Science says change the weather and break the country’s heart

Oh, you’re anti-science then?

The Draft Advice for Consultation was released yesterday by the Climate Change Commission on their website.

They’re advising the Government to cease fossil-fuelled imports, including petrol and diesel cars, by 2032. They do this without stating the cost of it and, which startled me, without stating how much we would reduce the temperature of the climate or exactly how we would change the weather, though these two things are apparently precisely what we’re aiming to do. This strikes me, initially at least, as moronic. When I read further, I’ll have more to say.

This “climate change” advice refers to New Zealand as ‘Aotearoa’ 1, as though some decision was taken to change the country’s name, but at least they still call us New Zealanders.

Abel Tasman called the land he had discovered Staten Landt, believing it might be linked to a Staten Landt close to Cape Horn, discovered in 1616 by another Dutch navigator, Jacob Le Maire. In 1643, Hendrik Brouwer showed that Le Maire’s Staten Landt was a small island, and not the eastern edge of an undiscovered continent. Subsequently, Joan Blaeu, official Dutch cartographer to the Dutch East India Company, conferred the name Nieuw Zeeland (Nova Zeelandia in Latin) on the land Tasman had discovered. Zeeland was one of two maritime provinces in the Netherlands; Australia was already known to the Dutch as New Holland. ‘Nieuw Zeeland’ stuck. — Encyclopedia of New Zealand


Hits: 1144

  1. The disparate, warring Maori tribes had no concept of nation and it’s inconceivable that the stone-age savages who routinely enslaved, killed and even ate their defeated kinsmen after battle would spontaneously unify. The Stone Age society encountered by our British forebears on entering Nieuw Zeeland had ended in Europe, or its equivalent had ended, more than 5000 years before in the Bronze Age. But the Maoris knew no such useful metal. There was every reason to expect that British law, language and religion would provide substantial improvement for the native way of life, and so it has proven. There is no reason now to construct a romantic notion of prehistoric wisdom apparently superior to our scientific British heritage, because patently it was not. Scholarship shows the meaning of the term Aotearoa is indistinct, its history vague and its usage seemingly sparked by Pakeha writers only late in the 19th Century. It’s widely used now as the ‘indigenous’ term for the whole country — though historically the natives never participated in a nation. Anyway, it’s just not our country’s name.

61 Thoughts on “Science says change the weather and break the country’s heart

  1. Mack on 03/02/2021 at 4:57 am said:

    “….but at least they still call us New Zealanders”

    You don’t even hear that, much any more, RT Now it’s “kiwis” who live in Aotearoa . That’s the PC jargon.

    • Richard Treadgold on 03/02/2021 at 9:26 am said:

      That’s true, Mack. It’s more informal, which we like.

  2. Mary Mac on 03/02/2021 at 10:45 am said:

    The American Geophysical Union (AGU) “is dedicated to the advancement of geophysics, uniting Earth, atmospheric, oceanic, hydrologic, space, and planetary scientists. AGU provides a forum through top-ranked scientific journals, world-renowned meetings and conferences, and scientific committees.”

    AGU states, “Society must address the growing climate crisis now. Human activities are changing Earth’s climate, causing increasingly disruptive societal and ecological impacts. Such impacts are creating hardships and suffering now, and will continue to do so.

    “To achieve this goal, global society must promptly reduce its greenhouse gas emissions.”

    • Brian Wilson on 03/02/2021 at 12:11 pm said:

      Yup,
      AGU, – Yao et al 2020. Central Asia warmer 1000 years ago,
      AGU – Lachniet et al., 2020 North American 2 degrees c warmer than today
      AGU – Wycech et al 2020. Non-warming Eastern Equatorial Pacific Sea Surface Temperatures
      AGU – Wangner et al 2020 Greenland warmer than today 1920’s to 1940’s
      AGU – Lenaerts et al 2020 Cloud climate influence – hint, it is way more influential than CO2
      AGU – Cardenas et al., 2020 Life thriving in sea water that has CO2 levels in excess of 70,000 ppm from volcanic vents.

      Take the blue pill, drink the Kool – Aid, take the money, sit in a quiet corner and do what big brother tells you.

  3. Brian Wilson on 03/02/2021 at 12:32 pm said:

    And from the AGU 2020 Fall Meeting:
    Liang Zhao – Solar influence on monsoon precipitation.
    Ziniu Xiao – The pathways through which solar activity impacts Earth’s climate
    Limin Zhou – Correlation between solar wind speed and sea surface temperatures.

    So who’s kidding who? The AGU clearly want to have their cake and eat it.

  4. Mack on 03/02/2021 at 1:26 pm said:

    The American Geophysical Union (AGU) subscribes to Kevin Trenberth’s looney Earth Energy Budget diagrams., Mary Mac. The “forum through top-ranked scientific journals, world-renowned meetings and conferences, and scientific committees” are all wrong in the science. Here’s the looney EEB diagrams….

    https://www.google.com.mm/search?q=Trenberth+Earth+Energy+budget+diagrams&tbm=isch&source=iu&ictx=1&fir=hCpE1s7_Ol01XM%253A%252COze_42a0Rv2lnM%252C_&vet=1&usg=AI4_-kTL3LzB3Domzs_TU1pOTCzlL22GQg&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiDiYTE993jAhUyjuYKHe4dCMQQ9QEwBnoECAMQDw

    Here’s one in particular which I like singling out….
    https://www.google.com.mm/search?q=Trenberth+Earth+Energy+budget+diagrams&tbm=isch&source=iu&ictx=1&fir=hCpE1s7_Ol01XM%253A%252COze_42a0Rv2lnM%252C_&vet=1&usg=AI4_-kTL3LzB3Domzs_TU1pOTCzlL22GQg&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiDiYTE993jAhUyjuYKHe4dCMQQ9QEwBnoECAMQDw#imgrc=kTUaxU-Qu6d-xM

    I’ve already answered to you, just recently, but obviously the message hasn’t sunk in. Here it is again..
    https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/2020/04/climate-rebuttals-to-crack-the-activist-grip-on-our-mind/#comment-1567848

    In particular reference to that 2nd link of the EEB diagram , here…
    https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/2020/04/climate-rebuttals-to-crack-the-activist-grip-on-our-mind/#comment-1567856

    So , Mary Mac. the “deep state” is a lot more deep than you expect. Anybody whose pay-packet is reliant on the government is, wittingly or unwittingly ,part of the deep state. If you do not subscribe (confess) to the belief of AGW you are likely to lose your job, be deplatformed , and ostracised by colleagues and friends. There has now also become an unholy alliance between the deep state and private enterprise… the private sector going along with the AGW myth to virtue signal and assuage their guilty consciences ,especially if they are energy companies. The public pressure has just become too great, with the kids protesting and the various NGO’s ,consultants etc whose existance relies upon AGW belief, constantly lobbying the politicians. You get the insanity of the government declaring a “climate change crisis”…reporters saying “runaway catastrophic climate change”.
    Over in the US we have the spectre of a President (Trump) being the most hated and vilified president in history….. because he was a denier. Even the world leaders despised him… you could see it at the international gatherings… they would huddle together and exclude him. Even the great white, believing boffin, Boris, who is supposed to be the No 1 US friend and ally and all that bullshit.
    And then the little mummy boy, socialist, Macron, tried to out-grip him in the handshakes.
    There is now a crisis in democracy itself….with an obviously criminally rigged election issuing in a corrupt illegitimate, unsound of mind, Biden. The looney believing left have taken over the world’s largest “democracy.”

    • Brian Wilson on 03/02/2021 at 1:49 pm said:

      And from the AGU’s own journals:

      Muñoz et al., 2020  Illinois (USA) 13.5°C during 1870-2018, 17.1°C from CE 1000-1600

      Harning eta l., 2020 Geological records show Iceland was historically “2.5 to 3 °C above the late 20th century average”
      Allan and Allan, 2020  Southern Hemisphere: More cooling than warming from 1900-2018
      Zhang et al., 2020  East China Sea “an overall cooling trend over the past three centuries “
      Bozkurt et al., 2020  Antarctic’s Larsen Ice Shelf cooling -1.1°C/decade since 1991
      Obryk et al., 2020  East Antarctica cooling since 1986
      Gehrels et al., 2020 Lack Of Anthropogenic/CO2 Signal In Sea Level Rise
      Toyokuni et al., 2020 Greenland’s underground thermal activity drives changes
      Scafetta, 2020 – 60 year cycle of Earth’s climate driven by planetary oscillations
      Kotsuki et al., 2020. Unsettled science and failed climate modeling

      Morrison et al., 2020. Confronting the challenge of modeling cloud and precipitation microphysics

  5. Mary Mac on 03/02/2021 at 3:03 pm said:

    You idiots couldn’t make sense of a dinner menu.

    It’s over. Science has won.

    The cranks have lost. Accept it. Reality.

  6. Brian Wilson on 03/02/2021 at 3:04 pm said:

    So Mary Mac – Sorry, Queen of Sheba, what would you say were the signs of the climate emergency? What has actually happened that would lead someone to conclude that there actually is an emergency. Please list some, or all, of the indications that this is happening. You never know, you might just change my mind.

  7. Mary Mac on 03/02/2021 at 3:04 pm said:

    You idiots couldn’t make sense of a dinner menu.

    It’s over. Science has won.

    Accept it. Reality.

  8. Mary Mac on 03/02/2021 at 3:08 pm said:

    Of course I can’t change your mind.

    Even the RS, NAS, AAAS, APS, ACS etc etc etc can’t get through your thick skull.

    You don’t see the woods for the trees.

    • Brian Wilson on 03/02/2021 at 5:54 pm said:

      Hi Mary Mac,

      Well, you quoted the AGU. It’s not my fault their own published papers destroyed your argument.

