Flat Earther and AGW Denier to head nasa into obscurity.

In article ,
says...

On Wednesday, June 6, 2018 at 3:24:55 AM UTC-6, Paul Schlyter wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Monday, June 4, 2018 at 3:12:00 PM UTC-6, Paul Schlyter wrote:

In article ,
says...

I claim the current consensus is biased and those who fawn over it are
likewise biased,

It indeed is ... biased towards the truth.

I disagree.

Do you prefer some other kind of bias?

I would prefer that AGW advocates not try to shut down research that might
affect their agenda in a contrary way. Example: attempting to stop CERN
from doing the CLOUD experiment.

The CLOUD experiment seems to be alive and well.

Now is not when the AGW advocates trid to prevent it from happening.

And while the contribution from cosmic rays in forming clouds in our
atmosphere might be interesting, I don't see the relevance of it to the
AGW question. After all, the amount of cosmic rays striking the Earth
is quite independent from our emissions of CO2.

But it's not independent from global temperature.

BTW which climate researchers have tried to stop the CLOUD experiment at
CERN? Please name a few of them, preferably with relevant references.

I read it on the web but I can't find it now. Funny how those things
disappear.

ANd, yes, they should be researchers in climate science, not zealot
advocates of any kind. Zealit advocates are hardly interesting -- they
are a matter of psychology and mass communication, not of the Earth
sciences.

Indeed, and I find a LOT of zealots in the AGW camp.

even to the point of denigrating skeptics

Skeptics are of course ok. Deniers are not ok.

In your not-so-humble opinion.

Do you disagree with me? DO you think deniers are ok?

That depends upon what they're denying, but calling someone a denier doesn't
mean they actually are one.

with claiming that "overstatement" is not bias. It CERTAINLY is since
they're concocting a false argument. This is baloney. It's also ad
hominem rather than to the discussion.

And this is how AGW advocates tell the truth?

Are you commenting on yourself?

Do you have trouble reading English?

You seem to have missed my earlier point that water vapor is a red
herring; it may contribute more to the greenhouse effect directly
than carbon dioxide, but it's an effect, not a cause.

I think I answered it, but I'm not sure. It's not necessarily an
effect. Certainly, air can hold more water vapor if its warmer,
so IF CO2 causes an increase in temperature, there will be more
greenhouse effect than what comes directly from the CO2. For some
reason, however, this effect is less than what the climate models
predict.

On what do you base this claim? Cherry-picking empiical data? Something
else?

http://climatemodels.uchicago.edu/modtran/

This is not a climate model but merely a radiation model.

And you dishonestly believe radiation is irrelevant?

Yuu wrote "this effect is less than what the climate models predict"
where youwrote "climate models" in the plural form. So you must have
examined more than just one model which isn't even a climate model. Which
climate models are you referring to here? All existing models, without
exception? Or only some models -- which ones?

Oh, good grief! Did you do this:

Play around with it. A doubling of the CO2 level from 400 ppm to 800 ppm
results in about a 1% decrease in the outgoing IR flux, or about 3 W/m^2.
Reduce the level from 400 to 200 ppm increases the outgoing IR flux by
about 1%, or about 2.7 W/m^2. Going from 200 to 400 ppm results in a
decrease of 2.7 W/m^2 whereas going from 400 to 800 ppm results in a
decrease of about 3 W/m^2. As I understand it, IPCC climate models
assume a linear effect, whereas MODTRAN shows it to be quite nonlinear.

3 W/m^2 is equivalent to the variation in the solar constant and earth's
albedo variation, so doubling the CO2 level, which won't happen for 200
years at the present rate of increase, is almost in the noise.

I played around with it and it was fun. However, it gives you the upwards
IR radiation as seen from an altitude of 70 km, well above 99.9% of the
greenhouse gases in our atmosphere. And what you see there is the
radiation from these greenhouse gases, not from the ground.

Yes, it does measure the radiation from the ground. Are you blind?

Look at the
diagram to the right, which shows the radiation intensity as a function
of wavelength (or wavenumber). Although the ground temperature is 300K,
the upward radiation temperature from 70 km altitude never reaches 300K.

The diagram on the right shows temperature vs. altitude. The one on
the LEFT shows intensity vs. wavelength for various temperatures.
And you seem to be criticizing something that is your fantasy.

