Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
The modeling history of "climatology"...
#21
I busy trying to answer this question from Post #18 above..
Quote:They are all the same curve, with different starting points. Yes / No?

and started reading Alan Siddon's notes and find he says what I'm thinking but much more clearly than I can think; if you get me. Rolleyes

But for what it's worth, blackbody, Planck curves are NOT all the same. This is what grabs my thinking. Any substance, material, whatever will be radiating at its local temperature. Even if that material only has an emissivity of 0.5 there will be a point on the BLACKBODY curve for that temperature that defines the PEAK FREQUENCY for that temperature. The material we happen to be talking about may not be able to radiate at all at that peak frequency but will be radiating over other bands enough to fulfil the 0.5 emissivity factor. The point is that none of those radiating bands can exceed the Planck curve level for that temperature.
Now lets take our piece of material with the emissivity factor of 0.5 and place it in full sunshine. Will it warm up? Quite possibly NO! It all depends on whether there is a frequency band ABOVE the peak frequency for the current temperature. In this case the material will only respond to conduction from the surrounding air.
Now here is a point to think about. Our material has a band a bit above peak frequency at its local temperature. That band will slowly absorb energy, raising the temperature of the whole body, (moleculer vibration now) and as the body warms the peak frequency is rising, the curve is changing and more energy is absorbed by that high band area. The temperature will keep rising until that particular band is now at peak frequency. If there are no further high frequency bands in our material that will be the maximum temperature of our material.
This could go on for a long time so I will stop now, but I think you see why I am interested in blackbody curves. If I can calculate the curve I will be able to calculate those emissivity/absorption bands for non blackbody materials like CO2 and H2O. Cool
Environmentalism is based on lies and the lies reflect an agenda that regards humanity as the enemy of the Earth. - Alan Caruba
Reply
#22
Hi All,

Does the atmospheric IR "window" show that anything emitted in it, regardless of the direction of emission, escapes to space?
ie, atmospheric back radiation (regardless of the amount that actually reaches the surface) IS reflected by, simply bounces off, earth's surface.

Am I correct in thinking that IS what the LoTs say should happen?

ie, atmospheric "back radiation" from the (cooler) atmosphere CAN NOT add energy to, or warm earth's (warmer) surface.

THAT is the disproof of radiative transfer "theory" as applied to earth's climate system in a 2 parallel plane model by Balfour Stewart in 1871.
That has since become the "accepted physics" basis of ALL climate modelling since that date, and to the present day.....

[Image: When_it_should_have_been_stopped_zpsgfooi70h.jpg]

and,
[Image: Both_modeling_history_diagrams_zps7wuhdrxa.jpg]

THAT is the proof that GH "theory" and therefore AGW computer climate modelling IS pseudo science.

Literally, curing a sick unicorn anyway you want to, because the unicorn in question IS imaginary...


Attached Files
.pdf   Modelling_history _and_people_of_climatolog_final.pdf (Size: 624.85 KB / Downloads: 129)
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
#23
Some good reference material there Derek, though it might be a bit heavy for the newbies.

Have at last read through Alan Siddons notes. Find I agree with just about everything except this on page 28:

Quote:***
From Alternatives to Traditional Transportation Fuels (U.S. Department of Energy):
What happens after the GHG molecules absorb infrared radiation? The hot molecules release their energy, usually at lower energy (longer wavelength) radiation than the energy previously absorbed. The molecules cannot absorb energy emitted by other molecules of their own kind. Methane molecules, for example, cannot absorb radiation emitted by other methane molecules. This constraint limits how often GHG molecules can absorb emitted infrared radiation.
http://www.eia.gov/cneaf/alternate/page/...ppd_a.html
****

I have to ask how does any GHG molecule 'know' the incoming photon is from a molecule of their own kind????

My feeling is that the emission/absorption characteristics of gas molecules in the atmosphere are more complex and limited than is assumed.
Environmentalism is based on lies and the lies reflect an agenda that regards humanity as the enemy of the Earth. - Alan Caruba
Reply
#24
Richard111, a very important question, no one else has been able to answer, so you are my last hope...

