Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
P/4 - Why it is THE issue that destroys GH and AGW.
#41
Here is the entire section around the definition quote.From page 3:

"In spite of Arrhenius' misunderstanding of Fourier, the Concise Oxford English Dictionary (11th Edition) reflects his initial opening description of the "Greenhouse Effect":

Greenhouse Effect noun the trapping of the sun's warmth in the planet's lower atmosphere, due to the greater transparency of the atmosphere to visible radiation from the sun than to infrared radiation emitted from the planet's surface.

These descriptions of the "Greenhouse Effect" all evade the key question of heat transfer. Given that the "Greenhouse Effect" profoundly affects heat transfer and distribution, what are the thermodynamic properties that govern the "Greenhouse Effect" and how, exactly, is this "Greenhouse Effect" governed by these material properties? Moreover, all of the elements expressed in the preceding quotations can be found in Arrhenius' proposition of the "Greenhouse Effect". While Arrhenius credits Tyndall with the thermal buffer idea expressed in Plimer (2001) and Wishart (2009), he then goes on to express the more complicated idea described in Press & Siever (1982) and Whitaker (2007). Even the "atmospheric re-emission" that "helps heat the surface of the earth" of Whitaker (2007, pp. 17-18) is key to Arrhenius' original proposition."

Then from pages 7-8:

"The relationship between conductivity and net heat transfer explains why physicists, as Gerlich & Tscheuschner (2007 and 2009) point out, only consider the question of heat and temperature in terms of measurable physical properties such as thermal conductivity and heat capacity, unless that heat is being radiated across a vacuum. The latter case presents a question only answered by the Stefan-Boltzmann Equation, explained below. However, in terms of bodies in thermal contact, such as the atmosphere and the surface of the earth, the assertions of Arrhenius with respect to backradiation must necessarily be accompanied by a great variation in thermal conductivity in order to account for a comparably greater change in thermal gradient. This question is addressed in Gerlich & Tscheuschner (2007 and 2009, pp. 6-10), which shows an insufficient difference in the thermal conductivities of carbon dioxide, nitrogen, and oxygen to account for the claims of Arrhenius.

Carbon dioxide does, in fact, have a lower thermal conductivity than either nitrogen or oxygen (by roughly 36%, calculated from the figures of Gerlich & Tscheuschner, 2007 and 2009). So a large increase (i.e. by hundreds of thousands of parts per million) in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration that would increase the thermal gradient accordingly, could produce a measurable surface warming. As this cannot change the amount of heat flowing through the system, the effect would be manifest by a decrease in atmospheric temperature offset by a corresponding increase in surface temperature. However, a meagre doubling of the presently insignificant levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide cannot have a measurable effect. In fact, geological history records that other factors have a much greater influence on global climate than carbon dioxide.

If carbon dioxide produced the backradiation claimed by Arrhenius, thermal conductivity measurements of carbon dioxide would be so suppressed by the backradiation of heat conducted into this material, that the correspondingly steep temperature gradient would yield a negative thermal conductivity of carbon dioxide. In reality, a 10,000ppm increase in carbon dioxide could, at most, reduce the conductivity of air by 1%. Given the actual difference between the thermal conductivities of carbon dioxide (0.0168) and zero grade air (0.0260), a 10,000ppm increase in carbon dioxide would lower the thermal conductivity of zero grade air by 0.36%. That would represent a 0.36% increase in thermal gradient, or a surface warming of 0.18% and a ceiling cooling of 0.18% of the total difference in temperature between the top and bottom of the affected air mass. In the case of a tropospheric carbon dioxide increase of 10,000ppm, that would correspond to a warming of 0.125ºC, or one eighth of a degree Celsius at the earth's surface, offset by a cooling of 0.125ºC at the tropopause. On the scale of doubling the troposphere's carbon dioxide, the surface warming predicted by this simple and materialistic thermodynamic approach is on the order of 0.004ºC."

It seems to me that CO2 does not add heat to the system at all.
It is our attitude toward free thought and free expression that will determine our fate. There must be no limit on the range of temperate discussion, no limits on thought. No subject must be taboo. No censor must preside at our assemblies.

–William O. Douglas, U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1952
Reply
#42
(06-20-2011, 04:07 PM)Richard T. Fowler Wrote: Nonetheless, from the standpoint of the present thread, it seems to also be a distraction from the fact that Derek has already agreed with me at another website on the matter of P/4.

RTF

RTF,
I would appreciate you restating your point, clearly, in one short post please.
Because at present it eludes me, I do note however, your posts are plainly descending into "debating tactics".
(06-20-2011, 06:18 PM)Richard T. Fowler Wrote: Consequently, I find that the paragraph I've quoted from Casey is in full agreement with the OED definition of "greenhouse effect". Thus, in effect Casey is agreeing that a "greenhouse effect", as defined by OED, actually exists. He is merely quibbling with the magnitude of it.

