16 Thoughts on “New open thread

  1. Richard C (NZ) on 06/03/2012 at 1:45 pm said:

    Showdown at the Hot Topic Corral

    Natural ocean heating vs anthropogenic ocean heating (vs Rob Painting, Skeptical Science officionado aka “Dappledwater”) e.g. here:-


    Solar vs geothermal vs anthropogenic ocean heating (vs Mike Palin) e.g. here:-


    Brings many issues to a head all over the (broken and disjointed) thread.

    Among other things.

    BTW, I’m saving the page to disk after each comment in case it gets the SkS treatment. Happy to report that has been unnecessary so far.

    • Richard C (NZ) on 07/03/2012 at 7:11 am said:

      From: Richard Cumming
      To: info@slayingtheskydragon.com
      Sent: Tuesday, 6 March 2012, 10:28
      Subject: John O’Sullivan: 24 hour globally averaged solar power – 84,000 TW (84 PW)?

      This is an enquiry e-mail via http://slayingtheskydragon.com/ from:
      Richard Cumming

      Hello John.

      I am currently embroiled in a dispute over the 24 hour globally averaged solar power value. I am familiar with Joseph Postma’s ‘The Model Atmosphere’ and have previously corresponded with Nasif Nahle on a similar topic.

      Could you forward this inquiry to Joseph please?

      I am asking Joseph what his value would be in the following terms?:-

      82,000 TW / 510 Tm2 = 161 W.m2 (solar) ‘Absorbed at surface’ TF&K09 Fig 1.
      44 TW / 510 Tm2 = 0.086 W.m2 (geo)

      There is no dispute over geo power that I know of and TF&K09 is Trenberth, Fasullo and Kiehl 2009, ‘Earth’s Global Energy Budget’.

      My maths is no where near Joseph’s but I do understand the “P/4” (p-over-four) issue to a degree. Quoting from ‘The Model Atmosphere’ Joseph Postma 2011 (page 10):-
      Dividing the solar flux by a factor of four and thus spreading it
      instantaneously over the entire surface of the Earth as an input flux
      amounts to the denial of the existence of day-time and night-time, and
      violates the application on the Stefan-Boltzmann Law which deals only
      with instantaneous radiative flux.
      Just intuitively the value of 82,000 TW (82 PW) seems a little on the high side. I would appreciate knowing Joseph’s alternative if he disagrees with 82 PW and maybe some working or a reference/link to how his value was arrived at.

      I also recall I think, that Joseph is working on a follow-up paper to ‘The Model Atmosphere’. Is that correct and if so when is it due?

      Regards and thanks to yourself and Joseph,

      Richard Cumming (NZ)
      Hello Richard,
      Thanks for your inquiry. I’m forwarding your email direct to Joe who may reply directly to you on this important issue.
      Kind regards,

    • Richard C (NZ) on 07/03/2012 at 7:51 am said:

      Rrof G. Bothun, Professor of Physics University of Oregon, responding to request for confirmation of 24 hr globally averaged solar power
      ah yes
      sorry for propogating bad information and I thought
      that particular page had been corrected.

      Indeed its 84,000 TW (84 PW)

      The way to look at the heat balance is as follows:

      The earth is in mostly thermal equilibrium with incoming
      solar radiation. The amount of stored heat coupled with
      the specific heat of water vs rock necessarily means
      that the great majority of the heat must be stored in the
      oceans (which is why OTEC works, conceptually) and not
      in the crust of the earth.

      A more proper unit is the average solar incident radiation
      on the earth’s surface which is 164 watts per square meter.

      multiply that by 4piR^2 (where R is the radius of the earth
      in meters) and you get 84,000 TW of incident power.

