory” asserts only that the atmosphere keeps the planet “warmer than it would otherwise be”, when clearly the atmosphere keeps the day side cooler and the night side warmer than they respectively otherwise would be.

    Such one-sided language is allowed because the extremely high temperature that the day side would be without the atmosphere adds to the extremely low temperature that the night side would be without the atmosphere, and this dubious average of maximum high (that gets higher than maximum low) added to maximum low (that never gets as low as high gets high) happens to work out in favor of a positive number, thus supporting the generalized claim of “warmer than it otherwise would be”.

    That’s just a trick to disguise the details and to justify a mathematically overly fabricated number supporting a (literally) one-sided perspective.

    The fact that warmth of a lit side added to cold of an unlit side gives a positive number is not enough of a fact in reality to give factual meaning to a magical gassy theory.

    Alan E., in his strangely improvised, often cryptic, linguistic style, seems to be alluding to these ideas.

    1. Choose the appropriate limiting factors, and you can pretty-much create the appearance of any truth that you might wish to proclaim.

      That’s what Tony Heller does, although *not* to present ‘truth’. Correctly presented temperature data show unambiguous global warming. Pretending otherwise in 2018 is pointless and rather silly.

      Alan E., in his strangely improvised, often cryptic, linguistic style, seems to be alluding to these ideas.

      Which are fundamentally wrong. They ignore the role of the ocean in stabilising tropospheric temperature and the fact that since the Earth’s rotation is a continuous process, the diurnal cycle is averaged when considering the influence of atmospheric composition on GAT.

      Please read the link I provided upthread for a scientifically correct overview of the ‘greenhouse effect’.

      1
    2. Robert Kernodle I’ve just been rereading your post. A couple of remarks.
      “Consider a basic description of the Earth’s atmosphere: The atmosphere blocks much of incoming sunlight, thus enabling the sun-lit side to remain cooler than it would otherwise be without the atmosphere. In short, Earth’s atmosphere cools the daylight side, if we are to state the facts in the most generalized terms”.
      Although I understand your brevity, this feels wrong, particularly ” blocks “, but some other things as well.

      Surface and atmosphere quite often get conflated accidently in much writing I’ve seen.

      Secondly, your attempted explanation of what ever the fuck Allen E is on about is welcome. But I will say this about your explanation. It seems to be describing the null and no more than that. So it’s sorta just a bit futile.
      We gotta planet with an atmosphere and it’s warm. That’s what situational
      awareness tells me the null is.
      Describing a null dosnt mean any new ideas or theories to further describe in more detail a null are wrongish or rightish.
      So what he on about? What a shitload of words to say it’s warm and we have an atmosphere which everyone knows.
      Perhaps I’m confused.

  12. Correctly presented temperature data show unambiguous global warming. Pretending otherwise in 2018 is pointless and rather silly.

    First, you have to have reliable temperature data, and I question whether or not we do, especially when we are talking about such small ranges as a few degrees, either anomalous or raw. You can take a “correctly presented” set of this data, and adjust the y axis to make the small anomaly appear huge, which is deception par excellence. Second, you have to acknowledge that a “global mean temperature” even has any real meaning, again especially when we consider such small ranges of a couple degrees, and I do not acknowledge that this has any real meaning. The pretense, I fear, in in your camp, hence the silliness too.

    … ignore the role of the ocean in establishing tropospheric temperature and the fact that since the Earth’s rotation is a continuous process, the diurnal cycle is averaged when considering the influence of atmospheric composition on GAT.

    Those ideas I stated are general and include the ocean’s role, and so your claim of “ignoring” the ocean is misplaced, because I wasn’t even commenting in that level of detail. I was commenting about general sense of how the atmosphere acts upon the entire Earth surface (land and ocean combined). And now that you mention the ocean, let’s not forget the heat capacity of water, which is partially how the dark side of Earth maintains warmth at the levels that it does.

    Of course the Earth’s rotation is continuous — this has nothing to do with my statements, again which understand this fact. Averaging based on this continuity seems wrong. Averaging ignores the clear division between day and night that asserts itself in more than an average manner in an artificial calculation that ignores significant divisions of reality.

    1
    1. First, you have to have reliable temperature data, and I question whether or not we do

      Question away. Demonstration is the thing.

      The one-sided statement of the Greenhouse “Theory” asserts only that the atmosphere keeps the planet “warmer than it would otherwise be”, when clearly the atmosphere keeps the day side cooler and the night side warmer than they respectively otherwise would be.

      So what? On average, it makes no difference.

      Averaging based on this continuity seems wrong. Averaging ignores the clear division between day and night

      The Earth spins and terminator never stops moving. Night and day are always merging into each other. They average themselves out every instant that passes.

      None of this has anything to do with the radiative physics which underpin the GHE.

    2. ” small anomaly ” s need always to be considered in correct context. Including noise and time and error bars.
      Statistions are all over this stuff and it’s a pretty non issue.
      Fuckwits like Heller and Monckton have no desire to do statistics that are honest. Again and again they are seen to go out of their way to be dishonest.
      Just thinking, I don’t ever think I’ve seen an OHC chart from Heller. That’s dishonesty in itself.
      I view oceans as COMPARATIVELY undiscussed, in terms of conduction mechanisms to atmosphere, and the whopping great aerosol influence on OHC.
      Both these are studied and understood pretty well,
      But not chatted about on the internet by deniers much. They don’t want to go there and confront their own denial.
      Volcano based deniers are a pure cult and should be banned from the internet, lol. God damn they are stupid.
      Ultimately deniers deny observations and necessarily must fall back to conspiracy. There’s no place in science for conspiracy so they not even in the game. Just weirdos on the internet and in parliament. None of em internalize the meaning of the words ” bias ” or ” agenda “.

    3. BBD I think Robert Kernodle might be referring to certain processes that are at work that vary between night and day.
      It’s a non issue as far as I’m concerned cuz it does indeed average out. Understanding say the GHE at night compared to day assists in understanding better how it all works.
      Same with albedo calculations and ideas and some tricky cloud stuff.

  13. Q: What do you get when you let a Russian AI sentence generator read a bottle of Dr. Bronner’s? A: See some of the previous entries.

    Q: What do you get when a retired, religious, conservative gentleman decides to push the envelope of the Dunning- Kruger effect? A. See several of the entries above.

    Q: What do you get when the most lucrative and driving engine of modern human energy economics is found to be contributing to the destruction of future human viability on Earth? A: Lots of Russian assholes trying to save their source of income and lots of old man assholes trying to save their cobbled together mythology. See above.

    1
    1. “Q: What do you get when the most lucrative and driving engine of modern human …”
      Eeek! Totally off topic but these words reminded me of part of the USA state of Mississippi declaration of causes thingie to attempt to validate why they were arseholes.

      “Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery—the greatest material interest of the world. ”

      It’s interesting and horrifying what people will do for money.

    2. Steve P I think the biggest D-K envelope push was the one that stimulated Dunning and Kruger to do work in the first place. The bank robber who thought he made himself invisible!

    3. When you show us another cold nitrogen-oxygen bath that’s a heater,

      and can name the law of physics responsible for governing the temperature of the global Atmosphere

      you won’t be the innumerate hillbilly so stupid you can’t name the law of physics governing the temperature of the cold nitrogen oxygen atmospheric bath,

      telling everybody you’re sure nitrogen baths that are colder than rocks, are heating them.

      Till then that’s EXACTLY who you are.

      1
    4. What’s actually going on is that YOU’RE so stupid you think a cold nitrogen oxygen bath is a heater, even though you’re so dumb about it you ALSO can’t name the law of thermodynamics governing atmospheric temperature.

      You’re SO stupid – the fact people tell you a COLD NITROGEN-OXYGEN BATH,

      that they

      SHOW YOU, *THEMSELVES removing 29% off the TOP of calculations of temperature

      of a SUNWARMED ROCK BECAUSE of,

      is actually WARMING the rock.

      You’ve got the mathematical grasp of an Alpaca.

      When your CHURCH shows YOU,
      THEM RESOLVING the TEMPERATURE of the PLANET
      they SHOW you
      THEM

      REDUCING PLANETARY SURFACE TEMPERATURE CALCULATIONS,
      by the FULL QUANTITY the ATMOSPHERE refracts to space and absorbs.

