Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
The modeling history of "climatology"...
#1
Hi All,
Alternative title...
Climate modeling. Cock up or Conspiracy?
Or, is it a scientific cock up that became a pc conspiracy?

[Image: Modelling_history%20_of_climatology_zpsejgacoi4.jpg]

Most notably -
Vilhelm Bjerknes (1904) -> Lewis Fry Richardson (1922) -> Jule Gregory Charney (1950 and 1979) -> James Edward Hansen (1988).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vilhelm_Bjerknes
Vilhelm Bjerknes, 1904. The accepted radiative transfer physics of the day. Graphs + 2nd LoTs.
[Image: Bjerknes_basis_1904_zpsvaowxncq.jpg]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lewis_Fry_Richardson
Lewis Fry Richardson, 1922. Computation, as above but, much more complex, and no 2nd LoTs.
Before computers, and waiting for computers.
[Image: Richardson_basis_1922_zpslhdtvril.jpg]

[Image: Richardson_basis_1922_2_zpsm73fkoxj.jpg]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jule_Gregory_Charney
Jule Gregory Charney, 1950. As above + more complex maths and filtering. Done with computers.
[Image: Charney_basis_1950_zpsfp026y99.jpg]

[Image: Charney_basis_1950_2_zpsavwpdw9i.jpg]

Dr. Judy Ryan has recently pointed out at -
http://www.galileomovement.com.au/holdin...ntable.php
that,
https://archive.org/stream/compendiumofm...6/mode/1up
1952 AMA reject "greenhouse" because water vapour is a negative feedback. Climate modeling either did not know it was modeling greenhouse or it ignored this, and hoped no one would notice...
"In the past 100 years the burning of coal has increased the amount of CO2…some see this as an explanation of the recent rise of world temperature.
But………there seems no reason to regard this rise as more than a coincidence. This theory is not considered further(2nd paragraph page 1016).
"

Max Michael posted in regard of G S Callender,
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/11/13/gu...callendar/
in the There is no greenhouse effect facebook group -
" He did modeling and research into 'warming theory' of both H2O and CO2, which are still the focus today in climatology. So his work tries to substantiate those claims scientifically. I was trying to find the following quote in one of his papers. So perhaps he came to realise at the end of his career that he had disproven 'warming theory' himself.

"G.S. Callendar found that the thin layer of ocean surface waters would quickly saturate, and it would take thousands of years for the rest of the oceans to turn over and be fully exposed to the air. Also the overlapping absorption bands of CO2 and water vapor already blocked all the radiation that those molecules were capable of blocking.
The official U.S. Weather Bureau publication put it, the masking of CO2 absorption by water vapor was a "fatal blow" to the CO2 theory. Therefore, "no probable increase in atmospheric CO2 could materially affect" the balance of radiation."
"

Callender and Charney were developing their modeling at the same time (1940s and 1950s), with quite different results. When the differences in the approaches are compared, in particular the inclusion or omission (in Charney's approach by LFR in 1922) of the 2nd LoTs, then it appears that the differences in the physics used in the models may be the cause of those differences in the modeling results. I am assuming that Callender included the 2 LoTs, thinking it not even worth mentioning, as it MUST BE included.

Presumably the eminent physicists of the day were consulted, or because they were who they were, they were aware of this.

Thus, when Professor Richard Feynman gave his (for the general public) lecture series in the early 1960s, it may well be the case he started the series off with a warning, not to the public, but to his peers. Physical laws (the basis of Charney's modeling approach) are not laws, they are merely unphysically calculated predictions....

ie,
."I am more interested in the marvel of nature who can obey such a simple and elegant law...and how clever she is to pay attention to it."
Richard Feynman 1964.
From the video linked to in the first post of this GWS thread,
http://www.globalwarmingskeptics.info/thread-2289.html

and this one,
http://www.globalwarmingskeptics.info/thread-2294.html

It is very obvious that by 1979 Charney had no regard at all for Feynman's warning in 1964 of the differences between a LAW of thermodynamics and a physical "law".