      Professor of Physics,
      University of Oregon
      Further response in respect to ‘The Model Atmosphere’ Postma 2010
      I believe this is a very minor detail (in fact I know it is)
      if you like you can use the 4piR^2 calculation
      of solar radiation hitting the top of the atmosphere and use
      4piR^2 has radius of the earth + atmosphere. The llux on
      the atmosphere is the solar constant or about 1370 watts/m^2

      The equilibrium temperature of a planet does depend on
      planetary rotation, but that is a relatively small effect.

      see http://zebu.uoregon.edu/2004/ph311/lec01.html

      the average of 164 watts per square meter, I agree is not
      useful in the context of harvesting solar power. Maximum
      solar irradiance is 2000 watts per square meter at noon
      on the equator. Average over the course of a year, a solar
      site located at +/-40 degrees would get about 600 watts per
      square meter.
      Thank you for ‘Planetary Equilibrium Temperature’ Professor. I think this is what Postma is disputing so it is useful to have to refer to and compare to his calcs.

      I think Mike and I are not addressing the same concept (wires crossed). As you say, “the average of 164 watts per square meter, I agree is not useful in the context of harvesting solar power”. This is the figure Mike is focused on but I am wondering about what the ACTUAL global average AFTER cloudiness albedo reflection etc and taking day/night into consideration over a 24 hr period i.e. the net absorption (the night side is radiating out).

      How much would you reduce the 84 PW 164 W.m2 figure by to account for the attenuation and night-side radiation to arrive at an absorbed-at-surface figure comparable to the constant 24 hr 44 TW geo flux operating in all directions?



    • Richard C (NZ) on 07/03/2012 at 8:29 am said:

      if you after the technical precise planetary energy budget
      that is extremely difficult to figure out because you have
      to estimate the effects of the ocean as a buffer, changes
      in the atmospheric scattering properites, deep ocean
      transport, and about 100 other things.

      Greg Bothun
      I was referring to the technical precise planetary energy budget and I
      see the complexity.

      Thanks, I will leave it at that.


      Richard Cumming

    • Richard C (NZ) on 07/03/2012 at 9:45 am said:

      there are at least 100 different precise planetary
      energy budgets and all are approximations.

      for example,

      how much solar energy is converted into mechanical
      energy (i.e. winds)


      is a rigorous treatment that gives an upper limit of 1.17%

      other studies, with different assumptions, are as high
      as 2%

      Greg Bothun

    • Richard C (NZ) on 07/03/2012 at 10:26 am said:

      Prof Greg did make the additional comment that I did not reply to because there’s obviously a great divide:-

      “……its really the atmospheric balance that probably is important and that can be calculated fairly precisely”

      In the global warming debate, anyone with a handle on the heat knows that it is in the oceans. Rob Painting at Skeptical Science knows this (and is adamant about it), so does Roger Pielke Snr (and he’s adamant about too).

      What matters I think is the top-down ocean heating by solar and bottom-up by geothermal.

      But to Rob Painting, Mike Palin et al, what matters is top-down solar heating AND top-down anthropogenic GHG heating of the ocean.

      I dispute that on 2 counts of course.

    • Richard C (NZ) on 07/03/2012 at 8:11 am said:

      Extending Roger’s point about different crust thicknesses (oceanic/continental).

      If we think of the mantle as a hot stove element and the crust as an insulator placed on top of it, there will be heat passing though it analogous to the 44 TW geo flux.

      But if we slide the insulator off a bit (crustal stretching) exposing the element (mantle), there is considerably MORE heat available.

      Therefore I’m wondering if hydrothermal heat from vents, megaplumes, exposed mantle etc shouls be IN ADDITION TO the background flux because there is obviously significant ocean heating in the vicinity of this activity.

    • Richard C (NZ) on 07/03/2012 at 11:56 am said:

      Summarizing the argument (as per request from Roger Dewhurst).

      It centres around this graph (Figure 4, provenance unknown) that can be accessed via “The Big Picture’ button on the home page of Skeptical Science:-


      It’s not up-to-date (global warming has taken a break), obviously the heat is in the ocean.

      What matters to the respective sides – anthro global warmers (AGW) vs natural harmonic cycles (NHC):-

      NHC: Variations of both TOP-DOWN ocean heating by solar PLUS BOTTOM-UP by geothermal (core and mantle plus hydrothermal).