      YOU’RE in here telling us that SOMEONE showed YOU,
      the COLD NITROGEN BATH is actually HEATING the planet.

      GO get THAT OTHER COLD NITROXY BATH in THERMODYNAMICS,
      where just it’s PRESENCE chills the ROCK in it 29%,
      that warmed it. ANY.

      Or you’re a simpleton who thought cold nitrogen-oxygen baths are heaters,
      when they REMOVE 29% from TEMPERATURE calculations OFF the TOP.

      When you RETRIEVE that, YOU be prepared to EXPLAIN to these people how you came to believe CO2 can WARM AIR it’s added to,

      when the SOLE chart in ALL THERMODYNAMICS,
      in the LAW written to SOLVE ATMOSPHERIC and other gas TEMPERATURES

      SHOWS CO2 assigned a CLEARLY LOWER average energy per mole than standard Air.

      SHOW ME the CHART you KNOW of that ASSIGNS CO2 a HIGHER energy per mole than air, or you’re just so INNUMERATE you don’t even realize there IS a gas law that HAS that CHART.

      We’ll all wait.

      YOU go get that Chart that shows CO2, holding MORE energy per mole, than AIR in GAS TEMPERATURE CALCULATIONS.

      And REMEMBER: that YOU’RE the one who’s been caught not even able to name the law of physics written to SOLVE gas, hence atmospheric temperatures,

      and who thinks cold nitrogen baths, HEAT things.

      So be PERSUASIVE when you come back with the evidence CO2 warms air,
      and that the ATMOSPHERE that COOLS the planet 29%, warms it.

      Be ready to discuss gas mass-energy relationships that make cold gas baths HEATERS

      and not have everyone who reads your twisted dodge, laugh soda into their keyboards.

      Use big words therm-0-billy REALLY lay it on thick when you wind up your BIG explanation of your belief COLD nitroxy baths are HEATERS with

      “And THAT’S how a COLD BATH dun COME uh HEEDur YAW!”

      “Evun if I cain’t name the law uh fisicks what makes uh atmsopheric timpurchur,
      I’M PURDY SHUR, AWL COLD NITCHURGIN BATHS, is HEEDURS,
      or EVURBODY wood’n think”HEEDUR!”

      when someone says ”COLD, TURBULENT, LIGHT-BLOCKING NITROXY FLUID BATH!”

      Be REALLY, REALLY CONVINCING when you start BARKING that part.

      Make everyone believe cold nitrogen-oxygen baths, that take 29% off the temps of things in them OFF the TOP, are HEATERS when they do it.

      We’ll all sip our coffee slow so a minimal amount seeps into keyboards worldwide when you explain it all ”the way yew undurstand it. Ya’wLL.”

      You’re a thermobilly who thought a cold nitroxy bath is a heater.

      And it’s why all you can do is whistle loudly like you’re walking past a graveyard.

      You know you really ARE so stupid you don’t even know the law of PHYSICS you’re supposed to be claiming turned a COLD NITROGEN BATH into a HEATER.

      Li D
      August 13, 2018 at 7:07 pm

      ” small anomaly ” s need always to be considered in correct context. Including noise and time and error bars.
      Statistions are all over this stuff and it’s a pretty non issue.
      Fuckwits like Heller and Monckton have no desire to do statistics that are honest. Again and again they are seen to go out of their way to be dishonest.
      Just thinking, I don’t ever think I’ve seen an OHC chart from Heller. That’s dishonesty in itself.
      I view oceans as COMPARATIVELY undiscussed, in terms of conduction mechanisms to atmosphere, and the whopping great aerosol influence on OHC.
      Both these are studied and understood pretty well,
      But not chatted about on the internet by deniers much. They don’t want to go there and confront their own denial.
      Volcano based deniers are a pure cult and should be banned from the internet, lol. God damn they are stupid.
      Ultimately deniers deny observations and necessarily must fall back to conspiracy. There’s no place in science for conspiracy so they not even in the game. Just weirdos on the internet and in parliament. None of em internalize the meaning of the words ” bias ” or ” agenda

  14. LiD, Nice observations. There are a lot of interesting parallels between the drivers of the Mississippi declaration of separation and the stance of the fossil fuel community, as you’ve pointed out. For instance, if you have little or not empathy for most other human beings, if you are so short sighted that you cannot see the tremendous long term damage from your actions, and if you feel entitled to an easy life of abundance with little or no effort on your part, you could be a Confederate leader or a fossil fuel cheer leader.

    1. Actually it’s your party that told the world in 1857 that “science says colored people aren’t human because they don’t have any souls” and that “colored people have a devilish sassiness to them that make everything about them bad, and if you have anything to do with them, you’re lower than the devil himself. So we have to make it illegal to have anything to do with them what’s got a devilish sassiness.

      Then in 1937 your party – the Democrats AGAIN – spawned another GLOBAL CHEMISTRY scam: that “That POT has got a DEVILISH GRASSINESS to it that makes yew git REEFUR MADNESS so we have to make it illegal to have ANYTHING to do with them what uses it. YaW.

      Now here they are in 2017 telling people ”The cold light blocking blocking nitrogen-oxygen bath, reducing the planet’s temperature by 29% has got a devilish gassiness in it, that dun made a COLD NITROGEN BATH, a HEATER ! So we gotta make it illegal to have ANYTHING to do with them what makes them
      devilish gaissinesses, what dun.. yew no
      turn’t a cold nitchurginoxygin bath, intwo uh HEEDuR. YaW.”

      It’ was the REPUBLICANS who were founded to put a stop to that despicable Democrat scientific fraud,

      and it was the DEMOCRATS who SPAWNED the NEXT despicable scientific fraud, that “pot’s a devilish grass, what makes yew git reafur madniss yaw!”

      and it’s the SAME DEMOCRATS who told you the COLD ATMOSPHERE is a HEATER.

      THEY SAT your GREAT, GREAT, GREAT GREAT GRANDPA in a CHAIR and told him “tha SIGNTS is SOWND, thim colurds ain’t evun hewman.

      They sat your GREAT grandpa down and told HIM, that ‘POT has a DEVILISH GRASSINESS to it so WE all gotta GIT on OPIOIDS, or gettin on POT instead of OPIOIDS, might make SOME people GIT on OPIOIDS!”

      That dumbassed grandpa of yours NODDED the same way YOU did,

      sitting in the SAME chair in the SAME school, when they told YOU, that

      ”devilish gassiness dun made cold nitroxy atmospheric baths into heaters because you used fire!”

      HERE YOU ARE SWEARING you MUST be out of your MIND because someone says that WHEN THEY HEAR ”COLD LIGHT BLOCKING NITROXY BATH”

      they don’t think ”MAGICK HEEDUR YAW!”

      You people are ABYSMAL.

      Why don’t ONE of you name the law of thermodynamics written for solving the temperature of our global atmosphere, and show us the CHART you use when you ASSIGN all the GASES their AVERAGE ENERGIES in EQUATIONS related to their TEMPERATURES?

      Why don’t one of you show us a SINGLE instance, when mixing LIGHT BLOCKING REFRIGERANTS into a BATH, such that LESS and LESS ENERGY REACHES and warms a ROCK – the cooling GHGs currently stop 22, 23% total sunlight from warming the planet, the other gases, the rest –

      show us all ONE instance of mixing MORE and MORE
      light blocking insulation into a COLD NITROGEN BATH
      making LESS and LESS light REACH and warm a ROCK,
      causing sensors to detect and depict,
      MORE and MORE light, reaching and warming the ROCK.

      EVERY TIME the insulation
      makes LESS and LESS REACH it.

      it’s YOUR church, therm-0-billies YOU explain it.

      We’ll all wait here while you figure out what you’ve got to say for your claim a cold nitroxy bath, taking 29% off the temperature of a ROCK it’s chilling,

      makes it WARMER and WARMER
      every time LESS light REACHES it to WARM it.