It also appears that no one knew or realised that the radiative transfer basis of the modeling is actually greenhouse effect "theory". Thus, the failed paradigm continued to be modeled.
It therefore seemed a correct and natural progression in the modeling of climate that in 1979, Jule G Charney headed,
Physical science - Part 1
http://web.atmos.ucla.edu/~brianpm/downl...report.pdf
Numerical methods - Part 2
http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/~brianpm/charneyreport.html

pdfs attached to this post.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Hansen
James Edward Hansen,1988. As above, + unphysical positive water vapour feedback assumption.
Dr. Vincent Gray stated in 2008, and that was noted in The one assumption pdf attached to this post, and in this forum.
http://www.globalwarmingskeptics.info/thread-309.html

[Image: Slide129_zpshfdokfwg.jpg]

In slide 127 of the powerpoint presentation attached to the first post in the below thread at the GWS forum,
http://www.globalwarmingskeptics.info/th...13109.html
What is the theory of man made global warming?

[Image: Slide1_zpsw17pf2cx.jpg]

the timeline of how the modeling was developed from Charney 1949 to Hansen's 1988 presentation is given.

[Image: Slide127_zps33paenp0.jpg]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_an...in_Hungary
"and the highly controversial former NASA-physicist Ferenc Miskolczi, who denies the green-house effect.[6]"
Oh, the irony.... Taken to NASA by Hansen, because Hansen did not know what the models model....
Miskolczi, F.M. (2007) Greenhouse effect in semi-transparent planetary atmospheres, Quarterly Journal of the Hungarian Meteorological Service Vol. 111, No. 1, January–March 2007, pp. 1–40
http://owww.met.hu/idojaras/IDOJARAS_vol111_No1_01.pdf
Dr. Ferenc Mark Miskolczi, 2007. What has always been the basis of climate modeling....

[Image: Slide83_zpsxatrzs1p.jpg]

In other words, since 1922 "climatology" is just so much Black Body Based Balderdash (BBBB)...
http://www.globalwarmingskeptics.info/thread-2310.html

because,
http://www.globalwarmingskeptics.info/thread-2289.html

when, what we should be basing our study of earth's climate system upon is very basic and simple to understand geography...
http://www.globalwarmingskeptics.info/thread-2312.html

Some quite basic physics should also be remembered, namely that liquid water does not exist in a vacuum. In space water is either solid ice, or gaseous water vapour. Therefore, the presence of an atmosphere permits water to exist at earth's surface, as is shown by the water cycle.

This means that the massive heat capacity (and heat content) and therefore the insulating effect of the world's oceans must first be taken into account when we study a system as dynamic and complex as earth's climate. A system that is stable and therefore must be dominated by (these) negative feedbacks.

[Image: Earth_moon_temperatures_corrected_zpszwgkpsud.jpg]

Such massive and dominant negative feedbacks as the oceans heat capacity and the water cycle can not be ignored or misrepresented IF one wants to try to understand the climate system of this planet, and how it actually works. Greenhouse effect "theory" advocates, supporters, and believers seem to think that unphysically explaining the increase in overall average temperature between the moon and the earth is enough, YET, they never mention, nor try to explain the reduction in the diurnal average temperature ranges!!! This is because the GH "theory" can not. Heat capacity, specifically increased heat capacity (slower to warm, and slower to cool), can, physically, with no greenhouse effect required....

Once the 2nd Law of thermodynamics, which always applies to matter, was removed from the modeling (Richardson 1922) then that opened the doorway to the present BBBB, hidden in way too complex maths for virtually anyone to understand, that "climatology" is currently mired in. This was because it, very unfortunately for science, became politically correct, as espoused most notably by Al Gore, who gave James Hansen the platform to present his presentation in 1988, and his own "inconvenient truth", which was also a lie from the get go. Maurice Strong via most notably the 1992 earth summit made it bureaucratically correct. In between and since big business has also toed the line, and jumped aboard wholesale. It is hoped the bandwagon has become so large it can not be derailed, yet, the truth will out.