So what you see here is the radiation balance between the Sun and the
upper atmpsphere of the Earth. OF COURSE the upward IR heat flux at this
altitude is quite independent of the number of ppm's of CO2, as you
noted. The heat flux from the Earth into space must, on the average,
naturally equal the incoming light and heat from the Sun. This says
little about the temperatures at or near the ground, which is what
concerns us humans who live on the ground.

Yep, you completely misread the model.

You would obtain a similar result at Venus: the upward IR radiation from
Venus is on the average the same as the incoming light and heat from the
Sun - revealing little about the oven-like temperatures on the surface on
Venus.

This radiationb model also gives the ground temperature as very nearly
300K (299.7K to be precise). But that value seems to be hardwired into
the program - you can change it by switching from "Tropical atmosphere"
to "Midlatitude Summer" or "Subarctic Winter" or 3 other choices. But
apart from that it seems completely unaffected by e.g. the amount of CO2
I choose.

Try changing temperature offset.

I tried values from 0 ppm CO2 to 999999 ppm CO2 and the ground
temperature remained at 299.7K (Tropical atmosphere), not changing by
even 0.1K.

It's an INPUT parameter controlled by "Temperature Offset."

Which means it cannot be used to find how much the ground temperatures
changes due to a change in the amount of CO2, CH4, H2O, or whatever...

Btw it isn't just the local radiation circumstances which determines the
local temperatures. The global circulation matters too. You accused the
climate modelers for handling the imfluence from H2O improperly (without
specifying what you consider to be a proper handling of H2O in our
atmosphere) - and here you want to ignore the global circulation. Sorry,
but our atmosphere doesn't work that way.

So you are deluded if you use this model to conclude that
"changing the amount of CO2 does not affect the ground temperature".

You are deluded believing that it is some kind of output. The output
is "Upward IP Heat Flux."

Upward IP Heat Flux is the important thing. Did you try putting in
ths values for CO2 levels that I did? Did you see that doubling the
present CO2 level to 800 ppm only increased the heat flux by about
3 W/m^2? Do you realize that such a difference is about the same that
the solar constant varies? Do you understand the implications of that?
Do you understand that cloud cover has a much larger effect than CO2?
Do you understand that it will take 200 years for CO2 levels to rise
to the point where CO2 will have as big an effect as solar variations?

Did you even read my response?

I tried CO2 amounts from 0 all the way to 999999, and they yielded fairly
small changes in the upwards IR heat flux. Which is as it should be,
because the average upwards IR heat flux, as seen from space or from a
high enough altitude, must balance the downward flux of visible + IR from
the Sun. Radiation balance, you know.

However, that says quite little about the ground temperature, since the
IR radiation from the ground will be absorbed anr re-emitted a large
number of times before part of it eventually reaches space, or even 70 km
altitude.

Consider for instance the radiation temperature of the planet Venus as
seen from space, compared to the ground temperature of Venus. Are the two
of them equal? Positively NO !!!!!

It's the same with the Earth, but in case of the Earth the temperaure
difference will be much smaller.



I gotta go. Later.

It's ok to be in a hurry. But why didn't you wait with your response
until you had more time? You don't have to respond immediately.

It's also ok to terminate the discussion if you would want to. But then,
say so explicitly instead of giving some excuse like "I gotta go" ...

In article ,
says...

On Wednesday, June 6, 2018 at 11:36:44 AM UTC-6, Quadibloc wrote:

On Tuesday, June 5, 2018 at 6:27:42 AM UTC-6, Gary Harnagel wrote:

Peer review is usually okay, but there are problems when it's controlled
by one faction.

Peer review is *always* controlled by "one faction", it could be argued.
After all, how many published papers on astrology or alchemy do you see
in scientific journals?

I think that's a combination of excluded middle and straw-man argument.
I don't think any scientist advocates either of those "disciplines, and
lots of papers "out of the mainstream" are published in the journals.
Certainly, some scientists disagree with them and even ridicule them,
but they ARE published.

So opposition to AGW, like any unorthodox idea in science, can be smeared by
association very easily, if nothing else.

If the debate is to be conducted by people doing the science from scratch
themselves, it will be a very slow one. But I can't deny that the
alternative, of simply ridiculing the unorthodox for their outsider status
doesn't prove anything.

