Tomcat
Your pious belief that the truth will out, at least in the short to medium term, is naive to the point of being moronic. Just follow the money.
Your unsupported assertion that an entire field of science is significantly corrupted by money is paranoid, cartoonish nonsense. I repeat – it is nothing more than a thinly disguised conspiracy theory.
I may be many things, but naive is not one of them. Nor am I a paranoid loon.
mike
Have another beer.
Your comments (about KE for example) just prove that you haven’t read my 7 page paper, which could easily have been read in the time you’ve spent writing all these comments, most of which have no bearing on what I have written, or are rebutted in the paper, or even agreed with sometimes.
It’s not for me to rebut your comments here when I’ve already done that in the paper. It’s my paper which is up for “Peer Review in Open Media” for a month or so before it is more widely publicised. This blog is not the place for you to “submit” anything for formal rebuttal.
If you do take the time to study it, and still consider you can make a valid rebuttal, focussing on what I have actually written, then you can submit your written comments to our CEO John O’Sullivan or our Chairman, Dr Tomothy Ball, retired professor of climatology.
http://principia-scientific.org/PROM/COTTON%20PROM%20paper%20PSI_Planetary_Surface_Temperatures.pdf
My attempt to post reply to Dr. Svalgaard and Dr.Pratt failed couple of times
now available at my web page
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/Reply.htm
My attempt to post reply to Dr. Svalgaard and Dr.Pratt failed couple of times
now available at my web page
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/Reply.htm
Sorry – typo “isentropic”
The characteristics of an isentropic system are (quoting from the above link) …
An isentropic flow is a flow that is both adiabatic and reversible. That is, no heat is added to the flow, and no energy transformations occur due to friction or dissipative effects. For an isentropic flow of a perfect gas, several relations can be derived to define the pressure, density and temperature along a streamline.
Now please read my paper first if you wish to enter into a discussion with me about what I’m talking about therein.
“Kinetic energy of the motion of the molecules of gases is what makes a gas warm or cold.
I couldn’t agree more. That’s first year physics. The three translational degrees of freedom of KE do just that.
Now read my paper to understand what happens when PE converts to such KE in atmospheres, or even in the cited lab experiment.”
So, agree with PE converts to KE as general idea.
So what is we disagree with?
Now we have this sentence [it is one sentence:)].
“With less than 10% of the insolation reaching Earth’s surface, where is all the energy at the surface of Venus to firstly raise the temperature by 500K or more, and then cause all that radiation, conduction and convection that is somehow meant to get so fast through the almost static dense atmosphere just above the Venus surface and produce a lapse rate with just the right value and a temperature plot at just the right level?”
This is a confusing sentence.
So you saying since, Venus receives less insolation than does at Earth it’s surface, why does it get hotter.
To which my answer is in terms of solar energy heating Venus surface, the solar energy does not heat the Venus surface.
BUT the clouds are a surface which the solar energy can heat.
And there zero doubt, that the solar energy does heat the clouds of Venus.
It is my contention that it does not matter how much solar energy reaches the Venus surface. If the clouds were to disappear, and somehow the atmosphere were to become transparent so that the power of solar insolation at the top of atmosphere could reach the surface of Venus, so 2600 watts per square meter, this powerful sunlight would still not warm the Venus surface, nor would it warm atmospheric gas at the surface.
Because they are too hot already.
Or it’s like expecting sunlight to warm a hot fry pan- it will not happen, the hot frying pan is the blazing noon sun will cool.
So to review, the Sun can not heat the surface of Venus so it can remains as hot as it already is.
The clouds are being warmed by the sunlight.
The warmer clouds can warm atmospheric gases and therefore these gases *can* warm the surface Venus.
What other paths are there?
Or as Spock says:
“An ancestor of mine maintained, that if you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.”
So by removing the clouds [and somehow making making the atmosphere not impede the sunlight is any fashion- the result would be a cooling of Venus. Because of the removal of the clouds are that which are heating Venus.
Gbaikie said exciting gases with solar radiation will not heat gas
See the plot in Section 6 of my March 2012 paper* showing wavelengths which Earth’s atmosphere has absorbed from incident Solar radiation, including some in the 2 micron band which has been absorbed by carbon dioxide – as happens much more on Venus.