Thus it would seem that a scientific cock up, that was not corrected when it should have been in the early 1950s, has become for reasons of political, bureaucratic, and individual greed for money and power the global, pseudo science based scam of the late 20th and thus far into the 21st Century.

There is a simple choice to be made as to what should be the basis of climate modeling and climate science.
a) An unphysical effect within the atmosphere supposedly warming the surface of earth.
Or,
b) A physically explainable gargantuan increase of heat content and heat capacity to the surface of earth, and the insulating affect it has.
This is due to the presence of an atmosphere, and therefore the presence of the world's oceans.

At present "politics" has decided in favour of the former, but in the end science will have to decide in favour of the latter, simply because the former is unphysical, and the latter is physical.

----------------------------------------------

Further possible investigation line.
Professor Murry Salby has also noted that CO2 is modeled as acting as the control knob for GMT.
at 1 hour 40 minutes in this video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jZ0R1MCkSOU

[Image: Salby_London_1hr_40mins_CO2_control_knob...4k6p4e.jpg]

So, what is the Bern model?
http://www.globalwarmingskeptics.info/thread-2225.html

How and when does the development of the Bern model tie in with the development of climate modeling? Is it even worth bothering as the "theory" was rejected in 1952 for reasons the "theory" can not answer to this day?


Attached Files
.pdf   charney_report_1.pdf (Size: 291.49 KB / Downloads: 148)
.pdf   Charney_report_2_aka_mesinger_arakawa_1976.pdf (Size: 4.31 MB / Downloads: 123)
.pdf   BW_CAGW_RejectedByAMA1951.pdf (Size: 703.46 KB / Downloads: 123)
.pptx   V8_What_is_man_made_global_warming_theory_Derek_Alker.pptx (Size: 1.69 MB / Downloads: 140)
.pdf   working copy - The one assumption of the AGW .pdf (Size: 1.82 MB / Downloads: 125)
.pdf   Miskolczi_2007_IDOJARAS_vol111_No1_01.pdf (Size: 783.66 KB / Downloads: 131)
.pdf   Monckton_2007_greenhouse_warming_what_greenhouse_warming.pdf (Size: 1.06 MB / Downloads: 132)
.pdf   Nahle_2011_Experiment_on_Greenhouses__Effect.pdf (Size: 1.4 MB / Downloads: 119)
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
Hi All,
A few points, and they are major points really, that I want to raise and get some help with if anyone can, please.

1) I can not find the original texts of Bjerknes 1904 or Richardson 1922 online. If anyone knows of links I would be very grateful. In particular I want to see if either produced schematic diagrams of what they were calculating. I am assuming if they did, it would be very similar to that which Dr. Miskolczi published in 2007...

2) I am particularly interested in Richardson's book because it needs to be shown how and why he omitted the 2nd LoTs, in favour of mass conservation of water!!!!!
Is that how atmospheric back radiation was assumed to warm earth's surface, or rather add energy to earth's surface, in violation of the 2nd LoTs?

3) I think I remember Dr. Gray in 2008 stating that Hansen got his positive value for water vapour from Charney 1979.... In other words, Hansen was Charney's useful idiot..... It makes sense in that possibly, Hansen had made a name for himself by fiddling with fudge factors, namely aerosols, to get the desired / required results. Maybe, and you do not need to know how the models work to fiddle with fudge factors and get the "right" results, he did not actually know what the models model, hence he brought Dr. Miskolczi in to find out for him... Oooops...

In regard of 3) I will be checking the one assumption pdf, I think what I am thinking of is in the latter part of that, BUT, I could really do with some help regarding the texts mentioned in 1) and in particular 2).

Thanks in advance.
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
In regard of 3), from the one assumption pdf, pages 25 and 26.

[Image: Gray_Heartland_NYCCC_2008_1_zpsrnnbmm8n.jpg]

[Image: Gray_Heartland_NYCCC_2008_2_zpsmiynvleg.jpg]

It seems I remembered correctly, yet no one mentions the AMA and 1952....