    2. I gotta good idea for a radio serial filled with interesting characters!

      Hoy muppet, you ever hear of a diode? A barb? A Tesla valve? A clacker valve?
      A fucking trap door?
      You seem to have a problem with the concept of a partial or complete one way flow.

      3
    3. YOU’RE in here telling us that SOMEONE showed YOU,
      the COLD NITROGEN BATH is actually HEATING the planet.

      Can we let this particularly stupid strawman go now please? The increasing concentration of IR absorbing gasses in the atmosphere cause the radiative imbalance at TOA.

  15. Then in 1937 your party – the Democrats AGAIN – spawned another GLOBAL CHEMISTRY scam: that “That POT has got a DEVILISH GRASSINESS to it that makes yew git REEFUR MADNESS so we have to make it illegal to have ANYTHING to do with them what uses it. YaW.

    Now you really have pinned your ideology to your sleeve, as if we had not already realised that is how it was. As for the remainder of your brain-farts they are now little more than spam because physics cares little about political parties or factions.

    Thanks you but we understand the basics of how global warming works see the references that I and BBD have supplied.

    But, don’t stop there study paleoclimatology to discover how CO2 levels in the past affected Earth’s temperature and the course of evolution. Suggestions:

    Raymond S Bradley

    Paleoclimatology: Reconstructing Climates of the Quaternary

    Thomas M Cronin

    Paleoclimates: Understanding Climate Change Past and Present

    Oh and also check out the work of William F Ruddiman:

    1 ‘Plows, Plagues, and Petroleum: How Humans Took Control of Climate’

    2 ‘Earth’s Climate, Past and Future’

    3 ‘Earth Transformed’

    1
  16. None of this has anything to do with the radiative physics which underpin the GHE.

    … so I was told by I forgot whom above.

    What you meant to say was that you will have nothing to do with anything that challenges your position, and so you dismiss it as irrelevant, because that’s just easier. One way to go, I guess.

    The article that I was directed to for my greater education is riddled with a horribly flawed interpretation of what an absorption spectrum is. Just because a cool gas can absorb and scatter particular light frequencies does not, in any way, mean that the cool gas somehow traps those frequencies and then uses those frequencies to add heat.

    The cool gas merely absorbs those frequencies and scatters them, taking them out of the spectrum to create a visual gap. The gap is not the energy that was trapped — the gap is the energy that was absorbed and scattered, either away from the surface or back towards the surface where it encounters the greater energy gradient portion that it cannot heat, because its energy is less than that of the surface.

    Allan E, thus is right when he says that a cold nitrogen/oxygen/CO2 bath is not a big ol’ heedur.

    1
    1. What you meant to say was that you will have nothing to do with anything that challenges your position, and so you dismiss it as irrelevant, because that’s just easier. One way to go, I guess.

      No, the diurnal cycle is an irrelevance, as clearly shown above. If you cannot understand this, then you aren’t ready for radiative physics.

      The article that I was directed to for my greater education is riddled with a horribly flawed interpretation of what an absorption spectrum is

      No, it isn’t. The problem is that you have no idea what you are talking about.

      Just because a cool gas can absorb and scatter particular light frequencies does not, in any way, mean that the cool gas somehow traps those frequencies and then uses those frequencies to add heat.

      Rubbish. The absorption and re-radiation of IR energy by CO2 heats the surrounding atmosphere mainly by molecular collision. You haven’t got a clue, have you?

      Go back and read the Pierrehumbert article until you understand it.

    2. Have to admit I’m a bit surprised to find GHE physics deniers still blithering on in 2018. I thought this silly shit had died out a while back, along with daft attempts to question the validity of the instrumental temperature records.

      It’s like those old stories about Japanese soldiers on Pacific islands, decades after the end of WWII.

  17. Have to admit I’m a bit surprised to find GHE physics deniers still blithering on in 2018.

    You should come to Michigan and hear some of the tea-baggers argue against vaccinations — not because they buy into the vaccine/autism crap, but because Bill Gates supports vaccination programs. They buy into the “Gates wants to reduce the population” crap that has been pushed.

    There are a few who don’t do that — they are against vaccinations children are the sole property of the parents and nobody other than the parents, certainly not government, should be able to set standards for health care of those children.

    Yes, this side of Michigan did give the country (Sc)Amway, Betsy DeVos, and Erik Prince and his group of mercenaries. (Prince and DeVos are siblings as well. Wonderful family.)

  18. I was sternly directed to …

    Go back and read the Pierrehumbert article until you understand it.

    Careful what you ask for. I went back, read it, and, oh my God, the section titled, Energy balance and surface temperature is horrible.

    The entire article leading up to this section appears to represent a person who knows what he is talking about. It’s as though he dazzles us with subtle terminology about energy states and quantum mechanics [oo!, hee mUs’ b a smart’n, talkin’ ’bout them kwantuhm thangs] — yeah, he’s real articulate on some fine points. But then he goes all to hell in that section about energy balance.

    It’s funny that I am being accused of not knowing what I am talking about. I beg to differ. When some of you learn the difference between describing the behavior of molecules and describing the behavior of photons, and how insulation works, then maybe I can offer some insight. But, until then, keep on belivin’ them smArt fellers talkin’ ’bout kwantuhm Nergy statez an’ talkin’ ’bout how eemishun spektrums R cines of heat’n thugh planIt. [ala AlanE, you might note]

    Bye for now.

    1
    1. It’s funny that I am being accused of not knowing what I am talking about. I beg to differ.

      I *know* you don’t know what you are talking about. I’ve read your comments. More to the point, I think you know that you are just bullshitting.

      maybe I can offer some insight

      Almost funny.

      1
  19. Oh, I couldn’t resist:

    Have to admit I’m a bit surprised to find GHE physics deniers still blithering on in 2018.

    … no more surprised than I am to find GHE believers still smugly parading their egos beside their ever more failing irrationality.

  20. “Have to admit I’m a bit surprised to find GHE physics deniers still blithering on in 2018.”

    True, especially when the folks who claim the science is wrong don’t offer eveidence but only personal feelings in defense of their ignorance.

    1. Yes, it’s all rather vague, isn’t it?

      I love the way some twat on the internet thinks they know more about it than Pierrehumbert. I love the way the twat concerned clearly doesn’t even know who RP is.

    2. What you need to do dean, is find another cold nitrogen bath removing 29% off the top of temperature calculations

      of the light-warmed object it’s conduction chilling,

      and show anybody, anywhere, that bath warming the object it’s conduction chilling and just removed the 29% of otherwise available warming energy spectra from.

      Or you and your entire hick church, are as fraudulent as any other FAKE FRAUD BARKING science darkening maggots are,

      when they tell people cold nitrogen baths,
      that remove 29% off the top of temperature of something
      BEFORE the conduction chilling starts,

      are “Magical heedurds cain’t nobody undurstand but buhleavurs like yaw are.”

      Make no bones about it, I said you’re ALL so stupid that not ONE of you can show me that happening, ANYWHERE in all thermodynamics,

      and you’re also all so stupid, you don’t know that the LAW WRITTEN for SOLVING the TEMPERATURES of GASES,

      contains two parts: the EQUATION of the Law,
      and the CHART of the law.

      And there’s ONLY ONE CHART on the PLANET for SOLVING gas temperatures,

      and it’s called the CHART of SPECIFIC HEATS of GASES, and a SUBSECTION of that CHART,

      is the CONSTANT in the EQUATION, ”R”
      in
      PV =nRT,

      and it EXPLICITLY NAMES AIR
      and it EXPLICITLY NAMES CO2
      and it EXPLICITLY ASSIGNS CO2 the LOWER GAS ENERGY CONSTANT. f

      Which means in ALL GAS TEMP CALCULATIONS CO2 COOLS air.

      So something else you therm-0-billy HICKS need to show me is ANOTHER CHART

      that is USED to assign CO2 HIGHER internal average energy per mole than AIR.

      HicKs.

      We’ll all check back – we’re watching your behavior from over where I linked –

      and we’ll SEE what you people present to defend your KOOK claims,
      that the cold,

      nitrogen-oxygen bath,
      blocking 29% of warming energy to the planet,

      warms the planet, MORE than if it never REMOVED the 29% in the FIRST place,
      by 33 degrees.

