Hi Doug, thanks for your attempt to explain your hypothesis about why the estimated mean temperature of the earth is what it is (and differs from that on other bodies in space, such as the moon). I’m not a scientist but neither are you as far as I can ascertain.
I had a look at your article “How the IPCC got it wrong: Why the “Greenhouse Effect” is physically impossible” (http://climate-change-theory.com/) and am puzzled as to why you declared at the start “see this article first ” and linked to “That Bogus Greenhouse Gas Whatchamacallit Effect” by John O’Sullivan.
John O’Sullivan is no more a scientists than I am although he does seem to think that associating himself with others who have some understanding of some aspects of science and engineering makes him some kind of expert. Several of his fellow-“slayers” are no more scientists than you or I. He’s even fooled the O’Sullivan Clan blog administrator Gary Sullivan into thinking that “The world’s leading global warming theory debunker is an O’Sullivan” (http://www.osullivanclan.com/halloffamegalleryiv.html). I became aware of that ludicrous entry (see my comment of 15th November http://judithcurry.com/2011/10/15/letter-to-the-dragon-slayers/#comment-138807) and I have repeatedly pointed out to Gary that he should reconsider whether or not John has earned a place alongside such respected O’Sullivans as the John O’Sullivan two entries above John the “slayer”.
Since you appear to have so much faith in John and his “Slayers” I have to wondered if I should spend time considering your arguments. In that article of John’s that you link to he quotes the following statement made by Latour “ .. solar radiation t is rather hot, about 120°C .. ”. As a retired electrical, radio and electronics engineer that statement leaves me stone cold (pardon the pun). During my years of designing telecommunications systems, including those involving the transmission and reception (emission and absorption) of electromagnetic radiation (radio waves) I never encountered the concept of e/m radiation having a temperature – “energy/power”, yes, “direction” yes, “polarisation” yes, but “temperature” – no.
You appear to have only “ .. B.Sc (Physics), B.A.(Econ), Dip.Bus.Admin.. ” (http://earth-climate.com/) yet give the impression of considering yourself to be more knowledgeable about physics and the impact of CO2 and other IR absorbing gases on the temperature of the earth/atmosphere system than are physicists who are better qualified than you and specialise in climate physics. For example there is atmospheric physicist Professor Grant Petty, Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences, University of Wisconsin-Madison and author of the excellent text book “A First Course in Atmospheric Radiation” (http://www.sundogpublishing.com/AtmosRad/Excerpts/index.html). Professor Petty participated in numerous E-mail exchanges with the “Slayers” during the final quarter of 2011 trying to enlighten them on the physics of atmospheric radiation. I am more inclined to heed the arguments of a recognised specialist like Professor Petty than yours and even less inclined to heed the arguments of John O’Sullivan and his few remaining “Slayers”.
Never mind, you declare that “ .. The Physicists are right .. ” and you have clearly studied some physics at some stage so can no doubt explain how an e/m wave can have a temperature. I expect that at least some of the staff in the Physics Department of the University of Tennessee at Knoxville are knowledgeable about physics and they state that “ .. Temperature is a measure of the random motion (or energy) of a group of particles .. ” (http://electron9.phys.utk.edu/phys136d/modules/m2/temperature.htm), which is just what I learnt when I studied physics those many many years ago. Something else that I learnt is that e/m waves travel through a vacuum, which perhaps explains how we receive energy from the Sun (or do you disagree with that too?). If that physics is correct then I puzzle over how e/m waves can be considered to have a temperature (that’s the waves themselves, not the material from which they are emitted or into which they are absorbed).
It appears to me from what I have read of your articles and comments that you will fully understand the point that I am making about e/m radiation and temperature. If you can spare the time away from your scientific research perhaps you’d be so kind as to explain why you made no criticism of the Latour/O’Sullivan argument.
Your first comment leads me to think that you fully support the “Slayers”. If so then I have to assume that you have not read their “Slaying the Sky Dragon”, or at least not very critically. In your article “Why the “Greenhouse Effect” is physically impossible” (http://climate-change-theory.com/) you mention Professors Claes Johnson and Nasif Nahl but are you aware that they, like others, have now dissociated themselves from “the Slayers”?
You make use of the good old vacuum flask to help explain your argument and it is interesting that “Slayer” group co-founder Hans Schreuder does that a lot in his contribution to “Slaying the Sky Dragon”. For example in Chapter 13 he tells us that “ .. The insulation of the vacuum of space in which earth and its atmosphere finds itself acts like the most perfect insulator, just like the vacuum flask. .. ” (see Page 196 – USA version). I could spend ages pointing out what I see as flaws in the arguments that he and other “slayers” present but to be honest, I simply can’t be bothered. I have notebook full of them. Here’s a hint – that shiny surface of the vacuum flask.
I may come back to you on the points that you make but let me leave you with this. I have no disagreement that all that a vacuum flask does is reduce the rate of cooling of its hot contents, but the vacuum flask does not normally have energy flowing into it, does it. If it had what do you think would happen to the temperature of the contents?
It seems to me that most of the “Slayers” cannot think beyond heat transfer and consider heat to be the only form of energy that needs to be taken into consideration. Maybe I am not the only one of us here who “ .. shows a lack of understanding .. ”.
I do agree with you on one thing, “ .. What matters is who is applying correct physics, mathematics or whatever, Nothing else matters .. ”. The difficulty for thee and me is to decide who is achieving this.
BTW, can you provide a link to any of your physics papers (not articles or comments on blogs but peer-reviewed papers in respected scientific journals)?
Best regards, Pete Ridley