Unfortunately, this means I will have to reread Charney (again), to see who decided water vapour was a positive feedback. It would appear that it was not Hansen. Hansen was merely the useful idiot that put it into the climate models...

When you read it, this really is a comedy of errors....

[Image: Charney_water%20vapour_1_zpsx7vln1lp.jpg]

[Image: Charney_water%20vapour_2_zpsfenydmfv.jpg]

[Image: Charney_water%20vapour_3_zps6k05cqfv.jpg]

[Image: Charney_water%20vapour_4_zpsex1o3fbh.jpg]

[Image: Charney_water%20vapour_5_zps6zp03rkd.jpg]

[Image: Charney_water%20vapour_6_zps4x6qkbtt.jpg]
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
Max Michael posted in regard of G S Callender,
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/11/13/gu...callendar/
in the There is no greenhouse effect facebook group -
" He did modeling and research into 'warming theory' of both H2O and CO2, which are still the focus today in climatology. So his work tries to substantiate those claims scientifically. I was trying to find the following quote in one of his papers. So perhaps he came to realise at the end of his career that he had disproven 'warming theory' himself.

"G.S. Callendar found that the thin layer of ocean surface waters would quickly saturate, and it would take thousands of years for the rest of the oceans to turn over and be fully exposed to the air. Also the overlapping absorption bands of CO2 and water vapor already blocked all the radiation that those molecules were capable of blocking.
The official U.S. Weather Bureau publication put it, the masking of CO2 absorption by water vapor was a "fatal blow" to the CO2 theory. Therefore, "no probable increase in atmospheric CO2 could materially affect" the balance of radiation."
"

Does this occur to anyone else?


Callender and Charney were developing their modeling at the same time (1940s and 1950s), with quite different results. When the differences in the approaches are compared, in particular the inclusion or omission (in Charney's approach by LFR in 1922) of the 2nd LoTs, then it appears that the differences in the physics used in the models may be the cause of those differences in the modeling results. I am assuming that Callender included the 2 LoTs, thinking it not even worth mentioning, as it MUST BE included.

Presumably the eminent physicists of the day were consulted, or because they were who they were, they were aware of this.

Thus, when Professor Richard Feynman gave his (for the general public) lecture series in the early 1960s, it may well be the case he started the series off with a warning, not to the public, but to his peers. Physical laws (the basis of Charney's modeling approach) are not laws, they are merely unphysically calculated predictions....

ie,
."I am more interested in the marvel of nature who can obey such a simple and elegant law...and how clever she is to pay attention to it."
Richard Feynman 1964.
From the video linked to in the first post of this GWS thread,
http://www.globalwarmingskeptics.info/thread-2289.html

and this one,
http://www.globalwarmingskeptics.info/thread-2294.html

It is very obvious that by 1979 Charney had no regard at all for Feynman's warning in 1964 of the differences between a LAW of thermodynamics and a physical "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
#5
Hi All,
I have added the following.

[Image: Climatology_modeling_timeline._zpsrruk10sz.jpg]

Should it include a spur that was ignored because it got the wrong results for Callender's approach to climate modelling?

Should it include a spur for Dr. Miskolczi, who has pointed out the modeling is physical laws? This spur I would suggest will by pass current climatology modelling to a future climate modelling based on the LoTs, due to the input of the Slayers.
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
#6
This is quite an illuminating book...
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Appropriating-We...s=bjerknes
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
To be added...

Woods 1909 - when I can find it..

Monckton 2007
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images...arming.pdf

Miskolczi 2007
http://owww.met.hu/idojaras/IDOJARAS_vol111_No1_01.pdf

Nahle 2011
http://www.biocab.org/Experiment_on_Gree...Effect.pdf
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
#8
Impressive research Derek. Deserves lots of coverage. Regarding water vapour feedback; I lived and worked for three years in Singapore back in the middle 60s. Never really thought about the climate there until this AGW nonsense started.

