Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Roger Rankin Crook on December 24, 2011 at 11:42pm

Whew!

Permalink Reply by Jeff Hutcho on December 25, 2011 at 9:25am

G'Day Derek,

Compliments of the Season -

Good to hear from our friendly Caveman Scientist.

All to much to absorb on a Xmas Day, but thanks anyway for this compilation of very relevant scientific data. It will be good reference material.

I do like science by example, far better than pages of formulae and numbers.

As you must still be in that ice-box called the Younited Kingdom, better have a hot toddy or two.

JeffT

 

Permalink Reply by peter laux on December 26, 2011 at 5:15pm

Great stuff Derek, 

I see your in the UK, pity. I was going to ask " Would you be prepared to do "night lectures" for interested  sceptics and 'fence-sitters', here in Melbourne.

To all - I've been thinking that public lectures by sceptics such as Derek would not only be great for AGW sceptics and mockers (Im not sceptical, I know its irrational grandiose rubbish) to educate themselves but great PR.
It would really be 'strength giving' to those who doubt to actually be able to express it and threaten the arrogance of those who denounce such doubters as we.
It really would be a defiant "line in the stand" action.

Imagine if these were held Nation or even QPEC nations wide and held regularly.(3rd world hasn't the wealth to feel angst towards the source of prosperity ) If the media and political class wont let the truth be heard, we will and in reality why do we rely on the systems of those deceitful, manipulative control freaks anyhow ?
We complain about the media but why do we need such a corrupt medium ? Just because thats what has always been used ?
If AGW is to be defeated we cannot rely on those with an expected inheritance in the AGW lie.
We need to create radical alternatives.  In Australia during the 19th century,"Mechanics Institutes" were used as libraries and adult education facilities for the common man who was excluded from "learning" before the State introduced universal education but even that came about only after radical civic action by the catholics who started to educate the commoner for FREE , before then the State was happy to leave us ignorant as it and the media establishment are today in regard to AGW.

Forget trying to influence corrupted political, educational, media and scientific bodies - they ALL HAVE VESTED INTERESTS in AGW ! 

We need to hit them in the place that all loves of power fear - the people, in public.
PR that fundamentally runs on true education of people to properly arm them with the facts.
It would not be that thousands upon thousands attend, it would be that it is "known" by people that they exist - a living thorn in the AGW side.

As it now stands - AGW will die a scientific death but because of the strength of its PR juggernaut,  arguments such as Dereks will be mainly unheard, ignored and therefore fundamentally useless as AGW  will win the war - it is only a Trojan Horse, and as with the Trojan war, once the horse was inside Troy, it didn't matter that it wasn't a gift.
Anti-AGW arguments need the "oxygen" of alternative forums in order to breath. We need to make them, its a forelorn hope to expect otherwise.

and MERRY CHRISTMAS !



 

Permalink Reply by John Paul McKerral on December 28, 2011 at 4:11pm

Derek

That is a very persuasive article and I thoroughly enjoyed reading it. It is about time that reasonable science made it's debut on  the AGW stage.

John

Permalink Reply by Michael Petterson on December 29, 2011 at 1:47pm

If Derek comes across from The U.K to gives lectures I will willing pay his airfares across from the U.K to Australia,no questions asked if that helps.

Permalink Reply by Derek Alker on December 31, 2011 at 5:20am

This is beyond what I imagined could be even remotely possible, and I would welcome (understatement...) such an amazing opportunity.

May I suggest a preliminary discussion by email, as I have other contacts and interested parties that could be of great assistence.

 Michael Petterson said:

If Derek comes across from The U.K to gives lectures I will willing pay his airfares across from the U.K to Australia,no questions asked if that helps.

Permalink Reply by John Paul McKerral on December 31, 2011 at 3:10pm

Derek

Attached is a critique of your article by my friend and below is my response to that critique and below that is his response to my remarks.

Roger
I agree with your criticisms of this article however you are missing the gold nugget among the dross. If you look at the Keel & Trenberth (K&T) (Page 2) diagram you will note that they indicate (17+80)/(17+80+396)X100=19.7% of the heat loss by the hard surface of the earth (land, sea, plants etc.) is attributable to evaporation and convection resulting as you pointed out from conduction. Is this accepted by all warmers? Most of them would agree with something like that, I believe.
The thought experiment with the steel ball would indicate otherwise. The fact that you cannot feel any IR coming from the hot steel ball when in the vacuum indicates that not much IR is being radiated. An experiment could be easily done with a vacuum flask, a vessel and some boiling water. Put equal amounts of boiling water in both, seal the flask and time them to see how long it takes for each to cool to ambient temperature. The flask would most likely take in excess of 8 hours while the other vessel would cool to ambient in much less than one hour. In fact as soon as you have poured the boiling water into the alternate vessel the exterior would be too hot to comfortably touch. A rigorous scientific experiment should be done on this matter.
Surely that demonstrates that IR plays a small part in moving heat from the surface of the globe to the outer limit of the atmosphere. One also needs to consider the major method of moving heat upwards, evaporation. Remember, 540 calories of heat must be absorbed to change 1 gram of water to a gas and when that gas condenses that 540 calories must be given off. That acts as a heat pump moving heat upwards. Therefore, conduction resulting in evaporation and convection is the main player in moving heat to the upper limit of the atmosphere. Considering this, possibly less than 1% of the movement of heat to the upper limit of the atmosphere is attributable to IR instead of over 80% as indicated by K&T.
I agree with you entirely about IR radiation being the only way that the earth can shed heat into space. It is the method of moving that heat from the hard surface of the earth to that upper limit of the atmosphere that is in question. It seems to me that all of the warmer theories revolve around the radiated IR being trapped on it's journey from the hard surface of the earth to the upper limit of the atmosphere and then to space. The hot spot is an illustration of this. Warmers claim that this trapped IR is radiated back to the earth causing the warming. With so much less IR involved with this alternate method of transporting the heat to the limit of the atmosphere, much less IR is available to be trapped and radiated back to the earth hard surface. It is curious that the warmers seem to feel that almost all of the IR radiated by the greenhouse gases is radiated back to the hard surface of the earth. Logic would tell one that it would be radiated in all directions  and not mainly back to the hard surface.
If as the article indicates, most of the heat is moved up by evaporation & convection as a result of conduction, then that blows the whole AGW theory. Taking the effect of both evaporation and convection into account, I would be surprised if IR radiation from the hard surface of the earth accounted for more than 1% of the outward bound heat. That would account for the fact that no empirical evidence of the AGW warming has been found and they rely entirely on CGCMs to support their case.
John

