Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Five fatal flaws the greenhouse effect "theory" MUST address.
#1
Hello All,
Please find attached to this post my Xmas 2012 pdf.
I think the title says it all..


Attached Files
.pdf   Derek_Five_fatal_flaws_of_GHE _theory_Xmas_2012 _pdf.pdf (Size: 1.43 MB / Downloads: 2,775)
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
#2
Any comments or questions???
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
#3
I wonder if we will see any rebuttals to this pdf and the five fatal flaws of GH "theory" it simply and understandably explains in 2013?
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
#4
It is over a month since I posted the pdf. There have been 150+ downloads from this forum, it was also posted on the yahoo climate skeptics group, and on the fb group. I have sent copies of it to Jeff Id, WUWT, Jo Nova, Jennifer Marohasy, Donna Laframboise, and Geoff Brown.

Thomas Pearson, Russ Jimeson, John O'sullivan, and Hans Shreuder have all posted / commented positively, otherwise there has not been a single negative reaction or rebuttal from anywhere to date.

It seems "greenhouse" CAN NOT be questioned.
Which is a shame when you think about it, because the truth will out in the end.
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
#5
Derek, don't know the effect this will have but my own simple layman maths shows that CO2 is not responsible for the GHE and now Professor Claes Johnson has upped the anti claiming deliberate fraud!

http://principia-scientific.org/supportn...fraud.html
Environmentalism is based on lies and the lies reflect an agenda that regards humanity as the enemy of the Earth. - Alan Caruba
Reply
#6
I do not know which is more perplexing. This pdf has not received any rebuttals from the consensus or the main stream sceptics, or that is being ignored by the radical sceptics BECAUSE in it I advocate a return to the ideal gas law.
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
#7
(02-11-2013, 04:52 AM)Derek Wrote: I do not know which is more perplexing. This pdf has not received any rebuttals from the consensus or the main stream sceptics, or that is being ignored by the radical sceptics BECAUSE in it I advocate a return to the ideal gas law.

We are in the age of facebook with its crappy post box and no easy search function.

Rolleyes
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
#8
I'm here to respond to Sunsettommy's polite comment on a post of mine back in December, and a much earlier one which included an invite back here. I didn't reply to them then (rather rudely), but I'm replying to them now (after hassle with lost p/w).

I ceased posting & visiting here for several reasons - the first was I was annoyed with Derek for saying I'd ignored several questions of his. I've never consciously done that on any thread on any blog or forum anywhere. When I huffily asked for clarification, I got no immediate answer. Secondly, I was planning a blog of my own, and was collecting data and spreadsheets for what was to become the main theme - sea-level analysis.

In addition, I'm here to give some advice to Derek, which I hope he'll take in the spirit it's given; critical but helpful. I've just read your pdf, Derek, and I can see your frustration that no mainstream sceptical blogger has even bothered to reply. I'm not going to argue any of the points contained therein, but ask you to put yourself in their shoes.

You title your text "Five fatal flaws the greenhouse effect (GHE) “theory” MUST address", then on the last page post an invite to the "There is no greenhouse effect" group on facebook. That clearly indicates you've already made up your mind on the topic, whether you have or not. Why should anyone respond to someone who's made up his mind, what would that response achieve?

On your second page, you post a diagram which you say is "how the GHE is taught in universities". It's not your diagram, but one from Alan Siddons. He's not an authority on the GHE, nor how it's taught. The fact that he's a "Dragon Slayer" would put off any of your recipients. What they see is that you've handed over your analysis and factual sourcing to others. Your links seemingly point to university web-pages, but actually link to photobucket images, with no seal of authenticity at all - people don't like that, it's what's done in phishing emails and websites.

It doesn't matter whether I agree or disagree with you on any point. Do your own research (I always do), form your own views (I always do), crystallise your own opinion - I always have done. Don't fall a victim to any faction - everyone has an axe to grind, even me, but I like to sharpen mine with facts, not dogma or partial truths, or misinformation.

Keep your cave warm - cold doesn't encourage clear thinking.
Ernest Rutherford: "If your experiment needs statistics, you ought to have done a better experiment."
Reply
#9
Hello long time member,

I am glad you have a BLOG of your own where you make your own contribution for us to tap into.I have several times used a blog post of yours to bring up points for someone to ponder over.

