Now Australians Take Up Challenge in Debating Dodgy Greenhouse Gas Physics

Leading Aussie skeptic blogger, Jo Nova, is currently holding the second compelling debate about the validity of disputed numbers woven into the cornerstone of global warming science: the so-called greenhouse gas effect theory (GHE).

Will Jo Nova Shine Some Light on the Greenhouse Gas Debate?

Will Jo Nova Shine Some Light on the Greenhouse Gas Debate?

Now that even the U.S. presidential contest is a “global warming free zone”  it is becoming clear that not just the political, but the scientific edifice of this international scam is collapsing. The biggest remaining obstacle is vested interest scientists who are either incapable or refuse to examine a very simple element of the GHE: the supposed “33 degrees” of measured warming that makes our planet “warmer than it would otherwise be.”

In a spirit of refreshing openness, Jo Nova has recently been leading the way on this matter. In September she hosted the superb paper by Dr Jinan Cao that questioned the applicability of the Stefan-Boltzmann equation in the formation of the “33 degrees” number.

Now Nova’s blog is running a welcome critique of ‘Slaying the Sky Dragon’ the book that first propelled discussion of the GHE center-stage. Already the comments are lively. Sadly there exists an element that prefers name-calling over civilized debate and my co-authors and colleagues who support the  book are being labeled “dunderheads,” “cranks,” and “deniers.” Ok, so let’s do simple analysis even a dunderhead can fathom. Take, for instance, the claimed “33 degrees” of so-called greenhouse gas warming cited as “fact” proving the “theory.”

Contrary to popular myth this “33 degrees” is not observed, empirical fact at all. The book’s authors and converts to our science say it is the product of a botched equation by NASA’s Dr. James E. Hansen from the 1980’s. Currently, my article on this is doing the rounds.

Dr. Pierre Latour earlier this year proved that Hansen’s “33 degrees” is the result of a fatal mixing of a scalar temperature value with a vector temperature value (not permitted in either math or physics).  That no one questioned this till we ‘Slayers’ did suggests it is perhaps among the most successful elements of the GHE fraud. Pointedly, it duped two top skeptic climatologists, Dick Lindzen and Roy Spencer, among other leading skeptics, who never questioned its validity and when challenged opted to play “follow my leader.”

It appears Lindzen first swallowed the bogus “33 degrees” number at least since March 1990, as proven by his paper ‘Some Coolness Concerning Global Warming’ AMS, Vol 71. In September 2010 on his blog Spencer admitted he merely followed Lindzen’s lead. But Spencer went further and actually asserted (crassly) that  Hansen’s  “33 degrees” number offers a “real-world observed radiative-convective equilibrium.”

But both Spencer and Lindzen are shown, since March 2012, to have circled the wagons obstinately avoiding the issue. Despite our urging neither will apply due diligence to verify the providence of the number. But if they had looked more closely at the “33 degrees” from the outset they would have seen that the first value Hansen used to obtain it is a 3-D measure (a vector) of the infrared radiation emitted by Earth back into outer space (255K). Hansen then put that alongside a 2-D measure (288K), which is an average of surface weather stations (a scalar). That’s how Hansen and government climate science “got” it’s 33 degrees greenhouse gas effect.

But anyone trained in higher math or physics knows this is not a permissible procedure as it’s the equivalent of adding apples to oranges. Earlier this year Latour and others on our team had a good-natured, but vigorous private email discussion with Lindzen, Spencer and other leading lights. Despite our insistence neither would address the matter. In fact, despite engaging with us on other issues they obstinately pretended we never raised the “33 degrees” problem even though we referred them to our articles on it. Nonetheless, Spencer thereafter blogged an attack piece against me; is this the real measure of a “leading skeptic scientist?” Not only that, it seems Fred Singer was then recruited and he, too, joined the name-calling fraternity labeling us “deniers.”

In his attack piece Singer laments, “One can show them  [the ‘Slayers’] data of downwelling infrared radiation from CO2, water vapor, and clouds, which clearly impinge on the surface. [My emphasis]

Contemplate closely the emphasis on the vague “clearly impinge” as it seems even Fred is having doubts here because he balks at asserting any actual energy is being transferred.  He then writes, “But their minds are closed to any such evidence.” Oh, come on, Fred.  Does “clearly impinge” mean you are claiming carbon dioxide adds/delays  heat  loss or not? This is why Fred, Roy and Dick need to come out and be less mealy-mouthed.

As such we are regrettably forced to conclude that leading skeptic climatologists are disinclined to own up to their gaffe probably because they have decades invested in this junk science – quite simply it’s too shaming for them. Indeed, if Spencer, Lindzen and Singer were true skeptics they would meet us in open debate and resolve this “33 degrees” issue once and for all.

But because the better part of a year has elapsed and they won’t man up, I’ve now emailed Jo to ask she show some leadership on this Down Under. I await her reply and hope she will host an open debate on our readily proved/disproved contention. Be assured, if the “33 degrees” number is proven bogus there is nothing left of substance (ie. as measured in our atmosphere) to sustain this collapsing “theory.”



Filed under Uncategorized

11 responses to “Now Australians Take Up Challenge in Debating Dodgy Greenhouse Gas Physics

  1. Posted at my climate skeptic forum.

  2. Pingback: Now Australians Take Up Challenge in Debating Dodgy Greenhouse Gas Physics « Skeptics Chillin'

  3. Why does Anthony Watts *****hate***** the Sky Dragons so much?????

  4. Re above question: I asked him very politely if he would do a piece on the subject. I got this reply: “I want nothing to do with Sky Dragon commentary on any level.” Abrupt as usual!

  5. Edmonton Al

    Well, isn’t it a case of being true or not?
    What’s to debate

    • johnosullivan

      Ed, so is it true that the “33 degrees” of GHE warming a bogus number from a fatal mixing of a scalar with a vector temperature or not? This is the question that needs to be answered by Spencer, Lindzen, Watts, Nova, Monckton etc etc

      • Edmonton Al

        Yes, I understand, but it is very odd, to me, that Watts-at-al would be so adamant against the “Slayers” and the idea of faulty math. That attitude is what the skeptics have been so much against from the ranks of the “Alarmists”.
        I am not an Alarmist, Warmist or Luke Warmist.
        I believe the Slayers.
        BTW I’m Al from the City of Edmonton. I should have explained it.

  6. johnosullivan

    Hi Al,
    Thanks for the clarification. I’ve just been over to Jo Nova’s blog where Anthony Watts has appeared to make yet another of his disparaging comment against the Slayers. As you infer, is this a man who is genuinely a skeptic? He has banned me from WUWT and refuses to allow any post on his site explaining our science. But he welcomes any and all negative comments on his blog against us.
    All I can say is that we hope commenters on WUWT request that Watts one day offers us a fair debate on our science at his blog. That would be the best way to show leadership in this matter.

  7. Could it be that Watts is really a warmist??

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s