    • Mack on 04/02/2021 at 2:31 am said:

      “You don’t see the woods for the trees”

      You don’t see the wood for the trees, Mary….. wood.

      Which is pretty much what your hero’s at RS, NAS, AAAS, APS, ACS etc etc etc can’t see.
      None of them can see a huge lump of wood the size of an elephant in the proverbial room.
      All of them say, when talking about the “greenhouse effect”….. “If the Earth didn’t have an atmosphere then the temperature would be blah, blah, blah”…” These supposedly intelligent “scientists” begin with this piece of primer school, doodling on the blackboard, unreal, thoughtless, insane, speculative, thought process. Separating the atmosphere away from the ocean…. then start talking about the temperature of the atmosphere, which is what the GAT is… what the “global warming” thermometers measure….WITHOUT considering the temperature of the water beneath. Sorry, if you consider the GAT then the oceans are part of the “atmosphere”. Temperature-wise, in reality, inseparable.
      “An Earth with no atmosphere !!!” is what these clowns try to argue. They say….”IF the Earth didn’t have an atmosphere…..” !!!
      They collectively, all need their asses firmly kicked.

  9. Andrew on 03/02/2021 at 5:02 pm said:

    Socialism was once described to me as “a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and thought process / exchange of ideas should be owned or regulated by Government”. This govt is definitely living up to that definition!
    I never thought I would live long enough to see politicians’ “tax / regulate” the very air we breathe (out)! I never thought that one persons “nuclear free moment” would come at the expense of our “freedoms to live”! It has been signaled (by the PM) that the “tentacles of the State” (my words) are going to significantly impact our lives over the next 10-20yrs! We won’t have gas in our homes, or in restaurants, or for BBQ’s (so it looks like camping is off)! We won’t be able to drive petrol or diesel cars! We will be forced to use EV’s despite the cost, despite the issues around mining of lithium oxide & its inability to recycle. There are many more examples of pending State interference! All for what benefit?
    We can have the debates on this website & people can believe in AGW or not or that CO2 & CH4 are the evils of this world, it doesn’t really matter as the real evil are the Labour & Green Govt who are running this country right now – they are evil and are the enemy in my mind! With the mechanism of classic socialism Jacinda Ardern has “won” the people over! It works like this, create a problem, repeat it often enough, demonstrate the risks if you do nothing (usually vastly exaggerated) & then tell us how (the State)is going to fix it (with our tax money of course!) Nearly 60% of people fell for that trick at the last election!

    What is important now is that the State has signaled very clearly their intention to influence the way we lead our lives – ALL OF OUR LIVES – within the next few years & beyond! Remember Animal Farm anyone???
    A German vicar, Martin Niemöller, once said:
    “First they came for the Communists
    And I did not speak out
    Because I was not a Communist
    Then they came for the Socialists
    And I did not speak out
    Because I was not a Socialist
    Then they came for the trade unionists
    And I did not speak out
    Because I was not a trade unionist
    Then they came for the Jews
    And I did not speak out
    Because I was not a Jew
    Then they came for me
    And there was no one left
    To speak out for me”
    You can replace the names with anything you want but right now, “Farmers, Climate change ‘deniers’, capitalists, freedom of speech are in this govts sights & it is exactly what is happening to us right now & over the next 10 – 20yrs!!
    Sadly the ‘woke’media, National party are doing jack s%^t to stop it & won’t until it is too late or there is no-one left to speak out!
    Interestingly, try starting this sort of conversation at a dinner party & people will laugh at you, but remember the Govt has told us what they plan to do to fix “Climate Change” – so let’s stop them!! The fact that there is no proven cause associated with CC is irrelevant & will be lost on the ‘Mary Macs’ of the world!
    I am up for the fight – are you?
    Cheers Andrew

    • Brian Wilson on 03/02/2021 at 8:12 pm said:

      Hi Andrew,

      Damn right I am up for a fight. We cannot leave our future to the science deniers and the clearly clueless army of useful idiots who insist on quoting pseudoscience as if it is real and proven.
      – Prior to 2020 the IPCC refuse to acknowledge particle forcing plays a part in climate change
      – In 2020 the IPCC finally bow to the growing weight of scientific evidence and will now include particle forcing in all new climate assessments after 2022.
      – Essentially this is the IPCC admitting they were wrong and the science is not settled.
      – It also means that all IPCC climate assessments are out of date and invalid, including the 2022 report that is not yet published.
      – All climate assessments based on this out of date IPCC model, including the NZ Climate Commission, are also invalid, by the IPCC’s own admission.
      – It also means that anyone who claims that the science is settled and the 97% consensus, is clearly brainwashed, not in possession of all the facts or is truly one of the useful idiots.

  10. Mary Mac on 03/02/2021 at 5:44 pm said:

    Of course, Andrew, the science accepted by every scientific society and institution on the planet is just wrong.

    The scientists who produce the evidence, explain the science, and review it, don’t actually understand it. Or is it that they’ll are in a vast conspiracy orchestrated by willy politicians.

    It’s those with no real qualifications in the field whatsoever who “understand” it. Yeah Nah. Crazy.

    • Richard Treadgold on 03/02/2021 at 10:48 pm said:

      Mary Mac,

      Your argument is non-existent. Instead of wasting time speculating why the scientists believe in a human cause of dangerous warming, just ask them to tell you the evidence. The fact they don’t reveal it is plain to see, we don’t have to figure out why. Every public project proceeds on the basis of evidence, a reason, an aim, someone paints a picture of what we’ll get out of it. The picture of DAGW is nonsensical.

    • Rick on 03/02/2021 at 11:32 pm said:

      “Or is it that they’ll are in a vast conspiracy orchestrated by willy politicians.”

      Ha, ha, ha! What are “willy politicians”? The mind boggles. But at least Jacinda Ardern can’t be accused of being one of them. (Can she?)

    • Andrew on 04/02/2021 at 8:08 am said:

      Crazy is right Mary!! Having worked in the Agricultural Science sector (many years ago) funding for research was contested!! Simplistically, if a Scientist put up a favourable project they would get funding & keep their jobs! so i could get funding for any project that fits with the Govt ideology that cows help to cause global warming, if you wanted to show the opposite then you wouldn’t get funding – so no job!!

      It isn’t a conspiracy orchestrated by politicians – it is factual otherwise pollies would listen to likes of Dr Tim Ball & others who have proven much of the IPCC data to be falsified, they would listen to those who say ruminant emissions are not causing climate change, also why isn’t green pasture included as a credit in the Zero carbon bill – because the govt doesnt want it to because they don’t understand basic science eg the carbon cycle!

  11. Juglans Nigra on 03/02/2021 at 9:54 pm said:

    O.K.
    This is another calculation-light comment to chew over:
    https://electroverse.net/33-bullet-points-proving-global-warming-is-caused-by-the-sun-not-co2/

    33 Simple Bullet Points proving ‘Global Warming’ is caused by the Sun, not CO2 — by a geologist
    February 2, 2021 Cap Allon

    Dr Roger Higgs (DPhil geology, Oxford, 1982-86)
    Geoclastica Ltd and ResearchGate

    Any thoughts on the coherence of Higgs’ summary?

    My concern is points 24 and 26 with the link back to 12A; (thermal expansion of the oceans ? )
    ” “The last period which showed similar high activity and also lasted as long as the current one was about 1700 years ago” (Steinhilber et al. 2008). That particular ~300AD GM caused warming (and drove a global 2-3m sea-level rise, the ‘Romano-British Transgression’, portending another such rise imminently (Bullet 24).”

    Are there some cross-references on these older sea level shifts which eliminate glacial rebound and tectonic plate edge movements as the drivers ? Just thinking of events such as the 1931 Napier uplift (2+ metres) and Wairarapa / Hutt uplift ( where the highway is now ) and Kaikoura uplift 2016 (1 to 2 metres ) .

    Otherwise; hey the guy is a geologist so probably has considered those details.

  12. Ross on 03/02/2021 at 10:20 pm said:

    Brian did you give fenix an up tick

  13. Brian Wilson on 05/02/2021 at 10:21 am said:

    There is a standard equation that is used by all “climate scientists” to work out the Earth’s temperature. They take the total solar irradiance entering the Earth’s climate system, factor in albedo and use the Stefan – Boltzmann law to figure out the Earth’s ideal surface temperature. 4√(1361×0.7)/(4 x 5.67×10 to the power of -8). For this purpose Earth’s albedo is “estimated” at 30%, the x0.7 figure (there is a problem immediately as the ability to properly account for the effects of cloud cover has been well documented over the past couple of years by such institutions as Princeton, Harvard, Yale, Kobe University and Turku University to name but a few. There is also the problem identified by Dale University that shows cold air rises in the tropics due to a water vapour buoyancy effect that completely messes up the traditional thinking about the adiabatic lapse rate). The 4 x the Stefan Boltzmann equation is the factor used to take in to account the spherical nature of the Earth and essentially turns it in to a flat disc. REALLY???!!!!!! The answer is then taken as the 4th root. The result is a temperature of -18c. According to NASA, the greenhouse effect then adds 33 c to this and gives us a global average temperature of 15 c. Now, put your faith in the establishment. So how come UCAR can take the same equation and come up with a base temperature of -19.5 c? They state the albedo is 31% and not 30%. The problem of clouds!!! They then state that the greenhouse effect adds 34 c not 33 c, meaning a global base temperature of 14.5 c. And I thought this was settled science? Then NASA contradict themselves on another web page stating the average surface temperature should be 14 c. So which is it, 14 c, 14.5 c or 15 c? On what planet is this settled science?? If you cannot accurately establish a base temperature, you can’t establish if warming is outside normal limits. After all, the temperature has always gone up and down and the differences in these figures is the entire so called warming. Global average temperature at the end of January 2021 is 14.56 c, pretty much in the middle. The other problem with the temperature equation is that it assumes the Earth is a perfect black body and so omits a correction for this. If the earth were a perfect black body, the correction would be 1 and therefore would not affect the final answer. So it is perfectly reasonable to leave this out. But it isn’t a perfect black body. However, adding a correction means the base temperature rises and reduces the influence of the greenhouse effect. It would go from 33 c, or 34 c, or what ever other figure the “settled” science comes up with, to a total greenhouse effect of around 12 c. Now we can’t have that as it means the panic is over. The 14.56 c is NASA satellite data. This is also a temperature drop of 0.28 c in 2 months. No matter how often some people put their fingers in their ears, stamp their feet and yell “I’m not listening” over and over, this is real SCIENCE.

