Another View on Climate

My Own View of Global Warming

Posts Tagged ‘Roy Spencer’

Is there a Greenhouse Effect?

Posted by greg2213 on May 13, 2013

Atmospheric physicists disagree.

Both sides claim the other doesn’t know their thermodynamics. (Is that why I heard it called ThermoGodDammics in college?)

Nice article on how greenhouses (real ones) really work.

On Facebook, for more “discussion:”

I don’t have the physics or the math to really dig into it and I’m just going to sit back and read the stuff as it comes to my attention. However, I do suspect that a lot of the “discussion” is due to poor choice of terminology and a smearing of definitions.

For example: Can a cooler object warm a warmer object? You’ll be warmer inside your Igloo than you will be outside of it and you’ll be warmer in a nice coat or blanket than without. Yet all are cooler than you and they still “warm” you. But does the atmosphere and IR work the same way?

I think everyone agrees the the atmosphere is warmer with an atmosphere than without, right? And with much less day/night variation than it would have with no atmosphere (eg: the moon.)

And from there it gets more interesting… 🙂

So, I’m going to link to the “Yes!” and “No!” posts as I find them. This post will be updated periodically. Perhaps a conclusion or common ground will be reached, someday. Till then, I’m reaching for the popcorn.

(update note: I’m on the “yes” side, though “greenhouse” is a lousy term.)

(Another update note: Can a “greenhouse gas,” in theory, back-radiate to warm the surface? Yes. (See below.) Does it? I say yes. Is CO2 a significant player in this? No, water vapor vastly overwhelms CO2.)

Yes, There IS a GH Effect.

Dr. Roy Spencer has challenged the Slayers (of the GH effect theory, to either “put up or shut up.”

Eschenbach on the The R. W. Wood Experiment

No, There is NOT a GH Effect

Principia Scientific responds to Dr. Spencer’s challenge.

Climate of Sophistry responds to Eschenbach

 

JoNova:

Radical New Hypothesis on the Effect of Greenhouse Gases: Michael Hammer, an engineer who specializes in spectroscopy, is also sceptical of the GCM but his criticism is more fundamental.  In the following paper, using the basic laws of spectroscopy, he shows that a significant portion of energy loss from the Earth’s surface is by direction radiation to space at wavelengths not absorbed by carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases.
Convection, Venus, Thought Experiments and Tall Rooms Full of Gas – A Discussion
 Luboš Motl: SciAm, Gavin Schmidt despise climate facts American Thinker: The Hidden Flaw in Greenhouse Theory
On WUWT: Simple experiment shows that a hotter object can, in fact, be warmed by a cooler one. Light bulb experiment. two

I think this sums it up very nicely. 

OldWeirdHarold says: (wuwt comment, from the light bulb experiment) May 28, 2013 at 9:51 am

Years ago, in a statistical mechanics lesson in P-chem, the prof, after wading through an insufferable derivation, drew an interesting conclusion. In a hurricane, over 40% of the molecules are moving against the direction of the wind. If they were all moving the the same direction, they’d be moving at the speed of sound.

The conceptual error that the Skydragons are making is failing to distinguish between individual dynamics and population dynamics. Just as a large percentage of the molecules in a hurricane move against the wind, a large percentage of the photons can and do move counter to the net heat flow, which implies moving counter to the thermal gradient.

The Second Law is an emergent phenomenon that applies to populations. It doesn’t apply to individual particles.

And this: 

(link) GE R&D center developed an incandescent bulb back in the late 1980′s (and GE lighting commercialized it in the 1990′s) that placed a spherical clear glass shell around the filament. The shell was coated with a multilayer (anywhere from 15 – 30 separate layers) optical filter that reflects mid infrared back onto the filament, while allowing visible light to pass through. The result is that a lower filament current can achieve the same filament temperature, thanks to the mid infrared energy being reflected back to the filament. This results in a 15% – 20% increase in lumens/Watt.

GE’s research into IR reflecting films

And I think this one ends the discussion about “back-radiation.”

It is well known that the efficiency of incandescent lamps could be greatly increased if the radiated energy in the near IR region could be returned to the tungsten filament and REABSORBED.

http://www.ies.org/PDF/100Papers/053.pdf

Advertisements

Posted in AGW Hypothesis, CO2, Greenhouse Effect | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Why The Left’s Global Warming Agenda Is Wrong

Posted by greg2213 on July 7, 2011

Excellent video by Dr. Spencer that neatly summarizes to global warming issue and why the political/green/left bodies pushing it are wrong.

Keep in mind the the Precautionary Principle that says we should destroy our economies and hand world dictatorship rule over to the UN also says that we should invade and crush Iran to keep it from developing, and using, the bomb. Just in case, you know.

Commenters to the video want evidence? There’s been plenty, they’ve ignored it all, why include it now? Besides, that would make a 3.5 minute video into a 3.5 hour video, lose 99% of the viewers, and still not satisfy the every-changing demands. Besides, it’s all on his site anyway, as well as being on various other skeptic sites.

At least one commenter claims that some leftists are skeptics and this is about the science, not the politics. Sorry, but Global Warming is 99% politics and 1% science and it is being driven entirely by groups that most would consider to be leftists.

Via JoNova’s site.

Here’s Dr. Spencer’s new book:
The Bad Science and Bad Policy of Obama’s Global Warming Agenda

Posted in Scientists Say | Tagged: , | Leave a Comment »

The Consensus and a Testable Hypothesis (2005)

Posted by greg2213 on January 16, 2010

This is from a 2005 article. Mostly it talks about the so-called scientific “consensus” about Man Made Global Warming, but it also talks about a hypothesis from some Russian and Israeli researchers regarding cloud cover and warming.

Here’s the article

Six eminent researchers from the Russian Academy of Science and the Israel Space Agency have just published a startling paper in one of the world’s leading space science journals. The team of solar physicists claims to have come up with compelling evidence that changes in cosmic ray intensity and variations in solar activity have been driving much of the Earth’s climate. They even provide a testable hypothesis, predicting that amplified cosmic ray intensity will lead to an increase of the global cloud cover which, according to their calculations, will result in “some small global cooling over the next couple of years.”

Note that the world has cooled since then, providing validation of their hypothesis. Dr. Roy Spencer has a lot on this subject on his blog.

Now about that consensus…

According to an essay by Naomi Oreskes, published by Science in December, 2004, there is unanimous “scientific consensus” on the anthropogenic causesof recent global warming…

What happened to the countless research papers that show global temperatures were similar or even higher during the Holocene Climate Optimum and the Medieval Warm Period…?

…Because no tool is available to test the supposition of human-induced climate change and the range of natural variability is so great, there is no discernible human influence on global climate at this time.

…It would appear that the editors of Science knowingly misled the public and the world’s media. In my view, such unethical behaviour constitutes a grave contravention…

Here’s the rest: THE DANGERS OF CONSENSUS SCIENCE

Posted in Cloud Theory, Consensus, Predictions | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »