This is the first page of the thread:

The physical processes of global warming and climate change -- How can alternative viewpoints be resolved?

It has been pre-reserved for user tips and recommended best practices.

Some of the posts on this page remain as placeholders, but posts 3, 4, 5, and 6 on this page have been populated with initial content.

The tenth and final post on this page contains access information for participants on the former discussion thread:

• What is the statistical relationship between CO2 concentration level and Global change in Temperature (CONTINUED)?

It provides them with the current name and the URL access link for all of the content that had been previously posted to the above thread.

Suggestions on improving these tips and recommendations are requested, and will be welcomed and appreciated.

You can make a suggestion by sending an RG message to the thread's originator, Peter Eirich, at:

• https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Peter-Eirich-3

Or, for general open review and discussion purposes, you can make a post at the current end of this thread, while preferably including an "@ mention" for Peter Eirich within it.

Reserved for future use. This second post on page 1 will later contain the consolidated text for all of the process and best practices tips and recommendations. Currently there are four entries in this category, found in posts 3, 4, 5, and 6 on this page.

PAGE NUMBERING

In some posts on this thread you will see some cross-references like: p5; p007; [p 008]; [p 010]; etc., depending upon on someone's individual style preferences. When they appear in a new post, and refer back to the prior post(s) that had led to the new post being written, this can be very handy for readers trying to trace back the train of thinking/logic that had led up to the new post. Using page numbering is strongly encouraged.

Some people making posts may refine that further, using notations like: [p 021, 2nd post]; p21#2; p021-2; p 021/2; etc. Each of those four examples refers to the 2nd post after the top on page 21 within the thread. This technique can be a time saver if the person who made the prior post of interest had also made several others on the same page of the thread, which is not uncommon.

It is important to know that you can easily go directly to any referenced page that you wish to by beginning with the main URL for this thread:

• https://www.researchgate.net/post/The_physical_processes_of_global_warming_and_climate_change--How_can_alternative_viewpoints_be_resolved

... then pasting it into your browser address bar, and next appending /nnn to the end of the web address (where nnn is a one, two, or three digit target page number), all before you hit Enter for your browser. That will load up the page of interest immediately. Of course, if you are already at a numbered page and want to go elsewhere, you can simply go into the address bar, overwrite the existing page number appearing at the end of the web address, and then hit Enter.

This is no big deal if the page you want to read is right near wherever you are -- you can just use the RG navigation buttons found at the bottom of each page for that purpose, but if you are looking for a much older post that is 50 to 100 pages back, for example, you will find that you will be very glad to have read about this technique!

The page numbers are unlikely to ever go beyond three digits. Once the page total exceeds 900, it will be time to begin planning for a transition over to a fresh thread, in order to preclude the possibility of having slower response times and/or thread freeze-ups begin to be seen if the size of this thread becomes too large.

@ MENTIONING OTHER PARTICIPANTS

It is preferred to use the RG's "@" feature at least one time within a post, as a courtesy, to refer to other key participants who may be directly related to the contents, such as the Author of a post you may be responding to. This gives them some recognition within the RG site for having been mentioned, but also, many participants have set up their own site parameters to be notified whenever they have been mentioned. This will help them to reply sooner, if they wish. It also allows readers to click directly on the resulting linked name in order to directly access that person's profile page, helping readers to more easily learn what the interests and background of that "mentioned" person may be.

However, this is a somewhat erratic, limited-scope RG feature. Sometimes it will work for given person one minute, fail to work a few minutes later, but then resume working once again an hour or so later after that. For this reason, you will sometimes see something like "(@ not working)" in the text of a post following a person's name in the text. This should be taken to mean:

• Sorry -- I did try to "@ mention" you to be polite, but RG just wasn't doing it when I tried.

LABELLING PEOPLE'S POSTIONS REGARDING GLOBAL WARMING AND CLIMATE CHANGE

Labeling people's beliefs about global warming and climate change with denigrating group labels is something else, along with pejorative name-calling, that is not helpful for resolving alternative viewpoints in a constructive and productive fashion.

As a matter of terminology, the label "denier" is often tossed around, and yet is wholly inappropriate, because – for the most part – those so-named also firmly believe in Physics and Mathematics, just as those doing the naming do. The terms "sceptic"(British English) or "skeptic" (North American English), among other possibilities, are perfectly fine terms to use for characterizing individuals who have doubts about, or who may even firmly disbelieve, the generally accepted conventional climate science explanations for the causes and processes involved in producing global warming effects on the Earth.

By the same token, labels like "climate activist" are also wholly inappropriate here, because the focus should be upon people's theoretical beliefs about global warming and climate change -- not about what actions they may undertake based upon those beliefs. A suitable neutral term, among others, that might be used to describe such individuals could be "warmist" (British English), variously defined in dictionaries along the lines of "A person, especially a scientist, who believes in global warming and the greenhouse effect" (Collins English Dictionary).

Suggestions for which neutral terms are the most appropriate to use in climate-related discussions, for example, could be a suitable topic of discussion within this thread.

PEJORATIVE NAME-CALLING

This subject has become very emotional for many people. Pejorative name-calling and labelling abound within many internet forums. Please — such things are not welcome here. Pejorative language is not conducive to successfully resolving alternative viewpoints.

Reserved for future use.

Reserved for future use.

Reserved for future use.

INFORMATION FOR PARTICIPANTS ON THE FORMER "CONTINUED" THREAD

On 1 Nov 2023, the discussion thread formerly known as:

• What is the statistical relationship between CO2 concentration level and Global change in Temperature (CONTINUED)?

... which had an old URL of:

• https://www.researchgate.net/post/What_is_the_statistical_relationship_between_CO2_concentration_level_and_Global_change_in_Temperature_CONTINUED

... has been renamed to be:

• Former technical workaround for the Question: "What is the statistical relationship between CO2 concentration level and Global change in Temperature?"

... with a new URL of:

• https://www.researchgate.net/post/Former_technical_workaround_for_the_Question_What_is_the_statistical_relationship_between_CO2_concentration_level_and_Global_change_in_Temperature

The contents of that thread will remain available for reference purposes. However, that thread should now be considered to be INACTIVE.

For this reason, any bookmarks that you may have stored in your own browser bookmarks, or as desktop shortcuts (in Windows), or as the Apple or Linux equivalents to Windows shortcuts, based on the previous name, will no longer work. You can update them by swapping out the old URL text and replacing it with the new URL text.

It is possible that there may be another rename the near term. Therefore, please be sure make note of the URL link to this web page, and please also make a reminder to always look for the 10th and final post on this webpage, because this is where you will always be able to find the most current URL link to that workaround thread's contents.

If you have any questions about this rename, please send a ResearchGate message to Peter Eirich, via his RG Profile Page:

• https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Peter-Eirich-3

This page highlights, to serve as a common reference, a listing of nine carefully-selected research papers that should prove to be highly valuable for the upcoming discussions on this thread. These all emphasize solid physics fundamentals. Some were selected because they offer new insights for getting a good handle on climate change.

Initially, most of the posts on this page are placeholders, but they will be replaced with content, as described above, in the very near term.

(PARTIAL FIRST DRAFT)

"You can't tell the players without a program" was commonly heard from vendors at ballparks, back before baseball teams began adding player names to the backs of their uniforms. ...

Reserved for future use.

Reserved for future use.

Reserved for future use.

Reserved for future use.

Reserved for future use.

Reserved for future use.

Reserved for future use.

Reserved for future use.

[p003--1] POST #1 — INTRODUCTION

INTRODUCTION TO THIS REFERENCE PAGE

This is the third page of the thread:

The physical processes of global warming and climate change -- How can alternative viewpoints be resolved?

It has been pre-reserved for highlighting the work of some of the active participants posting on this thread. This page can give new readers an idea of the mix of content they will find throughout this thread.

Initially, most of the posts on this page are placeholders, but they will be replaced with content, as described above, in the very near term.

[p003--2] POST #2 — MICHAEL SDIROPOULOS

CONSTRUCTIVE SKEPTICISM

Active participant Michael Sidiropoulos offers an historical review of the root causes of climate skepticism, from the mid-19th century up to the present day:

• A Brief Perspective on Climate Change Skepticism

• Preprint A Brief Perspective on Climate Change Skepticism

• https://www.researchgate.net/publication/355562212_A_Brief_Perspective_on_Climate_Change_Skepticism

Comments about Michael's work can be made, and comments made about it by others can be read, at any point in this thread after the author's personal post regarding this material. If you should post any comments to this thread concerning "A Brief Perspective on Climate Change Skepticism", please reference Michael's post in your comment -- not this post. Michael's post was made as the seventh post on the Page 008, as directly linked here:

• https://www.researchgate.net/post/The_physical_processes_of_global_warming_and_climate_change--How_can_alternative_viewpoints_be_resolved/8

______________________________________________________________________________________________________

Michael Sidiropoulos' RG Profile Page can be found here:

• https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Michael-Sidiropoulos

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________

[p003--3] POST #3 — ROBERT HOLMES

ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING FROM ATMOSPHERIC ADIABATIC AUTO-COMPRESSION PLUS CONVECTION

PE: Active participant Robert Holmes offers a perspective on how auto-compression and atmospheric convection work together to set the underlying conditions for establishing Earth's climate. (N.B. -- To facilitate offline study, Robert's essay is also attached at the end of this entry in three different formats for downloading.)

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Where to start?

Well, may as well start here with this claim made by all proponents of the “Greenhouse Effect” – including some so-called “Luke-Warmers” such as Roy Spencer and Richard Lindzen;

"...the decrease in temperature with height in the troposphere is ultimately caused by the greenhouse effect itself."

This is their most basic error and is the cause of a lot of their eventual confusion.

The thermal gradient in the troposphere is not caused by a 'greenhouse effect'.

There cannot be two causes of the lapse rate, (which is what leads directly to the surface thermal enhancement over the effective temperature) and there isn't. A 'greenhouse effect' plays no part in it, or in anything else, because there is no greenhouse gas warming effect, and there isn’t because there is no such thing as a special class of gases which can cause anomalous warming to a troposphere.

What causes this thermal gradient in the troposphere – more commonly known as the lapse rate – is detailed here. The cause of it is auto-compression coupled with convection.

First – what is temperature?

Temperature in a gas is a measure of the average kinetic energy in that gas.

Second – what is auto-compression?

Auto-compression is well known in underground mining and is used by ventilation engineers to calculate how hot the mine air will get, so that they know how much cooling air to provide at each level. The effect of auto-compression can be calculated by the following relationship;

Pe= Ps exp(gH/RT)

Where;

Pe = absolute pressure at end of column (kPa)

Ps = absolute pressure at start of column (kPa)

g = acceleration due to gravity (m/s²)

H = vertical depth (m)

R = Standard Temperature (Kelvin)

T = Final Temperature (Kelvin)

As can be clearly seen, this effect primarily relies on pressure and gravity, which will be different for each planetary body.

Note that we are examining a largely adiabatic process during convection.

When a gas parcel expands adiabatically, as it does when rising in a gravitational field, it does positive work – and the kinetic energy drops and so the temperature drops.

However, when a gas parcel is compressed, as it is when it descends adiabatically in a gravitational field, then it does negative work, and its kinetic energy rises and so its temperature goes up. Why does the kinetic energy of the gas rise when descending?

It’s because some of its potential energy is converted to enthalpy, so producing an increase in pressure, specific internal energy and hence, temperature in accordance with the following equation;

H = PV + U

Where;

H = enthalpy (J/kg)

P = pressure (Pa)

V = specific volume (m³)

U = specific internal energy (kinetic energy)

Remember; a thermometer measures the average kinetic energy in a parcel of gas. The lower in the troposphere a parcel becomes, the higher is its kinetic energy.

AND; It doesn't matter how many ‘climate scientists’ agree on something – if it conflicts with data then it's wrong.

Here are the data which prove that all 97% (or whatever the claim is) of them are wrong.

There are three terrestrial-type planetary bodies in our solar system which have thick atmospheres – over 10kPa; (thick enough to start convection, auto-compression and a thermal gradient – hence forming a troposphere).

Venus/Earth/Titan. (From my 2020 paper)

The temperature on Earth's surface is easily calculated from Venus, or Titan.

Or vice-versa.

Nothing needs to be known about the particular gases in the atmospheres, this is because only TSI and gas pressure matter, there are no 'greenhouse gases'.

Tplanet-a at 1 bar= ∜(TSI relative) x Tplanet-b at 1 bar

Venus temp at 1 bar (is calculated from Earth’s temperature)

Tv = ∜1.91 x Te

Tv = 1.176 x 288

Tv = 339 Kelvin

Earth surface temp (is calculated from Venus temperature at 1 bar)

Te = ∜0.523 x Tv

Te = 0.850 x 339

Te = 288.15 Kelvin

Titan temp at 1 bar (is calculated from Earth’s surface temp)

Tt = ∜0.01089 x Te =

Tt = 0.323 x 288

Tt = 93 Kelvin

Relative insolation Earth/Venus = 0.523

Measured temperature in the Venus atmosphere at 1 bar = 339 Kelvin

Temperature of Earth = ∜0.523 x Temperature of Venus at 1 bar

So temperature of Earth as calculated from the Venus atmosphere = 288.3 Kelvin

Venus has a massive 96.5% "Greenhouse Gas" atmosphere

Earth has just 2.5% "Greenhouse Gas" atmosphere.

These numbers are not possible if there is a "Greenhouse Gas Effect".

This is final proof that there is no “Greenhouse gas effect” on Venus, Earth or anywhere else.

This collapses the “Greenhouse effect” hypothesis and proves it does not exist.

* A very important point; after 40 years of "Greenhouse Effect by our CO2" claims, and 30,000 published climate papers;

– There is still NOT ONE published paper in the literature, which quantifies any warming and then attributes it to increasing atmospheric CO₂ concentrations.

On top of this total lack of any empirical evidence at all for the so-called "Greenhouse Effect" of "Greenhouse Gases", my two recent papers published in 2018 and 2020 each individually invalidate the so-called "Greenhouse Effect" in different ways.

In short; there is no such thing as a "Greenhouse Effect" and there is no special class of gases called "Greenhouse Gases" which can anomalously warm the atmosphere.

The result is: Arrhenius was wrong, and James Maxwell was correct.

Conclusion; human “Greenhouse Gases” such as CO2 or CH4 can’t and won’t ever cause any measurable warming of our atmosphere.

Here are my two recent papers mentioned above;

Dr Robert Ian Holmes

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Robert Holmes' RG Profile page can be found here:

• https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Robert-Holmes-6

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Documents for downloading:

Robert's essay is attached below for downloading in three different formats, in this sequence:

• Robert Holmes' contribution on the greenhouse effect, auto-compression, and convection

[p003--4] POST #4 — HOWARD J DIAMOND

ABOUT THE GREENHOUSE EFFECT – A VIEW FROM A PROPONENT

PE: This post presents a guest contribution, requested from Howard J Diamond, supporting the validity and significance of the greenhouse effect, as it is defined in conventional climate science. This was originally posted to another discussion thread on August 26, 2021, and is re-posted here with permission. It is one of the very best concise summaries of the conventional climate science viewpoint that I have seen.

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________

By Howard J Diamond:

Thanks to Earth’s heat-trapping atmosphere, our planet’s average annual surface temperature is close to 60°F. Without it, the temperature would be barely above freezing. Both water vapor and carbon dioxide are essential to creating this natural greenhouse effect. Carbon dioxide makes it possible, and water vapor makes it much stronger than it would be from carbon dioxide alone. Water vapor accounts for close to half of the total greenhouse effect, but its abundance in the atmosphere is only possible because of the background warmth provided by carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases such as methane.

Water vapor is directly responsible for about half of the Earth’s natural “greenhouse effect,” while carbon dioxide accounts for about 20%. But if you mean “most necessary,” as a GHG, then the answer is carbon dioxide. Without the warmth provided by carbon dioxide—which doesn’t condense and rain out of the atmosphere like water vapor does—the entire greenhouse effect would collapse. Earth would likely freeze over everywhere but the equator (Lacis et al., 2010).

As the most abundant of the non-condensing greenhouse gases, carbon dioxide is the main control knob—the thermostat—of the greenhouse effect; it keeps atmospheric temperatures warm enough to sustain abundant water vapor. Increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide from human activities is turning the thermostat up. As surface temperatures rise, more water evaporates, enhancing the initial warming. This water vapor feedback loop is powerful, roughly doubling the warming provided by carbon dioxide alone (Hall and Manabe, 1999; Dessler et al 2013; and Held and Soden, 2000). However, water vapor can’t act on its own to cause climate change; it can only amplify a change caused by the non-condensing greenhouse gases like CO2 and methane.

REFERENCES

Dessler et al 2013:

Dessler, A. E., M. R. Schoeberl, T. Wang, S. M. Davis, and K. H. Rosenlof, 2013: Stratospheric water vapor feedback. PNAS 110 (45) 18087-18091;

• TEXT: https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1310344110
• PDF: https://www.pnas.org/doi/epdf/10.1073/pnas.1310344110
• RG:

  Article Stratospheric water vapor feedback

Hall and Manabe, 1999:

Hall, A., and S. Manabe, 1999: The Role of Water Vapor Feedback in Unperturbed Climate Variability and Global Warming. J. Climate (1999) 12 (8): 2327–2346.

• TEXT: https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0442(1999)0122.0.CO;2
• PDF: https://journals.ametsoc.org/downloadpdf/journals/clim/12/8/1520-0442_1999_012_2327_trowvf_2.0.co_2.xml

Held and Soden, 2000:

Held, I. M., and B. J. Soden, 2000: Water Vapor Feedback and Global Warming. Annual Review of Energy and the Environment. 25:441-475,

• TEXT: https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.energy.25.1.441
• PDF: https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/pdf/10.1146/annurev.energy.25.1.441
• RG:

  Article Water Vapor Feedback and Global Warming

Lacis et al., 2010:

Lacis, A.A., G.A. Schmidt, D. Rind, and R.A. Ruedy, 2010: Atmospheric CO2: Principal Control Knob Governing Earth’s Temperature. Science 330, 356-359 (2010). DOI: 10.1126/science.1190653

• PUBLISHER'S ABSTRACT: https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.1190653
• NASA's ABSTRACT: https://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abs/la09300d.html
• PDF: https://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2010/2010_Lacis_la09300d.pdf
• RG:

  Article Atmospheric CO2: Principal Control Knob Governing Earth's Temperature

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Howard J Diamond's RG Profile page can be found here:

• https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Howard-Diamond

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________

[p003--5] POST #5 — BRENDAN GODWIN

SOLAR INSOLATION and EARTH's ENERGY BUDGET

Active participant Brendan Godwin offers a perspective on the Earth's energy budget that is based on in-the-field measurements of solar insolation, and he also critiques a calculation commonly employed within climate science. ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________

There are people, who call themselves scientists, who say that the Sun divides itself by the arbitrary number of 4 before shining on us. In the same process, their science wizardry also has the Sun shining on the dark side of the Earth. Proponents of the Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming (CAGW) hypothesis must strictly adhere to this science fiction in order to justify their fictitious greenhouse effect (GHE) hypothesis. With only a quarter of the Sun shining on us the Earth is then able to emit 300% more radiation than it receives from the Sun. A miracle? No, this extra energy comes back to the surface in back-radiation from the atmosphere. That extra energy is supposedly being generated out of nothing in the atmosphere by their fictitious GHE hypothesis. Of course this infrared (IR) longwave radiation being emitted by the surface and coming back from the atmosphere is NOT divided by 4. It can’t be divided by 4 because that would destroy all the science fiction math. After all of this magic the CAGW proponents can then say – "Wallah!" We have a GHE that’s warming us all up.

• (N.B. – "Wallah!" is one of the Australian forms of the English word "Voilà!" , which was adopted from the corresponding French word.)

To add to the fiction they have a flat Earth hypothesis where the Sun shines on a flat disc, not a sphere. Using their Sun that divided itself by 4 and some tricky math, they calculate a theoretical temperature of the Earth of -18°C. The actual measured temperature is approximately +15°C. The AGW proponents then say this extra

• (+15°C) minus (-18°C) => +33°C

... is being generated by their magical GHE hypothesis. We have been reading this nonsense for 25 years and it’s time to review it all. Since Kiehl and Trenberth's classic paper "Earth's Annual Global Mean Energy Budget" (KT97) we’ve been fed with Earth Energy Budgets (EEBs) showing a Sun that divided itself by 4 and gave us 167 W/m2 of radiation to be absorbed by the surface. The authors of these EEBs also state this 167 W/m2 is measured. None of the data in these EEBs are measured. All of the data is produced by models. I have reviewed all these EEBs and produced a new EEB that is based on measured data, not modeled illusions. All of the data for these EEBs are available from measurements. There are thousands of measuring stations around the world recording measured data, with the exception of thermals. Globally averaged, the Earth absorbs 589 W/m2 of radiation from the Sun and the Earth emits 589 W/m2 of IR radiation, thermals and latent heat of vaporization. 871 W/m2 of IR radiation is measured returning to the satellite. I have published all of this in my paper attached.

• (N.B. – The PDF for Brendan's paper is the 2nd attachment.)

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Brendan Godwin's RG Profile page can be found here:

• https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Brendan-Godwin

Brendan's cited paper:

• Critical Analysis of Earth's Energy Budgets and a new Earth Energy Budget

• Preprint Critical Analysis of Earth's Energy Budgets and a new Earth ...

• https://www.researchgate.net/publication/371059551_Critical_Analysis_of_Earth's_Energy_Budgets_and_a_new_Earth_Energy_Budget

References:

• [KT97] — Earth's Annual Global Mean Energy Budget, Kiehl, J. T. and Trenberth, K. E., Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 78, 197-208, 1997.
• https://www2.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/abstracts/files/kevin1997_1.html

Attachments:

[p003--6] POST #6 — PHILIP MULHOLLAND

ABOUT A MORE REALISTIC EARTH ENERGY BALANCE FORMULATION

Active participant Philip Mulholland offers a perspective on the Earth's energy balance that originates from a much more realistic assumption than the one typically used within conventional climate science presentations. Instead of the decidedly non-physical assumption that it is adequate to calculate the Earth's overall average surface temperatures based upon taking the total solar insolation that strikes the Earth's cross-section, and then dividing it equally across the entire spherical surface of the Earth, which requires dividing its incoming intensity by four, the formulation by Philip Mulholland and Stephen Paul Rathbone Wilde assumes that there actually is an important difference between how the lighted portion of the Earth and the unlighted portion of the Earth actually behave wrt solar insolation. The Mulholland/Wilde formulation takes this self-evident difference explicitly into account for developing its own description of the Earth's energy balance. Their paper addressing this, and setting out a presentation of the Earth's energy balance in detail, can be accessed on RG here:

• The Application of the Dynamic Atmosphere Energy Transport Climate Model (DAET) to Earth's semi-opaque troposphere; Philip Mulholland and Stephen Paul Rathbone Wilde; December 2022
• RG:

  Preprint The Application of the Dynamic Atmosphere Energy Transport C...

• https://www.researchgate.net/publication/363542927_The_Application_of_the_Dynamic_Atmosphere_Energy_Transport_Climate_Model_DAET_to_Earth's_semi-opaque_troposphere

Along the way, Mulholland and Wilde develop a novel formulation for characterizing the Earth's temperatures that produces results a lot like those provided by the conventional greenhouse effect (GHE) descriptions, having results which do derive, in part, from the same basic radiative physics equations as do the GHE theory results, but which do not depend upon backradiation as a means to achieve that end. Instead, they formulate a novel alternative mechanism for storing the energy from the Earth's surface infrared emissions within the atmosphere in the form of a dynamic mass motion process, based upon convection. It works just as well as the conventional GHE description does, but -- it has the advantage of bypassing some of the implausible assumptions that the conventional GHE formulation requires one to make in order to believe in it.

Naturally, the Mulholland/Wilde formulation lends itself to a divide-by-two description of the incoming average solar radiation, one portion for the lighted side and one portion for the unlighted side. This puts their formulation strictly at odds with the divide-by-four approach endorsed by most advocates of the conventional greenhouse effect's description of the Earth's energy balance.

To help clarify this situation, Philip Mulholland (PM:) has prepared a hypothetical dialogue between a divide-by-four advocate (#/4:) and a divide-by-two advocate (#/2:), with some interspersed comments of his own (PM:), along with introductory and closing comments (PM:). It is entitled Divide and Rule:

• PM: To my mind the most fundamental concept in climate science is the divide insolation Intensity by 4 dilution (#/4:) that is found in the Vacuum Planet Equation (VPE). This insolation Flux Density dilution by 4 is applied to the total areal intercept of sunlight by the cross-section of the planetary globe that forms the Disc Silhouette or eclipse shadow. The justification for divide by 4 is the geometric ratio of the disc silhouette area (πR2) to the surface area of the globe (4πR2) and the contention that the total illuminated surface area of the planet can therefore on average only ever receive one quarter of the disc intercept insolation intensity.
• PM: This divide by 4 contention is a very sophisticated concept and it needs to be unpacked extremely carefully. Fundamentally this is an argument about the role of averaging in climate science.
• PM: First off is #/4:
• #/4: The geometric ratio of disc silhouette surface area to planetary globe surface area is undoubtedly correct, so divide Intensity by 4 it must be and therefore that is the end of the argument.
• #/2: It is indisputable that the Sun only ever shines instantaneously on half of the area of a globe, we experience this in the undoubted daily reality of a lit daytime and a dark nighttime.
• PM: To match and therefore model this indisputable reality of the dual complementary environments of lit day and dark night, Stephen Wilde and I devised the Dynamic Atmosphere Energy Transport (DAET) climate model. We placed at the heart of the DAET model the fundamental contention that insolation intensity captured by a planet can only ever be divided by 2 (#/2:), and not by 4 (#4:), because the night always exists and the world is not in a permanent quasi-twilight state with a weak and powerless sunshine illuminating its surface.
• #/4: So how does the DAET concept deal with the lack of energy that is needed to keep the night time warm?
• #/2: To answer this question, we must directly confront the issue of how the divide by 4 canonical concept deals with the issue of annual averaging. The canonical model is based on the Vacuum Planet Equation and this assumes that energy is distributed evenly across the planet’s surface by rapid daily rotation and that the planet has an axial tilt of 90 degrees.
• #/4: How so? 90 degrees? This is nonsense surely.
• #/2: Well, the problem for the canonical model is that daily rotation of the solid Earth is a zonal process, and the only way that the poles can receive an average annual input of insolation is for the solar zenith to at some time during the planet’s annual orbit to be located directly over each pole of rotation, hence an axial tilt of 90 degrees Is required.
• #/4: No, that is not right, you have gone too far, the canonical model assumes that solar energy is captured by the tropics and transported to the poles by the meridional surface processes of fluid motion (both atmosphere and oceans in the case of the Earth).
• #/2: I am glad that you mentioned the meridional flow of surface fluid motion for polar directed transport of energy because we now come to the other issue with divide by 4, the requirement for rapid daily rotation. The need for rapid daily rotation in the canonical model means that this model cannot be applied to the climate of a terrestrial planet that is tidally locked. A model that is not universally applicable is not physics.
• #/4: But the Earth is not tidally locked so you cannot apply the DAET model to the Earth.
• #/2: By the same token the Earth does not have an axial tilt of 90 degrees so you cannot apply the Vacuum Planet model to the Earth. It appears therefore that we both agree that climate is fundamentally an atmospheric process powered by sunlight. The key difference between us is the intensity of the captured insolation that drives the climate.
• PM: Our DAET model, presented here in its mature form to study the climate of the Earth demonstrates how the divide by two concept can be successfully applied using the parameters of the canonical divide by four model.

__________________________________________________________________________________________

Philip Mulholland's RG Profile page can be found here:

• https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Philip-Mulholland

Stephen Paul Rathbone Wilde's RG Profile page can be found here:

• https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Stephen-Wilde

__________________________________________________________________________________________

(PARTIAL FIRST DRAFT)

ABOUT ...

Active participant H. Douglas Lightfoot offers ...

(PARTIAL FIRST DRAFT)

ABOUT ...

Active participant Dan Pangburn offers ...

(PARTIAL FIRST DRAFT)

ABOUT ...

Active participant Burl Henry offers ...

Reserved for future use.

This is the fourth page of the thread:

The physical processes of global warming and climate change -- How can alternative viewpoints be resolved?

New thread posts by ResearchGate members begin just below, on this page.

Whenever I am making new posts, or reviewing posts by others, I find this maxim by famed physicist Richard Feynman helps me keep things properly in perspective:

_________________________________________________

If it disagrees with experiment, it's wrong.

In that simple statement is the key to science.

— Richard Feynman

_________________________________________________

The preceding quote from Richard Feynman was taken from this longer statement about looking for new physical laws:

• In general, we look for a new law by the following process: First we guess it. Then we – now don't laugh, that's really true. Then we compute the consequences of the guess to see what, if this is right, if this law that we guessed is right, to see what it would imply. And then we compare the computation results to nature, or we say compare to experiment or experience, compare it directly with observations to see if it works. If it disagrees with experiment, it's wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science. It doesn't make any difference how beautiful your guess is, it doesn't make any difference how smart you are, who made the guess, or what his name is. If it disagrees with experiment, it's wrong. That's all there is to it.

You can see and hear Feynman present these ideas in his own words in this video:

• Feynman on Scientific Method. - YouTube
• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYPapE-3FRw

For the remainder of this 10-minute video, Feynman further elaborates on the process of discovering new physical laws in an insightful but lighthearted way. Both fun and informative to listen to! :-)

Source:

Richard Feynman Quote, LIBQUOTES

• https://libquotes.com/richard-feynman/quote/lbm1d4c

The quote by Richard Feynman highlighted in the preceding post was drawn from this one hour guest lecture:

• Richard Feynman Messenger Lectures at Cornell The Character of Physical Law Part 7 Seeking New Laws
• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-2NnquxdWFk&t=1006s

The YouTube video picks up where Feynman is making his statement about finding new physical laws, but you can also restart it back at the beginning of the lecture.

This same quotation also appeared in a book by Feynman:

• chapter 7, Seeking New Laws, p. 156 [as presented in edited book] - The Character of Physical Law (1965)

Sources:

Richard Feynman Quote, LIBQUOTES

• https://libquotes.com/richard-feynman/quote/lbm1d4c
• https://libquotes.com/richard-feynman/quote/lbc1z9r

Watching the Feynman videos cited in the above three posts led me to become a fan of Feynman's wit and wisdom, as well as of the way he thinks. ;-)

Here is a collection of nearly 300 Feynman quotes:

• Richard Feynman Quotes -- 283 Sourced Quotes
• https://libquotes.com/richard-feynman

Among my other long-time favorite Feynman quotes that I found listed there:

• Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts.
• — Richard Feynman

Quote Origin: address "What is Science?", presented at the fifteenth annual meeting of the National Science Teachers Association, in New York City (1966), published in The Physics Teacher, volume 7, issue 6 (1969), p. 313-320

My other favorite Feynman quote is one that was first brought to my attention by Michael Sidiropoulos (@ not working) :

• Being wrong isn’t a bad thing like they teach you in school. It is an opportunity to learn something. -Richard Feynman

My source for the quote: quotesberry.com

• https://quotesberry.com/being-wrong-isnt-bad-thing-like-they-teach-school-richard-feynman/

I will continue in this new thread. Thank you Peter Eirich for your initiative and for the Feynman-based introductions. It's a good way to start.

Peter Eirich your RESPECT FOR PARTICIPANTS section is an excellent idea. People can refer to it when they are at the receiving end of personal attacks.

Reserved for future use.

Reserved for future use.

Reserved as an overflow page from Page 3, which is growing.

Reserved as an overflow page from Page 3, which is growing.

Reserved as an overflow page from Page 3, which is growing.

Reserved as an overflow page from Page 3, which is growing.

Reserved as an overflow page from Page 3, which is growing.

Reserved as an overflow page from Page 3, which is growing.

Reserved as an overflow page from Page 3, which is growing.

Reserved as an overflow page from Page 3, which is growing.

Reserved as an overflow page from Page 3, which is growing.

Reserved as an overflow page from Page 3, which is growing.

Divide and Rule

To my mind the most fundamental concept in climate science is the divide insolation Intensity by 4 dilution (#/4) that is found in the Vacuum Planet Equation (VPE). This insolation Flux Density dilution by 4 is applied to the total areal intercept of sunlight by the cross-section of the planetary globe that forms the Disc Silhouette or eclipse shadow. The justification for divide by 4 is the geometric ratio of the disc silhouette area (piR^2) to the surface area of the globe (4piR^2) and the contention that the total illuminated surface area of the planet can therefore on average only ever receive one quarter of the disc intercept insolation intensity.

This divide by 4 contention is a very sophisticated concept and it needs to be unpacked extremely carefully. Fundamentally this is an argument about the role of averaging in climate science.

First off is #/4:-

#/4 The geometric ratio of disc silhouette surface area to planetary globe surface area is undoubtedly correct, so divide Intensity by 4 it must be and therefore that is the end of the argument.

#/2 It is indisputable that the Sun only ever shines instantaneously on half of the area of a globe, we experience this in the undoubted daily reality of a lit daytime and a dark nighttime. To match and therefore model this indisputable reality of the dual complementary environments of lit day and dark night; Stephen Wilde and I devised the Dynamic Atmosphere Energy Transport (DAET) climate model. We placed at the heart of the DAET model the fundamental contention that insolation intensity captured by a planet can only ever be divided by 2 (#/2) and not by 4; because the night always exists and the world is not in a permanent quasi-twilight state with a weak and powerless sunshine illuminating its surface.

#/4 So how does the DAET concept deal with the lack of energy that is needed to keep the night time warm?

#/2 To answer this question, we must directly confront the issue of how the divide by 4 canonical concept deals with the issue of annual averaging. The canonical model is based on the Vacuum Planet Equation and this assumes that energy is distributed evenly across the planet’s surface by rapid daily rotation and that the planet has an axial tilt of 90 degrees.

#/4 How so? 90 degrees? This is nonsense surely.

#/2 Well, the problem for the canonical model is that daily rotation of the solid Earth is a zonal process, and the only way that the poles can receive an average annual input of insolation is for the solar zenith to at some time during the planet’s annual orbit to be located directly over each pole of rotation, hence an axial tilt of 90 degrees Is required.

#/4 No, that is not right, you have gone too far, the canonical model assumes that solar energy is captured by the tropics and transported to the poles by the meridional surface processes of fluid motion (both atmosphere and oceans in the case of the Earth).

#/2 I am glad that you mentioned the meridional flow of surface fluid motion for polar directed transport of energy because we now come to the other issue with divide by 4, the requirement for rapid daily rotation. The need for rapid daily rotation in the canonical model means that this model cannot be applied to the climate of a terrestrial planet that is tidally locked. A model that is not universally applicable is not physics.

#/4 But the Earth is not tidally locked so you cannot apply the DAET model to the Earth.

#/2 By the same token the Earth does not have an axial tilt of 90 degrees so you cannot apply the Vacuum Planet model to the Earth. It appears therefore that we both agree that climate is fundamentally an atmospheric process powered by sunlight. The key difference between us is the intensity of the captured insolation that drives the climate.

Our DAET model, presented here in its mature form to study the climate of the Earth demonstrates how the divide by two concept can be successfully applied using the parameters of the canonical divide by four model.

The Application of the Dynamic Atmosphere Energy Transport Climate Model (DAET) to Earth's Semi-Opaque Troposphere.

Preprint The Application of the Dynamic Atmosphere Energy Transport C...

Philip Mulholland

I have recommendation your comment because I agree that the Sun does not divide itself by 4 before showing us in sunlight.

But by the same token, the Sun does not divide itself by 2 ether. When I walk out in the Sun I get the full dose of the Sun divided by 1 shining on me.

Brendan Godwin

But by the same token, the Sun does not divide itself by 2 ether. When I walk out in the Sun I get the full dose of the Sun divided by 1 shining on me.

Brendan,

The length of your shadow continuously changes from dawn to dusk and from season to season. The ground area covered by your shadow is a measure of intensity of sunlight that impacts the planet's surface where you are standing at its given surface Attitude (the position of a body). Only at the unique and singular surface point of the Sun's zenith over the Earth, where there is no extended shadow, does divide Intensity by 1 apply.

Solar radiation reaching the Earth's surface averaged over the globe from measurements is 726W/m2. That's less than divide by 2.

I have personally measured 1,360W/m2 inside the Antarctic Circle in the middle of summer. That is approximately 98% of the solar constant. Alice springs in the middle of Australia has measured 1,319W/m2 which is 97% of the solar constant.

We both agree on one thing. The Sun does not divide by 4 before shining on us on planet Earth and that all these divide by 4 hypothesis' are unscientific.

Brendan Godwin

I have personally measured 1,360W/m2 inside the Antarctic Circle in the middle of summer. That is approximately 98% of the solar constant. Alice springs in the middle of Australia has measured 1,319W/m2 which is 97% of the solar constant.

Brendan,

I am talking about shadow length on the ground. If you measure solar intensity normal to the beam then divide by one applies everywhere. However that is not what happens as the beam strikes the surface, then you must take surface attitude (i.e. shadow length) into account because the illuminated surface is NOT normal to the beam.

Philip Mulholland

Do we both agree that divide by 4 is unscientific?

Peter Eirich, I really don't understand the maneuver. There was talk that you would change the title of the Thread (Statistical...- Continued) so that there would no longer be a duplication of the same Thread. With all due respect: You have not resolved the problem and at the same time you continue to usurp the Original thread (Statistical...) on which 188 researchers are exchanging with Normal fluidity. Please remedy this problem, which is fundamentally of an intellectual nature. Simply modify the title of the usurped Thread as you engaged to do. Thank you.

Brendan Godwin

Do we both agree that divide by 4 is unscientific?

Brendan,

I absolutely agree that to divide insolation by 4 and thereby imply that the Sunlight instantaneously impacts the full surface of the Earth is wrong. That does not happen and all consequences developed from this contention are wrong.

However remember that I said this:

This divide by 4 contention is a very sophisticated concept and it needs to be unpacked extremely carefully.

When the divide by 4 algorithm is applied to the intensity of the thermal radiant flux exiting the planet then this computation is valid. Why does this apply for the intensity of the Earth's exiting thermal radiation? The answer is that essentially the temperature of the Tropopause is uniform across the entire planet. Think of the Tropopause as the uniform global radiator plate of the weather machine exhausting thermal radiant energy out to space.

Then we have the wrinkle that divide by 2 for insolation derived surface temperature is not correct either and I agree that it too is a fudge. So why do I use divide by 2 for insolation temperature if I know that it is wrong? Well it is wrong as a first approximation and is capable of refinement by sophisticated geometric analysis; but divide by 4 for insolation surface temperature can never be corrected except by devising the astonishing house of cards called climate science.

It's complicated.

Philip Mulholland

You're confusing me.

"When the divide by 4 algorithm is applied to the intensity of the thermal radiant flux exiting the planet then this computation is valid."

The thermal radiant flux exiting the planet is not divided by 4 in any of the earth energy budgets.

Brendan Godwin

You're confusing me.

"When the divide by 4 algorithm (of the Vacuum Planet Equation) is applied to the intensity of the thermal radiant flux exiting the planet then this computation is valid." (brackets content added for clarity).

The thermal radiant flux exiting the planet is not divided by 4 in any of the earth energy budgets. True

Brendan

The divide by 4 occurs as a fundamental component of the Vacuum Planet Equation.

Vacuum Planet Equation: “The equilibrium temperature Te of an airless, rapidly rotating planet is: -

Equation 1: Te ≡ [S π R2(1-A)/4 π R2 ε σ]0.25

where σ is the Stefan-Boltzmann Constant, ε the effective surface emissivity, A the wavelength-integrated Bond albedo, R the planet's radius (in metres), and S the solar constant (in Watts/m2) at the planet's average distance from the sun.” (See also Glossary in the attached document).

It is the misapplication of this Vacuum Planet Equation to the climate of the Earth at the surface that is the source of all climate science confusion.

Brendan Godwin and Philip Mulholland , I am glad this new thread is starting on a genuine scientific note. In spite of the cacophony from the usual suspect.

Michael Sidiropoulos, Wrote "In spite of the cacophony from the usual suspect". The Suspect is me and I will not respond. I will just recall the reply I put Yesterday on both the original usurped threads. "MS wrote "This discussion thread is about to sing its Swan Song" . Coming from you, this is not at all surprising: Isn't it that your goal was not to preserve the Thread as you alleged but to usurp it? QED! Gone with the wind! “Only its stones remain in the watercourse” an Arabic Proverb says. MS wrote, "our self-appointed Integrity Preacher will be more useful by staying right here". Coming from you, this is not at all surprising: Yes I am "Scientific Integrity Preacher" and proud to do any Job against Scientific Misconduct, No offense to all usurpers, imposters, and those who have no Integrity. It is common knowledge that Integrity means nothing to you. Wasn't it you who claimed "My values are not academic" on a platform dedicated to Scientific Research? What a shame! Rabelais said: "Wisdom cannot enter into an evil spirit, and knowledge without conscience is but the ruin of the soul." (Own translation from French). This "philosophical" thought can also be considered the keystone of what can be called "Scientific Morality"."

PS: Continue to play the henchman: it’s a role that suits you perfectly!

See Also:

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Science_Conscience https://www.researchgate.net/post/Scientific_Integrity_on_ResearchGate https://www.researchgate.net/post/Scientific_Integrity_Research_Ethics_and_Higher_Education_Deontology_The_Senior_Scholars_Duty

Philip Mulholland

Sorry.

"When the divide by 4 algorithm is applied to the intensity of the thermal radiant flux exiting the planet"

The thermal IR up and down at the surface is not divided by 4.

Brendan Godwin

The thermal IR up and down at the surface is not divided by 4.

Brendan. The Vacuum Planet Equation (VPE) treats the planetary climate as a black box with one top of the atmosphere (TOA) insolation intensity as input from the Sun to the black box and one TOA thermal radiant intensity as the exit from the black box to Space.

This black box equation has nothing to say about the thermal radiant balance at the surface. It is the misapplication of the VPE with its divide by 4 of the insolation intensity (the weak Sun contention) to the base of the Earth's atmosphere that is the root cause of error.

p.s. For clarification I distinguish between high frequency sun light and call this input Insolation and low frequency infra-red and call this planetary thermal radiation.

p.p.s. Climate science fails to distinguish between high frequency and low frequency radiant flux.

Philip Mulholland Wrote "it is not correct for you to interrupt the scientific discourse here by engaging in Thread Bombing. Please demonstrate your good faith and delete the above comment [p7 2nd from top] from this thread." No sir, I did not "interrupt the scientific discourse": I am only reacting to a post (just above my reply [p7 First from top]: check ) which targets me personally, and I do it as I wish: by not responding but by recalling a previous response. I don't see the PB.

Jamel Chahed [p006--7]

• Peter Eirich, I really don't understand the maneuver. There was talk that you would change the title of the Thread (Statistical...- Continued) so that there would no longer be a duplication of the same Thread. With all due respect: You have not resolved the problem and at the same time you continue to usurp the Original thread (Statistical...) on which 188 researchers are exchanging with Normal fluidity. Please remedy this problem, which is fundamentally of an intellectual nature. Simply modify the title of the usurped Thread as you engaged to do. Thank you.

------------- [p007--5] -----------------

Did I not already explain to you that I can't just change the title on the thread willy-nilly, without first letting people know how to find it again after the change is made? Because all of their existing bookmarks to the "(CONTINUED)" thread will be invalidated once that happens?

Did you not see my notice posted yesterday at 1:02 p.m. Eastern U.S. time to the 42nd page of the continuation thread [c042, continuation thread, 2nd post] to the effect that the temporary thread was wrapping up? Did you not see the recommendation there that people should return to posting on the original thread?

Did you look at the same information as posted to the main description of the "(CONTINUED)" thread?

The next logical step, after giving people about 24 hours to wrap up any ongoing discussions, would be to announce the name change. As I said, it is in poor form to catch people by surprise with changes made overnight.

My thought had been to change the name to:

• What is the statistical relationship between CO2 concentration level and Global change in Temperature (ANNEX)? – NO NEW POSTS HERE

... which would make it clear that:

• The "(ANNEX)" thread was not the same as the original thread, but rather had been an adjunct to it;
• The reason people had posted to the adjunct in the first place was to present contents in line with, and consistent with the topic of, the original thread;
• The adjunct had existed temporarily, in the first place, only because people had been unable to utilize the original thread due to technical web site difficulties; and
• This practice had now concluded.

Am I now to judge from your above comment that such a renaming approach would not be acceptable and satisfactory to you?

And if I were to change the name to, maybe, something like:

• The thread that never was ...

... then how would you recommend that I should deal with other irate people who made posts to that thread in good faith, in the belief that they were posting their thoughts to a thread that was temporarily real, and that they were doing so for a good and honest reason, to boot, rather than posting to something that wasn't real?

If you cannot give me a good, workable recommendation for exactly how I can deal with the above-described problematic aspect of the current situation, in the event that I should end up drastically revising the name of the current "(CONTINUED)" thread, without at the same time creating a whole new cadre of additional ruffled feathers, to complement your own, then I am going to simply proceed with the approach that I just presented above.

Right now I have one irate person to deal with -- you. If I unilaterally made a drastic thread name change, I could have a baker's dozen of irate people to deal with. So if push comes to shove, which choice do you think I am going to go with: One angry man, or 12 Angry Men?

• https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0050083/

What I am decidedly not going to do is to sit here and continue to take your abuse over a technical situation that I did not cause in the first place -- one that you have not yet even acknowledged was real, even though it was -- and to which a very reasonable emergency response was made at the time. Also, one for which a very reasonable close-down response is already underway.

I am going to remind you once again: The reason that the current title was and is reasonable, and will continue to remain reasonable in the future, is that, for the time during which the adjunct thread was operating, it was serving as a substitute for the original thread. Or to put it another way:

• I did not leave the original thread. The original thread left me.

I assume you are aware that I took your recommendation, and sent an RG message to Abhay Pratap Singh, asking for his advice on how to proceed, because I posted the text of that message to the thread. Do you know what his advice to me was, in response? Nothing. Nada. Zip.

I was going to allow for just a few more days of slack, from this point, to allow everything to wind itself down smoothly, and then settle out without creating subsequent ripples. But now you have pushed too hard, and have pushed up the timeline. So here is what is going to happen next:

This means that you now have 27 hours to contact Abhay Pratap Singh for his advice, if you think that's something still worth pursuing at this point. Because I have allowed a lengthy period for him to respond to me, and because he has not yet done so, I consider that I have done my due diligence and that the matter of contacting Abhay is now closed.

This also means that you now have 27 hours to come up with a good, workable recommendation for exactly how I can deal with the above-described problematic aspect of the current situation. Otherwise, I will be proceeding with Step 3, as outlined immediately above.

Peter Eirich wrote "My thought had been to change the name to:

What is the statistical relationship between CO2 concentration level and Global change in Temperature (ANNEX)? -- NO NEW POSTS" No sir! By doing this you are creating, in your name, an appendix to a Discussion Thread that does not belong to you. You understand that this does not hold water intellectually; especially since possible contributors will make contributions to this appendix of the original thread which is active. Total mess. The title "What is the statistical relationship between CO2 concentration level and Global change in Temperature" is not yours: it belongs to the 188 participants in the original thread (and I am one of them). You should stop using it in any form: "Continued" or "Annex": it's the same thing. Proposal: You can, for example, give it the title "The physical processes of global warming and climate change -- How can alternative viewpoints be resolved (ANNEX)? -- NO NEW POSTS" You can rename it as you wish: You are the one who created it with the title of an active thread. You shouldn't have, it is your responsibility to correct with apologies to the 188 Followers. Thank you

This is a brand new thread. Period. Its title skilfully chosen by Peter Eirich bears no resemblance to the title of any other thread. Anyone who wishes to reference posts of any other threads is free to do so. Threads do not have ownership. They all belong to RG. This is how it has been and this is how it will continue to be.

Jamel Chahed [p 007, 8th post]

• Peter Eirich wrote "My thought had been to change the name to: What is the statistical relationship between CO2 concentration level and Global change in Temperature (ANNEX)? -- NO NEW POSTS" No sir! By doing this you are creating, in your name, an appendix to a Discussion Thread that does not belong to you. You understand that this does not hold water intellectually; especially since possible contributors will make contributions to this appendix of the original thread which is active. Total mess. The title "What is the statistical relationship between CO2 concentration level and Global change in Temperature" is not yours: it belongs to the 188 participants in the original thread (and I am one of them). You should stop using it in any form: "Continued" or "Annex": it's the same thing. Proposal: You can, for example, give it the title "The physical processes of global warming and climate change -- How can alternative viewpoints be resolved (ANNEX)? -- NO NEW POSTS" You can rename it as you wish: You are the one who created it with the title of an active thread. You shouldn't have, it is your responsibility to correct with apologies to the 188 Followers. Thank you

-------------- [p 007, 10th post] -------------------

• JC: What is the statistical relationship between CO2 concentration level and Global change in Temperature (ANNEX)? -- NO NEW POSTS" No sir! By doing this you are creating, in your name, an appendix to a Discussion Thread that does not belong to you.

You have had ample opportunity to explain what should have been done instead, under emergency conditions, to enable individuals who had been actively engaged in interactive dialogs at the time when the original thread crashed, in effect, to continue their conversations. Because you have failed to do that, your criticism does not have a leg to stand on. Complaint Rejected.

• JC: You understand that this does not hold water intellectually; especially since possible contributors will make contributions to this appendix of the original thread which is active.

Not if it says "NO NEW POSTS HERE" they won't. And if they do, one of us can certainly remind them accordingly.

• JC: Total mess. The title "What is the statistical relationship between CO2 concentration level and Global change in Temperature" is not yours: it belongs to the 188 participants in the original thread (and I am one of them).

And so also am I. Until you can explain what else could have been done to maintain conversations under that topic when the original thread crashed, your criticism does not have a leg to stand on. Complaint Rejected.

• JC: You should stop using it in any form: "Continued" or "Annex": it's the same thing.

No it is not, based on any reasonable interpretation of the English language.

• JC: Proposal: You can, for example, give it the title "The physical processes of global warming and climate change -- How can alternative viewpoints be resolved (ANNEX)? -- NO NEW POSTS" You can rename it as you wish: ...

Implementing that Proposal would confuse matters even more than they already are. Proposal Rejected.

• JC: You are the one who created it with the title of an active thread.

WRONG. At the time that creation was done, there WAS NO active thread, for most users, because the thread had effectively crashed.

• JC: You shouldn't have, ...

Because you have been unable to suggest any viable alternatives to having done so, it is obvious that I should have.

• JC: it is your responsibility to correct with apologies to the 188 Followers.

There is nothing to correct. No harm was done to the original thread. Benefits were provided temporarily to some disenfranchised users of the original thread. You should be thanking me for taking prompt action to help correct and rectify a difficult situation that had developed for the participants on the original thread, not complaining about it.

• JC: Thank you

I have tried to be extraordinarily accommodating to your concerns, but because you have been unable to identify any other alternative emergency responses to the thread crash of the original thread which would have preserved the ability of its users to continue their ongoing dialogues – a situation that became increasingly harmful to them the longer it continued – I don't see, even in retrospect, what else I could have, or should have, done differently. Thank you for bringing this to my attention, but no further action, other than what has already been planned, appears to be either necessary or warranted.

Jamel Chahed

There are simple solutions for your concerns:

Ignore this thread, or start a new thread that meets your criteria.

I do not see the reason for your concerns, it’s just a discussion, like any other.

Here is a brief preview of an upcoming article. Posting of entire article coming to your screens in a couple of weeks. Comments are most welcome. Confirmations, objections, refutations are most welcome. Thanks.

---------------------------------------------

Cloud Formation, Albedo and Cosmic Rays

At any given moment, about two-thirds of our planet is covered by clouds. So, it’s not too surprising that clouds play an important role in Earth’s climate.

The identification of cloud and climate feedbacks and interactions has been elusive, at least in the sense of quantifying the impacts. The IPCC has discussed the impact of cloud cover on climate in their evaluations, but this phenomenon has never been considered in climate predictions due to the insufficient physical understanding of it.

Clouds have an important effect on Earth’s temperature. But it’s a bit complicated: Clouds can both cool down and warm up the temperatures on Earth. Some clouds contribute to cooling by reflecting part of the Sun’s energy back into space. Because a cloud usually has a higher albedo than the surface beneath it, the cloud reflects more shortwave radiation back to space than the surface would in the absence of the cloud, thus leaving less solar energy available to heat the surface and atmosphere. Other clouds contribute to warming by acting like a blanket and trapping some of the energy, keeping the Earth warm. None of these effects has been quantified and the net impact of clouds is still unknown.

It is obvious that clouds affect the weather. It is not so obvious that they can also influence long term climate trends.

If we can find better ways to represent the clouds in our climate models, we will enhance our ability to describe the current developments on climate science.

Cloud cover can be increased, according to some researchers, from high-energy radiation from space, known as galactic cosmic rays. The rays can enhance the formation of low-lying clouds or increase the global cloud cover leading to the cooling of Earth's atmosphere.

Cosmic rays are high energy particles that originate from our Solar System and from distant galaxies. The effect of cosmic rays on clouds and therefore on climate is still a speculative theory but a plausible one.

According to Danish physicist Henrik Svensmark, fewer cosmic rays are an indirect cause of global warming via cloud formation. More cosmic rays mean more clouds and a colder climate. Fewer rays mean a warmer climate. Interactions of cosmic rays with our Sun's magnetic fields are the causes of cloud and climate impacts. At times of high solar activity, signified by higher numbers of sunspots, our own star’s magnetic field helps shield the planet from cosmic rays, meaning less cloud formation and thus higher temperatures. When the sun is “quiet”, there is more ionisation in the atmosphere, meaning more clouds and a cooler climate.

Michael Sidiropoulos [p008--2]

• Here is a brief preview of an upcoming article. Posting of entire article coming to your screens in a couple of weeks. Comments are most welcome. Confirmations, objections, refutations are most welcome. Thanks.

-------------- [p 008--3] -------------------

A excellent, highly readable, and very engaging opening section. I look forward to more.

Thank you Peter Eirich . Believe it or not, I am doing this for myself, so I can have a handy reference. Hopefully it will be useful to others too. I intend to keep it as objective and balanced as possible. Ideas, theories and references will be balanced across both sides of the debate.

I have just conducted a test of thread stability by deleting my post to Jamel Chahed on page 7. The removal of my comment did not create a gap and the page was filled back up to 10 items by the system. Deletion of a comment can obviously cause thread sequence problems and is not recommended. Instead removing a comment by editing the contents to show [SNIP] is probably the better option.

...removing a comment by editing the contents to show [SNIP] is probably the better option.

Good idea Philip Mulholland !

Var St. Jeor wrote "There are simple solutions for your concerns. Ignore this thread, or start a new thread that meets your criteria." I am not concerned by this thread nor by the usurped thread "What is the statistical relationship between CO2 concentration level and Global change in Temperature (CONTINUED)?". I am only concerned by the original thread and related unjustified duplication. I am denouncing the fraudulent usurpation of the thread in which 188 researchers are participating. And I'm not ready to let this scientific imposture slide. No offense to those who are not concerned par scientific integrity.

It has been observed in past discussions that sometimes we confuse skepticism with denialism. Scientific skepticism is nothing more than the normal attitude in the natural sciences to inquire about the validity of a scientific proposition. Here is a historical review of the root causes of climate skepticism, from the mid-19th century up to the present day:

Preprint A Brief Perspective on Climate Change Skepticism

Comment moved from https://www.researchgate.net/post/What_is_the_statistical_relationship_between_CO2_concentration_level_and_Global_change_in_Temperature/1087

Peter Eirich Thank you, I hope that I can contribute by first giving a review of my Geoscience career experience.

My undergraduate degree is in Environmental Science (ES) awarded by The University of Lancaster, (now Lancaster University) UK in 1974. The degree study consisted of a modular set of courses in a wide range of geoscience subjects that was crafted by Professor Gordon Manley the renowned climatologist. As a direct consequence of this I was introduced to the concept that the role of energy balance has in planetary climate long before the issue became the modern cause celebre. I well remember being told in the ES lecture theatre on the Bailrigg Campus that the sole purpose of the Vacuum Planet (VP) equation, that is derived from Astronomy, is to determine the thermal radiant exhaust temperature of a planet when measured from outside.

To achieve this the VP equation uses a mathematical trick to establish the planetary temperature metric for the solid surface of a rapidly rotating vacuum world. To use the Vacuum Planet equation, which is the exhaust temperature with its valid divide by 4 dilution of the captured disc silhouette insolation, as a measure of the intensity of the intercepted insolation that drives the climate of a planetary atmosphere, is a complete nonsense. Put simply the Sun only ever shines instantaneously over half of the surface area of the globe, so the correct intensity divisor is 2 and not 4.

It is clear from the way that the Vacuum Planet equation is designed that it cannot be applied to a planet that is tidally locked to its parent sun. Furthermore it is also obvious that a planet with an atmosphere is not a Vacuum Planet and therefore the meteorological effect of an atmosphere is missing from the foundational Climate Science equation.

In discussion with my co-author Stephen Paul Rathbone Wilde I constructed the Dynamic Atmosphere Energy Transport (DAET) climate model to Stephen's design and incorporated into the model his meteorological knowledge and expertise, specifically the distinction between diabatic and adiabatic processes.

Our Dynamic Atmosphere Energy Transport (DAET) Climate Model is built on the following principles: #1. That the globe of the Earth is only ever illuminated on one side and so the power reduction divisor we apply to insolation is divide by two. #2. That it is the fluid motion of the air (and the oceans in the case of the Earth) that transports the surplus solar energy received at the solar zenith and delivers this energy to the poles

We thereby place meteorology with its physical mass-motion processes of adiabatic convection and also Latent Heat capture and release by the planetary atmosphere's condensing volatile at the heart of our DAET climate model. #1. An Analysis of the Earth's Energy Budget In our analysis we first start with the concepts of the standard weak sun divide by 4 model and proceed to demonstrate that this model does not lead to a climate thermal runaway and so cannot explain the climate of Venus. We have been so successful with our critique (Paper 1,600 Reads and Pre-print 3,800 Reads) that no one now tries to talk about Earth becoming another Venus. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/334480930_An_Analysis_of_the_Earth's_Energy_Budget #2. Inverse Climate Modelling Study of the Planet Venus (940 Reads) In this analysis we introduce the modelling concept of Noonworld, a hypothetical tidally locked terrestrial planet and use this to study the climate of Venus. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/340886704_Inverse_Climate_Modelling_Study_of_the_Planet_Venus #3. The Application of the Dynamic Atmosphere Energy Transport Climate Model (DAET) to Earth's Semi-Opaque Troposphere (335 Reads) After a series of studies in which we apply the DAET modelling concept to Titan and the Earth we managed to create a new stable paradigm that incorporates both radiative opacity and mass-motion physics into a new climate model for the Earth. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/367167215_The_Application_of_the_Dynamic_Atmosphere_Energy_Transport_Climate_Model_DAET_to_Earth's_Semi-Opaque_Troposphere #4. The Venusian Insolation Atmospheric Topside Thermal Heating Pool (Paper 14 Reads, Poster 95 Reads) Using our DAET model as a guide we demonstrated how the high surface temperature of Venus can be achieved by mass motion adiabatic energy delivery from the solar lit tropopause to the planet's surface. This work destroys the thermal runaway nonsense of the standard radiative model. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/373557324_The_Venusian_Insolation_Atmospheric_Topside_Thermal_Heating_Pool #5. The Dust Planet Clarified: Modelling Martian MY29 Atmospheric Data using the Dynamic-Atmosphere Energy-Transport (DAET) Climate Model. (67 Reads) We complete our series of papers with an explanation of the climate of Mars based on temperature data that we use to inform the design of our DAET model so that it relates specifically to the low pressure Martian atmosphere. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/369507343_The_Dust_Planet_Clarified_Modelling_Martian_MY29_Atmospheric_Data_using_the_Dynamic-Atmosphere_Energy-Transport_DAET_Climate_Model While at first glance it appears that we are adopting the unphysical concept of "back radiation" into our DAET model, in fact the concept that we use is that of thermal retention in a circulating fluid (such as the central heating system of a house). This infinitely circulating fluid cell (e.g.the Hadley Cell) slowly heats the dynamic mass motion fluid to a stable temperature value by an infinite series summation of halves of halves energy retention within a lossy system. I know that there is a lot to unpack here and during the course of my collaboration with Stephen Wilde which began in 2019 our understanding has developed to the point that the DAET model is now based on first principles. The fact that we are able to apply the model to the low-pressure atmosphere of Mars means that our analytical approach is now mature.

Comment moved from https://www.researchgate.net/post/What_is_the_statistical_relationship_between_CO2_concentration_level_and_Global_change_in_Temperature/1090

So why does the Dynamic Atmosphere Energy Transport (DAET) climate model start with an insolation intensity divisor of two and not four?

As a geoscientist and a modeler, I try to work to the following two principles:

#1. A model should be as simple as possible while retaining the fundamental properties of the system being studied.

#2. A model should have universal applicability.

The standard energy budget climate model fails to fulfil both of these stipulations. The standard model does not retain the dual and complimentary environments of day lit and dark night hemispheres and so the standard model, by eliminating the dark night and the polar winter, has reduced the geometric complexity of an illuminated globe to a non-real scenario.

The standard model, with its stipulation for rapid daily axial rotation as the mechanism by which surface captured solar energy is translated from the lit day to dark night environments, cannot be applied to a tidally locked planet and so fails the universality test.

Furthermore, daily rotation that is implicit in the design of the Vacuum Planet (VP) equation is a zonal process and the solid planetary surface cannot transfer energy from the solar zenith of energy surplus to the polar axis of energy deficit. This is a meridional process and can only occur by the medium of fluid mass motion (both the atmospheric convection cells and for the Earth, the ocean thermohaline gyres).

When Stephen Wilde and I first discussed the concepts necessary for the design of the DAET climate model our objective was to restore to the heart of the modelling process the fundamental role of the mass-motion processes of meteorology. We achieved this most notably with our Earth semi-opaque troposphere paper. Because our DAET model in its diabatic form (that is the 50% 50% equipartition of flux between radiant loss and thermal capture by air at the surface boundary) fully matches the Vacuum Planet equation we have established that energy retention by the atmosphere must be due to adiabatic convection in the presence of a gravity field. The conversion of kinetic energy to potential energy during adiabatic convective air mass ascent means that energy can be stored in the air in a form that cannot be lost from the air by thermal radiation. The potential energy in the air must be converted back to kinetic energy before radiative loss of energy can proceed.

The fundamental issue at the heart of the climate modeling debate is the role of atmospheric thermal radiant opacity. The reliance on opacity as the sole mechanism by which energy can be stored in the atmosphere has resulted in the fiction of back-radiation heating of the surface. The back-radiation flow of 324 W/m2 in the standard cartoon (Kiehl and Trenberth 1997 Fig. 7) is in fact the portrayal of the energy delivery to the surface of convection (e.g. the Hadley cell), a mass motion adiabatic process that returns captured and stored potential energy to the ground and is not a thermal radiative process.

Jamel Chahed [p008--6]

========== [p008-10] =============

By the numbers:

Your repeated approach to disputes has, by now, been well-demonstrated to be, on multiple occasions, attempting to create a mountain out of a molehill, and then harassing people relentlessly over your fictitious "molehill" of an issue. You kept doing that on the original thread regarding some very minor, down-in-the weeds contention with another person (not me), which then broadened into becoming a contention between yourself and two other people (still not me), so I was a neutral observer who was examining both sides of that minor issue as it developed, back at that time. Yet, you kept on treating your concern like it was some kind of longstanding pet peeve "hot button" of yours, even after three different people (including me) had shown you conclusively, with irrefutable hard evidence, that you were the person who was in the wrong in that dispute between yourself and the two others.

But you made it very clear by your behavior, once you were up on your high horse and rolling along, dishing out your insults and your false accusations as rapidly as possible, while repeatedly ignoring what each of the other individuals was saying to you, that you had become so wrapped up in pursuing your accusations -- hell-bent for leather, as they used to say in the American old west -- that mere contradictory "facts", which invalidated your claims, didn't even matter to you. Basically, you were acting like a bully in that situation, which I could thankfully be able to observe dispassionately from the sidelines because I was not one of your two targeted individuals in that dispute.

And that's exactly what you are doing here. I was willing to write off such extreme behavior on your part once -- treating it as being a form of aberrant behavior resulting from some kind of weird one-time misunderstanding, perhaps even due to some form of a cultural disconnect. In short, I bent over backwards to give you the benefit of the doubt, on the assumption that such a presumably one-of-a-kind clash had occurred for some really unusual reason, but would never again likely be repeated within a rational scientific discussion forum. I now see that I was wrong to have granted you the benefit of the doubt back at that time.

• "The Buck Stops Here" — Harry Truman, U.S. President, 1945 to 1953

And so does your bullying.

If I were to back down now, solely because of your aggressive intimidation attempts, regardless of the right or the wrong of the situation -- and I firmly believe the right is on my side in this instance -- then that would simply encourage you to keep on applying your intimidation techniques against other unaware people in the future; so I'm not going to do that. Even in some other situation where you might actually be logically correct, unlike this situation where you are not logically correct, employing such techniques still puts you in the wrong. Period. Each and every time.