Quote:With almost no seasonal differences Singapore experiences a tropical rainforest climate, which remains hot, humid always. During the day temperatures usually stands 30°C, while nighttime temperature hardly falls below 23°C. Because of the latitudinal position, as the city sits almost on the equator, it hardly experiences different seasons. Generally the city is subject to two different monsoon seasons with middle pre-monsoon periods of slightly reduced rainfall.

My bold. I remember this quite clearly and have since figured out for myself that water vapour is a negative feedback. Imagine the UK at the same latitude as Singapore. No chance Heathrow airport would see 37C ever again. Also I have worked out there is no such thing as 'backradiation'. Plenty of LW radiation from the atmosphere down to the surface but NONE of this radiation warms anything. Otherwise it would be free energy. First law. It can and does delay surface cooling. Simply check night time temperature when it is cloudy as opposed to clear.

Because the general public are still voting in useless politicians I have come to the conclusion they don't really care so I believe they deserve what is coming.
Environmentalism is based on lies and the lies reflect an agenda that regards humanity as the enemy of the Earth. - Alan Caruba
Reply
#9
Thank you Richard111. I am really just making notes here, before I write it all up.
From the get go, the story is simply about chasing government funding for research, ego, and public acclaim. Not once, that I have found so far, is the basis of the modelling even mentioned, let alone questioned...

re Water vapour, yup, it can only be a negative feedback, as Monckton 2007 showed (at a global scale over a 30 to 40 year warming period - that's what he plotted), but he refused to admit what he had shown. May be, may be he just did not know or realise what he had shown. The hot spot is a cool spot, therefore it is a negative feedback, at a global level, AND, the models have the warming pattern wrong anyway... But, he must have since, yet he still refuses to talk about it. He preferred a couple of years back to try to reinvent what a positive feedback is.... One has to wonder, WHY? Remember Monckton accepts there is a greenhouse effect, and therefore accepts the basis of the modelling, which Dr. Miskolczi showed what that is in 2007 too. Monckton thinks that, Miskolczi 2007, is "peculiar mathematics", as he stated to me in a personal conversation....

What Monckton showed, and how it fits into the bigger picture is all so obvious once the modelling timeline is followed.....

btw -
(07-11-2015, 12:55 AM)Richard111 Wrote: Plenty of LW radiation from the atmosphere down to the surface but NONE of this radiation warms anything. Otherwise it would be free energy. First law. It can and does delay surface cooling. Simply check night time temperature when it is cloudy as opposed to clear.
In regard of my emphasis in bold.

Err, Did Woods or Nahle show downwelling LWR reduces the cooling rate?

Personally, I think it is better explained by heat capacity (of the ground), and reduced convection (at ground level), due to the presence of clouds at night, not by downwelling LWR (quantum mechanics says it will not, and can not be absorbed in any part [they are already full {heat capacity of the ground} - that's why they are emitting]), that would be absorbed by water vapour enroute anyway. And, then by chance alone end up going upwards back into the cloud, and being radiated to space, from the top of the cloud...
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
#10
Yes, heat capacity of the ground must be considered. I can only talk of personal observation here. Several times over the last few years I've noticed surface temperature drops steadily after sunset if the sky is really clear of cloud. When a cloud bank arrives overhead, (caveat: no strong wind, just light breeze at most) surface temperature stops falling, and then starts to rise. It is night time! This is when the heat capacity in the ground is making itself felt. First point now; I've never noted surface temperature to rise back above say sunset time level.
So I agree it is not backradiation from the cloud base that caused the rise, it was the heat capacity of the ground, heat stored during the day under full sunlight.
Second point; rate of surface temperature drop during remainder of night, as long as full cloud cover overhead, is now very slow to none.
So why isn't the ground cooling any more? It is still night time! Backradiation from the cloud base overhead.
Last week, before the UK 'heat wave' started, we had many days of total overcast. During that period the surface temperature hardly changed by more than one degree between day and night over several days. A prime example of cloud shielding during daylight and effective reduction of radiative heat loss from the surface at night.
How any of this would fit in a global climate model I haven't the foggiest!
Environmentalism is based on lies and the lies reflect an agenda that regards humanity as the enemy of the Earth. - Alan Caruba
Reply
#11
Richard111,
Thank you, great reply. It got me thinking...