RTF

(Snipped Nizkor reference)

I will then answer your point, and hope that you will then answer the point I ask you in post 30,
which, if you require I will happily rephrase / word.

BTW - P and P/4 is a misnomer in earths case because P is only considered from the lit side of the disc compared to the whole of the globe.
When both lit and unlit sides are considered, the disc, in total (not counting the edge),
actually has half the surface area of a sphere, not just a quarter.
So, in this case P should be either, 1) P for a point calculation, or 2) P/2 for a hemisphere average.
P/4 does not generally apply to earth's case, and must / can only be applied, as a very limited use, and limited meaning "overall average", ie -18C.

The relationship of P to P/4 does not generally exist in earth's case because
P is only the lit side of a disc,
and P/4 is the whole of a globe (including the unlit side)
(AND, P/4 ignores time of rotation, thus mangling the physics of reality).
Two different "things", not comparable in this manner, nor is P/4 of general use in earth's case as GH and AGW are centrally dependent upon.

BUT, P/4 is of occasional, limited and specific use, for an "overall average", a "starting point" if you will,
that soon has to be discarded, for more detailed investigation of earth's climate system, and how it actually works.
Reply
#43
If I am to be likened to a holocaust denier simply for expressing an opinion that someone else disagrees with, then this conversation is absolutely over.

I did not come here to start a war. Please, if my comments on this thread in defense of myself offend anyone, let them forget that they ever read them, if that would be the only way they could stop hating me.


Links on one of the pages just linked to include:

66 Questions & Answers About the Holocaust
The Techniques of Holocaust Denial
The Trial of Adolf Eichmann
Holocaust "Revisionism" or Holocaust Denial?

RTF
Reply
#44
Derek, we are supposed to be discussing, not debating!

Richard:-

"Let me be the first to say that I do not necessarily agree with Casey's implication. I still believe it is possible that there is _no_ greenhouse effect, as defined by the OED."

I agree with this, I think Casey is saying that the properties of CO2 effectively cancel out and cause cooling at the surface, which is entirely possible. I said it is well worth a read, I didn't say all of it is right!
I agree though that the lower thermal conductivity of CO2 is more important than CO2's ability to re-radiate IR. The CO2 may absorb an IR photon, however, with poor heat conductivity, less likely to heat the rest of the atmosphere before it re-radiates that photon- it cannot heat the surface or the lower atmosphere as both these are already "hotter" than the CO2 absorption wavelenghts. CO2 IMHO just scatters IR through the atmosphere until it escapes to space, where the IRIGs (infra Red interacting gasses) radiate IR from the top of the atmosphere to the cold vacuum of space.

So the IRIGs can slow the movement of certain wavebands of IR from surface to space , but without heating the atmosphere. The IR radiation as Joe Posthma says is the result of a warm surface and atmosphere- not the cause of it!
Reply
#45
(06-21-2011, 01:06 AM)Climate Realist Wrote: [. . .] I think Casey is saying that the properties of CO2 effectively cancel out and cause cooling at the surface, which is entirely possible.


That sounds like a good way to put it to me. I agree with your interpretation of Casey's meaning, and I agree that it is entirely possible, and I thank you for your thoughts about this.

RTF
Reply
#46
"BTW - P and P/4 is a misnomer in earths case because P is only considered from the lit side of the disc compared to the whole of the globe.
When both lit and unlit sides are considered, the disc, in total (not counting the edge),
actually has half the surface area of a sphere, not just a quarter.
So, in this case P should be either, 1) P for a point calculation, or 2) P/2 for a hemisphere average.
P/4 does not generally apply to earth's case, and must / can only be applied, as a very limited use, and limited meaning "overall average", ie -18C."

not true, because a sphere has 4x the area of a disc of the same diameter, therefore P/4 is correct because the earth rotates in a 24hour period and therefore P/4 is correct as an average over a 24hour period. I really don't see what the problem is with P/4.

Derek, I think if you got some more detailed information on how climate models are calculated and why you would answer this one for yourself.

Concentrating on P/4 is a red herring and a waste of time, better to look at the precise nature of the interaction between radiation and matter on a quantum/atomic scale to disprove the greenhouse theory!
(06-21-2011, 01:19 AM)Richard T. Fowler Wrote:
(06-21-2011, 01:06 AM)Climate Realist Wrote: [. . .] I think Casey is saying that the properties of CO2 effectively cancel out and cause cooling at the surface, which is entirely possible.


That sounds like a good way to put it to me. I agree with your interpretation of Casey's meaning, and I agree that it is entirely possible, and I thank you for your thoughts about this.

RTF

Richard, another way to consider the interaction of IR with IRIGs (I REFUSE to use the mis-nomer "greenhouse gas!") is that the CO2 molecule will be excited while the sun is shining by direct IR from the sun, and also heated by kinetic collision with the all the N2 and O2 molecules in the atmosphere and is therefore going to be in a near permanent state of excitement by kinetic as well as radiative means.

Therefore, all CO2 does is scatter IR! And as this scattering is in totally random diections, no net heating can occur, in addition from the thermodynamic arguments of course!

If you had a LOT of extra CO2 in the atmosphere, then the thermal conductivity may come into play by inhibiting heat loss by conduction. However, consider that noble gasses are used in energy saving double glazing and NOT CO2. If you really wanted to warm the atmosphere by the addition of a gas, adding a lot more Argon, Neon and Krypton would be much more effective!
Reply
#47
(06-21-2011, 01:27 AM)Climate Realist Wrote: not true, because a sphere has 4x the area of a disc of the same diameter, therefore P/4 is correct because the earth rotates in a 24hour period and therefore P/4 is correct as an average over a 24hour period. I really don't see what the problem is with P/4.

Which means P/4 is of very limited use, AND it mangles the physics of what actually happens.

One side of a disc has a quarter of the surface area of a complete sphere, that is merely one of my points.
These are two "different things", to be used as they are, by GH and AGW,
it must be two sides of the disc, lit and unlit, not just the lit side only of the disc.
Over 24 hours the disc sides would receive an average of 1368/2 = 684W/m2 would they not???
Which means the time of rotation (and intervening physics of heat transfers) of the sphere (and it's atmosphere, and oceans) is being ignored, and
only the lit side of the disc is being considered / compared to, with only "radiation physics" taken into account..

That is one of the reasons using P/4 is so limited in it's usefulness, and applicability.
It is however a rather large reason in it's own right.

(06-21-2011, 01:27 AM)Climate Realist Wrote: Derek, I think if you got some more detailed information on how climate models are calculated and why you would answer this one for yourself.

Actually the climate models calculate how much the atmosphere is warmed FIRST, then how much gets to the earth's surface, directly and also by "back radiation"..

I have looked into what the climate models actually calculate, but it is rather hard to discern what they do, specifically.
Considered questions and comments arising from free to ALL pdf.
As I have already said, several times on this thread, "try as I might", to find out.
That is why I have said repeatedly, that "we" are discussing GH "theory" as presently taught, and K&T type plots in this thread,
both Climate Realist, and RTF seem to have missed this completely.
They repeatedly keep on going back to climate models, they should both check the pdf again for what I said about, and in regards of, climate models.

(SNIPPED )

The Alinsky reference is not acceptable.

Will RTF ever answer the question I put to him in post 30 - It would appear not.

(06-21-2011, 01:06 AM)Climate Realist Wrote: CO2 IMHO just scatters IR through the atmosphere until it escapes to space, where the IRIGs (infra Red interacting gasses) radiate IR from the top of the atmosphere to the cold vacuum of space.

So the IRIGs can slow the movement of certain wavebands of IR from surface to space , but without heating the atmosphere.

Surely, increased scattering would increase the atmospheres ability to cool itself, particularly at the IR frequencies that the gas is radiatively active at,
not slow it down as you seem to be suggesting.

Also, the earth's surface is not the only source of the wavelength of IR being considered in this point,
liquid water also emits IR at this frequency. There is a lot of liquid water, and water vapour in the atmosphere,
which can and does emit at this frequency.
If another gas absorbs this IR, then re-emits it at a lower frequency, in the "window" frequency range, then
such an IR gas could only increase the atmospheres ability to redistribute heat, and cool itself, more quickly.

But as IR is the weakest way in which the climate and atmosphere transfers heat within itself, then it will make virtually no difference.
Higher up in the atmosphere, where IR mostly escapes to space, increased radiatively able gases would increase cooling, or heat losses to space,
and this is what is observed.
Reply
#48
Post 46 -- Climate Realist, just at first glance, this sounds like a plausible explanation, and I will try to commit it to memory. I know that you, or someone, (someones, more likely) has said it before, but since this is not my background, I have trouble following and remembering all of the important stuff. For this I apologize.

I wonder how many different ways we all have to agree with each other before I will stop getting called a nazi, a holocaust denier, an alinskyite, etc.

RTF
Reply
#49

(SNIPPED )

The Alinsky reference is not acceptable.

For the record.
I disagree with this very, very strongly, and
the link to an explanation of debating tactics, that was also removed.
I have briefly given my reasons to SST in a pm.

Reply
#50
(06-21-2011, 06:57 AM)Derek Wrote: (SNIPPED )

The Alinsky reference is not acceptable.

For the record.
I disagree with this very, very strongly, and
the link to an explanation of debating tactics, that was also removed.
I have briefly given my reasons to SST in a pm.

I don't get it.

“We do not believe any group of men adequate enough or wise enough to operate without scrutiny or without criticism. We know that the only way to avoid error is to detect it, that the only way to detect it is to be free to inquire. We know that in secrecy error undetected will flourish and subvert”.J Robert Oppenheimer.
Reply
#51
OK, another attempt to explain.

Please remember,
" Actually the climate models calculate how much the atmosphere is warmed FIRST, then
how much gets to the earth's surface, directly and also by "back radiation".. "

This is my wording of what Richard S Courtney told me elsewhere, in response to my below question,
as I posted here (after getting RSC's specific permission to do so) in post 31 on this thread,
http://www.globalwarmingskeptics.info/fo...age-2.html
" until someone who understands what the models model explains how the models correct for solar radiation received at the earths surface per cell, per time step,
explains to me or us what is modelled then I and all of us are still left guessing at what is actually modelled.
"

RSC -
Only the modelers can answer that by releasing their pertinent codes.
If you can get them to do it then many will be grateful.
But, simply, what they say they do is this.

Adopt a forcing at the tropopause provided by the solar flux at each grid point. Then,
determine the solar effect at each grid cell by running the program to iterate until quasi-stability is achieved.


Please note that this procedure must be wrong because if it were right then
each model would provide a correct value for global temperature,
but none of them does (which is why they report anomalies).

I hope this helps.


The above is why I have not included the climate models in this thread as such,
because no one actually seems to know.
If Climate Realist or RTF know better, then
there are a lot of people who would be interested to know, and so I appeal to them to share what they know.

OK, to my attempt to explain, again.
As a result of Alan Siddon's research, and my disentanglement of it, "we" produced the following plot,
that depicts what is actually being taught as the supposed GH effect at present, by the listed Universities and people.
[Image: Slide23.jpg]
Although the above is similar to what "we" can infer is modeled, "we" do not know that is what is modeled,
so, I have only referred to the failed GH hypothesis as presently taught, and the K&T type plots.
I do suspect the climate models are very similar, but try as I might, I can not show they are.

Climate Realist says "back radiation" reaches the ground, but has no effect.
What RTF says, I do not honestly know.
I say "back radiation" does not get very far below the clouds at all, by chance of absorption (mean free path length of a photon) alone.
How RTF says we all agree, goodness knows.

I know there is no GH effect, it is imaginary, and that P/4 is used to merely get the earth's surface temperature low enough in the first place to "require" a GH effect.
To illustrate this, please think the following through.
Consider a point on the earth's surface on the lit side of the planet.
What could it's surface temperature be as a possible maximum, for solar insolation received only?
P is 1368W/m2, which for our purposes here, and this explanation only, "we" will take as a constant,
(it isn't, there is more to solar P and influence upon earth's climate than just the wattage or power, and these other factors vary considerably).
The receiving square meter of the earth's surface will be inclined to the source of P both latitudinally, and longitudinally, depending upon time of day.
As will the path be through the atmosphere the light, solar P has to travel to reach the earth's surface.
P received at the earth's surface will be reduced from 1368W/m2, by the atmosphere, and it's constituents reflecting, scattering, and absorbing some of the incoming P.
The earth's surface itself will also reflect some of the incoming solar P.
In the end, it is obvious that at the earth's surface a lot less than P will be absorbed by the earth's surface.
This gives a possible maximum temperature, using the accepted by everyone equation,

(P / 5.6704) ^0.25*100=K

Where,
P = Power of beam in W/m2.
K = Degrees Kelvin temperature for receiving black body surface (per square meter).
^ = raise to the power of
* = Multiply

that the earth's surface could reach for that point "we" are considering.

It is worth mentioning at this point that for latitude along the mid day meridian,
the effect of inclination to the sun effects P received per square meter at the earth's surface,
as shown by the below plot originally posted elsewhere by Alan Siddons.
[Image: ASSlide9.jpg]
and this one,
[Image: ASSlide4.jpg]

For longitude, the same shape is repeated at 90 degrees, with a maximum shown in the latitude plot.
The next step is to work out how much is reflected, scattered, or absorbed by the atmosphere, given the path of P through the atmosphere, the amount of cloudiness, etc, etc.
Then you need to know the surfaces albedo,
by now you should be close to a P received in W/m2 figure and using the above equation,
you should be able to calculate the maximum possible temperature for the bit of the earth's surface you are considering.

