<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: About</title>
	<atom:link href="http://landshape.org/enm/discredited-agw/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://landshape.org/enm</link>
	<description>The Power of Numeracy</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 16 May 2012 18:37:00 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Doug Cotton</title>
		<link>http://landshape.org/enm/discredited-agw/#comment-13638</link>
		<dc:creator>Doug Cotton</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 17 Mar 2012 00:51:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://landshape.org/enm/?page_id=2750#comment-13638</guid>
		<description>You may be interested in my new peer-reviewed climate paper linked below.
Climatologists love to talk about energy being trapped by carbon dioxide and thus not exiting at the top of the atmosphere (TOA.)

It is &lt;i&gt;nowhere&lt;/i&gt; near as simple as that.  All the radiation gets to space sooner or later.  Carbon dioxide just scatters it on its way so you don&#039;t see radiation in those bandwidths at TOA.  The energy still gets out, and you have no proof that it doesn&#039;t, because you don&#039;t have the necessary simultaneous measurements made all over the world.

In the hemisphere that is cooling at night there is &lt;i&gt;far more&lt;/i&gt; getting out, whereas in the hemisphere in the sunlight there is far more coming in.  This is obvious.
When I placed a wide necked vacuum flask filled with water in the sun yesterday (with the lid off) the temperature of the water rose from 19.5 deg.C at 5:08am to 29.1 deg.C at 1:53pm while the air around it rose from 19.0 to 31.9 deg.C.   

What did the backradiation do at night?  Well from 9:15pm till 12:05am the water cooled from 24.2 deg.C to 23.4 deg.C while the air cooled from 24.2 deg.C to 22.7 deg.C.

According to those energy diagrams the backradiation, even at night, is about half the solar radiation during the day.  Well, maybe it is, but it does not have anything like half the effect on the temperature as you can confirm in your own backyard.

This is because, when radiation from a cooler atmosphere strikes a warmer surface it undergoes &quot;resonant scattering&quot; (sometimes called pseudo-scattering) and this means its energy is not converted to thermal energy.  This is the reason that heat does not transfer from cold to hot.  If it did the universe would go crazy.

&lt;b&gt;When opposing radiation is scattered, its own energy replaces energy which the warmer body would have radiated from its own thermal energy supply.&lt;/b&gt;  
You can imagine it as if you are just about to pay for fuel at a gas station when a friend travelling with you offers you cash for the right amount.  It&#039;s quicker and easier for you to just pay with the cash, rather than going through the longer process of using a credit card to pay from your own account.  So it is with radiation.  The warmer body cools more slowly as a result because a ready source of energy from incident radiation is quicker to just &quot;reflect&quot; back into the atmosphere, rather than have to convert its own thermal energy to radiated energy.

The ramifications are this:  

Not all radiation from the atmosphere is the same.  That from cooler regions has less effect.  Also, that with fewer frequencies under its Planck curve has less effect again.  

&lt;b&gt;Each carbon dioxide molecule thus has far less effect than each water vapour molecule because the latter can radiate with more frequencies which &quot;oppose&quot; the frequencies being emitted by the surface, especially the oceans.&lt;/b&gt;
  
&lt;b&gt;Furthermore, it is only the radiative cooling process of the surface which is slowed down.  There are other processes like evaporative cooling and diffusion followed by convection which cannot be affected by backradiation, and which will tend to compensate for any slowing of the radiation.&lt;/b&gt; 

This is why, at night, the water in the flask cools nearly as fast as the air around it.  The net effect on the rate of cooling is totally negligible.  

&lt;b&gt;The backradiation does not affect temperatures anywhere near as much as solar radiation, even though its &quot;W/m^2&quot; is probably about half as much.&lt;/b&gt; 
 
And there are other reasons also why it all balances out and climate follows natural cycles without any anthropogenic effect.  This is explained in detail in my peer-reviewed publication now being further reviewed by dozens of scientists.