It has taken me a long time to see through this particular line of argument that supporters and advocates of GH "theory" and AGW have been using, and many others (I included for many, many years) have also just believed, rather than thought about it, or questioned it.
BUT.....

1) Quite often, read always, when cloud comes in, or rather over, there is a change of air mass. That usually explains the biggest part of the reduction in the rate of cooling. ie, the air temperature is the air temperature of a different (warmer) mass of air..

2) If (gravity powered) convection is reduced, because the temperature gradient to altitude is reduced, then cooling by the most powerful cooling mechanism at earth's surface is reduced. Obviously that is the evapouration of water, and that is reduced in the warmer, moister, with less convection air mass that has just moved in.

Also, I would suggest that, in some coastal locations, at night there will be an offshore breeze, which would reduce vertical convection over land. Unless that is over ridden by the larger air mass movements, of more stable, warmer, moister air. Either way, to me that would seem to result in less vertical convection at a (near) coastal location, such as yours Richard111.

Many do not realise the significance of the fact that the climate models treat earth's surface as a black body (Miskolczi 2007), ie, no heat capacity. Therefore the supposed atmospheric back radiation surface warming "mechanism" (DWLR - which I dispute the amount of reaching the ground [power = amount is a black body assumption..], "by chance alone" it goes upward...) they model, could well be (is) the surface's heat capacity...

In respect of DWLR, errr, NASA observations show otherwise, and lend support to the "by chance alone" suggestion of mine.
In the upper atmosphere, the observation is that it goes mostly (95%) upwards to space..
http://www.galileomovement.com.au/docs/j...nd_C02.pdf

Also, the basic geography of earth, must always be considered....

.pdf   Basic_geography_pdf.pdf (Size: 1.35 MB / Downloads: 117)

Earth's surface is,
76% Water (or ice) and 24% land (that is mostly very moist).....
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
#12
Yep. Geography. Very important. When you consider heat capacity of water, land and ice (though ice is mostly an insulator) and 4.5 billion years of sunshine warming things for around 12 hours a day apart from the occasional cloud.

Fascinating stuff to think about because you can observe some events as they happen. Words like adiabatic and relative humidity didn't mean much to me until I started down this road. As I type I can look out the window and see it is raining. Magic!

[Image: rain.png]

Picture captured from here. Changes every day so look now. Will be gone by next week. Dashed lines indicate midnight of date shown.

Still trying to understand what exactly is happening. Before clouds arrive overhead adiabatic lapse rate must be for dry air, some 10 degrees per 1,000 metres. At what rate will it change while cloud base and surface reach some sort of temperature equilibrium? Once dewpoint and air temperature are equal we have maximum relative humidity and lapse rate will be down to around 3 degrees per 1,000 metres and it is usually raining. How to work out radiative energy loss through that lot has me stumped. One thing I can say with full confidence, clouds do not trap heat. Any notable temperature changes under 10/10 cloud is usually due to wind change as low pressure area moves away and high pressure area moves in. Must be some real fancy work in the computers just trying to predict tomorrow's weather!
Environmentalism is based on lies and the lies reflect an agenda that regards humanity as the enemy of the Earth. - Alan Caruba
Reply
#13
Hi All,
just noting this.. Gary Novak, of Science is broken, has some interesting points to raise. And, they seem to confirm the latter part of the timeline I am compiling.

Chapter 3: The Fakery of Global Warming Science
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
BTW - Richard111, the following question occurs to me, and I think it might be right up your street, so to speak.

Do you (does anyone please) know of a meeting presumably in the early or middle 1970s that Maurice Strong, and Jule Charney attended? May be Club of Rome (with Charney and Strong present), or something similar, where it was decided that climate was the appropriate vehicle.

May be Gore and Hansen were there too, but I think they would have been too young, and were possibly recruited later by Charney / Strong.

