tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post6187136315447076693..comments2024-03-11T04:54:26.827-07:00Comments on THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: Greenhouse Theory disproven in 1909, 1963, 1966, 1973...but still refuses to dieUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger15125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-55087163897234873572016-05-20T10:58:51.088-07:002016-05-20T10:58:51.088-07:00I would venture to say that mankind's DEMONSTR...I would venture to say that mankind's DEMONSTRATED OBSESSION WITH DEPOSITING MASSIVE AMOUNTS OF CEMENT in and around populated areas for buildings - coupled with the "desire" to blacktop nearly everything in sight - has a much, much larger effect in local AND global warming trends... at least in metropolitan microclimates.yabbadoodyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14382385697094852899noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-19796717795976898422014-06-30T14:24:38.738-07:002014-06-30T14:24:38.738-07:00http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/1478644...http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/14786440208636602#.U7HURPldXjUAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-14725977845397273202014-04-22T10:44:11.727-07:002014-04-22T10:44:11.727-07:00I won't correct you. Nothing to correct. But t...I won't correct you. Nothing to correct. But there are quotes around (Not covered by) that can cause some confusion :)Andyjhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11910687437796998340noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-57142519089181896982014-04-22T10:30:54.339-07:002014-04-22T10:30:54.339-07:00Uh, glass is reflective to IR, as demonstrated sev...Uh, glass is reflective to IR, as demonstrated several times in the post and fig 10 & 11 above. <br /><br />i.e. no correction indicatedMShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06714540297202434542noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-33855441488440029732014-04-22T10:18:24.436-07:002014-04-22T10:18:24.436-07:00Ummm, small correction that needs to be heeded.
Gl...Ummm, small correction that needs to be heeded.<br />Glass is REFLECTIVE to IR.<br />You can play this fact for yourself quite easily. Obtain a cheap webcam and remove the little red filter. Filter the light with say a bit of black film from a bin bag. Using any IR light source to illuminate you can see yourself in the mirror like glass but you cannot see through the glass.<br /><br />Glass warms up best with contact. Hope that helps.Andyjhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11910687437796998340noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-36881000448523142532013-12-04T20:22:30.385-08:002013-12-04T20:22:30.385-08:00Thanks Joe, love your site and your work!Thanks Joe, love your site and your work!MShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06714540297202434542noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-62913778508991535652013-12-04T20:17:43.948-08:002013-12-04T20:17:43.948-08:00A post you will find most useful:
http://climateo...A post you will find most useful:<br /><br />http://climateofsophistry.com/2013/12/04/a-tale-of-two-versions/<br /><br /><br />Best RegardsAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-2186971740204355482013-09-14T07:37:10.280-07:002013-09-14T07:37:10.280-07:00Greenhouse gas theory does not, and never did, res...Greenhouse gas theory does not, and never did, rest upon increases in CO2 accumulating heat. Not in the atmosphere or anywhere else. The theory always rested upon a change in the temperature profile between surface and TOA with upper atmosphere becoming cooler, and lower atmosphere becoming warmer, but the average from surface to TOA remaining exactly the same. Nowhere in the theory is there any significant increase in heat in the first place, the effective black body temperature at equilibrium remains EXACTLY the same after doubling of CO2 as before.MShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06714540297202434542noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-26042623299454507242013-06-22T09:30:17.746-07:002013-06-22T09:30:17.746-07:00http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2013/06/21/the-fallac...http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2013/06/21/the-fallacy-of-trapped-heat/MShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06714540297202434542noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-30784041434255505812010-11-27T13:44:32.586-08:002010-11-27T13:44:32.586-08:00Here are two more references on how Robert W Woods...Here are two more references on how Robert W Woods ripped to shreds the Arrhenius "heat trapping" paper:<br /><br />http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics/Svante_Arrhenius<br /><br />http://neighbors.denverpost.com/blog.php/2009/02/04/greenhouse-theory-disproved-a-century-ago/MShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06714540297202434542noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-26066708395098702742010-11-27T09:53:58.155-08:002010-11-27T09:53:58.155-08:001. Nice try, the whole purpose of Wood's exper...1. Nice try, the whole purpose of Wood's experiments was to simulate what happens in the atmosphere vs. as claimed by the Arrhenius "glass pane" "heat trapping" theory. The non-existent tropospheric hot spot is the result of computer models based upon the Arrhenius theory. <br />2. Nice try, admitting that the amount of "trapped radiation" is "very small" without apparently knowing the fallacious IPCC earth energy budget shows the "backradiated trapped radiation" of the atmosphere EXCEEDS THE TOTAL ENERGY INPUT OF THE SUN BY 48 Wm-2 (while also ignoring GHGs radiate ISOTROPICALLY).