    To some of you out there –
    – Why is the world so dark and why does it smell so bad?
    – That’s how you see the world when your head is stuck up your own backside

    Right, I am away to work on a PC2 laboratory project for the next few weeks. Real scientists doing real work not politically motivated sciolists in it for the $$’s.

    • Rick on 16/02/2021 at 1:14 pm said:

      Hi Brian,

      Those are some interesting thoughts and observations on the ‘standard equation that is used by all “climate scientists” to work out the Earth’s temperature’. I think your point about their determination of the earth’s albedo being loose enough to easily cover any variations in surface temperature due to changes in albedo is absolutely true. (Isn’t post-normal ‘climate science’ wonderfully replete with wiggle-room? There’s always enough to enable one to saw a lady in half long-ways without shedding a drop of her blood or disturbing her hair-do.)

      It’s quite a few years now since I discovered that the tenets of IPCC ‘climate science’ have mostly been written by people with the mentality of lawyers rather than that of scientists and I have taken it as a strict injunction ever since to always look at the small print in whatever it is that they are saying, because that is where the most critically important information is normally hidden.

      In the case of the ‘standard equation’ to which you referred, the ‘small print’ tells me that that equation does not refer to the actual surface temperature of the planet, but only to the planet’s so-called ‘effective temperature’, which is a purely abstract, theoretical concept borrowed from astronomers who wanted to calculate the surface temperatures of stars and other self-luminous celestial bodies from measurements of their radiances. It may surprise a lot of people to learn that, in fact, climate science – even the genuine sort – still has no standard equation or formula by which one could calculate the actual surface temperature of the planet from prior established principles. However, it does, of course, have hundreds of models which purport to be able to do this but which all disagree with one another about it, so none of them can be taken as standard.

      Therefore, anyone who seriously wants to know what the actual surface temperature of the planet really is has no option but to measure it – empirically that is, or by observation, in other words. But therein lies another can of worms, which I won’t open right now so as to avoid digressing.

      I think the concept of the planet’s effective temperature, in spite of being purely theoretical, may be of some practical usefulness in genuine climate science though, because it represents the maximum possible surface temperature that a planet’s output of radiation could sustain if the planet was an ideal black body and its surface radiance was distributed perfectly evenly all over the surface.

      The first of these two conditions is met approximately on earth: the surface does possess an emissivity of almost 1 (the emissivity of an ideal black body) pretty-well everywhere for the infra-red wavelengths on which the surface is radiating. But the second condition is definitely not met, because the intensity of the surface radiance varies tremendously from one area of the surface to another, so it is very far from being evenly distributed. I think this variability presents a major headache for genuine climate science and an even bigger headache for climate alarmism. Let me explain that.

      The problem for genuine climate science lies in the fact that in order to calculate the planet’s actual global mean surface temperature from a knowledge of the radiation being emitted from it, just knowing the total, or average amount of radiation being emitted would not be sufficient and we would need to know the exact distribution of radiances all over the planetary surface as well. But we never can know that distribution because we simply cannot observe it on the global scale that is required and because it is continually shifting and changing anyway. Consequently, we are completely unable to calculate the actual surface temperature of our planet from what we currently know about the properties of its surface radiation. I think it follows that anyone who claims to be able to do it must be either mistaken or lying, or perhaps both.

      The problem for the climate alarmists here though, lies hidden in the fact that the planet’s effective temperature represents the maximum possible temperature that it’s given overall output of surface radiation can support, because it means that any unevenness in the distribution of surface radiance must result in a global mean surface temperature that is lower than the ideal effective temperature. (This is an unavoidable effect of the law of averages combined with the Stefan-Boltzmann law that relates surface radiances to their corresponding temperatures.) Since there are always some quite extreme differences between the radiances of different regions and areas of the globe, the actual global mean surface temperature is always considerably lower than the ideal effective temperature of the surface. So when we hear alarmists saying that the surface temperature of the Earth without a greenhouse atmosphere would be –18⁰C or thereabouts, we can be sure that that figure is wrong and the true figure must be even lower than that, although how much lower we cannot tell.

      But that is still not the alarmists’ main problem. Their main, potentially devastating problem here is the implication of this ‘variability condition’ that the actual global mean surface temperature automatically increases when the distribution of surface radiances becomes more even and automatically decreases as the distribution becomes more uneven without any increase or decrease of overall surface radiance being required to produce the temperature-change.

      So here is yet another alternative planetary warming/cooling principle which IPCC ‘climate scientists’ have overlooked and ignored up to now, along with solar wind particles, gravitational interactions with other celestial bodies, changes in geothermal energies and many others. And yet they pretend that they have covered all the possibilities. How shabby of them. And how thin the scientific ice on which they are so pretentiously skating.

  14. Tricky Dicky on 06/02/2021 at 9:43 am said:

    For those of you interested, head over to https://notrickszone.com/ and down load the e-book , The Rational Climate e-Book. It is 451 pages, so anyone who is jealous of the attention span of a goldfish need not bother. Just on a quick browse – I obviously haven’t had time to read it yet – it is full of great information and real science. Tellingly: “The «greenhouse» concept is probably the only one in physics for which we have several different definitions, none of them matching the others.” In other words, not science and certainly not settled science. And, just an aside, if we apply some of these greenhouse energy calculations to the Moon, we find it has a greenhouse forcing of 12 c – WITH NO ATMOSPHERE. How does that happen?

  15. Mack on 16/02/2021 at 9:09 pm said:

    Hi Brian and Rick,

    It’s simpler than that.
    The solar wattage at the Earth’s surface is 340 watts/sq.m….. not the 161,163,168 watts /sq.m. as depicted in Trenberth’s wacko Earth Energy Budget diagrams. Argued about here…
    https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/2020/04/climate-rebuttals-to-crack-the-activist-grip-on-our-mind/#comment-1567848
    and https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/2020/04/academic-tells-us-to-use-maori-stars-for-planning/#comment-1567909

    It’s been almost a decade since I’ve been made aware of this” situation” (horrendous mistake, disaster for science) by the Mexican biologist, Nasif Nahle who commented directly to me ,here…
    https://jennifermarohasy.com/2011/04/radiative-transfer-according-to-agw-a-note-from-neutrino/#comment-480201

    Slot that 340 watts/sq.m into the Stephan Boltzmann equation… but using a total Earth’s absorptivity/emissivity of 0.82….which was explained directly to me, by Nasif Nahle, here….
    https://jennifermarohasy.com/2011/04/radiative-transfer-according-to-agw-a-note-from-neutrino/#comment-480389
    and you come up with about 19 deg C. ….. then, also subtract the atmospheric solar attenuation, (clouds, vapour, particulates, gases, etc) which is about 20 watts/sq.m …will bring you right down to the global average temperature of about 15 deg C.
    The Stephan- Boltzmann equation will explain the temperature of any surface provided the right numbers are used
    For the Earth, there’s no “greenhouse effect” therefore required.
    Didn’t Einstein say something like… if you can’t explain it simply, you must be wrong ?

    • Rick on 17/02/2021 at 12:39 pm said:

      I don’t know, Mack. You suggest that Nasif can demonstrate a derivation of the actual global mean surface temperature being 15⁰C and you provide four linked references to support that suggestion. But when I clicked on those links I could not find any explanations or supporting arguments for the assertions he makes. He seems to just assert them, dogmatically, as existential facts.

      For example, his assertion at your third link that the insolation to the Earth at ground level is 340 W/m² (Watts per square metre) appears completely unexplained and arbitrary to me. Likewise, his assertion at your fourth link that Earth’s total absorptivity/emissivity is 0.82 also appears completely unsubstantiated to me and, for all I can tell, it could just be a made-up figure that provides a convenient pretext for declaring that the global mean surface temperature must be about 15⁰C. I’m not seeing any scientific arguments here.

      I don’t think that Nasif’s unsubstantiated assertions disprove, or obviate the greenhouse effect either. The greenhouse effect looks like a well-established principle of conventional physics to me. In order to disprove its existence you would need to disprove the existence of greenhouse substances (e.g. CO2 and water vapour) in the atmosphere and I don’t see how anyone could do that.

      Obviating the greenhouse effect seems an entirely different proposition to my eyes though. That seems perfectly possible to me, by identifying a counteracting principle that offsets or neutralises the consistently warming effect of the greenhouse effect. Since the greenhouse effect is a positive feedback to surface warming, I think the counteracting principle for which we would be looking must be some kind of negative feedback. The complete water-cycle (i.e. not just one phase of it) looks like the most in-your-face obvious candidate for the job to me.

  16. Mack on 17/02/2021 at 9:23 pm said:

    Thank you for your reply, Rick,

    “The greenhouse effect looks like a well-established principle of conventional physics to me”

    Yes, but I would say that is because you are too young to be brought up in a world where the “greenhouse effect” and notably “greenhouse gases” was not even common knowledge. It wasn’t taught at primary school, secondary school, or even university. I took physics in secondary school and even physics 101 at university….and….never heard of it. It wasn’t “conventional physics” back then. It would have been an hypothesis, which was understood to have been soundly experimentally refuted by by R.W Woods at the turn of last century, therefore, sensibly, not in the educational curriculum.
    I was 2 years out of University before I heard about “greenhouse gases”, so naturally became pretty querulous, inquisitive and sceptical about humans WARMING the planet ! !

    I expected you to be more curious, Rick, and not just read those 2 comments to me by Nasif Nahle.
    In isolation , yes, they do seem just like “assertions that look completely unsubstantiated”. But you must read the whole argument , that lasted for months, during which I was present from beginning to end.
    Here it is for you , read chronologically, Rick …
    https://jennifermarohasy.com/author/nasif-s-nahle/

    On the other hand, just before reading all that science presented by Nasif Nahle…. you can probably get a little sort of summary of it all …. by seeing what I’ve said to Roy Spencer, here…
    http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/05/time-for-the-slayers-to-put-up-or-shut-up/#comment-78670
    Enjoy the read, Rick. Don’t hesitate to get back to me if there’s anything troubling about that.

    • Rick on 19/02/2021 at 12:44 pm said:

      Mack,

      You say the reason for my saying that the greenhouse effect looks like a well-established principle of conventional physics to me ‘is because you are too young to be brought up in a world where the “greenhouse effect” and notably “greenhouse gases” was not even common knowledge.’

      I don’t know where you got that idea from, Mack. I’m now in my seventies!

      The reason why I said what I did about the greenhouse effect is because I think I understand the principle of it and how that accords with the existing laws and principles of conventional physics. If anyone can see something wrong with my understanding of any of those things then I’d be grateful if they would point it out to me so that I can correct it, but no-one has done that yet so I’m sticking with the understanding that I’ve already got for the time being.

      Just to be clear and for the sake of the record, my understanding of the greenhouse effect is that it is the surface warming effect of so-called ‘greenhouse substances’ in a planet’s atmosphere (which are usually gases such as CO2 and water vapour, but not always gases because other atmospheric substances, such as some aerosols for instance, may also exert a greenhouse effect on the surface).

      ‘Greenhouse substances’ are any atmospheric substances which possess the two special optical properties of being relatively transparent to incoming shortwave radiation from space (principally the Sun) on the one hand and of being relatively opaque to outgoing longwave radiation from the surface on the other. The first property enables greenhouse substances to admit incoming sunlight to the surface to warm it and the second property enables them to capture some of the energy of outgoing surface radiation and recycle some of that energy back to the surface to warm it further.

      It is the combination of these two special optical properties which causes the ‘greenhouse substances’ to exert a warming ‘greenhouse effect’ upon the planet’s surface and no substance can be a ‘greenhouse substance’ if it does not have both of them. Oxygen and nitrogen, for examples, both have the first property but not the second, so they are not ‘greenhouse substances’ and they cannot cause a ‘greenhouse effect’. Similarly, soot-particles in the atmosphere have the second property but not the first, so they are not ‘greenhouse substances’ and they cannot cause a ‘greenhouse effect’ either. CO2, water vapour, CH4 and SO2, on the other hand, are ‘greenhouse substances’ because they do have both properties and so they do cause a ‘greenhouse effect’ and cannot help doing so.

      ‘I expected you to be more curious, Rick, and not just read those 2 comments to me by Nasif Nahle.’

      I didn’t just read those 2 comments. I read all 4 of the items at your links but only those 2 comments related specifically to Nasif Nahle’s purported derivation of Earth’s actual surface temperature which I had been discussing, so those were the only ones that I mentioned.

      ‘In isolation , yes, they do seem just like “assertions that look completely unsubstantiated”.’

      I think that’s because they are completely unsubstantiated, Mack. Not only that, but I also think they are wrong.

      I think his figure of 340 W/sq.m for average incident solar radiation at the surface is wrong because it takes no account of absorption and reflection by clouds and other atmospheric contents on the way in. Dr Spencer pointed this error out to you seven years ago in his reply to your comment at the last link you gave me (here: http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/05/time-for-the-slayers-to-put-up-or-shut-up/#comment-78681 ). You made no response to it that I could see. Yet still you recommend Nasif Nahle’s 340 W/sq.m figure to me as though it is correct when it is patently obvious to me that it is not.

      I’m afraid just that one uncorrected error is enough to throw his whole calculation of the global mean surface temperature into serious doubt, at least in my mind.

      Regarding his figure of 0.82 for the ‘total Earth’s absorptivity/emissivity’ as you described it in your previous comment but one above, I’m afraid that also looks wrong to me. I believe the correct figure for that can be calculated quite easily as (1 – Albedo), which comes out to about 0.7 if you accept NASA’s figure for Earth’s albedo of about 0.3.

      However, if 0.82 is meant to represent just the average absorptivity/emissivity of the surface on infra-red wavelengths, then I think it may be correct without checking it, which I do not have the time to do right now. In that case, I wouldn’t expect it to make much difference to the outcome of your calculation if you use that figure instead of the commonly-used black-body figure of 1, so I won’t dispute it – at least, not now at any rate.

      So, let’s take a look at your calculation of the global mean surface temperature using Nasif’s method and figures which you described in your earlier reply to me at February 16, 9:09pm as follows:

      ‘Slot that 340 watts/sq.m into the Stephan Boltzmann equation… but using a total Earth’s absorptivity/emissivity of 0.82….which was explained to me…(etc.)

      …and you come up with about 19 deg C. ….. then, also subtract the atmospheric solar attenuation, (clouds, vapour, particulates, gases, etc) which is about 20 watts/sq.m …will bring you right down to the global average temperature of about 15 deg C.’

      Let me see if I can replicate that.

      Step 1: ‘Slot that 340 watts/sq.m into the Stephan Boltzmann equation… but using a total Earth’s absorptivity/emissivity of 0.82…. …and you come up with about 19 deg C.’

      Confirmed. I got 19.26 degC.

      Step 2: ‘then, also subtract the atmospheric solar attenuation, (clouds, vapour, particulates, gases, etc) which is about 20 watts/sq.m’

      Not possible, Mack. You cannot subtract watts/sq.m from degC – it doesn’t make sense. You can only subtract one quantity of watts/sq.m from another quantity of watts/sq.m. Perhaps you meant that I should subtract the 20 watts/sq.m of ‘atmospheric attenuation’ from the 340 watts/sq.m of supposed surface insolation and recalculate the Stefan-Boltzmann function accordingly? In that case, I can confirm that the calculation does come out to about 15 degC. (I got 14.87 degC.)

      The whole calculation is still bunk though, I’m afraid, because it does not take proper account of the albedo (which virtually all authorities say is about 0.3, although without hiring a satellite observation system and taking the appropriate measurements, I could not personally vouch for that figure).

      The ‘albedo’ is the planet’s reflectivity and its numerical value represents the fraction of incoming radiant power that the planet reflects straight back out to space without absorbing it. So, if you have 340 W/sq.m coming in from space at the top of the atmosphere (as sunlight), the contents of the atmosphere that it encounters on the way in and the surface itself when it gets there will reflect 0.3×340, which equals 102 Watts/sq.m, straight back out into space again, thereby leaving you with only 238 Watts/sq.m to be absorbed by the surface and atmosphere together. And since the atmosphere will absorb some finite fraction of that 238 W/sq.m of incoming power as it passes through, the amount of incoming power that finally gets absorbed by the surface will necessarily be less than 238 Watts/sq.m accordingly. In other words, that 238 Watts/sq.m must be the maximum possible amount of incoming power of solar radiation which the surface can absorb and be warmed by.

      Now, if I plug that value into the Stefan-Boltzmann formula for converting radiance into temperature, still using Lasif’s 0.82 value for absorptivity/emissivity at the surface, this yields a global mean surface temperature of about –6 degC (more precisely –5.68 degC, according to my Excel spreadsheet). I think you will agree that this figure differs from NASA’s estimate of +15 degC by a significantly wide margin. No?

      So I’m sorry, Mack, but it seems to me that ‘putting the correct numbers into the Stephan-Boltzmann formula’, as you say we should do, only demonstrates that Nasif Nahle’s method of calculating the global mean surface temperature without the aid of a supplementary warming mechanism such as the greenhouse effect doesn’t really work. He can only make it seem to work by ignoring the planet’s albedo and that’s cheating.

      ‘But you must read the whole argument , that lasted for months,… (etc.)’

      No thanks, Mack. I have already read enough of the collected works of Nasif Nahle to know that I don’t need to read any more.

  17. Mack on 20/02/2021 at 2:16 am said:

    Rick,
    Well, there was certainly no hesitation in getting back to me.

    “……and how that accords with the existing laws and principles of conventional physics”

    Actually, no, it doesn’t accord with existing laws of conventional physics. It doesn’t accord with the 2nd Law of thermodynamics …. that energy always travels one way, from hotter to colder.

    “……my understanding of the greenhouse effect is that it is the surface warming effect of so called “greenhouse substances” in a planet’s atmosphere…..”

    Nothing in the atmosphere warms the surface. There is no “warming” of the Earth’s surface by anything in the atmosphere. The Sun warms the surface. The atmosphere cools the surface.

    “…….substances which possess the two special optical properties of being relatively transparent to incoming short wave radiation from space….. and of being relatively opaque to out going long-wave radiation from the surface…..”

    Now you’re lapsing into sciency sounding verbal sophistry……”optical properties”. …. “transparent” and “opaque”. Transparent and opaque…. lovely, easy sciency sounding words but what exactly do they mean. Where’s the scientific explanation and quantitative scientific numeracy pertaining to them ?
    “Transparent in (coming)” … “Opaque out (going)” Whereabouts , can we define as “in” .? whereabouts is “out” ? What is the space between air molecules…..Space also exists down around your tootsies as well as 100 km above the Earth’s surface.
    There really is only one concept…. energy continuously comes from the Sun ; strikes an object and is converted to heat which just dissipates to space….space being all throughout the atmosphere; just more so the further up you go.
    My guess is that you are a retired secondary school science teacher?

    “…… and the second property enables them to capture some of the energy of surface radiation”.

    “Capture”… capture ? ? another verbal sophistry. Good luck with the “capture” of radiation travelling at the speed of light.

    “…… and recycle some of that energy back to the surface to warm it further”

    Wow, that’s Koolaid guzzling stuff, Rick.
    Recycling of Heat in the Atmosphere is Impossible.
    https://jennifermarohasy.com/2011/03/recycling-of-heat-in-the-atmosphere-is-impossible/
    There may be plenty of hot air recycling in parliament but not enough to heat the planet.

    ” I think his figure of 340w/sq.m. for average incident solar radiation is wrong because it takes no account of absorption and reflection by clouds and other contents on the way in. Dr Spencer pointed out this error…..”
    http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/05/time-for-the-slayers-to-put-up-or-shut-up/#comment-78681

    At that stage of the proceedings it is only the GEOMETRIC ATTENUATION of the Sun’s energy that gives you the 340 watts/sq.m. at the Earth’s surface to give you the 19 deg C. I was not including the ATMOSPHERIC ATTENUATION at that stage… because… a) I was unsure of the value of the atmospheric attenuation back in 2013 and b) Was not going to get into an argument with Dr Spencer at that stage and on that crowded format. I was told to put up or shut up….therefore followed orders. I considered all of that comment would be damage enough for him. His blog, so further comments he could just bounce.
    So it is not an “uncorrected error” by me as you try to assert.

    “Regarding his figure of 0.82 for the the total absorptivity/ emissivity …… I’m afraid that it also looks wrong to me”

    Maybe you should get your eyesight tested Haven’t you noticed this planet is the blue planet. Water has a colour. It is blue. Nasif Nahle is a BIOLOGIST …. he’s noticed that the Earth is not covered in black asphalt with an emissivity of near enough to 1. Sorry, 0.82 looks right to me.

    “The whole calculation is still bunk though. I’m afraid, because it does not take proper account of the albedo …..”

    Just point out to me… where the fuck is the symbol for “albedo” in the Stephan-Boltzmann equation.
    Then you follow that with a rant about albedo etc…. winding up with a global average temperature of -6 deg C Well, it’s better than what the others get … namely -18 deg C. , but still all “greenhouse” bullshit. Still the oceans frozen. Still the ATMOSPHERE keeping the oceans liquid. Still fingers in ears, eyes squeezed tightly shut.
    Both you and I are in our 70s so it’s too late to change… but… hoping you haven’t found me too unsettling, Rick.

    • Rick on 20/02/2021 at 12:21 pm said:

      Mack,

      Regarding my saying that I think the principle of the greenhouse effect accords with the laws and principles of conventional physics, you say:

      ‘It doesn’t accord with the 2nd Law of thermodynamics …. that energy always travels one way, from hotter to colder.’

      I think you are mistaken about that. The 2nd Law of thermodynamics does not say that energy always travels one way, from hotter to colder. If it did then you would not be able to boil water in a relatively cold microwave oven, but as it happens you can. And none of our fridges would work either, but as it happens they do. Those are examples of human inventions which defy the imaginary prohibitions of your 2nd Law every day. As I see it, the greenhouse effect is an example of one of nature’s inventions that defies them every day too.

      But I can’t take the time to get into an in-depth discussion of the 2nd Law of thermodynamics at the moment, so I’ll leave it there for now with an agreement to differ over it if you’re willing.

      ‘My guess is that you are a retired secondary school science teacher?’

      Wrong again, Mack. I’ve never been a schoolteacher of any kind.

      ‘At that stage of the proceedings it is only the GEOMETRIC ATTENUATION of the Sun’s energy that gives you the 340 watts/sq.m. at the Earth’s surface to give you the 19 deg C….

      So it is not an “uncorrected error” by me as you try to assert.’

      If you are still thinking that you have got 340 Watts/sq.m of incoming sunlight (or 320 Watts/sq.m after the atmosphere has ‘attenuated’ it) being absorbed at the surface, then to my mind that is indeed an ‘uncorrected error’ because you are still ignoring the albedo.

      ‘Just point out to me… where the fuck is the symbol for “albedo” in the Stephan-Boltzmann equation.’

      You only need the Stephan-Boltzmann equation to enable you to convert the value for radiation that is absorbed at the surface into a value for the temperature of the surface. You do not need to know the albedo for that and that is why the symbol for albedo does not appear in the Stephan-Boltzmann formula. You only need to know the albedo for the preceding part of the calculation where you are determining how much radiant power is absorbed at the surface. I have already showed how you need to apply it in my previous comment above.

      ‘Then you follow that with a rant about albedo etc…. winding up with a global average temperature of -6 deg C Well, it’s better than what the others get … namely -18 deg C. , but still all “greenhouse” bullshit….’

      There isn’t any ‘greenhouse bullshit’ involved in the traditional calculation of the Earth’s theoretical black body temperature that comes out to about –18 degC, Mack. It is precisely because that theoretical temperature is far below the putatively ‘measured’ figure for the actual temperature of +15 degC that the greenhouse effect has been invoked to explain the difference. But it has not been invoked to create the difference in the first place as you seem to be suggesting. The difference would still be there if the greenhouse theory had never been invented.

      ‘Both you and I are in our 70s so it’s too late to change…’

      As I see it, change is inevitable because it is intrinsic in the nature of the universe. We are all immersed in the same ever-changing universe and we cannot evade it or avoid participating in it with every particle of our beings. There is no stasis anywhere and you were changing even as you were writing ‘it’s too late to change’, albeit imperceptibly to you perhaps. We cannot stop changing even if we apply ourselves to stopping it with all our collective will and might, because change has the power of the universe behind it driving it forward towards the universe’s intrinsic goals. We cannot stop the climate from changing either because climate change has the power of the universe behind it too, making it happen. Change is universal, real, perfectly natural, eternally on-going and intrinsic in everything, including ourselves. The idea of being too old to change is a laughable illusion to my way of seeing it.

      ‘but… hoping you haven’t found me too unsettling, Rick.’

      Not in the least, Mack. I have enjoyed addressing the challenges which you have given me.

  18. Mack on 20/02/2021 at 8:07 pm said:

    Rick,

    WRT the 2nd Law of thermodynamics, you must be a believer in “back-radiation”, a term not found in any conventional physics textbooks. Backradiation is another bit of pseudoscientific verbal sophistry conjured up by the AGW crowd,… eg The Amazing Case of Backradiation by “Science of Doom.”, in an attempt to bolster the pseudoscience of the “greenhouse effect”…. which all traces back to the fact that they’ve only got the dribble of YOUR 340 watts/sq.m. arriving from the Sun at the Top of the Atmosphere (TOA).
    So you use your freezer in which to cook the Xmas turkey then, Rick ?

    “The difference would still be there if the greenhouse theory had never been invented”

    Are you listening to your own words? “invented”…. invented is the operative word. Invented, quack science. Invented, old, outdated “greenhouse” hypothesis. Invented, unreal, crackpot “greenhouse” hypothesis.
    Well said, Rick.

    Then you’ve got all that stuff about “change”…….”climate change”. According to Oh Bummer it is “change you can believe in” You could follow him on one of his pilgrimages to a glacier face and watch it “melt”. …and refresh your belief. Myself, I’d rather listen to a car salesman than an ignorant loon like OBama .

    • Rick on 21/02/2021 at 7:24 am said:

      Hi Mack,

      ‘WRT the 2nd Law of thermodynamics, you must be a believer in “back-radiation”,…’

      Since I don’t know what exactly you mean by the term ‘back-radiation’, I can neither confirm nor deny that I am a believer in it. I know what the term means to me, but that’s not the issue, is it? So, let me ask:

      1: What does the term ‘back-radiation’ mean to you?
      and
      2: Why do you think it contravenes the 2nd Law of thermodynamics?

      ‘….which all traces back to the fact that they’ve only got the dribble of YOUR 340 watts/sq.m. arriving from the Sun at the Top of the Atmosphere (TOA).’

      MY 340 watts/sq.m??? You were the one who proposed it when you presented Nasif Nahle’s false calculation of the global mean surface temperature! I only accepted for purposes of discussion. How did it become mine?

      ‘So you use your freezer in which to cook the Xmas turkey then, Rick ?’

      Damn! You’ve revealed my secret technique for cooking the perfect Xmas turkey. My last shot at fame and fortune – gone!

      But if you still believe that the 2nd Law of thermodynamics has ordained that ‘energy always travels one way, from hotter to colder’, as you put it earlier, how do you explain the functioning of an ordinary electric kitchen-kettle?

      O.K., we all know that the kettle heats the water inside it by means of a heating-element whose temperature is hotter than that of the water which it is heating. There, energy is flowing straightforwardly from the hotter body (the heating-element) to the colder body (the water); so, no problem.

      But where does the hot heating-element get its energy from? Answer: from the electricity that is flowing into it continuously from inside the power-cable. But the power-cable stays relatively cold (relative to the heating-element that it is warming, that is).

      Now we have energy flowing from a cold body (the power-cable) into a hotter one (the heating-element). How is that possible if energy can flow only in the direction of Hot Body to Cold Body, as you say it must do by the 2nd Law of thermodynamics? Surely, it implies either that the 2nd Law is wrong, or else the 2nd Law does not really say that ‘energy always travels one way, from hotter to colder’ as you said it does. So, which is it: the 2nd Law is wrong, or it doesn’t really say what you thought it does?