You could ignore the above, and just go outside and measure the strength of solar incoming P, with an appropriate meter / instrument.
Then for the surface being considered, measure it's albedo.
Calculate using the W/m2 figure left, using the above equation.
This will give a maximum possible surface temperature for incoming solar radiation ONLY received at the earth's surface.

Comparing both of the above methods should give the same answer.

I guarantee that, barring geothermal heat (or human, fire, etc) inputs,
the surface temperature you would actually measure WILL ALWAYS BE LOWER than
the possible maximum for the solar input received ONLY at the earth's surface on the lit side of the planet.

This is THE problem, the failed GH hypothesis and AGW says that the earth's surface temperature will be higher than that of solar input ONLY,
(please see first figure in this post)
because of "back radiation" surface heating.

Literally in reality, there is no "room", nor need, for a GH "effect".
P/4 is "merely" used in the failed GH hypothesis, and AGW to get the surface temperature low enough to "require" a GH effect.


This is just one of the points I originally made in the 1st and 2nd posts in this thread.
Which like the 3rd point has still not been answered by any of the responses so far.

Reply
#52
(06-21-2011, 05:07 AM)Richard T. Fowler Wrote: Post 46 -- Climate Realist, just at first glance, this sounds like a plausible explanation, and I will try to commit it to memory. I know that you, or someone, (someones, more likely) has said it before, but since this is not my background, I have trouble following and remembering all of the important stuff. For this I apologize.

I wonder how many different ways we all have to agree with each other before I will stop getting called a nazi, a holocaust denier, an alinskyite, etc.

RTF

Since you have shut off your PM.s

Therefore I will reply here.

By the way,

You can configure your PM set up by allowing only "buddies" to be allowed to send you PM's.

Only receive private messages from buddy list

I have read through the thread page and fail to see where he called you a Nazi or stated that you are Holocaust denier.

I have asked you questions about "draconian rules" and being "censored"

POST 13

Quote:I wonder what "draconian rules" you are referring to.I am not aware that I have posted them.

If you really believe you or others are being censored.By all means let me know through the PM system.I want diverse views to be aired here.Including yours.

You never answered them.

Not only that.I see no evidence that Derek has moderated any of your postings in the thread.I looked it up in the Moderator Control Panel.

I did delete a couple of lines in Dereks postings.Specifically the Alinksy and Nizkor links.I did that because I considered them inappropriate for a Discussion based forum.

I do find it irritating having to deal with claims,YOU made against my forum.That are never answered.When I asked you about them.

Where are the "draconian rules" and the "Censorship" you complained about?

Post 12

Quote:Since your forum has all these draconian rules about what your critics or auditors may and may not write in response to your ideas, it makes it very easy for a person such as myself (who you seem to have concluded believes almost the opposite of what I do) to be censored.

post 43

Quote:Links on one of the pages just linked to include:

66 Questions & Answers About the Holocaust
The Techniques of Holocaust Denial
The Trial of Adolf Eichmann
Holocaust "Revisionism" or Holocaust Denial?

Hmm...

You did say that you did not come here to start a war.

Derek never brings them up or state that you are a holocaust denier.You did and also twisted the holocaust reference he made.To make it appear he was calling you a denier of the holocaust.When he was not.

Now I deleted the Holocaust link.Because thought it was counterproductive to the thread and does not support the concept of the Discussion ideals of this forum.

It appears to me that you are not blameless in this thread either.Both you and Derek have made some comments,that should NOT have been made.
It is our attitude toward free thought and free expression that will determine our fate. There must be no limit on the range of temperate discussion, no limits on thought. No subject must be taboo. No censor must preside at our assemblies.

–William O. Douglas, U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1952
Reply
#53
I accept my share of the blame, and offer my appropriate apologies to all,
this is a discussion based forum.

I would also refer everyone to my Post 15 this thread.
The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed
(and hence clamorous to be led to safety)
by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.

H. L. Mencken.  

The hobgoblins have to be imaginary so that
"they" can offer their solutions, not THE solutions.
Reply
#54
(06-21-2011, 08:55 PM)Sunsettommy Wrote: I see no evidence that Derek has moderated any of your postings in the thread.I looked it up in the Moderator Control Panel.


I made no such claim, I never thought that he did so in this thread, and I am disappointed that your thoughts would go first to, 'He is (i.e., MUST BE) talking about this thread.'

For me to be talking about this thread, I would have to be saying that the rules I referred to had been laid down within this thread, so that I would never have had a chance to be censored at that point.

Why does it have to be this thread? If I were talking about this thread, I would have to be pretty confused, wouldn't I? Why couldn't you, in the presence of doubt, assume that I meant the more logical meaning?



(06-21-2011, 08:55 PM)Sunsettommy Wrote: I do find it irritating having to deal with claims,YOU made against my forum.That are never answered.When I asked you about them.


You do not have to deal with my claims. The forum is clearly labeled "Derek's forum", and Derek has demonstrated the ability to moderate it. He has also stated rules, and attempted at times to enforce them. He has even apologised for having been less than successful at this effort.

If you say you have plenary control, I believe you. But from my point of view, the matter was, at best, ambiguous.

But I would also point that I am under no obligation to answer your questions. Thus, if you are allowing yourself to become irritated by my choice to remain silent on a certain matter, that is an unnecessary and unfortunate choice on your part.


(06-21-2011, 08:55 PM)Sunsettommy Wrote: Where are the "draconian rules" and the "Censorship" you complained about?


Both I and Derek have already answered this, in our own respective ways. Derek has already admitted, and apologised for, that which you claim, after a thorough review of the thread, to know nothing about. Oh well, it really doesn't matter to me that much.

I am glad for Derek's apology, and if it is directed partly toward me, I accept it. I forgive him in any case, and I thank him for his uncommon candor.

I am now leaving this thread, and I hope that readers can look past the side issues to see the core lesson of the thread, which is that we clearly all agree on the meaning of P/4 (i.e., that it can mean mean either an average over time, OR an average over the surface of the earth AT A POINT IN TIME) and on the necessity of creating a nonuniform distribution of intensity over the entire Earth surface, in order to produce even somewhat believable numbers in any model -- whether or not that model has a "greenhouse effect" built into it.

RTF

Reply
#55
Quote:I made no such claim, I never thought that he did so in this thread, and I am disappointed that your thoughts would go first to, 'He is (i.e., MUST BE) talking about this thread.'

I never stated that you made such a claim.

I was expanding on your original statement about censorship.

You originally stated at post 12.In THIS thread:

Quote:Since your forum has all these draconian rules about what your critics or auditors may and may not write in response to your ideas, it makes it very easy for a person such as myself (who you seem to have concluded believes almost the opposite of what I do) to be censored.

But since you never pointed out an actual censored post anywhere and not answer my question out what you complained about.I have to wonder why you made such a big fuss in the first place?

Since I never read of your complaints of being censored in ANY of the other threads in Derek's forum area.I have no choice but to think it is THIS thread.Since that is where I read it.

Quote:For me to be talking about this thread, I would have to be saying that the rules I referred to had been laid down within this thread, so that I would never have had a chance to be censored at that point.

Why does it have to be this thread? If I were talking about this thread, I would have to be pretty confused, wouldn't I? Why couldn't you, in the presence of doubt, assume that I meant the more logical meaning?

Oh please!

So far you have no case anyway since you complained about something that apparently never happened.Since you have yet to point out the evidence to support your complaint.

Since you are the complainant about unspecified "draconian rules" and "censorship".It naturally gets the attention of the forum owner.Who has to ask questions about it.

Have you thought of that?

Quote:You do not have to deal with my claims. The forum is clearly labeled "Derek's forum", and Derek has demonstrated the ability to moderate it. He has also stated rules, and attempted at times to enforce them. He has even apologised for having been less than successful at this effort.

If you say you have plenary control, I believe you. But from my point of view, the matter was, at best, ambiguous.

I gave him that forum spot at his request.However at all times I am the OWNER of the entire forum and one of the two forum wide Moderators.Therefore anything that goes on in any part of the forum.Will get my attention.Why do you think I suggested you bring the complaints to me or JohnWho through the PM system or the REPORT button?

You made two reports.I answered them in my own way.And behind the scenes.

It was Derek who made the reports,sorry my error

Derek can only Moderate for the main purpose of keeping his section in order.He does not moderate anywhere else.

Quote:But I would also point that I am under no obligation to answer your questions. Thus, if you are allowing yourself to become irritated by my choice to remain silent on a certain matter, that is an unnecessary and unfortunate choice on your part.

Then your complaint you made at post 12:

Quote:Since your forum has all these draconian rules about what your critics or auditors may and may not write in response to your ideas, it makes it very easy for a person such as myself (who you seem to have concluded believes almost the opposite of what I do) to be censored.

is considered trolling.Because you now tell me you REFUSE to answer MY question about it:

My statement at post 13:

Quote:It is MY forum you are complaining about.

I wonder what "draconian rules" you are referring to.

You never answered it at all.

Then I make a big post # 52,in the open because you do not want to receive any PMs.

There I asked you this question again:

Quote:Where are the "draconian rules" and the "Censorship" you complained about?

You come back with this reply:

Quote:But I would also point that I am under no obligation to answer your questions. Thus, if you are allowing yourself to become irritated by my choice to remain silent on a certain matter, that is an unnecessary and unfortunate choice on your part.

