[Rebuttal] Climate Experts Spencer and Lindzen Lash Out as Pet Theory is Trashed
|
February 23 2012
Two irate climatologists launch into a flurry of name-calling and innuendo as their beloved greenhouse gas theory collapses threatening to take their careers with it.
Dr. Roy Spencer this week followed the lead of Dr. Richard Lindzen in spitting insults after fellow skeptic scientists debunked the greenhouse gas effect (GHE). Lindzen confined his insults to private emails. But Spencer openly blogged his personal attack after reading how cutting-edge scientific research by specialists in astrophysicists, space engineering and mathematics had exposed Spencer’s weak grasp of physics; something particularly identified by NASA’s former Apollo Mission engineer, Dr. Pierre R. Latour.
Highly credentialed scientists, among them Latour, Professor Nasif Nahle, Dr. Matthias Kleespies and other leading experts in their respective fields have been remorsefully debunking the GHE in a series of articles and peer-reviewed papers. The GHE is the cornerstone of the man-made global warming hysteria.
Discussions Terminated After Tempers Fray
With unseemly venom Spencer and Lindzen have scorned further dialog from several fellow man-made global warming skeptics for refusing to toe the line over the increasingly discredited greenhouse gas theory (GHE).
Like many climatologists, Spencer and Lindzen have built successful careers as skeptics of the man-made global warming narrative, but all the while they've denounced anyone who has pinpointed errors woven into the GHE. Some quarters refer to such skeptics as 'lukewarmers.'
But in recent months a paradigm shift has been underway and a whole slew of hard core GHE contrarians are no longer prepared to stay silent - and can you blame them? Satellite measurements prove that atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide have gone up over 30 percent in recent decades while global temperatures have fallen since 2003; that's real world data starkly contradicting the predicted warming of the GHE ( Lindzen foreseeing a 1 degree Celsius rise).
Like all other religionists who subscribe to the ‘greenhouse gas effect’ these two giants of climate skepticism are profoundly at fault for believing the atmosphere ‘keeps our planet warmer than it would otherwise be.’
While an increasing number of fellow scientists are abandoning belief in the GHE these two American skeptic academics stand out for stubbornly sustaining the GHE falsehood - and because they believe in the crazy ‘cold’ space fallacy.
Space has no Temperature: So Says Space Scientists
For months earnest behind-the-scenes discussions have been to no avail. Space scientists and other experts have despaired as they have tried and failed to show Spencer and Lindzen the errors of their way. Astrophysicist Joe Postma, who works for the Canadian and Indian space agencies, sums it up:
“Everyone who has studied thermodynamics knows space doesn’t have a temperature. That’s the first trick question you get on the first day of the first semester of introductory thermodynamics. That 2.7K is the "temperature" of the CMB radiation found in space. It is not the temperature OF space! See the logical difference? Of course academia can’t handle that level of logic anymore; 2.7K would be the induced temperature of a physical body in space with no other heat sources, but it is not the temperature of the empty space itself.”
Spencer and Lindzen wrongly assumed that the so-called cosmic 'microwave' – the background radiation (or CMBR, generated by the ‘Big Bang’) is what the rest of vacuum space registers as temperature (the CMBR is quoted at around 2.7K).
But even that pro-green online encyclopedia, Wikipedia knows there is no ‘real’ temp in space – they refer to the “color temperature’ of the decoupled photons” which they say “has continued to diminish ever since [the 'Big Bang']; now down to 2.72548 ± 0.00057 K,[3]”
‘Thermos Flask’ analogy More Compelling than ‘Blanket Effect’
Time and again independent scientists have demonstrated to leading climatologists in private emails that space has no temperature because it is an empty vacuum and as such acts as a perfect insulator (like a thermos flask). Thus it inhibits the escape of heat energy from Earth’s atmosphere; only the cooling effect of ‘wet’ gases in our turbulent atmosphere dispose of the excess heat energy via convection and conduction.
Time and again the Spencers and Lindzens cling onto their falsities. Once this fundamental fact is understood they will appreciate Earth endures a ‘thermos flask-like effect’ influencing our planet to retain (not lose) heat.
People who say that ‘space has a temperature of 3K, because of the CMBR’ will often concede they have no clue about thermodynamics.