Do you have, or do you know of a copy of (preferably pdf) Maurice Strong's speech to the 1972 Earth Summit.
Lots of references to it, but never a copy of the text...

I would like to know exactly what he did say in that particular speech, please...


Later edit - I think I have found it...
http://www.mauricestrong.net/index.php/s...-stockholm

Now, who were the scientists that attended...
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
#25
Some notes -

http://www.un.org/earthwatch/about/docs/annrpt92.htm

"Similar monitoring and assessment activities were set up or strengthened by various agencies with support from UNEP in other sectors such as background air pollution, oceans and coastal areas, hazardous wastes and toxic chemicals, climate change, food contamination, forest resources, freshwater resources and water quality, etc.

The Seventh Session of the Governing Council of UNEP in 1979 established an ad hoc Group of Government designated Experts to "consult on the development of mechanisms and procedures for conducting environmental assessment within Earthwatch." In its report the Group of Government designated Experts endorsed the general approach to Earthwatch that had existed since 1972 and formulated in detail the elements of comprehensive assessment of any selected environmental problem. "

and,
"At its 1982 Session of Special Character, the GC reviewed the major achievements in the implementation of the Action Plan for the Human Environment adopted by the Stockholm Conference in 1972. In relation to the area of Environmental Assessment, the Council stated that:

- The Global Environment Monitoring System is operating and expanding, although important gaps in the development, co-ordination, user applications and integration of the system components persists;

- The Global Atmospheric Research Programme has continued and international studies of climatic change and variability and of the applications of climate knowledge to human activity have been incorporated in the World Climate Programme. "
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
#26
Sorry Derek. I'm not going down that road. Too depressing. All part of a desperate push to establish a world government before global population reaches that inevitable point when 'liebensraum' triggers wars.

This all started long before 1972 when world population was barely 3 billion. We are due to hit 8 billion by 2020. I think it is too late to stop the trend that predicts 16 billion by 2060. My guess is they were confident about the coming cold but thought they had time to remove or limit the technology that supports war. These same limitations will also effect global food production.

This link I got from GREENIE WATCH today which may be of interest.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015...-group-do/

These guys make a lot of money but look carefully where it is going.
Environmentalism is based on lies and the lies reflect an agenda that regards humanity as the enemy of the Earth. - Alan Caruba
Reply
#27
just found this link on my c drive

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/04/10/a-...nt-1271850
Environmentalism is based on lies and the lies reflect an agenda that regards humanity as the enemy of the Earth. - Alan Caruba
Reply
#28
Thank you Richared111. I think we have our wires crossed. My search has now moved on, I am "merely" trying to get a list of the scientists that attended,
http://www.mauricestrong.net/index.php/s...-stockholm

or that were involved in the report attached to this post.
ie,
UNEP / GC / INF.1
But I can not find that either. Angry

At least now I have a vague idea of what is meant by an "ad hoc" group...


Attached Files
.pdf   73_06_GC1_report_ K7309025.pdf (Size: 3.86 MB / Downloads: 152)
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
#29
Apologies. I have a bee in my bonnet that starts buzzing when that subject comes up. Like this scary link...

http://www.redicecreations.com/article.php?id=2408

All about a "Doomsday Seed Vault" in the Arctic. All the names you mention appear plus a few more if you can read to the end. I really do despair for the future.

I've read about these GM crops and farmers having to buy new seed each year. Angry
Environmentalism is based on lies and the lies reflect an agenda that regards humanity as the enemy of the Earth. - Alan Caruba
Reply
#30
Richard111 please send me an email, I want to send you a word document...
I hope it will swat a few of your bees..
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
#31
Oh, dear! Have your files thanks Derek, but I've just discovered...

Barrett Bellamy Climate

I now have a LOT of reading to do. Will be quiet for a while. Rolleyes
Environmentalism is based on lies and the lies reflect an agenda that regards humanity as the enemy of the Earth. - Alan Caruba
Reply
#32
Jack Barrett.......... FFS...........

Numero uno that does not know the difference between a black body and a real body...
I gave up arguing with that idiot years ago, after years of arguing with him in the closed CS group.
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
#33
(08-03-2015, 03:28 PM)Derek Wrote: Jack Barrett.......... FFS...........