You continue with this:

Quote:Both I and Derek have already answered this, in our own respective ways. Derek has already admitted, and apologised for, that which you claim, after a thorough review of the thread, to know nothing about. Oh well, it really doesn't matter to me that much.

You STILL have not answered MY questions.It matters to me because you made serious complaints in my forum.But then refuse to answer my repeated questions about them.

I recall what Derek wrote back at post 15:

Quote:I have not moderated a single thing on this thread to date, so
your "draconian rules here" slur is just that.
An unfounded, in this instance, slur.
Previously I have tried to tidy up threads, that I admit, and that it was not particularly successful.
For that, with the best of intentions originally, and now, I apologise (and if I remember correctly, I already have apologised).

He also informed you about my status here:

Quote:Lastly, Sunsettommy's forum is a discussion forum, and Jeff Id's blog is a place, as he says himself, to vent,
please remember that when posting here.

He has apologized THREE TIMES!

I believe I have been reasonable in trying to find out what your complaints are. And have asked you questions about them.You throw them back in my face with refusal to help me understand what your complaints were.

Derek and Sunsettommy tried to settle the problems with you.He made several apologies to us.I responded to your reported complaints.

It appears that you are now the only who still have a problem here.
It is our attitude toward free thought and free expression that will determine our fate. There must be no limit on the range of temperate discussion, no limits on thought. No subject must be taboo. No censor must preside at our assemblies.

–William O. Douglas, U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1952
Reply
#56
Quote:I am glad for Derek's apology, and if it is directed partly toward me, I accept it. I forgive him in any case, and I thank him for his uncommon candor.

Derek wrote:

Quote:I accept my share of the blame, and offer my appropriate apologies to all,
this is a discussion based forum.

I would also refer everyone to my Post 15 this thread.

He apologized to everybody.

Quote:I am now leaving this thread, and I hope that readers can look past the side issues to see the core lesson of the thread, which is that we clearly all agree on the meaning of P/4 (i.e., that it can mean mean either an average over time, OR an average over the surface of the earth AT A POINT IN TIME) and on the necessity of creating a nonuniform distribution of intensity over the entire Earth surface, in order to produce even somewhat believable numbers in any model -- whether or not that model has a "greenhouse effect" built into it.

I hope we LEARNED about those "side issues" and its negative impact against the Discussion style this forum is based on.

Then we can be better able to avoid repeating them again.

Big Grin
It is our attitude toward free thought and free expression that will determine our fate. There must be no limit on the range of temperate discussion, no limits on thought. No subject must be taboo. No censor must preside at our assemblies.

–William O. Douglas, U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1952
Reply
#57
Way to go! Time to move on. Lessons learned and all that. :nod_yes:
Environmentalism is based on lies and the lies reflect an agenda that regards humanity as the enemy of the Earth. - Alan Caruba
Reply
#58
(06-27-2011, 07:17 PM)Richard T. Fowler Wrote: -snip-

I am now leaving this thread, and I hope that readers can look past the side issues to see the core lesson of the thread, which is that we clearly all agree on the meaning of P/4 (i.e., that it can mean mean either an average over time, OR an average over the surface of the earth AT A POINT IN TIME) and on the necessity of creating a nonuniform distribution of intensity over the entire Earth surface, in order to produce even somewhat believable numbers in any model -- whether or not that model has a "greenhouse effect" built into it.

RTF

Yes, that makes perfect sense to me, and I still don't follow Derek's reasoning for why there is a problem with P/4. It just seems good scientific common sense to me.



BTW, I am staying out of the squabble! Angel
Reply
#59
(06-27-2011, 07:17 PM)Richard T. Fowler Wrote: we clearly all agree on the meaning of P/4 (i.e., that it can mean mean either an average over time, OR an average over the surface of the earth AT A POINT IN TIME)

RTF

Utter poppycock.

AT A POINT IN TIME P/4 is averaging two completely different halves (that are 12 hours apart "in the physics of the situation").
One half of earth is day, the other is night.
This makes the "calculation" of P/4 of very limited use and applicability. That is THE main point.

This is also a false representation to seemingly keep the idea of a W/m2 going, when
in fact by the very definition of a W/m2 (a timeless power figure) such a "calculation" does not produce an answer in units of W/m2.
Over 24 hours, taking the globe as a whole, yes, P/4 is a (unphysical in reality for a spinning globe with one source of P) "average" (power of) energy input,
it is also,
at a moment in time, just a meaningless "average", that is more obviously divorced from the definition of a W/m2, and the physics of the situation.
The halves being "averaged" are 12 hours apart in regard of the input being "averaged".
What else happens in those 12 hours P/4 ignores / dismisses?