      AGW: Increasing TOP-DOWN ocean heating by [supposedly] anthropogenic GHG heating of the ocean (“forcing”) only. Supposedly constant TOP-DOWN ocean heating by solar is neglected as is supposedly BOTTOM-UP heating by geothermal.

      AGW OHC “forcing” – for (AGW) and against (NHC):-

      AGW For: IPCC AR4 2007: “Formal attribution studies now suggest that it is likely that anthropogenic forcing has contributed to the observed warming of the upper several hundred metres of the global ocean during the latter half of the 20th century {5.2, 9.5} ”


      So it’s only a suggestion and it’s only likely. No mechanism is found at 5.2 and 9.5.

      There is conjecture by Peter Minnet (Real Climate) of a GHG forcing mechanism (actually an insulation mechanism) that has been advocated by Rob Painting in Skeptical Science posts but it is easily refuted by experimental science (lots of it). What Minnet posits does not appear in AR4, neither is it documented anywhere in the literature except lightweight modeling papers that do not address the physics.

      NHC Against: The “anthropogenic forcing” is easily refuted using this experimental result from Hale and Querry 1973:-


      Corroborating results (Segelstein, Wieliczka) can be accessed here:-


      The “Against” argument (including H&Q73-based refutation) is documented by Dr Roy Clark in the US EPA Submission ‘A Null Hypothesis For CO2’ http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/EPA_Submission_RClark.pdf

      There is NO commensurate ‘A Hypothesis For CO2’ to address (except IPCC Assessment Reports but they are not hypotheses).

    • Richard C (NZ) on 07/03/2012 at 2:23 pm said:

      Summary of each case and link to this thread left at Climate Change Dispatch here:-


  2. Richard C (NZ) on 07/03/2012 at 1:36 pm said:

    Two Top Climate Professors Openly Trash Greenhouse Gas Theory

    Written by John O’Sullivan, guest post | March 06 2012

    Esteemed German climate experts, Dr. Gerhard Kramm and Dr. Ralph Dlugi have now added their voice to a growing science crescendo asking climatologists to stop modeling Earth as if it were a flat disk greenhouse.


    The admission by Kramm and Dlugi adds further significance to the scathing studies by Professor Nasif Nahle of Mexico, Dr. Matthais Kleespies of Germany, Canadian astrophysicist, Joe Postma and NASA’s Apollo moon mission veteran, Dr. Pierre R. Latour. All four working seperately in their independent specialisms came to very much the same conclusion: the greenhouse gas hypothesis is wrong.


    Postma shows that the incoming solar flux is wrongly divided by a factor of “4” so as to average the Solar energy over the entire planet as a chilly twilight. In effect, climate science turns our watery revolving globe into a flat, ice covered disk by utterly discarding the warming and cooling process of day and night. So which side in this debate are now the real “flat earthers?”


    Twilight Coldness: the Flat Earth of Crumbling Greenhouse Gas Science

    Because the GHE Standard Model treats the Earth as having sunlight coming in over all parts of the Earth at once, no part of the planet can receive more than one-quarter the value of the actual incoming solar power.


    A Better Earth Model: Add Day and Night on a Rotating Planet

    But a remedy is at hand. Postma’s peer-reviewed analysis then goes on to prove that by treating Earth as a sphere (so that night and day exist) we can suddenly explain it all with standard physics



    • Richard C (NZ) on 09/03/2012 at 7:51 pm said:

      Where Skeptic Believers of Greenhouse Gas Science Go Wrong

      John O’Sullivan

      Even prominent man-made climate change skeptics are ignoring monumental errors in orthodox ‘greenhouse gas theory.’ Critics say it’s time for full public debate on the underlying science.

      This article presents a challenge to all fair-minded thinkers to meet in debate to discuss where the ‘greenhouse gas warming’ supposition is contradicted by (1) empirical measurements, (2) established laws of science and (3) real-world observations.

      Critics argue that with the climate alarmist movement in full retreat and temperatures in decline – despite incessant rises in levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2), climatologists should now come clean about the anomalies.

      Recently public in-fighting has arisen among ‘skeptics’ of the man-made global narrative due to compelling new science that deftly refutes the greenhouse warming fiction.

