Sunday, October 21st 2012, 3:23 PM EDT
Will Jo Nova Shine Some Light on the Greenhouse Gas Debate?
Leading Aussie skeptic blogger, Jo Nova, is currently holding the second compelling debate about the validity of disputed numbers woven into the cornerstone of global warming science: the so-called greenhouse gas effect theory (GHE).
Now that even the U.S. presidential contest is a “global warming free zone” it is becoming clear that not just the political, but the scientific edifice of this junk science is collapsing. The biggest remaining obstacle is vested interest scientists who are either incapable or refuse to examine a very simple element of the GHE: the supposed “33 degrees” of measured warming that makes our planet “warmer than it would otherwise be.”
In a spirit of refreshing openness, Jo Nova has recently been leading the way on this matter. In September she hosted the superb paper by Dr Jinan Cao that questioned the applicability of the Stefan-Boltzmann equation in the formation of the “33 degrees” number.
Now Nova’s blog is running a welcome critique of ‘Slaying the Sky Dragon’ the book that first propelled discussion of the GHE center-stage. Already the comments are lively. Sadly there exists an element that prefers name-calling over civilized debate and my co-authors and colleagues who support the book are being labeled “dunderheads,” “cranks,” and “deniers.” Ok, so let’s do simple analysis even a dunderhead can fathom. Take, for instance, the claimed “33 degrees” of so-called greenhouse gas warming cited as “fact” proving the “theory.”
Article continues below this advert:
Contrary to popular myth this “33 degrees” is not observed, empirical fact at all. The book’s authors and converts to our science say it is the product of a botched equation by NASA’s Dr. James E. Hansen from the 1980′s. Currently, my article on this is doing the rounds.
Dr. Pierre Latour earlier this year proved that Hansen’s “33 degrees” is the result of a fatal mixing of a scalar temperature value with a vector temperature value (not permitted in either math or physics). That no one questioned this till we ‘Slayers’ did suggests it is perhaps among the most successful elements of the GHE fraud. Pointedly, it duped two top skeptic climatologists, Dick Lindzen and Roy Spencer, among other leading skeptics, who never questioned its validity and when challenged opted to play “follow my leader.”
It appears Lindzen first swallowed the bogus “33 degrees” number at least since March 1990, as proven by his paper ‘Some Coolness Concerning Global Warming’ AMS, Vol 71. In September 2010 on his blog Spencer admitted he merely followed Lindzen’s lead. But Spencer went further and actually asserted (crassly) that Hansen’s “33 degrees” number offers a “real-world observed radiative-convective equilibrium.”
But both Spencer and Lindzen are shown, since March 2012, to have circled the wagons obstinately avoiding the issue. Despite our urging neither will apply due diligence to verify the providence of the number. But if they had looked more closely at the “33 degrees” from the outset they would have seen that the first value Hansen used to obtain it is a 3-D measure (a vector) of the infrared radiation emitted by Earth back into outer space (255K). Hansen then put that alongside a 2-D measure (288K), which is an average of surface weather stations (a scalar). That’s how Hansen and government climate science “got” it’s 33 degrees greenhouse gas effect.
But anyone trained in higher math or physics knows this is not a permissible procedure as it’s the equivalent of adding apples to oranges. Earlier this year Latour and others on our team had a good-natured, but vigorous private email discussion with Lindzen, Spencer and other leading lights. Despite our insistence neither would address the matter. In fact, despite engaging with us on other issues they obstinately pretended we never raised the “33 degrees” problem even though we referred them to our articles on it. Nonetheless, Spencer thereafter blogged an attack piece against me; is this the real measure of a “leading skeptic scientist?” Not only that, it seems Fred Singer was then recruited and he, too, joined the name-calling fraternity labeling us “deniers.”
In his attack piece Singer laments, “One can show them [the 'Slayers'] data of downwelling infrared radiation from CO2, water vapor, and clouds, which clearly impinge on the surface. [My emphasis]
Contemplate closely the emphasis on the vague “clearly impinge” as it seems even Fred is having doubts here because he balks at asserting any actual energy is being transferred. He then writes, “But their minds are closed to any such evidence.” Oh, come on, Fred. Does “clearly impinge” mean you are claiming carbon dioxide adds/delays heat loss or not? This is why Fred, Roy and Dick need to come out and be less mealy-mouthed.
As such we are regrettably forced to conclude that leading skeptic climatologists are disinclined to own up to their gaffe probably because they have decades invested in this junk science – quite simply it’s too shaming for them. Indeed, if Spencer, Lindzen and Singer were true skeptics they would meet us in open debate and resolve this “33 degrees” issue once and for all.
But because the better part of a year has elapsed and they won’t man up, I’ve now emailed Jo to ask she show some leadership on this Down Under. I await her reply and hope she will host an open debate on our readily proved/disproved contention. Be assured, if the “33 degrees” number is proven bogus there is nothing left of substance (ie. as measured in our atmosphere) to sustain this collapsing “theory.”
Click source for more [LINKS]
Comments section below this advert:
Tweet Article
Post to Facebook
Print Article
In both cases it is forbidden by the laws of thermodynamics.
The colder substance/object radiates IR with a lower flux density than the warmer object. The IR from the colder substance/object cannot be thermalised by the warmer substance/object and therefore is just scattered/re-emitted at light speed.
No thermalisation occurs when IR travels from cold to hot.
Therefore I declare the "greenhouse effect" hypothesis, well and truly debunked.
Can you hear me Roy?