I realize that you will not be busy here and that is fine as you have your own blog and post elsewhere in your visitations in various places on the net and please keep it up.There is a need to help the public see past the baloney foisted on us by the media and dishonest people.

I wish there was more effort on the skeptics part to delve into the geologic past climate and about the coming climate winter that draws near.Hopefully you can work up a nice blog post on as John Kehr over at his BLOG has and through his book as well.This is a neglected area that needs more work on.





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
#10
(02-15-2013, 06:46 AM)Sunsettommy Wrote: I wish there was more effort on the skeptics part to delve into the geologic past climate and about the coming climate winter that draws near.Hopefully you can work up a nice blog post on as John Kehr over at his BLOG has and through his book as well.This is a neglected area that needs more work on.

I've stuck to what I know most about, and will continue to do so. I haven't visited Kehr's site for a while; I should have done. His Temperature Dependence of the Earth’s Outgoing Energy post is a good one. It shows what the modellers (and John Cook) find inconvenient; that a warmer Earth radiates more energy, not less, which is what Lindzen's been saying for years. The GHE doesn't drive climate, it modulates and regulates it. Remember the "tropospheric hotspot", the supposed "signature" of AGW? It doesn't exist; John Cook now says "it doesn't matter" - well he would, wouldn't he?

The oceans drive climate, it's as simple as that; if they could absorb all the heat energy in the atmosphere they'd heat up just a fraction of one degree Celsius. That's not a guess, it's physics, simple heat capacity. Try and heat your bathwater by putting a fan-heater (don't do this at home!) in the room, and see how long it takes - make sure you take plenty of water and food with you. Try the opposite, in a cold bathroom - fill the bath with hot water, and see how few minutes it take to bring the room to a comfortable temperature.

Climate scientists are skilled almost exclusively in atmospheric and radiation sciences. Any hint of matters oceanic there? Draw you own conclusions.
Ernest Rutherford: "If your experiment needs statistics, you ought to have done a better experiment."
Reply
#11
(02-15-2013, 08:37 AM)MostlyHarmless Wrote:
(02-15-2013, 06:46 AM)Sunsettommy Wrote: I wish there was more effort on the skeptics part to delve into the geologic past climate and about the coming climate winter that draws near.Hopefully you can work up a nice blog post on as John Kehr over at his BLOG has and through his book as well.This is a neglected area that needs more work on.

I've stuck to what I know most about, and will continue to do so. I haven't visited Kehr's site for a while; I should have done. His Temperature Dependence of the Earth’s Outgoing Energy post is a good one. It shows what the modellers (and John Cook) find inconvenient; that a warmer Earth radiates more energy, not less, which is what Lindzen's been saying for years. The GHE doesn't drive climate, it modulates and regulates it. Remember the "tropospheric hotspot", the supposed "signature" of AGW? It doesn't exist; John Cook now says "it doesn't matter" - well he would, wouldn't he?

The oceans drive climate, it's as simple as that; if they could absorb all the heat energy in the atmosphere they'd heat up just a fraction of one degree Celsius. That's not a guess, it's physics, simple heat capacity. Try and heat your bathwater by putting a fan-heater (don't do this at home!) in the room, and see how long it takes - make sure you take plenty of water and food with you. Try the opposite, in a cold bathroom - fill the bath with hot water, and see how few minutes it take to bring the room to a comfortable temperature.

Climate scientists are skilled almost exclusively in atmospheric and radiation sciences. Any hint of matters oceanic there? Draw you own conclusions.

I like this one too:

The Science of why the Theory of Global Warming is Incorrect!

Excerpt:

A 0.5 °C temperature difference between these two years resulted in an additional 2.5 W/m2 increase in the measured amount of energy lost to space. That increase in energy loss is not theoretical, it is a measured difference. It is also what is predicted by the Stefan-Boltmann Law.

If the Earth were to warm by 1.1 °C, the amount of energy lost would be almost 4 W/m2 greater than what it lost in 1984. If the Earth were to warm by 3.0 °C which is what is predicted by a doubling of CO2, then the amount of energy lost would be > 10 W/m2 the energy loss that existed in 1984.