      This ‘new’ science is merely correct adherence to traditional ‘old’ scientific methods by specialists from space science, thermodynamics, mathematics and applied engineering. It is only in recent times that such an array of highly credentialed specialists has formed to collectively critique this cornerstone of the generalist field of climatology.


      Fallacies that Require Open Debate

      Lord Monckton on blackbody radiation: >>>>>>>

      Roy Spencer on Greenhouse Theory: >>>>>>>>>

      Lindzen’s Greenhouse Gas Theory Contradicts Spencer’s >>>>>>

      No CO2 Signal in Downwelling Radiation >>>>>>


      [1.] Postma, J.E., ‘The Model Atmospheric Greenhouse Effect,’ (July 22, 2011), Principia Scientific International; Postma, J.E., ‘Copernicus Meets the Greenhouse Effect,’(Sept. 10, 2011), Principia Scientific International;Postma; J.E. Postma, ‘Understanding the Thermodynamic Atmosphere Effect,’ (March, 2011), http://www.tech-know.eu

      [2.]P. J. Gero, D.D. Turner, ‘Long-Term Trends in Downwelling Spectral Infrared Radiance over the U.S. Southern Great Plains,’ (September 2011), American Meteorological Society,Volume 24, Issue 18


      John O’Sullivan is Co-founder of Principia Scientific International

      Acknowledgements: This article is inspired by the work of Malcolm Roberts, Pierre Latour, Alan Siddons, Hans Schreuder, Tim Ball, Nasif Nahle, Martin Hertzberg, Jinan Cao, Matthias Kleespies, Claes Johnson, Gerhard Gerlich and Ralf Tscheuschner


    • Richard C (NZ) on 09/03/2012 at 8:05 pm said:

      Compendium of ‘New-Paradigm’ papers

      1909 – Professor Wood: Note on the Theory of the Greenhouse

      1998 – Ashworth: Helical Travel of Light

      2006 – Dr Beck: 180 Years accurate CO2 Gas Analysis of Air

      2008 – Professor Gerlich: Falsification of the Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects

      2010 – Alan Siddons: A Greenhouse Effect on the Moon?

      2010 – Joe Postma, MSc: Understanding the Atmosphere Effect

      2011 – Professor Nahle: Carbon dioxide free path length

      2011 – Professor Nahle: Repeating Professor Wood’s 1909 Greenhouse Experiment

      2011 – Joe Postma: The Model Atmosphere – a more Realistic Approach

      2011 – Professor Nahle: Defending Joe Bastardi against false accusations

      2011 – Prof. Alexander: Memo 09-11: More droughts ahead

      2011 – Joe Postma: Copernicus Meets the Greenhouse Effect

      2011 – Prof. Alexander: Memo 10-11: Earth-centred climatology

      2011 – Prof. Alexander: Memo 13-11: COP17 Procedures – a MUST READ!

      2011 – Dr Jinan Cao: Role of heat reservation of nitrogen and oxygen

      2011 – Dr Kleespies: A Short History of Radiation Theories

      2011 – Jef Reynen: Atmospheric absorption by IR-sensitive molecules (final version)

      2012 – Prof. Kramm: Scrutinizing the atmospheric greenhouse effect and its climatic impact

      2012 – Alberto Miatello: Why the Vacuum of Space is not Cold

      2012 – Prof. Alexander: Climate change science is an unverified hypothesis


    • Richard C (NZ) on 10/03/2012 at 1:32 pm said:

      Add the names S Fred Singer and Ferenc Miskolczi to the names Lindzen, Spencer and Monckton being taken to task on GHE Theory.

      Re Miskolczi, see 2011 – Jef Reynen: Atmospheric absorption by IR-sensitive molecules (final version) in the compendium

      Open Letter from Pierre R Latour to to Dr S Fred Singer,

      Following your excellent seminar at the University of Houston on February 6, 2012, I introduced myself, indicated Greenhouse Gas Theory (GHG) is a perpetual motion machine to drive anthropogenic global warming (AGW) violating First & Second Laws of thermodynamics, and emailed you my proof at ‘No Virginia.’