      You ignorant clowns need to also show me YOUR CHURCH, ACCOUNTING for the KNOWN 33 DEGREE COMPRESSION COMPONENT in resolving Earth’s REAL

      KNOWN-GOOD
      temperature.

      The one we CALIBRATE all our HEAT SENSING and FLIGHT instruments against.

      Go get Pierre-Humbert and tell him a man said there’s no such thing as a cold nitrogen bath that ever heated anything it reduced 29% of the light to, EVER.

      And that he’s a fraud barking f***g FAKE whose story is as INNUMERATE as his CLAIMS.

      And that if he doesn’t come here and SHOW us all ANOTHER COLD NITROGEN BATH WARMING what it takes 29% of the energy off the TOP of – he’s just another FAKE
      SCIENCE darkening
      MAGGOT

      who can’t prove his story about the COLD NITROGEN ATMOSPHERE
      WARMING the LIGHT-WARMED ROCK it stops 29% of the LIGHT from WARMING,

      BEFORE the CONDUCTION cooling starts.

      We’re all watching this over at the site I linked, to see just exactly WHICH ONE Of you STEPS UP for your CHURCH and bears BOLD, PROUD TESTIMONY

      of HOW a COLD NITROGEN BATH
      reducing TEMPERATURE of a ROCK by 29%
      by that act,
      MADE it WARMER than if 100% were reaching it.

      We’re watching, there are about ten of us regulars and several hundred others who drift in and out so

      BE SUCCINCT when you EXPLAIN HOW the MAGICAL GASSINESS dun turn’t uh
      COALE’D NITCHURGIN BATH,
      IN
      TWO uh HEEDuR.

      Pierre-Humbert’s a f***g fraud.

      And you’re all hicks for believing it could POSSIBLY – ANY of it – be true.

      Which is why your CHURCH’S DOCTRINES are called ”The SEWERS of SCIENCE.”

      That’s got a nice ring doesn’t it. You’re all proud you’re part of the ”SEWER of SCIENCE.”

    3. of the light-warmed object it’s conduction chilling,

      Conduction? Through an atmosphere? It’s radiative-convective energy transfer through atmospheres.

      And as before, you are simply ignoring the effect of adding GHGs to a nitrogen oxygen atmosphere. Ignoring the key part of the problem does not an argument make.

    4. Well, it really doesn’t matter if he does know who RP is. RP is an establishment expert, while Robert Kernoodle and Allen Eltor belong to the select fraternity of DIY pioneers who can bypass accumulated knowledge to arrive at their own wished for truths. And it doesn’t matter if their wished for truths agree, as long as they disagree with truths they find ideologically inconvenient. Example:

      “Alan E., in his strangely improvised, often cryptic, linguistic style, seems to be alluding to these ideas.”
      http://gregladen.com/blog/2018/08/08/how-steve-goddard-a-k-a-tony-heller-does-bad-science/#comment-604085

      “Seems to be alluding?!” In other words, Kernoodle doesn’t understand what AE is saying and attempts to sugarcoat his insane ravings by calling them “his strangely improvised, often cryptic, linguistic style.” He can’t disavow them, because he then would be disavowing one of his own.

      I would say that AE suffers from insane grandiosity:

      “There are some spacing and spelling errors due to poking out letters in a moving car.
      It’s forgivable because I said it is. And I’m the Atmospheric Chemistry & Radiation expert and radiant transfer Electronic Engineer.”
      http://gregladen.com/blog/2018/08/08/how-steve-goddard-a-k-a-tony-heller-does-bad-science/#comment-602551
      “It’s forgivable because I said it is.”
      “And I’m” not an but “the Atmospheric Chemistry & Radiation expert.”
      This reaches its sublime apotheosis in the following rodomontade (note the senseless caps and rambling prose):
      “I am in fact an atmospheric radiation specialist Electronic Engineer Laden, whose FOCUS is in ATMOSPHERIC and SURFACE FEATURES INFRARED, the VERY LIGHT GLOWING out of this PLANET: whose FIRST career
      was as an Environmental and Atmospheric chemist.
      In my parents’ oceanic and freshwater rare and endangered fish breeding laboratories.
      I started getting my allowance for monitoring atmospheric and water chemistry in sensitive environments when I was SEVEN.”

      Note that “In my parents’ oceanic and freshwater rare and endangered fish breeding laboratories.” is written as an independent sentence. Note AE’s general lack of restraint and self control – the absence of logical structure, how much he writes and how little he says.
      RK promotes his own credibility with the following gem:
      “I speak as a once-staunch supporter of that nonsense.” Yes, the been-there-done-that convert who’s reached a higher truth, the sharp observer who rejects science and caresses insanity.
      Pierrehumbert doesn’t really fit in here, does he?

    5. he’s describing what’s HAPPENING, when those GREEN HOUSE GASES,

      are WARMING SLIGHTLY and REFRACTING THE VAST MAJORITY of all that LOST ENERGY to SPACE,

      Nope. Wrong-o.

      Idiot.

  21. For the sake of you innumerate, illiterate, therm-0-billy bumpkins,

    When Pierre-Humbert’s telling you about all that cataclysmic warming way up thair in thim uthur gaissis yaw cain’t sea,

    he’s describing what’s HAPPENING, when those GREEN HOUSE GASES,

    are WARMING SLIGHTLY and REFRACTING THE VAST MAJORITY of all that LOST ENERGY to SPACE,

    therm-0-bumpkins.

    He’s talking about how the few molecules up high get hot as they’re busy REFRACTING NEARLY ALL THAT LOST ENERGY to SPACE,

    BEING RESPONSIBLE for NEARLY ALL the 29% THAT’S TAKEN off the TOP,

    of GLOBAL ATMOSPHERIC TEMPERATURE CALCULATIONS.

    That’s WHY when you hillbillies go get CHARTS of SUNLIGHT,

    top of ATMOSPHERE vs SURFACE

    the cooling GHGs are RESPONSIBLE for NEARLY ALL THAT,

    including the VISIBLE or MUCH HIGHER ENERGY part lost.

    GO LOOK at the CHARTS, knuckleheads!

    Pierre-Humbert is telling you all that REMOVAL
    is FIERY HEEDUR’FYIN in tha SKY!

    Which is why he HIDES and makes sure DOLTS like YOU
    don’t show up looking for any PROOF his claim 29% REDUCTION
    in surface energy

    has – let’s quote the literature kids because we want to be very accurate about what your church teaches,

    “Has dun turn’t uh coal’d, light blocking, nitchurgin-oxygin bath,
    in two,
    uh HEEDUR.”

    “YAW!”

    It’s your church therm-0-billies. Produce reproducible cold nitrogen baths blocking 29% of the light to rocks they shade, making the temperatures of those rocks rise 33 degrees above what the rock temp would be WITH NO cold nitrogen bath.

    It ought to be easy, therm-0-bumpkins.

    SHOW the PEOPLE watching your ILLUCID BUMBLINGS
    you can PRODUCE a COLD NITROGEN BATH
    laced with COLD LIGHT BLOCKING REFRIGERANTS,
    that together remove 29% energy from the ROCK they chill
    that makes the temperature of that object RISE-
    with EVERY PERCENT LESS ENERGY
    that REACHES and WARMS it.

    And you won’t all be disastrously deluded therm-0-billy hicks,

    barking about magical gassiness making a cold bath come uh HeeDuR.

    I already showed you where I’m linking this to a scientist’s page, and we’re over there laughing aloud between us at how we know not one of you are going to produce

    ANY evidence of ANY possibility of ANY cold nitrogen bath warming ANYTHING, EVER.

    And how you’re all over here, and DAYS after I’ve spoken with you and told you I can prove you’re all too illiterate to know what you’re even talking about – that you’re all so illiterate YOU CAN’T EVEN HOLD DISCUSSION about WHICH GAS LAWS you think cause
    29% LESS energy to a ROCK
    to cause sensors to show EVER More ENERGY to the ROCK
    every time the COLD BATH lets LESS and LESS energy reach the ROCK.

    You NEED to SAY something for yourselves. It’s not like people aren’t letting you bear your testimony of why you believe cold nitrogen baths are heaters.

