‘The Government says it wants a “climate expert” to sell the message to the public, and who do they pick? A small mammal expert whose predictions on the climate are so wrong any normal person would slink off in shame. But not Flannery, the Teflon prophet, reality doesn’t stick to him. How can it be that the outrageously wrong get away with it with reputations intact (and get rewarded too)? Blame the mainstream media. Blame also a government that thinks it’s a good use of public money to promote known failures.
Climate & Climate Change
More on the Stefan-Boltzmann Equation: A Note from Martin Hertzberg
‘There is an important point that was missed in your article about the Stefan-Boltzmann equation. Applying the argument to the “greenhouse gas” theory is quite simple: there can be no “back radiation” from the colder atmosphere to the warmer earth’s surface. It violates the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics as it applies to radiative transfer…’
More following from Dr. Martin Hertzberg, a coauthor of “Slaying the Sky Dragon-Death of the Greenhouse Gas Theory”…
‘Consider two flat, parallel surfaces each with unit emissivity facing each other. One surface is maintained at a higher temperature, Th while the other surface is maintained at a lower temperature Tc . If the hotter surface were facing a complete void or surroundings at 0 K, the flux of radiant energy that it would emit and that the void would receive is sTh4.
‘Similarly, if the colder surface were facing a complete void or surroundings at 0 K, the flux of radiant energy that it would emit and that the void would receive is sTc4. But neither of the surfaces is facing a void: they are facing each other, and accordingly the net flux of radiant energy in the field between them is:
I (net) = s (Th4 – Tc4 ) ,
and is always from the hotter surface to the colder surface as required by the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.
‘Nowhere in the radiation field between the two surfaces is the flux of radiant energy equal to what either of the surfaces would emit if they were facing a complete void at 0 K! Thus, the simple use of the Stefan-Boltzmann equation to characterize the emission from a source of radiation as though it depends only on the temperature of the source without considering the temperature of the surroundings that are receiving the radiation, is a misuse of the equation, and the notion that a colder source can transfer radiant energy to a warmer object involves not only a misuse of the Stefan-Boltzmann equation but also a violation of the 2nd Law.
‘The situation is analogous to a simple problem in mechanics. A 1 Kg mass is sitting on a frictionless table and is subjected to a force of 10 Newtons from left to right and simultaneously subjected to a force of 7 Newtons from right to left. Now you are free to calculate what the motion would be if only the 10 Newton force acted on the mass, or if you prefer, you can calculate what the motion would be if only the 7 Newton mass operated on it. But, of course, neither of those calculations describes the real motion, which is that of a 3 Newton force acting from left to right. There is no motion to the left from the weaker force.
‘Thus it should be quite clear that the simple use of the Stefan-Boltzmann equation as though it can characterize the radiant energy being transferred from a source to its surroundings without any reference to the conditions of the surroundings that are receiving that radiant energy, is a misuse of the equation.’
Dr. Martin Hertzberg coauthor of Slaying the Sky Dragon-Death of the Greenhouse Gas Theory
**************
Part 1 on the Equation: https://jennifermarohasy.com.dev.internet-thinking.com.au/blog/2011/02/a-note-on-the-stefan-boltzman-equation/
The Dragon book: http://slayingtheskydragon.com/
Apologies in advance: The equations inserted into the above texts appear to be displaying OK as posted – using internet explorer as my browser. But I have had problems before with mathematics in blogs displaying properly – so apologies in advance if they aren’t looking right.
Looking for AGW in a Sea of Natural Variability: Declining Rainfall in SW Western Australia (Part 2) – A Note from Luke Walker
Finding anthropogenic global warming (AG
W) shapes in the fog of variability is a major challenge, simply because natural climate variability is large. And then the problem becomes attributing those changes to a climate mechanism in an interlinked dynamic climate system.
One of those climate detective stories taking some intriguing twists and turns is the rainfall decline in Western Australia which has been the impetus for the Indian Ocean Climate Initiative (IOCI). Their web site explains:
“In southwest WA, a drying trend has been observed … The rainfall decline has been most apparent in late autumn and early winter, with a major drop in rainfall totals occurring in the 1970s, and possibly another more recently in the 1990s. Averaged across southwest WA, a step decrease in total annual rainfall of almost 10% was seen in the mid-1970s, though individual locations would have experienced a greater decrease.”