It all (to me) seems to fit in too well together after the late 1970s, for it not to have been planned / orchestrated by the "dream team" of Strong / Charney / Gore / Hansen...
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
#15
Did a search in my GW folder and offer these. First is a comment by Gail Combes with lots of further links.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/02/06/mi...nt-1218693

http://www.wnd.com/2014/02/scientists-tr...-this-lie/

http://www.afn.org/~govern/strong.html

Good luck. I've given up on this line of research and am now trying to learn how to compute black body curves for any temperature. Well, it helps pass the time. Big Grin
Environmentalism is based on lies and the lies reflect an agenda that regards humanity as the enemy of the Earth. - Alan Caruba
Reply
#16
Thank you Richard111, I will have a look through..

From the last link....
" In 1966, by now a Liberal favorite, Strong became head of the Canadian International Development Agency and thus was launched internationally. Impressed by his work at CIDA, UN Secretary General U Thant asked him to organize what became the first Earth Summit -- the Stockholm Conference on the Human Environment in 1972. The next year, Strong became first director of the new UN Environment Program, created as a result of Stockholm. And in 1975, he was invited back to Canada to run the semi-national Petro-Canada, created by Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau in the wake of OPEC's oil shocks. "

and,
" Sometimes, indeed, it seems that Strong's network of contacts must rival the Internet. To list a few:
-- Vice President Al Gore. (Of course.)
"

By 79, Charney produced his reports...
There must be a connection....

What are you computing the black body curve for (there is only one)? What can it be applied to? What can it explain?
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
#17
(07-14-2015, 11:34 AM)Derek Wrote: What are you computing the black body curve for (there is only one)? What can it be applied to? What can it explain?

Umm... not quite. There is a slightly different curve for each temperature as the area of the curve denotes the total radiative flux leaving the black body in joules per second per square metre.

There is a lot to say but as it is only my layman thoughts on the subject this may not be the appropriate thread.

Just so you read it here first... energy transfer via electromagnetic radiation is from the top down. Always. Wink
Environmentalism is based on lies and the lies reflect an agenda that regards humanity as the enemy of the Earth. - Alan Caruba
Reply
#18
(07-15-2015, 05:46 AM)Richard111 Wrote: Umm... not quite. There is a slightly different curve for each temperature as the area of the curve denotes the total radiative flux leaving the black body in joules per second per square metre.

They are all the same curve, with different starting points. Yes / No?
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
Hi All,
A useful reference...
http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/20...-lesson-2/
The U.N.'s Global Warming War On Capitalism: An Important History Lesson
by,
Larry Bell.


That I shall be using..

Oooooh, and btw -

http://sci.tech-archive.net/Archive/sci....00498.html

:nod_yes:


Attached Files
.pdf   Woods_Note_on_the_Theory_of_the_Greenhouse.pdf (Size: 28.8 KB / Downloads: 107)
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
This to my understanding is the very start of it all, the false "accepted physics" that is the basis of the computer modeling timeline...

Alan Siddons notes -
"Thursday, ‎April ‎11, ‎2013
In 1871’s An Elementary Treatise On Heat, Balfour Stewart indulged in some idle speculation. He imagined that the atmosphere was like an envelope of glass surrounding the earth and that this promoted a higher temperature, much as occurs in a greenhouse. Stewart described the physics thusly:

Now let R’ denote the radiation of this envelope outwards into space, then R’ will also approximately denote the radiation of the envelope inwards towards the sphere, since as the envelope is very thin, both its surfaces may be imagined to be of the same temperature. Hence the radiant heat which leaves the envelope will be 2 R’…

So simply adding a layer of glass will give you two times the radiant power that you had before. Everything else proceeded from that silly blunder, because other armchair scientists eagerly seized on Stewart’s empty conjecture as The Answer, the very Truth."


Attached Files
.pdf   Alan_Siddons_excerpts.pdf (Size: 688.16 KB / Downloads: 108)
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 4,372 04-18-2011, 04:11 AM
Last Post: Derek



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)