To me, though, the difference between an "independent variable" and a
"dependent variable" is often a fundamental thing. So it's highly plausible
to me that while the direct effect of carbon dioxide levels on the heat
leaving the Earth is so small as to be "lost in the noise", with everything
else being out of our control, or following predictable cycles, and with
things like water vapor quite clearly and obviously acting as amplifiers,
not independent contributors, those carbon dioxide levels could be what is
causing change.

But ANYTHING that causes a temperature rise is amplified by water vapor,
including the solar constant variations.

Yes - but we cannot control the variations in the solar output. Btw the
Maunder minimum (of solar activity) for some 70 years centered around the
year 1680 is believed to be an explanation for the Little Ice Age around
and after those years.

Pruitt himself, of course, ought to be able to explain where he got
his ideas from.

I don't know what his justification is, but the MODTRAN app

Is MODTRAN also available as an app? Where can I download it?

certainly
confirms his position when a doubling of the CO2 level, which will take
200 years, produces enough direct effect to rival solar constant
variations. Cloud cover has a VERY large effect, initially to reduce
heat flux into space, but long-term to produce cooling by increasing
earth's albedo.

The effect of cloud cover for the local albedo, reducing incoming light
and heat from the Sun to the ground, will be just as instantaneous as its
effect of reducing heat flux from below into space.

Furthermore, the initial effect of increased cloudiness has a warming
effect, but the long-term trend is to lower temperature due to
decreased input from the sun.

Please explain why the clouds absorption and re-radiation of IR is more
instantaneous than their reflection of visible light. Both of them ought
to be just as instantaneous. When a cloud passes in front of the Sun,
you'll feel the reduced light and heat from the Sun immediately, not
several years later...

On Friday, June 8, 2018 at 4:50:49 AM UTC-6, Paul Schlyter wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Wednesday, June 6, 2018 at 3:24:55 AM UTC-6, Paul Schlyter wrote:

I tried values from 0 ppm CO2 to 999999 ppm CO2 and the ground
temperature remained at 299.7K (Tropical atmosphere), not changing by
even 0.1K.

It's an INPUT parameter controlled by "Temperature Offset."

Which means it cannot be used to find how much the ground temperatures
changes due to a change in the amount of CO2, CH4, H2O, or whatever...

It wasn't meant to do that. It predicts the heat flux escaping into
space from a given ground temperature. You need solar power coming in
to balance heat going out. So play with temperature offset until they
balance.

Btw it isn't just the local radiation circumstances which determines the
local temperatures. The global circulation matters too. You accused the
climate modelers for handling the imfluence from H2O improperly (without
specifying what you consider to be a proper handling of H2O in our
atmosphere) - and here you want to ignore the global circulation. Sorry,
but our atmosphere doesn't work that way.

Oh good grief!!! MODTRAN is a fairly simple app, but it does take into
account H2O properly as well as other greenhouse gases, and it shows that
additional CO2 has a minuscule effect on the outgoing heat flux. You
REFUSE to understand what the model is trying to teach you. It's an INPUT
for climate models but does demonstrate that the full models don't even
handle CO2 properly, let alone H2O.

So you are deluded if you use this model to conclude that
"changing the amount of CO2 does not affect the ground temperature".

You are deluded believing that it is some kind of output. The output
is "Upward IP Heat Flux."

Upward IP Heat Flux is the important thing. Did you try putting in
ths values for CO2 levels that I did? Did you see that doubling the
present CO2 level to 800 ppm only increased the heat flux by about
3 W/m^2? Do you realize that such a difference is about the same that
the solar constant varies? Do you understand the implications of that?
Do you understand that cloud cover has a much larger effect than CO2?
Do you understand that it will take 200 years for CO2 levels to rise
to the point where CO2 will have as big an effect as solar variations?

Did you even read my response?

I tried CO2 amounts from 0 all the way to 999999, and they yielded fairly
small changes in the upwards IR heat flux. Which is as it should be,
because the average upwards IR heat flux, as seen from space or from a
high enough altitude, must balance the downward flux of visible + IR from
the Sun. Radiation balance, you know.

Of course. Did you try varying the "temperature offset"? DUH!