More Politics from Ross Garnaut: A Note from Des Moore
LAST November Ross Garnaut was commissioned, for an unknown fee, to produce an Update of the Review of climate change he completed in 2008. Garnaut is an economist who describes himself as an independent expert but he acts like a believer in a greater role for government and has worked closely with Labor governments. As one commentator put it yesterday, “his work has been a key feature of Labor’s campaign to introduce a carbon trading scheme”. Indeed, his first Update and associated comments present a blatantly political perspective in portraying all developments since the Review as supporting the need for emission reducing action by government and dismissing or ignoring the reality that those developments have clearly heightened the uncertainties about the so-called science and whether there will be any agreed international political action.
[Read more…] about More Politics from Ross Garnaut: A Note from Des Moore
A Note on the Stefan-Boltzmann Equation
According to American climatologist, Judith Curry, there are plenty of things to be skeptical about when it comes to Anthropogenic Global Warming, but the basic physics of gaseous infrared radiative transfer is not one of them.
Dr Curry, is the chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology and the co-author of ‘Thermodynamics of Atmospheres and Oceans’ (1999), and was speaking out against claims in a book ‘Slaying the Sky Dragon: Death of the Greenhouse Gas Theory’.
There has been some discussion of radiative transfer theory at this blog mostly via notes I have posted from Alan Siddons, Holden, Massachusetts, who is a chapter author in the book and is very skeptical about the basic physics of radiative transfer as applied by mainstream climate scientists and in the IPCC reports.
I was recently alerted to a blog post Dr Curry has started, ostensibly to discuss this physics and its application to global warming theory. It seems to have stirred up interest again in this issue.
An occasional commentator at this blog, known as Cementafriend, is also skeptical, in particular about how the Stefan-Boltzmann equation is applied by the climate scientists.
Following is a note from Cementafriend to resurrect the issue here:
Is the Stefan-Boltzmann Equation used correctly
D Kern in the text book “Process Heat Transfer” states “Radiant energy is believed to originate within molecules of the radiating body, atoms of such molecules vibrating in simple harmonic motion as linear oscillators. The emission of radiant energy is believed to represent a decrease in the amplitudes of the vibrations within the molecules, while an absorption of energy represents an increase.”
But from where does the Stefan-Boltzmann equation come?
David Stockwell and Anthony Cox reply to Lewandowsky and His Lies, Dam Lies and Statistics
COGNITIVE science is about the action and process of knowing, that is about intelligence and rational and non-rational intellectual processes. Professor Stephan Lewandowsky is a professor of Psychology specialising in cognitive process. He thinks the cognitive processes of Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) sceptics is deficient and on the same level as “truthers” and other “conspiracy theorists”. Furthermore, he is not backward in telling anyone who will listen that sceptics are “damn liars”.
Lewandowsky’s fulminations against sceptics continues a sinister trend in the AGW debate with a number of prominent AGW supporters casting aspersions about the moral legitimacy of scepticism and calling for sceptics to be jailed or prosecuted or at the very least banned as Senator Bob Brown advocates for leading sceptic Andrew Bolt. However, Lewandowsky’s diatribes go beyond legal and political action and calls into doubt the sanity of the sceptical position.
This is serious, for merely questioning the ‘science’ of AGW one now faces the opprobrium of having one’s mental ability questioned.
Lewandowsky has been very active, having several articles published at the ABC’s Unleashed. His most recent one is cunning. Apparently realising that the old stand-by of arguing from authority is not having any success in converting an increasingly cynical public, Lewandowsky has attempted to directly involve the public in the scientific process of validating the evidence for AGW. This process is described in his latest ABC article:
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/43020.html
Because Lewandowsky is an award winning statistician and uses statistics in this latest paper another award winning statistician, Dr David Stockwell, thought having his sanity queried was worth the risk of highlighting the egregious statistical errors of Lewandowsky’s article.
While prepared to publish Lewandowsky’s offensive opinion, the ABC refused to publish the following rebuttal:
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD has worked in industry and government. She is currently researching a novel technique for long-range weather forecasting funded by the B. Macfie Family Foundation.