The science of this is very clear. The rate at which the Earth loses energy will increase at more than twice the rate that the theoretical CO2 forcing is capable of causing warming to take place. The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere cannot stop the Earth from losing more energy if it warms up. The reasons behind this are the wavelengths of energy that are transmitted by the Earth, but it can simply be shown by looking at the energy loss increase that has taken place over the past 25 years.

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
#12
(02-15-2013, 04:27 PM)Sunsettommy Wrote: I like this one too:

The Science of why the Theory of Global Warming is Incorrect!

I like to look at the bigger picture from time to time - it's what matters of course. I find all the minute picking over what the latest satellite sea-level or UAH temperature shows or Arctic sea-ice (is it higher or lower than last month?) on WUWT and other blogs boring and pointless. I've got the entire AR5 draft to pore over, and I'm sure there are some real gems in there. What's interesting about this one is that the authors are clearly on their toes, sensitive to any possible criticism on release. No more WWF articles and climbing magazine anecdotes for them this time.
Ernest Rutherford: "If your experiment needs statistics, you ought to have done a better experiment."
Reply
#13
What happened to staying on the topic of a thread???
What happened to any rebuttals???
If Mostly Harmless does not want to question GH "theory" what is he doing on this thread, other than hijaking it, and advertising his own blog.

Mostly Harmless has posted ad homs, false statements and patently inaccurate personal opinions, then hijacked the thread.

Mostly Harmless you say I should use my own work. Then you imply I have simply used a diagram that is Alan Siddon's as my own.
ie, you are inferring I have plagiarised Alan Siddon's work. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/plagiarised

Alan's diagram as it was originally, and still is. He has never redrawn it to my knowledge.
[Image: Slide21.jpg]

HOWEVER, I have redrawn his original diagram, my first version was this.
[Image: Slide22.jpg]
When I produced this plot I sent it to Alan Siddons by private email. Alan approved of the plot and said I could use the diagram as and when I wanted as my own.
I do use the plot, but I credit it to him, sometimes adding that it is my redrawn version of his plot.

I later developed / refined the plot in several versions, for instance,
[Image: Slide23.jpg]

and,
[Image: Slide24.jpg]

[Image: Slide25.jpg]

In short Mostly Harmless, please get your facts straight before posting your own false opinions, ad homs, and inaccuracies against me,
in some vain attempt it would seem to try to justify the fact you do NOT question GH "theory".

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
#14
(02-18-2013, 08:06 AM)Derek Wrote: What happened to staying on the topic of a thread???
What happened to any rebuttals???
If Mostly Harmless does not want to question GH "theory" what is he doing on this thread, other than hijaking it, and advertising his own blog.

Mostly Harmless has posted ad homs, false statements and patently inaccurate personal opinions, then hijacked the thread.

Mostly Harmless you say I should use my own work. Then you imply I have simply used a diagram that is Alan Siddon's as my own.
ie, you are inferring I have plagiarised Alan Siddon's work. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/plagiarised

Alan's diagram as it was originally, and still is. He has never redrawn it to my knowledge.

In short Mostly Harmless, please get your facts straight before posting your own false opinions, ad homs, and inaccuracies against me,
in some vain attempt it would seem to try to justify the fact you do NOT question GH "theory".

What are you prattling on about? You do your case no good by blasting away in all directions at once, and I haven't accused you of anything other than a lack of thought about your approach to well-known bloggers. If fact I offered some constructive comments without prejudice on a topic I disagree with you about, and the content of your pdf. I pointed out you were using a diagram of Siddon's which you acknowledge is by him - I didn't imply it, I stated it. Using someone's elses work isn't plagiarism if you quote the source - you do. I suggested you check out the authenticity of it - the information in it, and what's implied by it, not the source of the diagram itself, which is clear.

I hoped you might, just might, have a rethink about your approach. Good god, man, I'm offering advice on how to better construct an argument I disagree with - how can I be fairer than that? Doing all this could hardly be construed as posting "off topic". Where are the "ad homs"? - I could certainly accuse you of similar in your reply, but I do not.