However, that says quite little about the ground temperature, since the
IR radiation from the ground will be absorbed anr re-emitted a large
number of times before part of it eventually reaches space, or even 70 km
altitude.

So you're saying you have evidence that the model doesn't account for that?
I doubt it. It uses the temperature profile of the atmosphere in its
calculations.

Consider for instance the radiation temperature of the planet Venus as
seen from space, compared to the ground temperature of Venus. Are the two
of them equal? Positively NO !!!!!

Non sequitur.

It's the same with the Earth, but in case of the Earth the temperaure
difference will be much smaller.

You're not making any sense. Nobody has said ANYTHING about the "radiation
temperature" of the earth from space, only the heat flux.

I gotta go. Later.

It's ok to be in a hurry. But why didn't you wait with your response
until you had more time? You don't have to respond immediately.

It seems I never have "more time" - only short periods.

It's also ok to terminate the discussion if you would want to. But then,
say so explicitly instead of giving some excuse like "I gotta go" ...

Okay, terminate whatever that was about, or repeat it in small bites and
maybe I'll have time to address it.

On Friday, June 8, 2018 at 5:06:00 AM UTC-6, Paul Schlyter wrote:

In article ,
says...

But ANYTHING that causes a temperature rise is amplified by water vapor,
including the solar constant variations.

Yes - but we cannot control the variations in the solar output.

Not the point: the point is that solar output variations are about the
same size as heat flux exhaust of MASSIVE changes in CO2 levels.

Btw the Maunder minimum (of solar activity) for some 70 years centered
around the year 1680 is believed to be an explanation for the Little
Ice Age around and after those years.

That's ONE explanation. The other is volcanic activity, but probably both.
The question is how much is attributed to each.

Why the Maunder minimum should contribute to global cooling was unexplained
until the CLOUD experiment demonstrated nucleation of clouds by cosmic rays
and the measurements that the cosmic ray flux has been increasing with the
abatement of the solar wind. After all, the solar constant INCREASES when
there are fewer sunspots.

Pruitt himself, of course, ought to be able to explain where he got
his ideas from.

I don't know what his justification is, but the MODTRAN app

Is MODTRAN also available as an app? Where can I download it?

I'm only aware of it as an online "app."

certainly
confirms his position when a doubling of the CO2 level, which will take
200 years, produces enough direct effect to rival solar constant
variations. Cloud cover has a VERY large effect, initially to reduce
heat flux into space, but long-term to produce cooling by increasing
earth's albedo.

The effect of cloud cover for the local albedo, reducing incoming light
and heat from the Sun to the ground, will be just as instantaneous as its
effect of reducing heat flux from below into space.

But clouds reduce the heat flux coming up from the surface. I played with
different types of clouds and cumulus and altostratus reduced the outgoing
flux by about 30 W/m^2 while nimbostratus only reduced it by about 6 W/m^2.
So the effect of less power coming in is offset by more heat being retained,
but eventually, that heat leaks out and a new balance is reached. The
heat capacity of the earth delays the cooling effect.

Furthermore, the initial effect of increased cloudiness has a warming
effect, but the long-term trend is to lower temperature due to
decreased input from the sun.

Please explain why the clouds absorption and re-radiation of IR is more
instantaneous than their reflection of visible light. Both of them ought
to be just as instantaneous. When a cloud passes in front of the Sun,
you'll feel the reduced light and heat from the Sun immediately, not
several years later...

I was amazed how cool it got during the total eclipse last year. But that
or a cloud passing in front of the sun are LOCAL effects. And during the
night, cooling is restrained by cloud cover which traps the heat.

On Friday, 8 June 2018 13:50:23 UTC+2, Gary Harnagel wrote:

I was amazed how cool it got during the total eclipse last year. But that
or a cloud passing in front of the sun are LOCAL effects. And during the
night, cooling is restrained by cloud cover which traps the heat.

Read all abad id! "AGW denialist advocates moving Moon to achieve perpetual solar eclipse!"

Cue 1437½ ?

On Friday, June 8, 2018 at 11:11:15 PM UTC-6, Chris.B wrote:

On Friday, 8 June 2018 13:50:23 UTC+2, Gary Harnagel wrote:

I was amazed how cool it got during the total eclipse last year. But that
or a cloud passing in front of the sun are LOCAL effects. And during the
night, cooling is restrained by cloud cover which traps the heat.