By the way would you mind my posting your criticism and my response on the Blog that I found that article? I am interested to hear your opinion of my comments.

John
You are mostly right.  I think the cooling of the SURFACE is mostly by
conduction/convection/evaporation/melting of ice which transfers heat from
the surface to the atmosphere.  Radiation from the surface has little to do
with it.  Once heat has moved up near the upper atmosphere, radiation into
space is the way heat escapes.  Atmospheric radiation proceeds in all
directions, some of it warming the lower atmosphere and making it a little
warmer than it would be if the heat only radiated outward.  This seems to be
the alarmists' point.  To me, the smoking gun is in the diagrams of
absorption spectra of the various gasses.  Water vapor and CO2 are nearly
identical, except in the area between 4 and 5 microns, corresponding to a
temperature of about 450 and 300 degrees Celsius, respectively.  This means
that, except where the earth's surface is between 300 and 450 degrees C, CO2
does not absorb anything that would not be absorbed by water vapor anyway.
But there is about 50 times as much water vapor as CO2, even on a dry day.
CO2's contribution MUST have a negligible effect.  You may publish  or
transmit my comments anywhere you think they would be helpful.

Kindest regards and best wishes for a very Happy New Year

Rog

Derek Alker said:

This is beyond what I imagined could be even remotely possible, and I would welcome (understatement...) such an amazing opportunity.

May I suggest a preliminary discussion by email, as I have other contacts and interested parties that could be of great assistence.

 Michael Petterson said:

If Derek comes across from The U.K to gives lectures I will willing pay his airfares across from the U.K to Australia,no questions asked if that helps.

Attachments:

• Critique of Alker-1.doc, 20 KB

Permalink Reply by Roger Rankin Crook on December 31, 2011 at 3:26pm

John,

I am confused. All I wrote was 'Whew'. Which should have been 'Phew!!!'

Don't know that I missed anything. I haven't criticized or commented, have I.

I presume I am the Roger to whom you refer?

Roger.

Permalink Reply by John Paul McKerral on December 31, 2011 at 3:34pm

Roger

A different Roger wrote this critique. As he is not a member of 'Just Grounds' I did not include his last name. Sorry about the confusion.

John

Roger Rankin Crook said:

John,

I am confused. All I wrote was 'Whew'. Which should have been 'Phew!!!'

Don't know that I missed anything. I haven't criticized or commented, have I.

I presume I am the Roger to whom you refer?

Roger.

Permalink Reply by Derek Alker on December 31, 2011 at 8:55pm

Re "Rog" critique.
My apologies, it being New Year time is a bit short to read this "critique" through slowly enough to reply in a reasonable manner.

I will try to in due course, and then decide if it is worth replying to.

 

yours,

Derek.

Permalink Reply by Derek Alker on January 1, 2012 at 3:42am

BTW Roger, you may find this thread and series of experiments useful in trying to understand the importance and power of latent heat losses.

http://www.globalwarmingskeptics.info/forums/showthread.php?tid=1617 

Interesting excel sheet there too.....
 

Permalink Reply by John Paul McKerral on January 2, 2012 at 2:54pm

Alan

State your disagreement with what was written in the critique and subsequent comments. My background is in computing and Roger's is engineering. I & Rog have been researching AGW and ACC for five years on the net.

Which part did you have difficulty with? It seems to me that all of it was basic generally accepted science.
John
alan mikkelsen said:

Firstly, Happy New Year to all.

And now to John P. I read your comment, and that of your friend Rog (no, not you my mate Roger of the West  :-) with great interest.

It requires a degree of scientific understanding to follow both, and I would therefore encourage you to declare the relevant qualifications in this area which you both hold. I am not at all being nosey or picky, just pointing out that such openness adds greatly to credibility. I wouldn't ask that of you that unless I was happy to declare my own position, which I have a number of times - B.App Sc (geol, chem). Other members active in this debate from time to time (like Viv Forbes, John Netherey) have done the same.

I am not for a moment suggesting that anyone without formal qualifications might not in fact be much more expert in the area (any area) than I am. That would not be hard! I do however think it especially behoves them to cite their scientific references, when making strong statements.

Cheers  bro' al  

 

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• Next ›
• Page