I didn't "advertise my own blog" - I included a link to a post which Sunsettommy had replied to, which reply I didn't acknowledge at the time. If I wanted to "advertise my own blog" I'd have included a link in my signature, the absence of which seems to have escaped your notice. Get a grip.
Ernest Rutherford: "If your experiment needs statistics, you ought to have done a better experiment."
Reply
#15
Mostly harmless I note you leave out of your quote of what I said in regards of the plot used the following.
When I produced this plot I sent it to Alan Siddons by private email. Alan approved of the plot and said I could use the diagram as and when I wanted as my own.

I do use the plot, but I credit it to him, sometimes adding that it is my redrawn version of his plot.

I later developed / refined the plot in several versions, for instance,


QED.
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
#16
(02-19-2013, 10:24 PM)Derek Wrote: Mostly harmless I note you leave out of your quote of what I said in regards of the plot used the following.
When I produced this plot I sent it to Alan Siddons by private email. Alan approved of the plot and said I could use the diagram as and when I wanted as my own.

I do use the plot, but I credit it to him, sometimes adding that it is my redrawn version of his plot.

I later developed / refined the plot in several versions, for instance,


QED.

What we have here is a total failure to comprehend. I said earlier that the diagram (it's not a plot - that's a graph) was based on several by Alan Siddons. I knew it was because you made it plain in your pdf he was the source. It doesn't matter whether you received approval by email, carrier pigeon, tablets of stone or burning letters ten feet high. The diagram is based on what Siddons produced. It is not, and cannot be an accurate portrayal of "greenhouse theory". You won't' find, on any of those University sites, a diagram resembling yours. I knew that already, but I've since checked again, and on more than one site.
You received no acknowledgement of your pdf, nor any rebuttals of it from the bloggers you sent it to, and you will not get any rebuttals from me, because you're attacking a straw man - a diagram based on what Siddons depicts as greenhouse theory, and not that theory at all.

I said before, and I'll say it again, until perhaps it sinks in, that linking to Alan Siddons graphics on photobucket, when any sane person would expect to see the relevant university web page, with diagram, and on the university website, kills your argument stone dead. If I intended to criticise a Wikipedia page, I'd link to that page, and not to what someone else has depicted as being what's on that page.

On the Air Vent in 2010 you ignored well-meant advice from scientists, engineers and well-known bloggers on misconceptions you had, mistakes you'd made, and how better to frame your argument. An argument most of them disagreed with, yet they still gave advice freely and in good humour.That which you didn't ignore, you argued with - you accepted none of their advice nor constructive criticism. You read a lot there yet learned absolutely nothing. You had an opportunity denied to most and you blew it.

Now you're claiming that my well-meant advice is a collection of
".....ad homs, false statements and patently inaccurate personal opinions, then claimed I "hijacked the thread". I could equally say, and with some justification, that your entire take on the "greenhouse effect" is "patently inaccurate personal opinions", but I've refrained from doing so, so far. You don't learn from others, and you never have. The evidence is spread throughout this entire forum site, which you've hijacked, judging by the sparsity of comments in recent months (years maybe?).

On another thread, you ask "What is a watt". it's like someone embarking on a worldwide history of transport asking "What is a wheel?".

I advised you not to use second-hand information, and to check for yourself, and to think for yourself. If you can't or won't check for yourself then you can't think for yourself, and you're a lost cause, and will continue to be ignored. It's not a conspiracy of silence, it's a silent appraisal of you and your work.
Ernest Rutherford: "If your experiment needs statistics, you ought to have done a better experiment."
Reply
#17
Quoting Mostlyharmless:

Quote:I said before, and I'll say it again, until perhaps it sinks in, that linking to Alan Siddons graphics on photobucket, when any sane person would expect to see the relevant university web page, with diagram, and on the university website, kills your argument stone dead. If I intended to criticise a Wikipedia page, I'd link to that page, and not to what someone else has depicted as being what's on that page.

To be fair is to point out that Derek has made a post that is all about what others say what the Global Warming Effect is and with the relevant links to the websites.

I am not sure where it is but Derek might know where it is and post it here to show the difference between what Alan and Derek created/modified and what the conventional charts describing the CAGW conjecture looks like and they have been posted here before but not in this thread.