    It’s not like you haven’t had WEEKS to explain why you can’t reach the CORRECT global Amospheric temperature,

    why your church believes it’s correct to not use GAS LAW to account the 33 DEGREES COMPRESSION component of our atmosphere’s REAL temperature..

    why your churc believes you can calcualate MASS-ENERGY relationships and be ANYTHING but TERMINALLY WRONG, in the FIRST place.

    ALL these are the HALLMARKS of the SEWERS of SCIENCE you people are promulgating as real.

    And you’re wondering HOW your cult’s FRAUD achieved that lofty title. THE SEWERS of SCIENCE. Your CROWNS.

    “I wuzza teachin evurbodie bowt how the magical gaissiness dun turnt that coal’d nitchurgin bath in two uh BIG OL HEEDUR yaW, but tha PEEPUL, jist WUZZNT REDiE
    fur the big news,
    abowt how cold nitchurgin baths is heedurs,
    and how less and LESS LIGHT reaching a ROCK
    made sintsurs show MOAR and MOAR
    reachin it.

    EVUR
    TIME,
    LESS REACHED it!

    Ya’W.

    Bear testimony of your church with firmness and authority, rebuking those who say less light to a rock doesn’t mean more light to a rock.

    I actually dare one of you hillbillies to tell me you know of the location of the evidence,

    insulation making LESS LIGHT REACH and WARM a ROCK

    made SENSORS show MORE reach and WARM it,

    every time more insulation,

    made LESS reach and WARM it.

    SHOW ME that HAPPENING somewhere.

    ONE of you step forth and boldly proclaim YOU know where the evidence is.

    That LESS light to a ROCK
    makes SENSORS show MORE to it
    because SPECIAL insulation MAKES it never GET to it.

    Do it are you’re all fakes lower than whale dung, caught, busted, and too zombiefied to realize how transparently innumerate

    and functionally physics illiterate,

    every one of you are.

    1. Always wondered how a screed typed by a functional illiterate during a stroke would read. Thanks to Allen, now I know.

      2
  22. (1) Pierrehumber claims that the same considerations used in interpreting spectra also determine the infrared cooling rate of a planet and, consequently, the planet’s surface temperature.

    I have it on good word from an astrophysicist who spent years analyzing spectra that there is zero context here for the concept of a “cooling rate”, because emission spectra do not indicate any cooling rate.

    (2) Pierrehumber claims that an atmospheric “greenhouse gas” (a flawed description at its core) enables a planet to radiate energy from cold air aloft, at a temperature lower than the ground temperature.

    So what? Cold air “aloft” in the atmosphere radiates energy at one temperature, while warm ground below radiates energy at a higher temperature. How is the temperature difference between two altitudes, in any way, a “greenhouse effect”? — it’s merely the temperature difference between the warmer ground and the cooler air “aloft” in the atmosphere.

    (3) Pierrehumber claims that his reasoning leads to the conclusion that the “greenhouse effect” causes surface temperature to be higher than if the atmosphere were transparent to infrared radiation.

    Nothing in his previous reasoning leads to this conclusion. He deduces, from postulating different altitudes radiate energy at different temperatures, that the ground is warmer because of cold air “aloft”. Remember Alan E’s incessant chant about the big ol’ cold-nitrogen-bath heedur? — well, there it is. Pierrehumber just dresses up that big ol’ heedur in fancy wording to obfuscate the fact that this is exactly what he is talking about — Alan’s big ol’ cold-nitrogen-bath heedur.

    (4) Pierrehumber claims that adding more “greenhouse gas” to Earth’s atmosphere makes “higher, more tenuous, formerly transparent portions of the atmosphere opaque to Infrared and thus increases the difference between the ground temperature and the radiating temperature.”

    How, then, does this higher-once-tenuous-now-opaque-to-IR portion of the atmosphere maintain its relative cold “aloft” at the same radiating temperature as before, IF it is now more opaque to IR? What’s that IR doing up there “aloft” — obviously NOT adding any heat “aloft”, but somehow magically adding heat way down below it. Heating at a distance? — cutting edge physics there!

    But he Nos his kwantomb fiziks, so he mus’ be rite.

    Never mind that he had a major disconnect from his former specialized knowledge, throwing him into temporary brain death in a specific application of his knowledge. This is the insidious power of irrational faith in an unfounded phobia, namely warmaphobia — it strikes even the most brilliant minds [clear throat, Stephen Hawking]

    And that’s just looking at the first paragraph of … Energy balance and surface temperature … in that article.

    Oh, what a wondrous cascade of flawed reasoning eventually ensues, when he gets to comparing Earth to Mars and Venus!

    And let’s not forget the obligatory misattribution to Fourier. That’s always predictable. Take a mathematician, brilliant in his own right, and attribute truth to his speculations on Earth’s atmosphere, misrepresenting the speculative tone of his words as certain metaphorical comparisons to reality.

    Compounding of errors has never been so good, … err … bad.

    1
    1. And the other climate idiot chimes in — if you have “proof” things are wrong, display it. Everything you’ve written boils down to “I don’t believe it so it isn’t correct.”

      Write up your “research” and publish it.

      Otherwise you are, as your rambling indicates, just another idiot.

    2. So what? Cold air “aloft” in the atmosphere radiates energy at one temperature, while warm ground below radiates energy at a higher temperature. How is the temperature difference between two altitudes, in any way, a “greenhouse effect”? — it’s merely the temperature difference between the warmer ground and the cooler air “aloft” in the atmosphere.

      Things to google:

      What is the greenhouse effect?
      Effective altitude of emission
      Top of atmosphere (TOA)
      Radiative equilibrium

  23. why your churc believes you can calcualate MASS-ENERGY relationships *WRONG and be ANYTHING but TERMINALLY WRONG, in the FIRST place

    above.

    You’re not ANY of you going to “Grammar trauma jist SHUT me DOWN bein so SINSITIVE an awl two
    poor grammar & WHaTNoT,”

    your way out. DOZENS are WATCHING your PATHETIC ATTEMPTS between all of you to even BEGIN
    to DEFEND your CHURCH,
    with it’s LOON-BARKing ”Pot’s LIke Heroin” class

    INVERSION-class FRAUD.

    That’s called INVERSION FRAUD when a man shows you 29% COOLING in a calculation and tells you NOD YOUR HEAD when he he says, ”YOU just saw NOT 29% COOLING
    but 33 degrees’ MORE WARMING, than if YOU DIDN’T TAKE off the 29%!”

    That’s called ”BRAIN WASHED into NODDING “Cold NITCHURGIN BATHS, is HEEDuRS”

    Again: SHOW us YOUR STEP by THERMODYNAMICALLY ITERATED STEP PROCESS,

    starting with ”COLD NITROGEN BATH REDUCING TEMPERATURE 29%

    ending with ‘AND THAT’S HOW A COLD BATH dun COME uh HEEDuR!”

    “YaW!”

    You have an audience of HUNDREDS to which you’re CURRENTLY SHARING your TESTIMONY of the

    COLD BATH what dun
    ‘come uh HeeDuR.

    Say it like your own wives, children and work associates are watching you clear the decks of all doubt thim cold gaissis, is muchly hoddurfyin, and NOT, muchly coolin.

    Ya’W.

  24. Science is reproducible Hillbilly. Tell me the name of the law of physics written for solving the temperature of gases and the atmosphere or you’re an illiterate, innumerate hick who thinks cold baths are heaters because guvurmint min dun sed so.
    NAME it and begin DISCUSSION of HOW it PROVES you’re not a thermobilly HICK so dumb
    you thought CO2 can warm air,

    are you ARE so dumb you thought CO2 can warm air,
    because you’re so stupid you didn’t even know where to FIND the CHART
    containing BOTH their INTERNAL ENERGY CONSTANTS:

    R in gas Law.

    TELL us WHERE your CHART is showing addition of CO2 warming air or you’re a fraud barking hick busted like a ROACH when someone turned on the light.

    DO it or you’re a TOTAL FRAUD.

    ==========
    dean says:
    Always wondered how a screed typed by a functional illiterate during a stroke would read. Thanks to Allen, now I know.

