EATING THE SUN
Where Oliver Morton writes in the introduction:
“On this day, and the next day, and every day, a scarcely conceivable
4000 trillion kilowatt hours of energy reached the top of the earth’s
atmosphere as sunshine… And over the course of the day, that energy served to
turn hundreds of millions of tonnes of carbon dioxide into food and living
tissue. And as a result the world stayed alive.
That’s what really happened
today.”
On this basis, I decided to do a little spreadsheet calculation -- remembering the
Zeroth Law of Thermodynamics [1] :
Hmmm, even the IPCC estimate of ‘man-made global warming’
(AGW) is no more than a onehundredthousandth
of the sunshine total influencing the Earth’s average surface temperature.
.
Now
please go to
or
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11214-006-9046-5
(try ‘look inside’)
or, of
course
http://education.gsfc.nasa.gov/experimental/all98invproject.site/pages/solarcycles.html
and NASA again at
and NASA again at
and
decide for yourself whether tampering with any of the measured values shown in
these graphs, by a onehundredthousandth of their values shown, would allow any interpretation
other than that there is no discernible contribution to global temperatures
from any anthropogenic global warming (AGW) which is not totally irrevelant in comparison to the
measured variability of solar irradiance over any time period one cares to
choose.
Consider also estimates of annual global carbon dioxide
emissions:
Is scepticism not the only possible rational response in the light of these figures?
In the light of earlier musings on the subject,
and of latest addenda to
scepticism alone just will no longer
suffice.
see also link arrived 07/07/2014:
http://www.iceagenow.info/2014/07/holding-greenpeace-accountable/
or at:
http://t.co/HA0bIG3JAK via @wattsupwiththat
see also link arrived 07/07/2014:
http://www.iceagenow.info/2014/07/holding-greenpeace-accountable/
or at:
http://t.co/HA0bIG3JAK via @wattsupwiththat
[1] PS added 01 DEC 2014
Oxford University Press Inc, New York, 2007
Calculation looks perfectly fine. See also
ReplyDeleteEnergetic imbalance in hiroshima bombs per second JUN13
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/05/15/global-warming-splodeified/
sunlight delivers 1000 times the energy of Nuccitelli/Cook's claimed imbalance due to CO2AGW.
It is not skepticism that is justified - open mockery of Global Warming believers is the order of the day! Just laugh at them; they're stoopid! None of them could even explain a technical means of MEASURING the imbalance given the measurement tolerances of any such means. They need a rubber room, not a supercomputer - supercomputers have pointy edges.
DirkH
The references to the solar irradiance graphs were added today, 07 June 2014 12:43 BST.
ReplyDeleteThe source for deltaT in my spreadsheet is NASA at http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/EnergyBalance/page6.php which gives a deltaT of 30°C from a ‘with atmosphere’ high of 15°C. As other sources quote a ‘without atmosphere’ low as far down as -20°C I chose a deltaT of 33°C. [I find 15°C more understandable in normal discussion than 288.15K]
ReplyDeleteGenerally, I specifically published my whole spreadsheet with its calculation methods shown, so that anyone can replicate it in about 10 minutes flat, I reckon. It is then also possible to change any input value to see what happens to the end result in a split-second. E.g. I have chosen 80 years for the time to achieve the 4°C temperature rise ‘consensed’ by the politicians of the IPCC. If anyone thinks that should be any other period, just put it in your spreadsheet, again for instant result. Same applies to any other input value anyone wishes to explore.
As I wrote elsewhere before:
ReplyDeleteL Michael Hohmann
May 5, 2012 at 6:39 pm • Reply
I am getting bored. The globe can be getting warmer or colder, but the idea that the human contribution from burning carbon fuels has anything to do with it is not only IMHO the biggest political and intellectual fraud ever – but so says the IPCC itself: http://cleanenergypundit.blogspot.com/2011/10/west-is-facing-new-severe-recession.html. The ongoing discussion pro and con is becoming akin to the scholastic argument as to how many angels can dance on the head of a needle. Which is, of course, exactly what is intended to achieve worldwide disorientation away from the actual IPCC aims of monetary and energy policies – and bringing a whole, if not all, of science into disrepute. Even the UK Royal Society has become Lysenkoist. viz. http://cleanenergypundit.blogspot.co.uk/2013/01/snippets-questions-2-climate-models.html
I remember also Buckminster Fuller writing in 1981 [CRITICAL PATH, Hutchinson]:
“For only a short time, in most countries, has the individual human had the right of trial by jury. To make humanity’s chances for a fair trial better, all those testifying must swear ‘to tell the truth, all the truth and nothing but the truth.’….. If we don’t program the computer truthfully with all the truth and nothing but the truth, we won’t get the answers that allow us to ‘make it’ “. In that respect the jury is still out