      ‘Are you listening to your own words? “invented”…. invented is the operative word. Invented, quack science….’

      Just because something has been ‘invented’ it doesn’t mean that it is ‘quack science’, Mack! Every genuine scientific theory is an ‘invention’ of the human mind too and genuine scientific theories are often described in those terms without any connotations of falseness being attached to them.

      ‘…Invented, old, outdated “greenhouse” hypothesis….’

      It is not outdated. If it was outdated it would have been superseded by a better one already, but it has not been. In honest science you cannot just dismiss a hypothesis simply because it is old or because it has become inconvenient to certain people who don’t like it for some reason. There are critical tests of reason and observation to be applied to it rigorously before you can dismiss it. And they have not yet been applied fully to the ‘greenhouse hypothesis’, so it’s still a valid hypothesis from a genuine scientific point of view.

      ‘Invented, unreal, crackpot “greenhouse” hypothesis.’

      But you still have not demonstrated how it is ‘unreal’ or ‘crackpot’ though, so no-one has any good scientific reason to give these scurrilous criticisms any credence, do they?

      ‘Then you’ve got all that stuff about “change”…….’

      Only because you said that we are both too old to change. I was merely pointing out that we cannot help changing, whether we want to or not, and that we are doing it all the time anyway. So we’re never ‘too old to change’ as far as I can see.

  19. Mack on 21/02/2021 at 8:30 pm said:

    Rick,

    I’m afraid I’ve lost patience with you, Rick
    What a nitpicking, perverse, pedantic prat you’ve revealed yourself to be.
    You may not be a school teacher….what’s the bet you’re a retired university lecturer.

    Towards the end of this epic diatribe…
    https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/2021/02/science-says-change-the-weather-and-break-the-countrys-heart/comment-page-1/#comment-1582832
    ….you’ve subjected the readers and myself to…. where you were blabbing on about albedo ; there’s this little revelation…

    “So, if you have 340 w/sq.m. coming in from space at the top of the atmosphere…. blah, blah, blah…”

    Thereafter ensues a whole series of your wrong, false, imaginative calculations which wind you up with a GAT of -6 deg C… with your Excel spreadsheet !! Wow, you’d better put a patent on your Excel spreadsheet, because it defies the calculations of all the other climate clowns on their Excel spreadsheets. They come up with -18 deg C.

    Of course your mistake is right at the start… the “340 watts/sq.m. coming in from space at the top of the atmosphere….”
    It still hasn’t sunk into your thick, academic skull, has it, Rick ?
    It’s 1360 watts/sq.m. at the TOA …that’s reality … so all your comments said to me in this thread amount to a squirming, obtuse, incorrect, red-herring loaded pile of pseudoscientific crap.

  20. Rick on 22/02/2021 at 12:02 pm said:

    Mack,

    ‘I’m afraid I’ve lost patience with you, Rick’

    There’s a surprise! I’d been wondering why you weren’t understanding a word of what I was saying. Now I know, so thanks for telling me.

    ‘You may not be a school teacher….what’s the bet you’re a retired university lecturer.’

    Very long odds I fear, Mack. But what is your fascination with my personal professional history about? What information could it possibly give you that is relevant to the topic of our discussion? If you must pigeon-hole me as something in your mind, think of me as a student of life who is not retired but who is still very active in that occupation.

    Anyway, I suggest you calm down and recover your patience before attempting to read and understand what follows. Please take it slowly, bit by bit, giving yourself enough time to understand it properly before you reply, because I shall not be responding to any more personally abusive rants like the last one that you’ve just given me.

    ‘Towards the end of this epic diatribe…
    https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/2021/02/science-says-change-the-weather-and-break-the-countrys-heart/comment-page-1/#comment-1582832
    ….you’ve subjected the readers and myself to…. where you were blabbing on about albedo ;…’

    ‘blabbing on about albedo’? It is precisely your omission of the planet’s albedo from your calculation of the global mean surface temperature by Nasif Nahle’s method that renders it a miscalculation. That is what I was trying to explain to you (against your determined resistance, evidently) when I was ‘blabbing on’ about albedo!

    You cannot just ignore the planet’s albedo if you’re trying to calculate its surface temperature correctly from its incident radiation, Mack, because the albedo is a fundamental, real-world, physical factor that must be included in the calculation, or all you will get at the end of it is a miscalculation. If you don’t believe me, try using the same Nasif Nahle method to calculate the surface temperature of Venus and see if that comes out correctly too. If it does, I’ll concede that you and Nasif could be on to something with his method and I’ll endeavour to investigate it further. If not, then kindly stop all your posturing and handwaving because it will not accomplish anything except to prove that you are just a tiresome attention-seeker who hasn’t done his homework and doesn’t know what he is talking about.

    ‘there’s this little revelation…

    “So, if you have 340 w/sq.m. coming in from space at the top of the atmosphere…. blah, blah, blah…”

    Thereafter ensues a whole series of your wrong, false, imaginative calculations which wind you up with a GAT of -6 deg C…’

    ‘wrong’, ‘false’, and ‘imaginative’, were they, Mack? OK, if that’s the case let’s see you do it better. Please show us how the calculation should be done, step by step, to give the correct answer.

    ‘…with your Excel spreadsheet !!’

    What did you expect me to do, reckon it up on my fingers?

    ‘Wow, you’d better put a patent on your Excel spreadsheet, because it defies the calculations of all the other climate clowns on their Excel spreadsheets. They come up with -18 deg C.’

    No it doesn’t, Mack. That figure of –18 degC is the approximate result for the calculation of Earth’s THEORETICAL black body temperature, NOT the result for the calculation of Earth’s ACTUAL surface temperature, which is what you said you could calculate using Nasif Nahle’s ‘simple’ method of calculation and which I have already shown is too simple to work because it leaves out the albedo.

    ‘Of course your mistake is right at the start… the “340 watts/sq.m. coming in from space at the top of the atmosphere….” ’

    Gosh, I’m sorry, Mack. Yes, you’re right! You even said explicitly ‘The solar wattage at the Earth’s surface is 340 watts/sq.m….. not the 161,163,168 watts /sq.m. as depicted in Trenberth’s wacko Earth Energy Budget diagrams.’ just before you described how to do Nasif’s ‘simple’ calculation (here: https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/2021/02/science-says-change-the-weather-and-break-the-countrys-heart/#comment-1582504 )

    I think what confused me was your saying in your description of the calculation that we should apply the Stefan-Boltzman (S–B) equation to the 340 Watts/sq.m to get ‘about 19 degC’ (which I did) and THEN subtract 20 Watts/sq.m from that for ‘atmospheric attenuation’, which does not make sense mathematically as I pointed out to you. So I tried to make sense out of it by subtracting the 20 Watts/sq.m from the 340 Watts/sq.m BEFORE applying S–B, which gave me the target-result of +15 degC for the surface temperature just as you said it would.

    But that way of calculating it implies that the amount of radiation arriving at the surface is (340 – 20) = 320 Watts/sq.m instead of the 340 Watts/sq.m which you had said explicitly that it was. And that way of calculating it also implied that there must be (320 + 20) = 340 Watts/sq.m coming in at the top of the atmosphere, which you have now advised me is wrong.

    My problem now is that (using S–B) 320 Watts/sq.m at the surface produces a surface temperature of +15 degC, which is the ‘right’ answer, whereas 340 Watts/sq.m at the surface (which is what you have said it should be) produces a surface temperature of +19 degC, which is clearly the wrong answer. So now I would like to know how you get 340 Watts/sq.m at the surface to yield the ‘correct’ surface temperature of +15 degC by using S–B. Please show me how you did that because I just can’t imagine how you did.

    And now you tell me:
    ‘It still hasn’t sunk into your thick, academic skull, has it, Rick ?
    It’s 1360 watts/sq.m. at the TOA …that’s reality’

    Wow, now I’m really confused. How does 1360 Watts/sq.m at TOA get turned into 340 Watts/sq.m at Earth’s surface? And why is it 340 Watts/sq.m instead of 1340 Watts/sq.m at the surface after you’ve subtracted 20 Watts/sq.m for ‘atmospheric attenuation’ from the 1360 Watts/sq.m at the TOA?

    ‘… so all your comments said to me in this thread amount to a squirming, obtuse, incorrect, red-herring loaded pile of pseudoscientific crap.’

    Pseudoscientific crap is all you can see because your mind is full of it, like the Augean Stables. I didn’t put it in your mind, Mack, and I am not responsible for its being there. So please stop projecting it onto me because it’s not my crap to deal with. It’s yours; you produced it and so I think it’s your job to deal with it.

  21. Richard Treadgold on 22/02/2021 at 2:56 pm said:

    Rick and Mack,

    An entertaining exchange so far. If you each retain your senses of humour and of proportion (since one of you shows occasional signs of losing a firm grasp of one or both), it will continue to entertain and absolutely to inform. But I’d hate you to fall out or anything.

    Cheers, RT.

    • Mack on 22/02/2021 at 3:46 pm said:

      Too late, RT, I’ve already fallen out with him.
      Anybody who comes up with this….
      “No thanks, Mack, I have already read enough of the collected works of Nasif Nahle to know that I know that I don’t need to read anymore”
      is obviously an arrogant academic know all, used to preaching down to students, thinks that his intellect is creme de la creme….. mind now closed off to any threat that might shatter his AGW fantasy.
      In some respects, I can understand where he’s coming from, being in the 70 age bracket, there must be a gut-churning realisation that his whole life’s work is invalid.
      So I won’t be responding to the tosser anymore.

  22. Richard Treadgold on 22/02/2021 at 9:59 pm said:

    That vilification is ugly; such a pity. Your sense of humour may have died.