Numero uno that does not know the difference between a black body and a real body...
I gave up arguing with that idiot years ago, after years of arguing with him in the closed CS group.

Yeah! Cleverly written to make it look like they are explaining the science in detail but as you say, not once do they attempt to explain that ENERGY in a specific band of photons CAN warm or NOT warm a black body at a specific temperature and why this happens.
Environmentalism is based on lies and the lies reflect an agenda that regards humanity as the enemy of the Earth. - Alan Caruba
Reply
#34
Happen to read

Why the Pauli Exclusion Principle of quantum mechanics forbids CO2 photons from warming the Earth surface

and am sadly disappointed by Stephen Wilde's comments.

(I clicked on the file link and ended up with 1,288 pages of chemistry! Rolleyes Copied it to a CD anyway.)
Environmentalism is based on lies and the lies reflect an agenda that regards humanity as the enemy of the Earth. - Alan Caruba
Reply
#35
Yes Richard111 I too have been sadly disappointed by Stephen Wilde. What the "Loschmidt" crowd do not seem to understand is that a rock may well know in which direction it will fall, and at what rate of acceleration. BUT, it can not know how long it will fall for. Thus, "Loschmidt" is almost always miscalculated / misapplied.

However, once corrected it may well help towards the answer for climate modelling... Well, a new version of climate modelling than we currently have.

I will try to be as brief as I can. GH "theory" in it's simplest form is four arrows. 1) SW solar input. 2) Atmospheric back radiation. 3) Earth's surface emissions. 4) OLR out to space.

Arrow 3 is twice the size of the other arrows. Thus the "theory" is one in, one out, at TOA, and two within (between the surface and atmosphere).

Arrow 2 is unphyscial, this is what Jack et al will not (can not) concede. Arrow two should be heat capacity of the subsurface into the surface. That is physical.

BUT, that would leave 2 into the atmosphere and only one out to space! An imbalance.

Miskolczi has noted a almost constant amount of water in the atmosphere.

Is that imbalance the mass of water in the atmosphere? Is that mass of water in the atmosphere surface temperature and gravity determined? Is this imbalance what powers, maintains, and balances the system overall?

In other words, the climate system of earth is a robust, dynamic, natural system, powered by gravity and the physical property that water always wants to be a gas.
It is, and must be, a negative feedback dominated system that maintains an almost constant output with constantly varying inputs.

Current modelling (falsely) assumes a (black body based) steady state that "we" are affecting. A state that it appears, and logically must be the exact opposite of what is actually happening in reality.

To change current modelling from what it is to what it should be may not be as difficult as it may first appear. However, if changed, it would produce the wrong answers politically, and bureaucratically speaking.
Will anyone be brave enough to attempt such?
I doubt it currently, but in the end someone will have to, IF meteorology is to be a science and not the current pseudo-science it is....

NB - Richardson 1922 reportedly ditched the 2nd LoT in his modelling approach in favour of the conservation of mass of water...
and,
Phillips 1956 did a lot of work in regards of "Loschmidt"...
Yes, the big recent errors were committed by Charney, Hansen, Joos, et al, but some of the (very basic) errors in the current modelling approach go back a long way.
Stewart 1871 being the most obvious, most basic, and most wrong. He supposed the 2nd arrow....
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
#36
Good one here...

Planck's Quantum Theory Explains Why Low-Energy Photons Cannot Warm a Warmer Blackbody

When people try to argue with me I ask them "So the Principles of Modern Chemistry, 7th Edition, is wrong?", usually kills the discussion stone dead. Angel
Environmentalism is based on lies and the lies reflect an agenda that regards humanity as the enemy of the Earth. - Alan Caruba
Reply
#37
Hi All,
http://www.principia-scientific.org/new-...ology.html

and,
http://www.principia-scientific.org/publ...tology.pdf

Enjoy..

pdf file is apparently too large to attach to this post. My apologies.
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


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Dr. Cortillot's Critique Of IPCC Modeling ajmplanner 1 4,375 04-18-2011, 04:11 AM
Last Post: Derek



Users browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)