Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Guest papers
#1
Radiative Equilibrium or Radiative Poppycock?
by Alan Siddons, August 2008

Excerpt:

What animates global warming concerns is an imaginary law of physics called "radiative equilibrium". Energy out must equal energy in, this“law” says. Which does sound plausible onthe face of it. In this view, however, if the lightemitted by a heated object is suppressed in someway, its radiant energy will increase past the level of radiant input until it breaks through the
barrier... in obedience to this “law”.

This notion originates from a long-ago misconception about how glass greenhouses work, thusthe family name this "effect" goes by. It was believed that glass blocked the passage of "dark radiation" (infrared) and kept storing energetic photons inside it. Once those photons had accumulated enough power to overcome the glass barrier, radiative equilibrium was achieved.
So this is the scenario: sunlight enters, heat is generated and dark light is emitted. This darklight is amplified because of the blockage and finally exits at the same magnitude as the entering sunlight. But only after the light "trapped" inside has raised the greenhouse's temperature. Since the barrier will keep raising the temperature until the barrier is broken, increasing the barrier's strength will get you any amount of internal heat you want. (If only that were true...)

It is 19th century poppycock. And here’s a telltale sign of it: Why do you always see a "layer of greenhouse gases" depicted
overhead in illustrations about the “greenhouse effect”, when in fact these molecules are at their densest concentration right at your feet?

LINK
#2
The Missing Hotspot

July 2008

by DR. David Evans

Excerpt:

Summary

Each cause of global warming heats up the atmosphere in a distinctive pattern - its "signature" According to IPPC climate theory, the signature of carbon emissions and the signature of warming due to all causes during the recent global warming
both include a prominent "hotspot" at about 1012 km in the air over the tropics. But the warming pattern observed by radiosondes during the recent global warming contains no trace of any such hotspot. Therefore:

LINK
#3
Carbon Dioxide: The Houdini of Gases
By Alan Siddons and Joe D’Aleo

How long does carbon dioxide linger in the air? This is actually an important question, a question of so-called residence time. As previously discussed on this blog, studies compiled by geologist Tom Segalstad rather convincingly show that earth’s biological and chemical processes recycle CO2 within a decade, meaning that a CO2 molecule you’re exhaling at the moment is bound to be captured by a plant or a rock or the ocean just a few years from now. Yet the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and other authorities insist that carbon dioxide generally remains in the air for up to 200 years.

Who to believe? We’ll present some evidence here and you be the judge.

LINK
#4
The Hockey Schtick


Alan Siddons on the negative-feedback cooling effect of clouds

September 21, 2011

EXCERPT:

Anthony Watts offers an important statement about the Allan paper:

While Dessler and Trenberth (among others) claim clouds have an overall positive feedback warming effect upon climate due to the long-wave back-radiation, this new paper shows that clouds have a large net cooling effect by blocking incoming solar radiation and increasing radiative cooling outside the tropics.

Now, I always focus on the basic claim that back-radiating greenhouse gases make the earth’s surface warmer. The earth’s SURFACE. Liquid clouds are often included as greenhouse agents because at nighttime they’re thought to reflect heat rays back to the earth and at least retard surface cooling if not actually raise the temperature.

[Image: Fullscreen%2Bcapture%2B9212011%2B81046%2BPM.jpg]

In other words, the same heating mechanism, that of back-radiation, is attributed to clouds because ‘radiative forcing’ theory assumes that opposing flows of infrared actively warm the surface —and always the surface alone, please note. Thus, for instance, Lindzen argues that 240 watts from the surface matched by 240 from the sky will make the surface radiate 480 watts per each square meter. But won’t make the sky radiate 480 in turn.

LINK
#5
Climate Etc.

Nature Unbound X – The next glaciation

Posted on August 14, 2018 by curryja 

by Javier

EXCERPT:

Summary: The IPCC expresses virtual certainty that a glaciation is not possible for the next 50 Kyr if CO2levels remain above 300 ppm. It is the long interglacial hypothesis. Analysis of interglacials of the past 800 Kyr shows they depend on obliquity-linked summer energy, ice-volume, and eccentricity, and they end at glacial inception after ~ 6000 years of Neoglaciation-type temperature decline. The lag between orbital forcing and ice volume change indicates the orbital threshold for glacial inception is crossed thousands of years before glacial inception, and the Holocene went through that threshold long ago. In the absence of sufficient anthropogenic forcing glacial inception should take place in 1500-2500 years. The long interglacial hypothesis rests on the wrong astronomical parameter, high-equilibrium climate sensitivity to CO2, and uncertain model predictions of very long-tailed CO2decay. It is not possible to determine at present if a glacial inception will take place over the next millennia. The precautionary principle indicates we should prepare for that eventuality as it would constitute the worst catastrophe humankind has ever faced.

LINK


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)