  25. Whenever your little seed-pods drop, diptshick,

    YOU SHOW US Your STEP by THERMODYNAMICALLY ITERATED STEP from ”COLD NITROGEN BATH REMOVES 29% of TOTAL INCIDENT WARMING SUNLIGHT SPECTRA,”

    to

    ”THiN uh COAL’D NITCHURGIN BATH, dun ‘COME uh HEEDUR, YaW!”

    When you never do anything but squeal like a vampire left in sunlight,

    YOU’RE NO LONGER the FRAUD from ”The SEWERS of SCIENCE”

    barking that a COLD NITCHURGIN BATH dun COME’ uh HEEDuR YaW!”

    Til then, that’s ALL you are.

    We’re all waiting.

    SHOW us how you GO from ”FIRST the COLD NITROGEN-OXYGEN BATH REMOVES 29% from TOTAL GLOBAL ATMOSPHERIC TEMPERATURE RESOLUTION PROCESS ”

    then finish up with SWEEPING THERMODYNANMIC THUNDER like WaGNeR.

    PUT on a BIG HAT with two HORNS and a CAPE but WHEN YOU FINISH SINGING Your SONG, THERMOBILLY,

    You BETTER make EYES WEEP for the ELEGANT BEAUTY of your TRANSITION from

    “COLD bath, ”

    to

    “DUN ‘COME uh HEEDuR YaW!”

    =======
    And the other climate idiot chimes in — if you have “proof” things are wrong, display it. Everything you’ve written boils down to “I don’t believe it so it isn’t correct.”

    Write up your “research” and publish it.

    Otherwise you are, as your rambling indicates, just another idiot.

  26. And WE’RE all still waiting for ONE of you to tell us the name of the law of physics that’s USED

    in solving for gases’, hence global Atmospheric temperature.

    TiCK
    ToC,
    TiCK
    ToC….

    AND you’re NOT BARKIN SPLANuhFYIN’ abowt the MAGICAL GAISSINESS,

    what dun turn’t a COLD NITROGEN BATH into a HEATER.

    Be PARTICULARLY LUCID and THERMODYNAMICALLY ACCURATE

    during the part where you tell us all ”FIRST the 29% of TOTAL ENERGY is lost to SPACE”

    “which is why we remove it’s value ENTIRELY from Atmospheric temperature calculation, FIRST THING,”

    and THEN, ——-> at THAT POINT thermo-billies, YOU NEED to MAKE MUSIC that MOVES NOT ONE SCIENTIFIC ATMOSPHERIC MATTER-ENERGY FORUM to TEARS,

    BUT TWO – this one as ONE of you FINALLY says a WORD about how a COLD BATH dun COME uh HEEDUR

    but the ONE whose READERS are WATCHING YOU in HERE: SQUEALING like the DAMNED UNDEAD unto the HORRORS of ETERNAL VAMPIRISM

    LOCKED outside the castle with the SUN rising.

    WE’RE all WAITING. TESTIFY of your CHURCH in CLEAR, thermodynamically SUCCINCT and CONCISE terms,

    graduating STEPWISE as with ALL REAL, REPRODUCIBLE SCIENCE,

    from ‘COLD BATH’
    to
    ”DUN ‘COME uh HEEDUR.”

    DO it.

    Or you’re every ONE of you gonna wish ONE of you could, ya wanna bet?

    You’re not gonna just SHRIEK the mention of YOUR DOCTRINES is MAKING you INSANE

    you were iNSANE when you THouGHT it could have been REAL.

    This is about a SCIENTIFIC CLAIM made by YOU and a BUNCH of other IGNORANT HICKS.

    YOU show us REPRODUCIBLE EVIDENCE of yOUR CLAIM a 29% REDUCTION in ENERGY

    made TEMPERATURE RISE to 33 degrees above 100% ENERGY

    and YOU’RE NOT all INNUMERATTI HiLLBiLLiES.

    As I said, TILL then: YOU ALL ARE.

  27. BBD
    Re. day and night temperatures: One of the few things I know and understand is that nights are warming faster than days. Is that relevant here?
    Easy answer, please.

    1. Not really. It’s just that the enhanced GHE is more observable at night than during the day. But as I said earlier, it all averages out, second by second, as the Earth rotates. The diurnal cycle just isn’t relevant to the accumulative forcing of temperature by GHGs.

    2. I guess I wasn’t clear enough. I’m not thinking about “the accumulative forcing of temperature by GHGs.” That much I understand. I’m wondering whether what I imagine would be a reduced difference between day and night temperatures would affect the day-night argument Kernoodle is trying to make.

    3. I’m wondering whether what I imagine would be a reduced difference between day and night temperatures would affect the day-night argument Kernoodle is trying to make.

      Well, if this is the right bit:

      The one-sided statement of the Greenhouse “Theory” asserts only that the atmosphere keeps the planet “warmer than it would otherwise be”, when clearly the atmosphere keeps the day side cooler and the night side warmer than they respectively otherwise would be.

      Let’s unpack it…

      The statement that the GHE keeps the planet warmer than it would otherwise be is correct.

      And yes, the atmosphere reflects back some SW (clouds; aerosols) and so reduces daytime insolation / temperature.

      Yes, the atmosphere warms the nightside through a combination of GHE and cloud cover (more IR re-radiation 🙂 )

      Add all this up and… nothing contradicts the real-world understanding of the GHE.

      As for why nights are warming faster than days, there’s a good explainer here.

    4. And so slowing any conduction process
      from ocean to air more than normal at night now than nights previously. Thus assisting rise in OHC.
      Was my initial thought about this.
      Very coherent description of mechanism on that link BBD.

    5. It strikes me ( perhaps wrongly!) that it’s a rather insidious little bastard of a feedback mechanism itself. When surface air temps rise rapidly ( as is happening) it can feasibly rapidly restrain normal balanced ocean cooling
      mechanisms. A process instigated by heating air temps that was slower, might not lead to such OHC rise, even the final higher air temp was the same.
      Ie. Reach 1°C higher air temp over 50 years might result in more OHC after an equalisation period than a
      1°C higher temp over 1000 years.
      Um, what I’m getting at is that rate of change could maybe have an impact greater than raw inputs suggest on paper.
      Maybe. Bit of a worry if what I’m suggesting is correct. Dunno if models take this sort of thing into account or if it’s even a parameter worth taking into account.

  28. Listen to me carefully, authority-dong gobbler.

    You either show me how 29% less energy warming a rock,

    made it 33 degrees warmer than 100% energy warming the rock,

    or you’re a magic gas barking dipsh** too stupid to know cold baths aren’t heaters.

    Either you MENTION one in PHYSICAL THERMODYNAMICS,
    or you’re a SH** TALKING, FRAUD BARKING, dumb@#$,

    who thought 29% LESS energy warming a ROCK,
    created by a COLD NITROGEN BATH,
    made it WARMER
    than if there were no COLD NITROGEN BATH,
    COOLING it by 29%,
    before the CONDUCTION cooling started.

    This isn’t a negotiation, this me telling you YOU’RE NOT gonna be SHOWING us that,
    and that all you’re going to do to HIDE that

    is GARGLE about HOW GOOD that AUTHORITY dong feels,

    SLIDING in and outta your GULLIBLE THROAT.

    SHOW me your THERMODYNAMICALLY ITERATED STEPS beginning with

    ”SUBTRACT the 29% TOTAL incident spectra REMOVED by the GREEN HOUSE GASES and the other gases – the GHGs removing about 22, 23%, ALL the others and dust, removing the other 7 or so -”

    and FINISH up singing in FULL GLORY, ”THAT’S HOW a COLD NITROGEN BATH, removing 29% OF TOTAL ENERGY from TEMPERATURE CALCULATION,

    spontaneously REGENERATED that 29%
    and made the object in the COLD NITROGEN BATH,

    33 degrees WARMER,

    than if there WERE no COLD NITROGEN BATH,
    removing 29% energy input off the top.

    TILL you DO that you’re a FRAUD barking authority worshiping ZOMBIE so STUNTED,
    you actually BELIEVE a COLD BATH
    HEATED the ROCK it stopped 29% energy from warming.