I'm going to stand strong, and I am going to firmly hold the line against your "bullying" assaults.

Worst bully I have seen at RG. He was chasing me everywhere, across several RG threads, some time ago.

Peter Eirich wrote, "As I have fully explained in recent posts, there is no usurpation of another thread". Really! I am providing here proof of the pages relating to the original thread and the usurped one. Allow me to show it on other threads to give one of the examples of scientific misconduct under the adage "Reaping where he has not sown’’ with reference to the paper by Kamperman Sanders, A. (2010). Incentives for and protection of cultural expression: Art, trade and geographical indications. The Journal of World Intellectual Property, 13(2), 81-93. Extract: "... but is nevertheless capable of offering a protective measure against the usurpation of intellectual assets that may be considered as the property or quasi-property of another (Kamperman Sanders, 1997). In this respect, the concept of misappropriation can be used to prevent someone from passing off one’s own goods as those from someone else (Cornish and Llewelyn, 2003, pp. 593 et seq.), but also from ‘‘reaping where he has not sown... ’’

See Also:

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Science_Conscience

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Scientific_Integrity_on_ResearchGate

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Scientific_Integrity_Research_Ethics_and_Higher_Education_Deontology_The_Senior_Scholars_Duty

Jamel Chahed [p009--2]

• Allow me to show it on other threads to give one of the examples of scientific misconduct ...

=========== [p009--3] ==========

Your so-called "proof" shows just the opposite of what you claimed. It shows that I gave due credit and attribution to the original thread, while distinguishing my temporary emergency thread as being different.

We can have closure by letting him have the last word. I see no common ground for discussion as the gap in our value systems is chaotic.

Michael Sidiropoulos [p009--4]

• We can have closure by letting him have the last word. I see no common ground for discussion as the gap in our value systems is chaotic.

=========== [p009--5] ==========

Yes, that's true, Michael. I do appreciate the advice, which would work, but that's what he (Jamel Chahed) wants to accomplish by his bullying -- to get people who are in the right on some issue or dispute to give up their logical and appropriate position, just in order to shut him up. I have already acceded to him that way several times in the past, just to try and keep things on the thread peaceful, but enough's enough. Not here. Not now. Not this time. It is past time to hang tough with him, and to not give up another inch, because in this instance, he is in the wrong.

re: "I see no common ground for discussion as the gap in our value systems is chaotic."

I completely agree. I have begun to wonder whether we are dealing with a fundamentally irrational person, or a substantially emotionally-driven person, relative to the normative values that I endorse. In any event, we are dealing with someone who simply ignores any evidence or logic that does not line up with his preferred personal narrative of the moment. And we've seen that behavior from him play out in the past, as well, in other situations -- so it is not just something that occurred for the very first time within the context of this current dispute.

One last thing that I have observed about him -- if you criticize him directly, no matter how mildly, and no matter how well-deserved that criticism might have been, he will immediately play the "victim" card, and then will begin bullying you and demeaning you about having treated him callously and unfairly.

Philip Mulholland

"Brendan. The Vacuum Planet Equation (VPE) treats the planetary climate as a black box with one top of the atmosphere (TOA) insolation intensity as input from the Sun to the black box and one TOA thermal radiant intensity as the exit from the black box to Space.

This black box equation has nothing to say about the thermal radiant balance at the surface. It is the misapplication of the VPE with its divide by 4 of the insolation intensity (the weak Sun contention) to the base of the Earth's atmosphere that is the root cause of error."

I seem to be missing something from Postma's lecture. He has a flat Earth effective temp of -18C and a spherical Earth effective temp of +121C.

I can't see how he arrived at +121C. I assume it is this formula attached and is merely using 1,370W/m2 for solar radiation in the spherical calculation and 240W/m2 in the flat Earth calculation.

His formula is different to your Vacuum Planet Equation.

Brendan Godwin [p009--6]

• I seem to be missing something from Postma's lecture. He has a flat Earth effective temp of -18C and a spherical Earth effective temp of +121C.

____________ [p009--3] ___________

FWIW, I have seen a handful of Postma's presentations, but I cannot recall enough to help to explain it. I have seen a large number like that coming out of Nikolov & Zeller's work, as well -- related to the moon calculation, I believe, but I would have to look up the reference again. I think it had to do with the effects of performing a full 3D integration of the point temperatures imputed from the incoming insolation. If we can tighten up a good question, we can always send a message to Karl Zeller on RG.

Peter Eirich wrote "Your proof shows just the opposite of what you claimed. It shows that I gave due credit and attribution to the original thread, while distinguishing my temporary emergency thread as being different." Please note that you used "my temporary emergency thread". No Sir, it is not yours: I maintain that this is a "Reaping where he has not sown’’ imposture. Moreover, the original thread (106.5 k Reads, 11.5 k replies and 188 followers) has no need for a temporary emergency one: there is No Temporary Emergency: Go there and check by yourself. In return there is here a qualified usurpation: See the Screenshots within my previous post.

I will show it as an example of Scientific misconduct on RG.

Jamel Chahed [p009--4]

• Please note that you used "my temporary emergency thread".

___________ [p009--5] _____________

Yes I did, referring to the one that I had personally set up for all to use, if they could not access the original thread, just in case there had ever been some other temporary emergency thread in play on RG.

As to your screenshots, I already gave you my answer about those [p009--3] .

As to "Moreover, the original thread has no need for a temporary emergency one: there is No Temporary Emergency: ...", that's how I know that you are now acting irrationally. Multiple people told you independently that there had been a temporary access problem. The fact that there may not be a current access problem right now is completely irrelevant if there had been one at the time the temporary emergency thread was set up.

Peter Eirich

You may recall that I was the first one who expressed concern about access to the thread. I couldn't get the thread to load after several successive attempts. This was happening for several days. I was reluctant to let you know as I thought that the problem might be with my computer. After clearing cookies, cache and history, the problem persisted. That's when I posted about the problem and you confirmed it right away and so did at least 2-3 other participants, including Philip Mulholland if I recall correctly. I was a bit relieved then, knowing that this was a problem with RG and not with me. That's when you made the right decision to create the continuation thread so we could get on with our discussion. We all agreed with your solution and you solved the problem for everyone finally.

Peter Eirich wrote "The fact that there may not be a current access problem right now is completely irrelevant if there had been one at the time the temporary emergency thread was set up" 1. I don't want to continue this procrastination. Let's admit there was a problem. Have you reported it to the RG Staff? 2. Even though a problem like this occurs, this does not give you the right to get your hands on a very active site by creating a duplicate of it 3. You said temporary. Great! Now that there is no more problem, at least since I shed light on your imposture. Well, do what you have to do. i.e. what you said you were going to do: rename the usurped thread to stop the current duplication that bothers us as users of the original thread. Or maybe you prefer that I report this problem to the RG Administrators by denouncing the thread usurpation.

...Or maybe you prefer that I report this problem to the RG Administrators by denouncing the thread usurpation...

Don't forget to mention that Peter Eirich resolved this by starting this new question thread right here with a different title. Good luck with your report!

Michael Sidiropoulos many times I told you: 1. That Peter is able to speak for himself, and much more skillfully. 2. This is about honesty and intellectual integrity, the basics of "Scientific Morality": a paramount task for me, and I consider that Scholars should stand against any Scientific Misconduct. This is what I am always ready to do without reserves. But this is outside the circle of your concerns. In this regard let me please remind you of my last reply. "MS wrote "This discussion thread is about to sing its Swan Song" . Coming from you, this is not at all surprising: Isn't it that your goal was not to preserve the Thread as you alleged but to usurp it? QED! Gone with the wind! “Only its stones remain in the watercourse” an Arabic Proverb says. MS wrote, "our self-appointed Integrity Preacher will be more useful by staying right here". Coming from you, this is not at all surprising: Yes I am "Scientific Integrity Preacher" and proud to do any Job against Scientific Misconduct, No offense to all usurpers, imposters, and those who have no Integrity. It is common knowledge that Integrity means nothing to you. Wasn't it you who claimed "My values are not academic" on a platform dedicated to Scientific Research? What a shame! Rabelais said: "Wisdom cannot enter into an evil spirit, and Science without Conscience is but the Ruin of the Soul." (Own translation from French). This "philosophical" thought can also be considered the keystone of what can be called "Scientific Morality"."

PS1: Continue to play the henchman: it’s a role that suits you perfectly!

PS2: Peter has renounced its commitment to modify the title of the usurped thread. this is not at all surprising: Isn't it that his goal was not to resolve temporary problems on the original Thread as he alleged but to usurp it? QED!

See Also:

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Science_Conscience https://www.researchgate.net/post/Scientific_Integrity_on_ResearchGate https://www.researchgate.net/post/Scientific_Integrity_Research_Ethics_and_Higher_Education_Deontology_The_Senior_Scholars_Duty

Brendan Godwin [p9, 6 from top]

1. I seem to be missing something from Postma's lecture. He has a flat Earth effective temp of -18C and a spherical Earth effective temp of +121C.

2. I can't see how he arrived at +121C. I assume it is this formula attached and is merely using 1,370W/m2 for solar radiation in the spherical calculation and 240W/m2 in the flat Earth calculation.

3. His formula is different to your Vacuum Planet Equation.

Brendan.

You pose 3 questions and there is a lot to unpack here, so I am going to back up a bit before I start.

First off, I do not use the term Flat Earth effective temperature (Flat Earth is Joseph Postma’s in your face argumentative device) I only use the correct (in my opinion) terminology of Vacuum Planet Equation (VPE) effective temperature. As I have previously stated I have a long history knowledge of this issue, going back to my 1971-74 undergraduate degree course in Environmental Science from the then called University of Lancaster in the UK.

The Vacuum Planet Equation (VPE) is a legitimate mathematical equation devised for Astronomy and used to determine the thermal radiant emission temperature Te of a terrestrial body when viewed externally (which is what Astronomers do as their night job). Joseph Postma is an accredited professional Astronomer and, in his lecture, he clearly states that the thermal emission temperature of a star (such as our Sun) can be determine by calculation, and he then proceeds to do so. He also states that this stellar thermal emission temperature is a notional temperature that occurs somewhere (unspecified) within the star’s photosphere. So, the Vacuum Planet Equation has legitimate application and value in Astronomy.

Now back to my Environmental Science lecture hall in Lancaster circa 1972. We were introduced to the Vacuum Planet Equation (VPE) derived from Astronomy and specifically advised that it cannot be used to determine the average annual temperature of the Earth at the base of the atmosphere. What the VPE can do however is treat the Earth’s atmosphere as a black box and then determine by calculation the effective thermal emission temperature for the planet when viewed externally from space. An emission that comes from some unspecified location within the thermally radiating atmosphere. (N.B. Please park the rabbit hole of atmospheric thermal radiant clarity. An atmosphere of pure nitrogen can emit thermal radiation to space if it contains dust particles. No dust? Well, how about the frozen crystals of solid nitrogen in Pluto’s atmosphere instead? Rabbit holes - they are such fun, but best avoided).