  23. Mack on 22/02/2021 at 11:08 pm said:

    Yes, it’s a pity, RT, the fight does get a bit ugly. initially I thought the guy seemed to be on our side…. but I flushed him out as a DINO…. denier in name only. …hopefully time will make them extinct, too.

    • Rick on 23/02/2021 at 12:02 pm said:

      Have you gone mad, Mack? Or have you been hitting the whisky-bottle too hard, perhaps? Because that is crazy talk, you know. It seems to me that, whatever the cause of it, you haven’t just lost your patience; you’ve also taken leave of your senses!

      As with your science and mathematics, I am finding it difficult to make sense of what you are saying. You said to Richard: ‘initially I thought the guy seemed to be on our side….’. What ‘side’ is that? Are you alluding, perhaps, to that holy cow called the ‘Anti-Greenhouse Effect Alliance’ which you’ve got hanging around your neck like a millstone or an albatross? Somehow I can’t imagine Richard being duped into joining that misguided, irrational cult as you appear to have been.

      You go on to say: ‘but I flushed him out as a DINO…. denier in name only’.

      You flushed me out? My, how you flatter yourself!

      And as a ‘denier in name only’?? How cryptic! What is a ‘denier in name only’ when it’s at home? A false denier, do you mean? A false denier of what? What are you alleging that I am falsely denying? And why would I come here to pose as a denier of something that I’m not really denying, but am only pretending to deny, when I would be perfectly free to be myself and not deny it anyway under the extraordinarily liberal rules of Richard’s blog? What kind of incomprehensible, pointless and screwball double-bluff is that for me to want to pull? I don’t even understand what that would achieve myself and I’m the one who you’re accusing of pulling it! Ha, ha, ha!

      I’m afraid nothing of what you have said makes any rational sense to me, Mack. I hope you get free of that millstone-albatross and recover your balance of mind soon.

      Kind regards.

    • Mack on 26/02/2021 at 11:36 am said:

      Kind regards, Rick.

  24. Tricky Dicky on 23/02/2021 at 12:50 pm said:

    Rick and Mack,

    Well “Gentlemen”
    This had been entertaining until it degenerated in to petty name calling and a general slagging match. What a shame. If indeed you are 2 mature men, it would seem that you could enter in to an informed and respectful discourse and agree to disagree, instead of behaving like hormonal adolescents. The tactic of: “We can’t attack the science so, let’s discredit the messenger” is a tactic used by the global warming alarmists and beneath the dignity and scientific acumen of most rational thinkers on this subject. Most people on this forum, with a few notable exceptions, have at least 2 brain cells to rub together and are capable of discerning a rational and well constructed argument. So please, state your facts and let them speak for themselves. Having read the diatribe and, quite frankly, almost loosing the will to live on a couple of occasions, I am no further forward in my understanding. If either of you had a coherent argument, it has been lost. No wonder the man made global warming alarmists are winning. I am putting money on which one of you will be the first to say “Well he started it”

    • Rick on 24/02/2021 at 10:43 am said:

      Well, Tricky Dicky, what a reprimand!

      I’m sorry to learn that you didn’t find all of the exchanges between Mack and me ‘entertaining’, but I hadn’t realised that I was having to undergo the ordeal of fending off a dedicated assault on my character and personality for the purpose of entertaining spectators. Nor that by undergoing it I was ‘behaving like a hormonal adolescent’ either. If I had done I might have tried harder to make it a more enjoyable experience for you. But then, since you didn’t raise a peep of objection or make any other kind of intervention, such as by posting a constructive comment of your own to influence the proceedings as they were happening, but just sat back and behaved as a judgmental onlooker who was so transfixed with horror that he nearly ‘lost the will to live’ on two occasions, no less, I wasn’t to know, was I?

      And do you really think we would start winning the war that the man-made global warming alarmists are waging upon us if we all started agreeing to differ instead of confronting one another with the falsehoods and inconsistencies in our own thinking and belief systems before we started confronting our oppressors with theirs? I don’t. In any case, I was willing to agree to differ with Mack, but he was not willing to do that with me and look where that got me. What was my reward for behaving in the way you say I should? You still branded me a ‘hormonal adolescent’ anyway. Thanks, TD.

  25. Richard Treadgold on 23/02/2021 at 12:56 pm said:

    A lusty conversation, to be sure. It’s advisable to avoid copious comments that could annoy your sister or other close relative. Braving the psychological sphere can definitely provide brief entertainment, however a prolonged exploration induces deep fatigue. Blog slogan: on global warming we stand with the lunatics against the sane ones (we’re always on the same side, except when we’re not).


    Tricky Dicky: I didn’t notice your response while I penned mine. Not a bad summary, thanks.

  26. Mack on 27/02/2021 at 1:46 am said:

    I’ll just leave this here for Rick to read if he wants to….
    https://jennifermarohasy.com/2011/04/radiative-transfer-according-to-agw-a-note-from-neutrino/#comment-480095
    It’s the Mexican biologist explaining things to me.
    Reading it, I can only see one little error…. he said … 20 K , when I think that would be 20 deg C
    Not too bad with all those numbers being argued about for days on end.
    Cheers,
    Mack.

    • Rick on 28/02/2021 at 1:24 pm said:

      Thanks for that, Mack, and for your kind regards given earlier.

      I have read Nasif’s comment at your link thoroughly, plus a few of the other comments around it, but I must confess that I’m none the wiser as to how he thinks his argument refutes AGW, because it still seems not to hold water and still seems to be inconsistent with the basic physics of the situation to me.

      However, I won’t go into detail with all his numbers as before, because I don’t have the time that I would need to discuss them all properly. (I have a house-move coming up shortly and I must give my full attention to that now.)

      Numerical errors to one side, my main objection to his argument is that it ignores the Earth’s albedo, which I’ve already stated so I won’t labour the point any further.

      Nasif may be a very good biologist for all that I know. But his argument is concerned with a problem in planetary physics, not biology, and I think a different set of knowledge and skills is required for that.

  27. Brett Keane on 02/03/2021 at 9:07 pm said:

    Rick, study Poisson (IGL); Maxwell (Kinetics of Gases etc.), Einstein 1917 etc. (QuantumTheory).
    and Prof R. Wood (experimental Proof). You should then have the beginnings of understanding from the giants of Physics who had no dog in this fight…… Cheers and good luck. Brett Keane

    • Rick on 03/03/2021 at 2:57 am said:

      Brett,

      To the best of my humble scientific knowledge, mere name-dropping does not constitute a scientific argument.

      As I’ve said before, the greenhouse effect looks a robust concept in standard physics to me, but if anyone can see a flaw in it then I’d be grateful if they would point it out.

      Kindly stop patronising me. Thanks.

  28. Brett Keane on 03/03/2021 at 7:14 pm said:

    Rick, I have put my actual proofs here and elewhere many times, unanswered by such as yourself. You never can. I asked you to do what I have done, happily creditting you with honesty and integrity.
    Now you have sadly proven your trollhood, kindly stick to toilet walls, or avail yourself of the highest-quality research works I have identified with much help from others..
    Einstein praised Maxwell for his brilliance which led to the speed of light. And to Quantum Mechanics, which destroys your ‘warm blanket’ CAGW etc. Brett Keane

    • Rick on 04/03/2021 at 4:53 am said:

      Sorry, Brett, but I haven’t seen your proofs here or anywhere else. Proofs of what, anyway? Please be specific if you want me to understand you.

      You say:
      ‘I asked you to do what I have done,…’

      No, actually you told me to ‘study Poisson (IGL); etc…’. That was a command, not a request.

      ‘Now you have sadly proven your trollhood, kindly stick to toilet walls, or avail yourself of the highest-quality research works I have identified with much help from others..’

      I have proven my ‘trollhood’???!!! How have I done that? You haven’t said.

      And why do I need to undertake the life’s work of studying the life’s works of all these dead great scientists before I will be able to understand your objections to the greenhouse effect? Why can’t you save us all a heck of a lot of time and toil and simply tell us straight out what they are?

      ‘…And to Quantum Mechanics, which destroys your ‘warm blanket’ CAGW etc.’

      Forgive me if I’m wrong about this, Brett, but you seem to have got the blanket effect, the greenhouse effect and CAGW* all conflated together in your mind. I see them as all being separate and distinct from one another – in theory, at least.

      In any case, none of them are ‘mine’, in the sense of my advocating their existence in the real world. Basically, I see them all as theoretical concepts whose existence in the real world remains to be proven empirically.

      I have stated that I see the greenhouse effect as being a ‘robust concept in standard physics’, but I meant it only as a theoretical concept, not as a proven physical reality like, say, Mount Everest or the Pacific Ocean. Nevertheless, it does seem to me to be in accord with all the rest of the whole edifice of theoretical physics that has been built and refined by rigorously disciplined scientific minds, like those of the great scientists you mentioned, over the centuries. That is why I call it ‘robust’.

      Likewise for the blanket effect: I think that is a robust concept in theoretical physics too. Although, as with the greenhouse effect, I would be grateful to anyone who was able to reveal a flaw in it. Flawed theoretical concepts are nothing but useless clutter in my mind and I am more than happy to throw them out if I find any there. However, as far as I am presently aware no-one has revealed a flaw in the blanket effect and I haven’t seen any flaws in it myself, so it stays – for the time being, at any rate.

      However, I think CAGW is scientifically bogus because it is in conflict with basic natural laws and principles of Earth’s climate that have been well-known since before CAGW was a glint in the Club of Rome’s eye. In a nutshell, it is in conflict with the thermodynamics of the water-cycle on Earth, which acts as a ‘governor’ or ‘regulatory feedback’ on Earth’s surface temperature and prevents any possibility of runaway global warming occurring as it has done on Venus. The proof of this regulatory mechanism’s existence is the simple fact that we are here to talk about it, because if it did not exist Earth would have already undergone runaway global warming at some point in the past and the surface temperature would now be up in the hundreds of degrees Celsius like it is on Venus today.