    =========
    Some BEWILDERED, BEFFUDLED magic gas barking HiCK howled,

    ” And it doesn’t matter if their wished for truths agree, as long as they disagree with truths they find ideologically inconvenient. Example:

    “Alan E., in his strangely improvised, often cryptic, linguistic style, seems to be alluding to these ideas.”
    http://gregladen.com/blog/2018/08/08/how-steve-goddard-a-k-a-tony-heller-does-bad-science/#comment-604085

    “Seems to be alluding?!” In other words, Kernoodle doesn’t understand what AE is saying and attempts to sugarcoat his insane ravings by calling them “his strangely improvised, often cryptic, linguistic style.” He can’t disavow them, because he then would be disavowing one of his own.

    I would say that AE suffers from insane grandiosity:

    “There are some spacing and spelling errors due to poking out letters in a moving car.
    It’s forgivable because I said it is. And I’m the Atmospheric Chemistry & Radiation expert and radiant transfer Electronic Engineer.”
    http://gregladen.com/blog/2018/08/08/how-steve-goddard-a-k-a-tony-heller-does-bad-science/#comment-602551
    “It’s forgivable because I said it is.”
    “And I’m” not an but “the Atmospheric Chemistry & Radiation expert.”
    This reaches its sublime apotheosis in the following rodomontade (note the senseless caps and rambling prose):
    “I am in fact an atmospheric radiation specialist Electronic Engineer Laden, whose FOCUS is in ATMOSPHERIC and SURFACE FEATURES INFRARED, the VERY LIGHT GLOWING out of this PLANET: whose FIRST career
    was as an Environmental and Atmospheric chemist.
    In my parents’ oceanic and freshwater rare and endangered fish breeding laboratories.
    I started getting my allowance for monitoring atmospheric and water chemistry in sensitive environments when I was SEVEN.”

    Note that “In my parents’ oceanic and freshwater rare and endangered fish breeding laboratories.” is written as an independent sentence. Note AE’s general lack of restraint and self control – the absence of logical structure, how much he writes and how little he says.
    RK promotes his own credibility with the following gem:
    “I speak as a once-staunch supporter of that nonsense.” Yes, the been-there-done-that convert who’s reached a higher truth, the sharp observer who rejects science and caresses insanity.
    Pierrehumbert doesn’t really fit in here, does he?

    1. I’m delighted that Allen Eltor quoted most of my comment, but he left out the beginning and neglected to credit me as the source.
      http://gregladen.com/blog/2018/08/08/how-steve-goddard-a-k-a-tony-heller-does-bad-science/#comment-608192
      Also, in case he hadn’t noticed, he’ll be pleased to see that my following comment compared him to Humpty Dumpty in Lewis Carroll’s “Through the Looking Glass.”
      http://gregladen.com/blog/2018/08/08/how-steve-goddard-a-k-a-tony-heller-does-bad-science/#comment-608847

      Seriously, I have trouble imagining any polemicist so stupid as to do what AE has done. Quoting so extensively from an adversarial comment and letting it stand as the last word on himself and RK is beyond my comprehension, unless AE’s own comments were meant as a joke.

    2. Or he really has no perception of reality, which includes reasonable expectations of how others react to what he does.

  29. Barking mad.
    Projecting.
    Obscene.
    Unintelligible.
    Undecipherable.
    Grandiose.
    Incoherent.
    Dunning-Kruger-esque.
    Warped.
    Twisted.
    Arrogant.
    Narcissistic.
    Unimaginative.
    Hostile.
    Paranoid.
    Pathetic.

    D?h?

    3
  30. Seriously, I have trouble imagining any polemicist so stupid as to do what AE has done.

    I sense something different here. The fact-free conspiracy laden posts by mikeN, the blatantly dishonest rants by billyR, and the completely irrational comments by rickA, lacking in serious thought as they are, all show a little internal cohesion.

    Allen’s posts show no structure, no substance, and no real message — signs of an issue more than just science denial, signs of a real issue of stability.

    1
    1. Dean
      I don’t know if you’ve read my other comments. If you haven’t, please read them. You’ll find that I’ve referred to AE’s “insane ravings” and “insane grandiosity.” Also: “Note AE’s general lack of restraint and self control – the absence of logical structure, how much he writes and how little he says.” (I could have mentioned that his writing has more in common with maledictions and the “Book of Revelation” than with scientific prose.)
      The short comment following immediately after the one you quoted reads, “Or he really has no perception of reality, which includes reasonable expectations of how others react to what he does.”

      We very much agree that this isn’t simply an issue of climate change and that it involves, as you say, “a real issue of stability.”

      Still, I’m flabbergasted by his polemical stupidity.

  31. Pierrehumber claims that the “greenhouse effect” of CO2 on Earth and Mars is revealed by the “ditch carved out of the Planck spectrum, which, he insists, represents “energy that would have escaped to space were it not for the opacity of CO2.”

    He’s still talking trash, because, again, an absorption spectrum does not represent trapped energy, let alone trapped energy that causes heating.

    Pierrehumber goes on to say that on Venus, the CO2 “greenhouse effect” turns out to be bigger than this “ditch”, because of, as he says, “the opacity of the continuum associated with so much CO2” on Venus.

    In other words, he thinks that a really thick layer of concentrated CO2 on Venus is trapping lots of infrared energy, causing lots of surface heating. That much CO2 is also radiating lots of energy, after absorbing it, and so I don’t see any possibility for opacity’s being equated to heating-by-trapping. There is no rule written that says all energy absorbed is only energy used to raise temperature immediately.

    I don’t see P mentioning the relatively small amount of sunlight reaching Venus’ surface that’s supposed to fuel the love planet’s CO2 “continuum”. He would have us believe that the rough equivalent of an overcast day on Earth provides enough infrared radiation from the surface to amp up surface temperature. This … “continuum” …, while blocking out the sunlight, effectively replaces the energy of the blocked out sunlight, using the invisible residue of that sunlight multiplied by the magic molecules. Dim light in the visible range is redirected, via its resultant radiated light in the invisible range, to create a surface on which we could speed cook my next pizza — yum, … but dumb.

    Pierrehumber says that in the Earth spectrum, we can see a broad region where water vapor has reduced Earth’s radiating temperature to a value well below the surface temperature.

    So, water vapor radiates at a temperature well below surface temperature. And that’s supposed to be why the surface radiates at the higher temperature??? A lower radiating temperature “aloft” causes a higher temperature below??? There’s that heeduhr, … a-gin.

    Hey P, that’s called “c-o-o-l-i-n-g”. Water absorbs more energy, before its temperature increases, drawing more energy from the surface, radiating away this energy at a lower temperature, before this energy can heat up other things that increase in temperature with the same amount of energy where water stays at the same or lower temperature (i.e., specific heat and stuff).

    1. You completely ignored your horrible earlier mistake about the relation between surface temperature and TOA:

      So what? Cold air “aloft” in the atmosphere radiates energy at one temperature, while warm ground below radiates energy at a higher temperature. How is the temperature difference between two altitudes, in any way, a “greenhouse effect”? — it’s merely the temperature difference between the warmer ground and the cooler air “aloft” in the atmosphere.

      The temperature of the oceans and troposphere is set by the radiative balance at TOA. This is radiative physics 101. You obviously don’t understand this cornerstone of atmospheric physics yet when asked to check your assertions you don’t and instead just blether on with yet more utter bollocks about energy not causing warming and WV cooling etc.

      Please, do yourself a favour and sort out the mess. Try this:

      https://scienceofdoom.com/roadmap/confusion-over-the-basics/

    2. My points are specific. Address those. Point out where — in THOSE specific points — where you might have problems. Forget the name calling, the knee-jerk reactions to your own discomfort, the tendency to demand three PhD’s in three advanced theoretical disciplines. You know, just converse with me in intelligent terms. Play the dialogue game.

      You never acknowledge your idiotic mistakes, so this is probably a waste of time, but I can’t resist it really. Here’s you:

      So, water vapor radiates at a temperature well below surface temperature. And that’s supposed to be why the surface radiates at the higher temperature??? A lower radiating temperature “aloft” causes a higher temperature below??? There’s that heeduhr, … a-gin.

      Hey P, that’s called “c-o-o-l-i-n-g”.

      Oh boy. How wrong can you be. Actually, it’s called “w-a-r-m-i-n-g”.

      Roughly speaking:

      – If the TOA radiates at the same temperature as the surface and the solar flux is approximately constant, then the climate system is in radiative equilibrium (remember I suggested that you research that term?). OLR at TOA = solar flux at TOA.

      – If the TOA radiates at a higher temperature than the surface, the climate system experiences a net loss of energy over time and will cool. OLR at TOA > solar flux at TOA.

      – When the presence of a GHG like WV or CO2 causes the TOA to radiate at a lower temperature than the surface, that causes an energy imbalance and energy begins to accumulate in the climate system, which warms as a result. OLR at TOA < solar flux at TOA.

      Exactly as Pierrehumbert describes.

      It's difficult to describe just how bad you look when you combine idiotic mistakes like this with straight-faced demands to be taken seriously, tone-trolling and a diatribe about how Ray Pierrehumbert doesn't know what he is talking about.

  32. I’ve been sternly advised to “write up my own research and publish it”. I have been called names. I have been deemed unworthy of comparison to an established expert.

    So predictable.

    And yet I fail to see anyone try to have a conversation with me on the points that I am specifically addressing in the established expert’s writings.

    My points are specific. Address those. Point out where — in THOSE specific points — where you might have problems. Forget the name calling, the knee-jerk reactions to your own discomfort, the tendency to demand three PhD’s in three advanced theoretical disciplines. You know, just converse with me in intelligent terms. Play the dialogue game.

    No insults or put downs or names that you might throw at me can hurt me.

    1. I have been deemed unworthy of comparison to an established expert.

      Because you you combine very poor topic knowledge with an inappropriate degree of self-confidence.

      Play the dialogue game.

      Learn the basics.

      1
  33. The following is the comment that motivated my most recent, previous reply:

    And the other climate idiot chimes in — if you have “proof” things are wrong, display it. Everything you’ve written boils down to “I don’t believe it so it isn’t correct.”

    Write up your “research” and publish it.

    Otherwise you are, as your rambling indicates, just another idiot.

    What I displayed was what I have been led to believe is correct knowledge about absorption spectra by someone who has studied this subject. When an astrophysicist argues convincingly that absorption spectra are NOT the “greenhouse effect”, then I tend to believe him.

    You, obviously, have only glanced at everything that I have written, without any effort whatsoever to take any of it in, because you are so settled in your comfort zone of denying any possible view except your own that you would come unhinged, if a fresh insight were to ever enter your mind.

    Oh, did I forget to mention that I used to be a true believer of the “greenhouse effect” and the dire threat of human-caused global warming. Really, I did, … for quite a number of years. Been there done that. I was deluded.

    1. “My points are specific.”

      No, they are simply whining.

      “I used to be a true believer

      The admission of someone who never studied or understood anything. Used by anti-vacc people, 9/11 “truthers”, and other clowns.

      1
  34. “What I displayed was what I have been led to believe is correct knowledge about absorption spectra by someone who has studied this subject.” Yes you have certainly been led. But first, why don’t you study the subject yourself? Nowadays, just about anybody who has studied Chemistry in college has studied absorption spectra to one extent or another.

    Consider our position for a moment, the position of a number of the people who blog her regularly, since you have asked us to consider yours. Many of us do have advanced degrees in things like chemistry and physics and we too have opinions on this. My opinion is that you have no idea what you are talking about. My opinion is that the interactions of various long wavelength photons with carbon dioxide molecules is way beyond your pay grade, as is the distribution of that energy within the atmosphere. Any con artist can make a statement about a squiggly line, call it a spectrum, and you wouldn’t know whether he was selling you shit or Shinola.

    So, you have voiced your opinion, it holds no weight, and now you should run along until you have taken the time to at least elevate your level of understanding to the level of, say, a college freshman in science. Until then, you should probably stick to pontificating on truck driving and religiosity, things that you appear to have some familiarity with. Really. And your tag team Looney Tuner, Allen Elter, with his childish made up language, is not amazing us, or scaring us, or convincing us of his brilliance. The two of you seem to think you are a special ops team but, really, you are both in need of special education.

    3
  35. I don’t know if you’ve read my other comments. If you haven’t, please read them.

    Sorry for missing those comments. I shouldn’t have missed them, but I did.

  36. How stupid are idiots to provide a commentary of their own trolling activities on another publicly viewed website.
    It’s very tedious and stupid. Ya school teachers failed really badly.
    I’d hate to see yas plan a fucking bank robbery.

  37. Kernodle seems to be a long-time poster at “Climate Sophistry”, a blog run by an even more extreme (and equally unqualified) clown. Allan Eltor posts there too, and left this steaming pile of shit recently (the topic was the long-running “scam” climate scientists are running, intermingled with some asinine screen about improper use of physics.)

    Bob you’re missing the power of just lying to motherfuckers’ faces and telling everyone on media that if anybody gets in the way of the scam, they’re going to be arrested and at the very least ruined and probably assaulted by mobs whipped up for the express purpose of terrorizing the law abiding.

    So yeah, Kernodle and Eltor are essentially loons, and they’ve been living in a site run by someone loonier than they are.

    3
    1. So yeah, Kernodle and Eltor are essentially loons, and they’ve been living in a site run by someone loonier than they are.

      It’s sad, really. If I don’t understand something, I try to sort it out by seeking authoritative sources and where possible, asking people who know whereof they speak for help and guidance.

      Conspiracist ideation and the attendant paranoia are not a natural starting point for improving topic knowledge. I understand that prior commitment to a political position wrecks the capacity for logical thought but it’s a depressing spectacle nonetheless. But you know this, so forgive me for stating the obvious.

      2
  38. Allow Eli to step in to this trash fire.

    First a simple, or at least as simple as Eli knows how to make it explanation of the atmospheric greenhouse effect.

    Each part of the Earth’s surface emits heat in the form of infrared (IR) radiation. The peak of this emission is right at the frequency where CO2 absorbs strongly. While the proportion of CO2 in the atmosphere is small, 410 parts per million or 0.041%, this is still a large number of molecules, large enough that near the surface, at wavelengths where CO2 absorbs, the average distance light will travel before being captured is a few meters (a couple of yards).

    Greenhouse gases, as well as absorbing IR radiation, emit it. Almost none of the greenhouse gas molecules that absorb IR light emit it immediately. Instead the internal excited energy of the molecule is transformed into thermal motion of
    molecules nearby through collisions. This takes about a microsecond, a millionth of a second and is roughly a million times more likely than the molecule directly emitting IR light.

    In the same way unexcited greenhouse gas molecules can be excited by collisions into a state where they can emit. It turns out that the rate at which excited molecules can form increases with temperature.

    The distance that the emitted radiation can travel is short near the surface, but increases as one climbs through the atmosphere because density, pressure and temperature decrease as we climb. Each of these lengthens the distance radiation emitted from a molecule travels before being absorbed, until about at 10 km altitude where the temperature is -50 C (or ~-60 F or~220 K) and the density has decreased by a factor of ~3, it becomes possible for radiation from CO2 molecules to reach space, carrying thermal energy away from the Earth. Below that level, energy emitted by a CO2 molecule is soon absorbed by another relatively nearby one. Thus this energy simply cannot be radiated to space to balance the incoming solar energy.

    Taken together this means that the doorway to space is very narrow at wavelengths where CO2 can absorb. Since the same amount of energy has to be radiated to space as is coming from the sun, something has to increase, and that is the temperature of the surface. As the surface warms, the rate at which it can radiate energy increases, pushing more thermal IR radiation out into space in spectral regions where ghg molecules don’t absorb.

    If we increase the proportion of CO2 in the atmosphere, the altitude at which energy can be radiated to space rises also, but since this higher level is colder and the pressure and density are lower, the doorway becomes narrower, and the surface has to warm more in order to shove the same amount of energy out and restore the balance with the incoming energy carried by the sunlight.

    Figures can be seen at http://rabett.blogspot.com/2010/03/simplest-explanation.html

    1

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.