“It is perfectly ambiguous and a red-herring/straw man, just like the way they argue with the greenhouse effect,” says Postma. Thankfully, the reverse of the alleged greenhouse gas effect is true – atmospheric gases act to keep out planet COOLER than it would otherwise be.
Global Warming Science: Built on Arrogance, Stupidity and Deceit
Categorically, space does not have a temperature, only matter has a temperature - only matter can make a sound and you can only hear that sound if there is matter in between you and the source of the sound.
Does anyone hear you if you clap in space? It’s basically the same question. There’s no matter in space – therefore no one hears the vibration of your two hands slapping together propagating outwards and making a sound.
Space scientists know radiation does not have a temperature. It can only induce a temperature when it encounters matter that is susceptible to the radiation it receives. Some humility now needs to be shown by climate scientists and they must admit that the GHE and the whole man-made global warming fraud was built on ignorance, stupidity and/or willful deception.
What the Spencers and Lindzens of this world need to understand is that the radiation that is found in space might indicate a temperature, but radiation is NOT space.Radiation is energy, and indeed it can have what space scientists call a Black Body temperature spectrum (this is where the confusion would come in). But ponderable temperature is actually only created when that energy gets absorbed into an object/matter and the molecules/atoms start vibrating/bouncing around.
To say that the radiation that is found in space IS the temperature of space is convoluted nonsense; it is either lack of knowledge or purposeful misdirection.
Add comment
Before posting a comment, please read the Terms of Service (click here). Long links are shortened but still work. Emails not shown.
Use your Gravatar username and email address to show your custom avatar. Want your own avatar? Sign up here.
If you post an image, please upload to a photo-sharing service like ImageShack or TinyPic and use the link they provide you. Do NOT link directly to the photo's source unless you have permission.
PLEASE report all spam/inappropriate comments using the 'Report to Admin' link. If you find your post gone, it is because you violated the TOS above or it was in reply to a deleted comment.
Comments
"Everyone who has studied thermodynamics knows space doesn’t have a temperature."
We cannot even agree on just what space is yet.
Again, this is akin to debating how many angels dance on the dead of a pin. It makes for interesting musings, but it is meaningless when it comes to AGW. It is an unnecessary discussion.
There is nothing unusual or unprecedented about our current climate or how we got here. It is all ever so incredibly average.
The debate over what is and is not 'space', and wether or not it contains heat, is all very interesting but the insults need to stop. Lindzen and Spencer have done great work towards defeating the alarmist agenda, and noone knows the answer to this question yet. Debate is fine, infighting is unacceptable.
Make that the 'head' of a pin.
How about you try and refute natural variabilty as the cause of climate change.
Or better yet, why not defend the crooks you so foolishly worship.
I cannot imagine what it must be like to be so deluded over perfectly normal climates. How does one get fired up over anbsolutely nothing? Brain parasites?
Apparently reading comprehension is not your strong suit, med school must have been Hell!
Natural variabilty is not a hypothesis you schmuck.
Find a new hobby.
www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&v=Rga7XFcHdy4&NR=1
Global warming due to CO2 has never made it past the hypothesis stage. Yet people continue calling it a theory.
Natural variability does not have to be a hypothesis. Taking it as a theory why can't anyone find any "peer-reviewed" refutations?
It has been managed for other theories. Why does natural-variability have to be a hypothesis? Given that the bulk of the AGW meme is based on a hypothesis and rooted in assumptions about CO2 that have never been proven empirically why would you favor that line of reasoning?
Your statement: "I don't believe 'natural variability' is a hypothesis" is adequate to establish that you don't know, but are basing your position on your belief.
Sounds like religion to me.
www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&v=Rga7XFcHdy4&NR=1
Therefore they aren't being dealt with using the scientific method are they?
Or do you choose to accept the IPCC's version of science because it fits with your beliefs, rather than because it actually employs sound science?
Which part will you choose to ignore next? Doesn't matter to me, the more you try and duck and dodge the more you establish that rather than pursuing science you, like the IPCC, are pursuing a goal. A goal in which it has become obvious that any inconvenient evidence is to be ignored rather than addressed. After all, that is how the IPCC does it.