Starting with your Question 3:

The Vacuum Planet Equation (VPE) states: “The equilibrium temperature Te of an airless, rapidly rotating planet has the form: -

Equation 1: Te ≡ [S π R2(1-A)/4 π R2 ε σ]0.25

Where σ is the Stefan-Boltzmann Constant, ε the effective surface emissivity, A the wavelength-integrated Bond albedo, R the planet's radius (in metres), and S the solar constant (in Watts/m2) at the planet's average distance from the Sun.”

The VPE has as its core engine the Stefan-Boltzmann Law. This Law is used to determine the absolute temperature in Kelvin (K), associated with the average radiative energy flux in Watts per square metre (W/m2) of the planet’s emitting layer, and has the form: -

Equation 2: j* = σT4

Where j*is the black body radiant emittance in Watts per square metre; σ is the Stefan-Boltzmann constant of proportionality, and T is the absolute thermodynamic temperature raised to the power of four.

It is this core Equation 2 that Postma is using (all the rest of the VPE in Equation 1 is just sweet paper wrapping around this key relationship). I have attached an Excel worksheet that uses Equation 2 in both forward and backward modes of application for your use.

For Question 2 your assessment is correct, Postma uses Equation 2 and his calculation is completely valid. The post-Albedo disc capture of high frequency insolation is 960 W/m2 and the total globe surface area output of low frequency VPE thermal radiation output to space is 960/4 = 240 W/m2. What happens in between in the atmosphere is of course highly complex, hence the broad-brush black box approach.

Now to address Question 1:

In Postma’s diagram the Top of the Atmosphere (TOA) Solar Flux intensity is 1370 W/m2. This is the solar beam intensity that the Earth cuts out at its average annual orbital distance from the Sun. N.B. This is the pre-Albedo intensity and represents the maximum possible annual average (not peak perihelion approach) beam intensity that the Earth can ever capture under current solar system circumstances.

Using Equation 2 this beam intensity of 1370 W/m2 then equates to a thermodynamic temperature of 394 Kelvin.

Next Postma shows the Continuous Input post-Albedo of 960 W/m2. This is also the notional zenith intensity and it is clearly possible to measure clear sky surface intensity (with no local cloud albedo) normal to the beam of 1370 W/m2 (or even higher if at perihelion approach as you have done in the field). The post albedo measurement of 960 W/m2 is an average for the lit hemisphere and equates to a thermodynamic temperature of 360.5 Kelvin. But remember the impact of surface attitude as demonstrated by shadow length, and so at Dusk or at Dawn the beam intensity spreads out over a large surface area, and the illumination intensity for the planet’s surface is thereby reduced at this time and location.

Philip Mulholland

I don't understand all of it but will give it my best effort. Great discussion between you and Brendan Godwin on complex scientific issues. This new question thread will flourish with such contributions.

Michael Sidiropoulos

Michael. Thank you. Please post any questions that you may have about my essays and I will attempt to clarify further. As an educator it is important that I know where my explanations are too abstruse.

Jamel Chahed [p010--1]

• do what you have to do. i.e. what you said you were going to do: rename the usurped thread to stop the current duplication that bothers us as users of the original thread.

_____________ [p010--7] PE ___________________

I don't think you QUITE understand what just happened here, Jamel. As of yesterday morning (my time), and you can go back and check the posts from yesterday to confirm this [p007--5], a thread rename had been scheduled to have taken place today, and was planned to have occurred about three hours ago.

However, part of the plan for smoothly accomplishing that rename had required me to individually contact every single participant who was still posting to the "(CONTINUED)" thread, in order to try to cajole them into moving their posts elsewhere, and also to answer any questions they might have had about the transition. But then, after that plan already had been put into place, you decided to substantially ramp up the rate of your harassment postings. That prevented me from having enough time to complete my own portion of the plan -- effectively stopping the clock on it. Sort of a CATCH-22 situation, as it were.

I like analogies. Here is one from American Football that should help everyone to be able to take a step back from the above minutia, and then to be able to better appreciate the essential nature of what just went down:

• In American Football there is something called a "False Start". That's when the team on offense has a plan (i.e., a "called play") already in effect, and then the team's players have already settled themselves into the proper physical positions to execute that play. But then one of the players on offense flinches, or even just twitches a bit, causing the Referee to to stop the game clock and step in, throwing down a yellow penalty flag.
• Usually, this simply reflects a natural mistake on the part of the players on the field for the team that is on offense at that moment in time, but sometimes the team on defense has a hand in it. Sometimes, a player on the defense will charge right up to the line of scrimmage, and then will make aggressive, threatening motions, but without ever actually crossing the line of scrimmage. Sometimes those motions will cause one of the players on the offense to either jump back a bit, to avoid the anticipated "hit" from the defenseman, or to jump forward a bit, thinking that the ball has already been snapped and that the play is already underway. Either way, the defense player who initially caused problem will, by then, be standing up tall, with his arm pointed down at the offending player who had just moved, making sure that the Ref can't either miss or overlook what just happened there.

In the above analogy, Jamel, you are the player who made the threatening motion, causing the team with the pre-planned play to flinch in their execution of it, thereby causing the Ref to stop the clock and to impose a penalty on the offense. In this instance, your behavior managed to stop the thread-renaming-countdown clock after it had barely started its countdown, so the planned renaming procedure will still require some 27 hours to be completed after the original plan is put back into action again. For the reasons already discussed above, the renaming plan cannot be put back into operation until after your steady stream of harassment postings has ceased. And that is the penalty in this analogy: The thread that you do not like is going to remain in an operational status, that you do not like, and will retain its existing name, that you also do not like, for longer than you would like, and it is all on you!

For it was your past behavior that stopped the clock on the previous plan, after that plan had already been out into effect. And it is your present behavior that is preventing that same plan from being restarted once again. Specifically, the minimum necessary restart time period will require however long it takes for your harassing behavior to stop, plus 27 hours more after that. Only you can control the duration of that initial "harassment time out" delay, before things can get rolling once again toward the thread rename.

To paraphrase William Shakespeare (in the modern vernacular recasting), you are hoist by your own petard.

Had you left well enough alone, the thread rename would have already taken place by now. And then, with no one posting to it any longer, you and I could still have talked further at our leisure, without so much time pressure, about how to fine-tune the specific name to be left in place permanently. But that's not you. Some people, obviously, just don't know when they should just shut up, even on a temporary basis.

As to the ill-advised threat that you tossed in at the very end of your above post earlier today, I had decided, overnight, before reading your above post, to not report your well-established and well-documented history of bullying and harassment to RG. But that decision could always be revisited again, based upon your future behavior. And don't worry, I have already saved to disk a sufficient history of your bullying and harassing RG posts, fully searchable, in case you should later decide to begin deleting them on RG.

Have a nice day. You have finally met someone whom you can no longer bully, even though you have done so to me successfully on RG in the past. Most childhood bullies have learned that this kind of consciousness-changing event is usually a very good time to back off, and take their bullying trade elsewhere. Not sure about you, though, in that regard. But rest assured: You have now reached the line in the sand.

Infrared aurora on Uranus

"Astronomers using archived data from the giant Keck II telescope on Mauna Kea in Hawaii have successfully glimpsed Uranus' infrared aurora for the first time.

Like auroras on Earth, those on Uranus are caused when charged particles riding the solar wind interact with the planet's magnetic field and are funneled along magnetic field lines toward the magnetic poles. "

see https://www.space.com/uranus-infrared-aurora-confirmed-first-time?

So for you die-hard skeptics who deny the mystery of planets that are hotter than the sunlight they receive look what this article states: "The temperature of all the gas giant planets, including Uranus, are hundreds of degrees Kelvin/Celsius above what models predict if only warmed by the sun, leaving us with the big question of how these planets are so much hotter than expected,"

Guys the Induction and Particle Heating of Planetary Bodies is all around you. nuff said

SOLAR CYCLES

An extensive review of the scientific literature reveals a striking simplification of solar output and its impact on climate. The well-known 11-year cycles are represented but there is no representation of longer cycles such as the Gleissberg 88-year cycle and the Devries 208-year cycle. The reason for the omission is most likely the fact that multi-decadal solar cycles are poorly understood as to their occurrence, strength and periodicity. Nonetheless, the longer cyclicalities appear to be present in the observed temperatures. The absence of important forcing factors from the models has led to a theory that is fundamentally underdetermined. There are fewer interactions and feedbacks in the models and too many unknown variables and degrees of freedom. An underdetermined system typically has many solutions. In other words, there can be other theories that are compatible with the same set of observations.

Preprint Climate Science: Simulations of the combined effect of long ...

In spite of the bullying from the usual suspect and in spite of his efforts to obstruct scientific discussion, I am happy to report that my compilation of TEN THEORIES OF CLIMATE CHANGE is proceeding, a little faster than a snail.🤠

Now that Christopher Gerard Yukna is here, his input to this excerpt would be appreciated. Note, this is a very basic description, almost at the layman level.

---------------------------------------------

Cloud Formation, Albedo and Cosmic Rays

At any given moment, about two-thirds of our planet is covered by clouds. So, it’s not too surprising that clouds play an important role in Earth’s climate.

The identification of cloud and climate feedbacks and interactions has been elusive, at least in the sense of quantifying the impacts. The IPCC has discussed the impact of cloud cover on climate in their evaluations, but this phenomenon has never been considered in climate predictions due to the insufficient physical understanding of it.

Clouds have an important effect on Earth’s temperature. But it’s a bit complicated: Clouds can both cool down and warm up the temperatures on Earth. Some clouds contribute to cooling by reflecting part of the Sun’s energy back into space. Because a cloud usually has a higher albedo than the surface beneath it, the cloud reflects more shortwave radiation back to space than the surface would in the absence of the cloud, thus leaving less solar energy available to heat the surface and atmosphere. Other clouds contribute to warming by acting like a blanket and trapping some of the energy, keeping the Earth warm. None of these effects has been quantified and the net impact of clouds is still unknown.

It is obvious that clouds affect the weather. It is not so obvious that they can also influence long term climate trends.

If we can find better ways to represent the clouds in our climate models, we will enhance our ability to describe the current developments on climate science.

Cloud cover can be increased, according to some researchers, from high-energy radiation from space, known as galactic cosmic rays. The rays can enhance the formation of low-lying clouds or increase the global cloud cover leading to atmospheric cooling.

Cosmic rays are high energy particles that originate from our Solar System and from distant galaxies. The effect of cosmic rays on clouds and therefore on climate is still a speculative theory but a plausible one.

According to Danish physicist Henrik Svensmark, fewer cosmic rays are an indirect cause of global warming via cloud formation. More cosmic rays mean more clouds and a colder climate. Fewer rays mean a warmer climate. Interactions of cosmic rays with our Sun's magnetic fields are the causes of cloud and climate impacts. At times of high solar activity, signified by higher numbers of sunspots, the Sun's magnetic field helps shield the Earth from cosmic rays, meaning less cloud formation and thus higher temperatures. When the sun is “quiet”, there is more ionisation in the atmosphere, meaning more clouds and a cooler climate.