      I noticed your February 29, 2012 post ‘Climate Deniers Are Giving Us Skeptics a Bad Name’ included things you did not cover at the University of Houston:


      Third, you may be interested to learn your younger successors, whom you called skeptical deniers, are moving the debate from simply falsifying GHG Theory with data, which you have already done, to getting it right with physics and engineering. Along that path, we have discovered some striking violations of the laws of engineering in the GHG Theory. Many were reported last year in a book, Johnson, C, A Siddons, H Schreuder, T Ball, C Anderson, J O’Sullivan, et al, “Slaying the Sky Dragon”, 2011.


      Sixth, I accept the data provided by you and Roy Spencer that the sky emits infrared radiation toward the earth. Everyone knows gas scatters and emits in all directions. But this does not prove that the warmer surface absorbs all or any of the back-radiation from cold CO2 molecules, thus emitting more infrared than otherwise and heating the Earth. I took some care to describe this in English and math in my No Virginia post. If you can invalidate or validate my proof, that would help reconciliation. I recommend you brush up on absorptivity, emissivity, scatter, reflection, transmission and conversion of radiation by colorful matter.


      Ninth, since my claim and proof, supported by physicists and professors known to you, that GHG Theory incorporates a perpetual motion machine to drive global warming in perpetuity is such a momentous result, and GHG Theory is such a ridiculous and falsified theory, it is fair to say your casual dismissal with this brief paragraph is quite unscientific and an affront to the engineering profession. It behooves you to study this science more carefully. You really owe them some evidence to support your charge “their minds are closed to any such evidence” or a retraction, to restore your sterling reputation.

      Tenth, those Denier subgroups you identify in your last two post paragraphs seem well positioned and your dismissal of them was frivolous. I recommend you apply the same intellectual rigor you use to analyze UN IPCC data to any critique of your natural allies that are using well-known science and engineering to straighten out the GHG – AGW mess invented by a narrow group in the fledgling area of meteorology research. Just because we are called skeptics and deniers does not prove we are wrong. In fact you should be aware that GHG AGW promoters have publicly injected a sinister inference to the meaning of the perfectly legitimate noun denier. I trust you did not intend that unfortunate meaning. Correct science comes from the first minority to get it right and is not necessarily in the middle of the road, where one can get run over. I fear many of your followers concluded Climate Fence Sitters Are Giving Us Skeptics a Bad Name.




  3. Clarence on 08/03/2012 at 6:16 pm said:

    Parachute commenters are impressed with the engineer who has submitted evidence in the NIWA case. They quote a 2009 submission as follows:

    “I will aim to show that:

    (1) the science behind the global warming/climate change projections is not settled;
    (2) there is not a consensus among scientists;
    (3) the IPCC’s model projections are proving unsound;
    (4) the world’s climate is not responding the way it was predicted it would (it has been cooling over the past decade);
    (5) man-made CO, is not capable of affecting the climate to any noticeable degree;
    (6) the present climate variations are well within normal bounds;
    (7) even if greenhouse gases did have an effect, NZ’s contribution to greenhouse gases is negligible on an international scale anyway;
    (8) NZ has not experienced any average temperature increase since the 1870′s.
    (9) Our climate is stable and can only benefit from increased C02 levels, due to enhanced plant growth.”

    Pretty damn good good for 2009. All proved out by subsequent events.

    • Craig Thomas on 07/09/2012 at 3:14 pm said:


      Looks like all this pseudo-science waffle doesn’t wash in a court of law, where they only take account of facts.

      Looks like denialism will have to stay in the blogosphere – just doesn’t work in the real world.

  4. Craig, that’s not right. If you read the judgement, you’ll see that the judge specifically left the science alone – he didn’t even try to adjudicate it. That means he didn’t say it was right and didn’t say it was wrong – on either side. So your ungracious assertions are not supported by the judge.

    Oh, if you could please justify your expression “pseudo-science waffle” we’d get some value from your visit. You’ve got a nerve dropping in and insulting us as practitioners of “denialism”. Have we offended you in some way? Explain what we “deny”.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Post Navigation