<br />3. You obviously don't understand the full significance of Wood's findings. Re-read the summary of the 3 errors in the "Rescue" excerpt above and then read the G&T paper:<br />http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0707/0707.1161v4.pdfMShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06714540297202434542noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-18768156454263830342010-11-26T21:42:54.228-08:002010-11-26T21:42:54.228-08:00Everybody who knows anything about optical physics...Everybody who knows anything about optical physics knows I'm right and you're lying.<br /><br />http://books.google.com/books?id=yIUjyETRt8cC&pg=PA69&dq=RW+Wood+greenhouse<br />The variety of phenomena resulting from the selective absorption of certain wavelengths and the transmission of others is too broad to treat here. We mention only one important example, the "greenhouse effect."[2] Visible sunlight is transmitted by Earth's atmosphere and heats (by absorption) both land and water. The warmed Earth's surface is a source of thermal radiation, the dominant emission for ambient temperatures being in the infrared. This infrared radiation, however, is strongly absorbed by CO₂ and H₂O vapor in the atmosphere, preventing rapid escape into space. Without this effect Earth would be a much colder place. An increased burning of fossil fuels could conceivably enhance the greenhouse effect by increasing the level of CO₂ and other "greenhouse gases" in the atmosphere.<br /><br />[2]The term <em>greenhouse effect</em> is actually a misnomer, originating in the observation that the glass in a greenhouse, which is transparent in the visible but opaque to the infrared, plays an absorptive role similar to that of CO₂ and H₂O in Earth's atmosphere. This effect, however, does no contribute significantly to the warming of the air inside a greenhouse. A real greenhouse mainly prevents cooling by air currents. Although this point was demonstrated experimentally By R.W. Wood (1909), the contrary misperception persists even among scientists.Settled Sciencehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14330679212434829761noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-56708324019859767842010-11-26T21:16:42.389-08:002010-11-26T21:16:42.389-08:00Nice try, but nothing in Wood's experiment has...Nice try, but nothing in Wood's experiment has anything to do with the troposphere.<br />"From this it seems doubtful if the atmosphere (of the greenhouse, not the troposphere) is warmed to any great extent by absorbing the radiation from the ground."<br /><br />Now, the previous sentence:<br />"In some experiments which he conducted it was found that the loss of temperature of the ground by radiation is very small (but not zero) in comparison with the loss by convection, so that little is gained from the trapped radiation."<br /><br />An amount of trapped radiation in a greenhouse which is very small, but not zero, multiplied across the entire troposphere, is enough to make a difference on the global mean temperature. In the troposphere, there is obviously no glass lid, so what heats greenhouses, preventing air movement, is <b>obviously not what warms the Earth</b>. Obviously, the mechanism that warms greenhouses is not the same as the mechanism that warms the troposphere. And really, only an idiot who never passed a science class would expect them to work exactly the same way. The name "greenhouse effect" is an allegory, nothing more.Settled Sciencehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14330679212434829761noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-78389594275218373082010-11-26T21:06:24.460-08:002010-11-26T21:06:24.460-08:00Hey idiot aka Reed Young,
Apparently you are readi...Hey idiot aka Reed Young,<br />Apparently you are reading comprehension challenged. Read again the last sentence of your comment: <b>"From this it seems doubtful if the atmosphere is warmed to any great extent by absorbing the radiation from the ground." </b>Since you didn't know the essence of the "greenhouse effect" is that the atmosphere is warmed by absorbing LWIR radiation from the ground to create a non-existent tropospheric "hot spot," I understand why this is so hard for you. BTW idiot, there is no such thing as the "transformation of wavelength hypothesis for glass structures" except for you.MShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06714540297202434542noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-49834381137658518482010-11-26T20:43:41.618-08:002010-11-26T20:43:41.618-08:00Hey, idiot, Woods disproved the "transformati...Hey, idiot, Woods disproved the "transformation of wave-length" hypothesis for glass structures, not for the atmosphere!<br /><br />From page 213 of the National Druggist Magazine, volume 39 in 1909:<br />Why a Greenhouse is Warm.<br />The comparatively high temperature produced within a greenhouse covered with glass and exposed to solar radition is usually held to result from a transformation of wave-length; that is, that the heat waves from the sun, which are able to penetrate the glass, fall upon the walls of the inclosure and raise its temperature; the heat energy is re-emitted by the walls in the form of much longer waves, which are unable to penetrate the glass, the greenhouse acting as a radiation trap. Prof. R. W. Wood, of Johns Hopkins University thinks it more probable that the part played by the glass is the prevention of the escape of the warm air heated by the ground within the inclosure. In some experiments which he conducted it was found that the loss of temperature of the ground by radiation is very small in comparison with the loss by convection, so that little is gained from the trapped radiation. From this it seems doubtful if the atmosphere is warmed to any great extent by absorbing the radiation from the ground.— Sc. Am.<br />http://books.google.com/books?id=fYPnAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA213&dq=R.W.+Wood+greenhouse&hl=enSettled Sciencehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14330679212434829761noreply@blogger.com