* http://principia-scientific.org/publications/psi_radiated_energy.pdf
i.
Vaughan Pratt | December 12, 2012 at 3:38 am |
“But that deviation is just a few millikelvins. How is such a tiny deviation relevant to anything?”
Good question but as I pointed out above (after you posted this quote) the only reason this is so small is because the “filter artefact” hides the elephant in the room: the 140 mK deviation of AGW and F3(AGW) at the end.
As your spreadsheet points out, the least square fit you did has the effect of adjusting the parameters to minimise residuals in figure6 .
You are fitting a F3(AGW) curve that is an exponential with the end bent down by careless incorrect use of a box filter. By pure chance that distorts the last decades of the exponential is a very similar way to the down turn in the dataset. ie the recent lack of warming.
The ONLY reason all this works at all is the misuse of the filter and the fact you are then using a significant number of parameters to fit the distorted AGW to the filtered data.
Figure 6 is supposed to be the big deal here.
YES! WITHIN MILIIKELVINS! ( Big Red Arrow)
If you add back the 140 mK caused by the accidental and progressive zero padding in the filter it’s suddenly less impressive.
CONCLUSION
“We are unaware of other analyses claiming millikelvin precision.”
No comment.
Mosh
Use some commas, man.
It would take a conspiracy to overcome the confirmation bias and the groupthink, but there’s no such conspiracy among the warmists.
Yes it’s those who say climate science is honest who are the conspiracy theorists here. Underlying all of this is the vested interest of the (monopoly) sponsor and it would take a brave and/or rich soul to speak out against the interests of his one and only possible funder.
“6. Warming or Cooling Effects?
So we have seen that radiation from the atmosphere will usually be scattered after resonating with molecules on the surface, the end result being very much like diffuse reflection, though not technically the same. Only in fairly rare weather events would there be the possibility of
warmer air existing just above the surface, and such air could warm the surface.
The most likely warming could be when water vapour close to the surface reaches higher temperatures in times of high humidity when the adiabatic lapse rate is also reduced. But water vapour also plays the major role in cooling the atmosphere by radiating away to space
all the thermal energy which it acquires by diffusion in molecular collisions.
We need water for life but we also need it to moderate the climate. Water vapour cools the atmosphere by radiation and the ocean and earth surfaces by evaporation. It also reflects and absorbs some of the Sun’s powerful incoming infra-red radiation, as may be seen below. [9]
Carbon dioxide also absorbs incoming solar infra-red radiation and helps cool the atmosphere, radiating away to space not only the energy it captures from solar and surface radiation, but also that diffused from other air molecules. But, with its limited range of frequencies, it would not be very effective in slowing the rate of radiative cooling of the surface.”
“See the plot in Section 6 of my March 2012 paper* showing wavelengths which Earth’s atmosphere has absorbed from incident Solar radiation, including some in the 2 micron band which has been absorbed by carbon dioxide – as happens much more on Venus.”
Plot here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunlight
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Solar_Spectrum.png
Comments will follow.
By pure chance that distorts the last decades of the exponential is a very similar way to the down turn in the dataset. ie the recent lack of warming.
MRES shows that there is no “pure chance” about it.
Contrarian Luddites like Edim will continue to disbelieve in science while researchers will continue to find practical applications of CO2 radiative properties.
http://www.opticsinfobase.org/abstract.cfm?uri=LS-2012-LTh2I.2
If you understand how this thermally pumped laser using mini cavity spheres works, then you can appreciate how slight the effect of Planck’s Law redistribution needs to be for us to feel the effects.
Check out AESiegman’s classic text Lasers where he describes how thermal pumped lasers would theoretically work. The fact that the theory came first and then the experiments came later points to the triumph of scientific research.
VP > Stallman … I found him hard to argue with in the 1970s
Hard to believe …
Now divide your atmospheric mass by 2, because I’m only talking about the half that gets heated in the day. The measurements of 5 degrees were at the equator, so don’t take it too literally as applying equally over the whole hemisphere. I guess I thought it was obvious there would be less variation at the poles, if any. So you’ll need to integrate, rather than treat Venus as a flat disk – the same problem we have when climatologists treat the Earth as flat instead of integrating over a sphere. Whether it’s 3 degrees or 6 degrees or similar, I think I’ve made my point about why it’s not a huge difference.