Now explain why Trenberth wants to reverse the null hypothesis, in effect removing the burden of providing evidence from himself. Perhaps because he has none with which to falsify it?
Given what we know of the physics of the greenhouse effect, and given that the observed warming is 100% consistent with the theoretical expectations of what should happen if you increase the concentration of a greenhouse gas by 40%, your “natural climate variability” hypothesis looks ridiculous. Far from anyone needing to rule out “natural climate variability”, you need to explain how and why the 100ppm additional CO2 in the atmosphere that is there from fossil fuel burning has different radiative properties to the 280ppm that was already there. JP
Why if the IPCC's hypothesis is not falsifiable is it considered science.
The CO2 GHG meme is getting old. There is plenty of evidence showing other than what you claim.
Just another song and dance by one of the believers aren't you?
No one needs to explain the "different radiative properties" because there is no difference. Or do you get your science from John Cook?
That and a "theory" that was proven to be flawed over 100 years ago by Robert Wood.
You need to seriously rethink what you consider science if you think 380 ppm of CO2 is dangerous. People like you would like to reduce it to a level in which flora, and thus everything else on the planet, would be struggling to survive rather than flourishing.
Now go away John. Unless you plan to study for and take my exams for me, I have no intention of doing your homework for you.
You want me to do my homework and yet you don't know that convection, evaporation and clouds are incorporated into CGCM's. The fact that you were unaware of that explains why you are confused.
I didn't say 380ppmv was dangerous. You did. I said it would make our climate system warmer than 280. The fact that we are on a course to add another 100 to that in short order with no plane to change that trajectory is what is potentially dangerous.
If I did take your exams for you, you'd apparently get a much better grade. JP
Sorry, at least you're right about the edit window. JP
Their models are garbage and so is their hypothesis. 480ppm isn't dangerous, the world has seen level like that before and it is still here.
Not too bright their John.
Go back to where you started yammering on about the CO2 levels, in the context of your comment you were implying it was something to be concerned with. Don't they teach you to read there?
Given what we know of the physics of the greenhouse effect, and given that the observed warming is 100% consistent with the theoretical expectations of what should happen if you increase the concentration of a greenhouse gas by 40%, your “natural climate variability” hypothesis looks ridiculous. Far from anyone needing to rule out “natural climate variability”, you need to explain how and why the 100ppm additional CO2 in the atmosphere that is there from fossil fuel burning has different radiative properties to the 280ppm that was already there. JP
# John Parsons 2012-02-26 02:22
Sorry, I don't get it. JP
That was in response to Me, Gleickhy comment!
So now I take it that just like Gleick, you are the reverse or opposite of Albert Einstein too?
Pretty weak argument considering that actions of those who you seem to support and their failure in applying the scientific method properly.
Or does it only apply to any hypothesis or theory with which you don't agree?
theendofthemystery.blogspot.com/2010/11/venus-no-greenhouse-effect.html
I think that is the alarmist position.
The skeptic position would be "the human contribution is negligible"!
Ha ha of course. I was late at night & y'all know what I meant...
I Agree, a brilliant spoof. It was posted last week, I wonder who the artist is because he has captured the original Artist Frank Hampson's style perfectly.
I well remember the Eagle in it's last days and it's successor TV21, Wednesdays were a much anticipated event when I was a kid, sprinting to the newsagent at the end of our street with proper old money in my hand eager to get my copy before it sold out, I think TV 21 was 1/6d
The Beano was a must as well excellent value for 3d, I was also a fan of DC comics (obviously) but in those days, the early 1960s they were still imported and so not regularly available, Carmine Infantino was my favourite artist who drew Batman next to Bob Kane Batman's creator.
I always thought that the 60s TV series didn't quite capture the spirit of Batman, it was Tim Burton that really did it justice in the 90s.
Oh well, musings for a cold Friday morning, and it is cold, just cycled to the studio and my feet are freezing, Met Orfice said that this is a record warm spell!
They try, my how they try.
All of the explanations commonly used for heat transfer and the ones I have seen on the GHE web pages completely ignore any transfer of heat by quantum mechanics, which, when we uncover the true principles and properties of quantum mechanics will probably prove all of the above theories wrong, useless and obsolete.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=EQnaRtNMGMI
RSS feed for comments to this post