Maths MUST BE appropriately applied to the physics of a given situation, not determine the physics (and "time") of a given situation as inappropriately using P/4 does.

"Agreeing" with the supposed general applicability of P/4, without realising P/4 has very limited use/s, is "agreeing" to be divorced from reality.
Using P/4 inappropriately, is "agreeing" to view a false reality.
P/4 AT A POINT IN TIME is a necessary prerequisite, it is the "starting point" for the failed GH hypothesis and "greenhouse land physics",
which is not a "squabble",
it is absolutely central.
The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed
(and hence clamorous to be led to safety)
by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.

H. L. Mencken.  

The hobgoblins have to be imaginary so that
"they" can offer their solutions, not THE solutions.
Reply
#60
(06-28-2011, 11:24 PM)Derek Wrote:
(06-27-2011, 07:17 PM)Richard T. Fowler Wrote: we clearly all agree on the meaning of P/4 (i.e., that it can mean mean either an average over time, OR an average over the surface of the earth AT A POINT IN TIME)

RTF

Utter poppycock.

AT A POINT IN TIME P/4 is averaging two completely different halves (that are 12 hours apart "in the physics of the situation").
One half of earth is day, the other is night.
This makes the "calculation" of P/4 of very limited use and applicability. That is THE main point.

This is also a false representation to seemingly keep the idea of a W/m2 going, when
in fact by the very definition of a W/m2 (a timeless power figure) such a "calculation" does not produce an answer in units of W/m2.
Over 24 hours, taking the globe as a whole, yes, P/4 is a (unphysical in reality for a spinning globe with one source of P) "average" (power of) energy input,
it is also,
at a moment in time, just a meaningless "average", that is more obviously divorced from the definition of a W/m2, and the physics of the situation.
The halves being "averaged" are 12 hours apart in regard of the input being "averaged".
What else happens in those 12 hours P/4 ignores / dismisses?

Maths MUST BE appropriately applied to the physics of a given situation, not determine the physics (and "time") of a given situation as inappropriately using P/4 does.

"Agreeing" with the supposed general applicability of P/4, without realising P/4 has very limited use/s, is "agreeing" to be divorced from reality.
Using P/4 inappropriately, is "agreeing" to view a false reality.
P/4 AT A POINT IN TIME is a necessary prerequisite, it is the "starting point" for the failed GH hypothesis and "greenhouse land physics",
which is not a "squabble",
it is absolutely central.


I am returning to this thread because of Derek's Post #59, posted 6-28-2011 10:24 PM, which I have quoted directly above.


I want to know why Derek thinks I am "'[a]greeing' with the supposed general applicability of P/4."

By the term "P/4" he means the act of calculating incoming radiation for a given model grid box by inputting a constant one-quarter haze to that box and all the others.

Nobody I am aware of believes that a climate model can legitimately model climate by doing this.

The suggestion that anyone would agree with this belief is ludicrous, and the implication that _I_ agree with it is libelous. Derek clearly knows quite well by now that I not only do not agree with it, but that I have actually argued against such a practice on numerous occasions.



I also want to know why Derek says,

"P/4 AT A POINT IN TIME is a necessary prerequisite, it is the 'starting point' for the failed GH hypothesis and 'greenhouse land physics'"

by which he clearly means in part that P/4 at a point in time is a necessary prerequisite for the failed GH hypothesis and "greenhouse land physics".

I want to know why Derek says this in response to my comment, because (as I previously noted on this thread) he said at the Air Vent, on or around June 15:

"If we view earth as an object from space it is supposed to be an object (on average) at -18C. I do not disagree with this."



If Derek agrees that the Stefan-Boltzmann calculation for the whole Earth at a point in time, using the average insolation, produces a supposed average temperature of -18C, then this is in full agreement with the comments that I have made on the matter. In that case, Derek's statement that my statement:

we clearly all agree on the meaning of P/4 (i.e., that it can mean mean either an average over time, OR an average over the surface of the earth AT A POINT IN TIME)

is "utter poppycock" is _itself_ a false and libelous statement -- libelous against me.

I want to know why Derek says that my comment which he quoted in post #59 is "utter poppycock", since he apparently holds the same views that I do of the matter.

In the event that others agree I have properly characterized all of the statements by Derek that I have outlined in this present post, I would not just want a retraction stated in a subsequent post. I would also want the false statements of Derek's struck out with a line, or deleted. Preferably struck out with a line.

I have enable PM's on my account, but I recommend in the strongest possible way that all interested parties state their comments in public, both for their own protection as well as that of others.

May I also say I have been trying very hard to avoid making public accusations against Derek. If he would just stop attacking me verbally, I will stop defending myself from his attacks.

Thank you.

RTF
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)