Read all abad id! "AGW denialist advocates moving Moon to achieve perpetual
solar eclipse!"

Cue 1437½ ?

Well, I HAVE previously suggested putting up aluminized mylar mirrors in
space to either reflect sunlight away from earth or reflect it TO earth
to balance the heat flux in with heat flux out. Easier than moving the
moon, don't you think?

I was playing with MODTRAN some more and found that cumulus clouds reduce
the outgoing heat flux by about 10%. Interestingly, the albedo of clouds
ranges from 10% to 90%, so at the high end of the range clouds result in
significant cooling and at the low end of the range can cause some initial
temperature rise but long term it will result in cooling because of less
incoming heat.

On Thursday, June 14, 2018 at 8:47:48 AM UTC-6, Gary Harnagel wrote:

Well, I HAVE previously suggested putting up aluminized mylar mirrors in
space to either reflect sunlight away from earth or reflect it TO earth
to balance the heat flux in with heat flux out. Easier than moving the
moon, don't you think?

It involves less *mass*, that's true.

Perhaps it would be even easier if we all just took our cue from one Caribbean
island, and painted all our roofs white.

John Savard

On Thursday, June 14, 2018 at 12:42:45 PM UTC-6, Quadibloc wrote:

On Thursday, June 14, 2018 at 8:47:48 AM UTC-6, Gary Harnagel wrote:

Well, I HAVE previously suggested putting up aluminized mylar mirrors in
space to either reflect sunlight away from earth or reflect it TO earth
to balance the heat flux in with heat flux out. Easier than moving the
moon, don't you think?

It involves less *mass*, that's true.

Perhaps it would be even easier if we all just took our cue from one
Caribbean island, and painted all our roofs white.

John Savard

Since the earth is 71% ocean and 29% land, and only 3% of the land is
covered by infrastructure (including roads), that could have at most a
1% change in insolation. But it would be less than that because the
of ocean is 0.07 and the albedo of land is about 0.2

http://curry.eas.gatech.edu/Courses/...do_Surface.pdf

(Table 3), so most of the earth's insolation comes from the oceans.

Shall we paint the oceans white? :-)

Was it you, John, that mentioned a project in Europe covering many hectares
with used plastic film? Seems like space-based mylar mirrors in stationary
orbit over the oceans would be a way to go ...

Gary

On Thu, 14 Jun 2018 11:42:41 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
wrote:

Perhaps it would be even easier if we all just took our cue from one Caribbean
island, and painted all our roofs white.

I imagine that in the near future we'll see most roofs covered with PV
panels, so turning them into reflecting surfaces will not be
productive.

Gary Harnagel wrote:
On Thursday, June 14, 2018 at 12:42:45 PM UTC-6, Quadibloc wrote:

On Thursday, June 14, 2018 at 8:47:48 AM UTC-6, Gary Harnagel wrote:

Well, I HAVE previously suggested putting up aluminized mylar mirrors in
space to either reflect sunlight away from earth or reflect it TO earth
to balance the heat flux in with heat flux out. Easier than moving the
moon, don't you think?

It involves less *mass*, that's true.

Perhaps it would be even easier if we all just took our cue from one
Caribbean island, and painted all our roofs white.

John Savard

Since the earth is 71% ocean and 29% land, and only 3% of the land is
covered by infrastructure (including roads), that could have at most a
1% change in insolation. But it would be less than that because the
of ocean is 0.07 and the albedo of land is about 0.2

http://curry.eas.gatech.edu/Courses/...do_Surface.pdf

(Table 3), so most of the earth's insolation comes from the oceans.

Shall we paint the oceans white? :-)

Was it you, John, that mentioned a project in Europe covering many hectares
with used plastic film? Seems like space-based mylar mirrors in stationary
orbit over the oceans would be a way to go ...

Gary


No that was me. And it wasn’t a project. It was just farmers using
greenhouses ( often makeshift) to grow crops. You may not be aware of a
similar effect in the USA.

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/...ts-own-weather

But other crops can have the opposite effect and cause warming.

At a large scale crops can affect CO2 as demonstrated by the fall in
atmospheric CO2 from the rapid regrowth of the Amazon forest after the
population collapse. This ended the medieval warm period.