Derek can you dredge up that thread or post about what others say what the greenhouse effect is and post it 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
#18
A very quick google images search for "greenhouse effect theory" turns up this from Real Climate blog....Gavin Schmidt I believe.....As I used in the pdf.....

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/arc...ple-model/

BBC image used
http://www.bbc.co.uk/schools/gcsebitesiz...rev1.shtml

I could go through and find links for every one, but why bother, no one can seriously question that those are the actual diagrams / plots / graphics the various universities cited actually used. Unless one does not want to question GH "theory" it would seem...

Mostly harmless all you have done is show you do not have a clue what the greenhouse effect "theory" as presently taught actually is.

I was party to the discussions within the Slayers (because I am one of the Slayers) at the time we were trying to isolate what was (and still is) the actual greenhouse effect "theory" as then taught. It appears that exactly the same garbage is still taught in exactly the same manner now, yet, main stream skeptics do not question it, probably because they have still not bothered to try to find out what is actually taught.

If anyone repeats the above google search and compares the resulting images to Alan's original, or my redrawing of the plot, then I think it fairly obvious that it is a very good, if not the best at present summation of what is actually taught as greenhouse effect "theory" then and now.

Another very good example I considered using...I think I posted here in the GWS forum about it, but as far as the pdf is concerned decided it has deliberately been drawn to be confusing.
http://www.bis.gov.uk/go-science/climate...kground-1c

It is mid shift for me SST, so I will look for the thread you mention at the weekend.
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
#19
My apologies SST I can not find the thread you refer to. From memory the links that Aan gave mostly became "dead" very quickly. So, I think it is now a bit of a wild goose chase to find links to the originally quoted plots.

That said, I have just done a quick search for Yale and greenhouse effect theory on google and found this page,
http://web.chjhs.tp.edu.tw/~j-bio/warmho...edge.htm#4
Excerpt -
"Greenhouse Effect refers to a physical property of Earth atmosphere. Provide there is no atmosphere, the average temperature of earth surface is -18°rather than moderate 15°at present. The difference on temperature is derived from a kind of so-called greenhouse gases that affect integral emerge balance of Earth by absorbing infrared radiation. In real case, the solar radiation absorbed by Earth and atmosphere can be balanced by infrared radiation released outside the space.(see figure below)Under influence of greenhouse gas, the infrared radiation absorbed by the atmosphere is more than that releases outside the space to increase temperature of Earth surface, which is called Natural Greenhouse Effect. A large amount of greenhouse gases discharged from human activities, however, let more infrared radiations returned to the Earth surface, which strengthens Greenhouse Effect.
[Image: Yale_GH_theory_2013_zpsdf23bc81.jpg]
This figure introduces in brief the long-term radiation balance of the Earth atmosphere. The Global Solar Radiation (240 watt per square meter) must be balanced with release of infrared radiation .About 1/3 (103 watt per square meter) of Global Solar Radiation will be absorbed by the Earth surface after reflection. Moreover, the infrared radiation released again by greenhouse gases of the atmosphere cloud through absorption increases the temperature of Earth surface by 33°or so.
"

I think this fairly conclusively backs up my position about what is actually taught as greenhouse effect "theory".

Further down on the very same page linked to above it states -
" CO2 is the main gas the causes Greenhouse Effect. "
:lol:

The above is not a Yale Unversity website page, so I will look further.

Harvard. Which I found via the Wikipedia page for the greenhouse effect in the references section.
http://acmg.seas.harvard.edu/people/facu...chap7.html
ie,
[Image: Harvard_Feb_2013_zps2ea22315.jpg]

which looks very similar to me to the plot I used in the pdf, ie,
[Image: Slide3.jpg]

Maybe I should point out that "Fs(1-A)/4" which is the starting point of the Harvard plot is actually P/4.
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
#20
Climate Realists has the thread that was a guest post by Alan Siddons maybe I will dig it up and post a link to it.
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


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Feynman, the blanket analogy, and Greenhouse effect "theory". Derek 3 11,909 02-06-2015, 06:53 AM
Last Post: Derek
  The imaginary greenhouse effect - a layman's explanation. Derek 0 4,969 10-20-2011, 03:29 PM
Last Post: Derek



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)