      You didn’t mention AGW**. Nor DAGW***. But I would have to make this comment much longer to discuss those properly, so I’ll leave it here for now.
      ___________________________________________
      * That’s ‘Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming’, in case anyone is unfamiliar with the acronym.

      ** ‘Anthropogenic Global Warming’.

      *** ‘Dangerous Anthropogenic Global Warming’.

  29. Richard Treadgold on 04/03/2021 at 10:18 am said:

    Brett and Rick,

    Stop the bickering or I’ll pull both your plugs. Please get into the many pressing climate topics that cry out for knowledge or solution. For instance, the subject of this post, the draft “Advice” from our CCC, which is full of unscientific tosh. How do we get this before the villainous media, who delinquently ignore its many errors? Your mutual inability to avoid taunting and ignore personal slights is now intolerable. We can all see how capable you each are of contributing wisely. We need your understanding, not your vitriole.

    • Rick on 05/03/2021 at 12:48 pm said:

      Richard,

      I’m sorry that you regard my two replies to Brett as ‘bickering’ and ‘taunting’. After having re-read those replies several times now I cannot find any taunts or other abusive remarks that would warrant the charge of ‘bickering’ in them. Nor have I expressed any ‘vitriol’ towards anyone either. Accordingly, I am at a loss to understand you.

      I also don’t understand what you are asking me to do when you say:

      “Please get into the many pressing climate topics that cry out for knowledge or solution.”

      I thought that was what I was doing by raising the issue of the greenhouse effect – the fundamental basis of the entire climate alarmists’ belief-system and ideology. I see that as being a pressing climate topic which cries out for knowledge and solution because the sceptic side is divided into two camps over it, i.e. one camp which believes the greenhouse effect is real and the other camp which believes it is pure fiction. The dispute about this has become very fractious and many internet fights have occurred over it in this century so far, without any decisive resolution having been achieved to date. I think this basic disagreement is a weakness in the position of the sceptic side and it constitutes a vulnerability, which I have seen alarmist activists exploit to their advantage on many occasions. I think the hostility which I have received here for having the temerity to suggest that the greenhouse effect is actually supported by mainstream science, bears testimony to the unresolved, open-sore status of this conflict. And if its past history is anything to go by, it won’t go away of its own accord if it is merely swept under the carpet as is usually what happens to it. I really think it will need to be resolved before the sceptic side can move forward effectively against the alarmists, who think that they own ‘the science’ and are sitting pretty on it at the moment.

      You go on….

      ‘For instance, the subject of this post, the draft “Advice” from our CCC, which is full of unscientific tosh.’

      Agreed, it is. But before you can criticise it on scientific grounds and (hopefully) get the CCC to eliminate all that ‘scientific tosh’, I think you need to know, with reasonable certainty, what the real science says about the matters that the CCC is ‘advising’ about. Do you? Does anybody here? From what I’ve seen I don’t think many people here do have that necessary knowledge and therefore I also think it would be in most people’s best interests to avoid getting into any scientific disputes with the CCC as they are liable to come off the worse from it.

      In any case, Richard, I think your letter to the CCC says all that can be said, and all that needs to be said to it at the present time. They have said that their position is constrained by the Climate Change Act and you have pointed out that their position is false and invidious. What more can you do? I am a Brit, so I can’t get involved in New Zealand politics as that would be interference. But if you want to pursue your dispute further with them, I can only suggest that you try confronting them with Prof. Mike Kelly’s work which you’ve already reported on earlier here. If that doesn’t shake them out of their complacency and give them pause for thought about the calamity which they are engineering into being, I don’t know what will.

      ‘How do we get this before the villainous media, who delinquently ignore its many errors?’

      Hmmn…. That’s a tricky one. I think you need someone who has a high professional standing as a scientist or technologist and whose word will carry weight in the wider community to carry out a rigorous objective analysis, or review of the report that picks out its factual errors and logical flaws, highlights them and assesses their consequences. Bring such a report on the CCC’s report before the ‘villainous media’ and I think they will at least find it hard to ignore. I suggest the Global Warming Policy Foundation as a possible source of useful leads for this.

      I will try to avoid responding to every personal slur or slight that comes my way in future, Richard, but please understand that there is a limit to the amount of personal abuse that I am willing to tolerate mutely as well and if that is surpassed you won’t have to ‘pull the plug’ on me because I’ll do it myself.

      Cheers.

  30. Richard Treadgold on 05/03/2021 at 1:54 pm said:

    Rick,

    You say:

    I’m sorry that you regard my two replies to Brett as ‘bickering’ and ‘taunting’.

    I must apologise to you and to Brett for naming him instead of Mack. Comes from trying to respond quickly. However, you did become obnoxious with Mack so my other comments stand and thanks for yours. I’ll try to get to your questions over the weekend, but I can say there’s no science worth the name in anything the CCC says or proposes. They’re a disgrace.

    Cheers, RT.

  31. Brett Keane on 06/03/2021 at 7:28 pm said:

    Richard, we deal with trolls who are using Marxist argumental techniques. So they twist truth into lies without care, I seek a peaceful way through this which should not be advertised but really expect to fail until they bring the walls down on themselves (and us). Warfare, starvation and death, follow.
    At that time, which I doubt to make, I expect something strange to happen. When “there should be no flesh saved alive” otherwise.
    Giving up is not an option. But reading snivelling twisting and refusal to reply on subject is not something I need to put up with either. The point of dialogue is to study the other view, not sneer.
    These types only have rote insult, not the Physics required, and will never study it though we lead them to it ever so gently. Thus wasting our time. Why put up with that? Please Boss require Physics of them….. Brett

  32. Juglans Nigra on 16/03/2021 at 8:17 pm said:

    Brett:
    re-the link: leads to :
    “We couldn’t find the page you were looking for. This is either because:
    There is an error in the URL entered into your web browser. Please check the URL and try again.
    The page you are looking for has been moved or deleted. ”

    Aside re: When “there should be no flesh saved alive” otherwise.
    Also hoping to not make it to those last 3 1/2 years; but the walnuts should help feed a few of the refugees.
    Cheers,
    the nutter

  33. Richard Treadgold on 17/03/2021 at 8:34 am said:

    I tried this link too and discovered it was incorrect:
    https://www.manhattancontrarian.com/blog/2019-8-26-michael-mann-hockey-stick-update-now-definitively-proven-to-be

    I Googled the probably correct part: michael-mann-hockey-stick-update-now-definitively-proven-to-be and discovered the link exists but was wrongly stated:

    https://www.manhattancontrarian.com/blog/2019-8-26-michael-mann-hockey-stick-update-now-definitively-proven-to-be-fraud

    Simple.

  34. Tricky Dicky on 21/03/2021 at 10:08 am said:

    And now from the “Don’t Argue, The Science Is Settled” file. The IPCC now say that a warming Antarctic will mitigate sea level rise. The warming will cause more precipitation over the continent. This will lock large quantities of water in the Antarctic ice and reduce sea level rise over the next 80 years. “GCMs [models] indicate increasingly positive SMB for the Antarctic Ice Sheet as a whole because of greater accumulation. This means that by 2100 Antarctica would contribute 0.4 to 2.0 mm yr−1 of sea level fall.” The climate alarmists have been telling us for years that we all should be 6 feet under water by now. THE SETTLED SCIENCE. So I suppose they have to come up with some dodgy alternative that can explain the lack of sea level rise and still blame man made climate change. Talk about desperation.

  35. Here’s the latest U tube clip of Joe Postma, pointing out the horrendous mistake made by every science institute on the planet….about the solar radiation being divided down by 4 before it reaches Earth’s Top of the Atmosphere (TOA)…
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KeuVaWiaLEQ

    Joe, the astrophysicist, is too polite and circumspect to call out Trenberth and his Earth Energy Budget Diagrams as looney… like myself…
    https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/2020/04/climate-rebuttals-to-crack-the-activist-grip-on-our-mind/#comment-1567848
    and …
    https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/2020/04/academic-tells-us-to-use-maori-stars-for-planning/#comment-1567909

    The Sun emits radiation, constantly in all directions and in slightly varying amounts. The Earth, revolving on a slanting axis, circles the essentially stationary Sun and in the course of one year, receives this radiation over the whole of the TOA, even though it can be said that parts of the TOA will be in Earth’s shadow, at times.
    It’s something like a spray-gun from the Sun coating the Earth with paint…. all parts of the TOA gets a coating at some point of the year. Essentially the incoming solar radiation at the TOA is the average of the thickness of this years coat of paint…..a bulk load… like an “outer shell” , non directional covering the whole globe at the TOA…..a solar constant of 1360-70 watts/sq.m….. which must remain as it is at the TOA.
    You should work it out mathematically by calculus and orbital mechanics, but Trenberth was lazy, unthinking, and preferred to go straight to the blackboard with his merely 2 dimensional drawings of the Sun and Earth.
    A colossal blunder.
    By calculus and orbital mechanics you could also calculate the solar radiation arriving at the real Earth’s surface, right down to where we’re standing with our Stevenson screens, measuring the temperature, only this time you’re looking back at the Sun from the spinning (night and day) planet.
    By coincidence this orbital mechanics calculation equals the geometric calculation familiar to every !st year
    physics student… ie divide in 1/2 for day/night .. then 1/2 again for Earth’s curvature…ie divide by 4…. to give you the 342 watts/sq.m..
    Every university has the 342 watts/sq.m in the wrong place…..up at the TOA, instead of down at the Earth’s surface.
    Rick will probably have something to say now, but in the meantime, Joe Postma’s video should be compulsory viewing for all 1st year physics students.

Leave a Reply to Mary Mac Cancel reply

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

Post Navigation