http://principia-scientific.org/publications/psi_radiated_energy.pdf

.
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>You may be interested in my new peer-reviewed climate paper linked below.<br />
Climatologists love to talk about energy being trapped by carbon dioxide and thus not exiting at the top of the atmosphere (TOA.)</p>
<p>It is <i>nowhere</i> near as simple as that.  All the radiation gets to space sooner or later.  Carbon dioxide just scatters it on its way so you don&#8217;t see radiation in those bandwidths at TOA.  The energy still gets out, and you have no proof that it doesn&#8217;t, because you don&#8217;t have the necessary simultaneous measurements made all over the world.</p>
<p>In the hemisphere that is cooling at night there is <i>far more</i> getting out, whereas in the hemisphere in the sunlight there is far more coming in.  This is obvious.<br />
When I placed a wide necked vacuum flask filled with water in the sun yesterday (with the lid off) the temperature of the water rose from 19.5 deg.C at 5:08am to 29.1 deg.C at 1:53pm while the air around it rose from 19.0 to 31.9 deg.C.   </p>
<p>What did the backradiation do at night?  Well from 9:15pm till 12:05am the water cooled from 24.2 deg.C to 23.4 deg.C while the air cooled from 24.2 deg.C to 22.7 deg.C.</p>
<p>According to those energy diagrams the backradiation, even at night, is about half the solar radiation during the day.  Well, maybe it is, but it does not have anything like half the effect on the temperature as you can confirm in your own backyard.</p>
<p>This is because, when radiation from a cooler atmosphere strikes a warmer surface it undergoes &#8220;resonant scattering&#8221; (sometimes called pseudo-scattering) and this means its energy is not converted to thermal energy.  This is the reason that heat does not transfer from cold to hot.  If it did the universe would go crazy.</p>
<p><b>When opposing radiation is scattered, its own energy replaces energy which the warmer body would have radiated from its own thermal energy supply.</b> <br />
You can imagine it as if you are just about to pay for fuel at a gas station when a friend travelling with you offers you cash for the right amount.  It&#8217;s quicker and easier for you to just pay with the cash, rather than going through the longer process of using a credit card to pay from your own account.  So it is with radiation.  The warmer body cools more slowly as a result because a ready source of energy from incident radiation is quicker to just &#8220;reflect&#8221; back into the atmosphere, rather than have to convert its own thermal energy to radiated energy.</p>
<p>The ramifications are this:  </p>
<p>Not all radiation from the atmosphere is the same.  That from cooler regions has less effect.  Also, that with fewer frequencies under its Planck curve has less effect again.  </p>
<p><b>Each carbon dioxide molecule thus has far less effect than each water vapour molecule because the latter can radiate with more frequencies which &#8220;oppose&#8221; the frequencies being emitted by the surface, especially the oceans.</b><br />
 <br />
<b>Furthermore, it is only the radiative cooling process of the surface which is slowed down.  There are other processes like evaporative cooling and diffusion followed by convection which cannot be affected by backradiation, and which will tend to compensate for any slowing of the radiation.</b> </p>
<p>This is why, at night, the water in the flask cools nearly as fast as the air around it.  The net effect on the rate of cooling is totally negligible.  </p>
<p><b>The backradiation does not affect temperatures anywhere near as much as solar radiation, even though its &#8220;W/m^2&#8243; is probably about half as much.</b> <br />
 <br />
And there are other reasons also why it all balances out and climate follows natural cycles without any anthropogenic effect.  This is explained in detail in my peer-reviewed publication now being further reviewed by dozens of scientists.</p>
<p><a href="http://principia-scientific.org/publications/psi_radiated_energy.pdf" rel="nofollow">http://principia-scientific.org/publications/psi_radiated_energy.pdf</a></p>
<p>.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Guest</title>
		<link>http://landshape.org/enm/discredited-agw/#comment-13220</link>
		<dc:creator>Guest</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 04 Feb 2011 18:30:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://landshape.org/enm/?page_id=2750#comment-13220</guid>
		<description>I think this is garbage.  Scientists tell us they are making projections not predictions. You can even look at the probalities of extreme events occurring. It&#039;s not hidden.  The climatologists at NASA and climatechange.org etc. will answer emails from the public about the probability of certain events occurring.  Your whole book is based on using misleading statistics to try and manipulate public perception about the most likely outcomes.  You don&#039;t have an alternate climate model, so you are engaging in the pseudoscience.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I think this is garbage.  Scientists tell us they are making projections not predictions. You can even look at the probalities of extreme events occurring. It&#8217;s not hidden.  The climatologists at NASA and climatechange.org etc. will answer emails from the public about the probability of certain events occurring.  Your whole book is based on using misleading statistics to try and manipulate public perception about the most likely outcomes.  You don&#8217;t have an alternate climate model, so you are engaging in the pseudoscience.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Government Out Of Control: EPA Rejects Climate Change Challenge &#124; motorcitytimes.com</title>
		<link>http://landshape.org/enm/discredited-agw/#comment-1737</link>
		<dc:creator>Government Out Of Control: EPA Rejects Climate Change Challenge &#124; motorcitytimes.com</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 31 Jul 2010 00:19:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://landshape.org/enm/?page_id=2750#comment-1737</guid>
		<description>[...] I could go on and on. One other thing that physicists are pointing out is the whole &#8216;greenhouse&#8217; effect, where sunlight is reflected from CO2 in the atmosphere in an increasing feedback loop, is not really happening either. (Note EGE= Enhanced Greenhouse Effect). Via Niche Modeling: While MD07 explains increasing specific humidity and falling relative humidity, and a positive feedback loop if temperature is increasing, does it provide evidence of the EGE as a cause of present day global warming? If temperatures and water vapor in the upper troposphere were actually increasing, while surface temperatures have been increasing, then this would provide the evidence for EGE they seek. [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] I could go on and on. One other thing that physicists are pointing out is the whole &#8216;greenhouse&#8217; effect, where sunlight is reflected from CO2 in the atmosphere in an increasing feedback loop, is not really happening either. (Note EGE= Enhanced Greenhouse Effect). Via Niche Modeling: While MD07 explains increasing specific humidity and falling relative humidity, and a positive feedback loop if temperature is increasing, does it provide evidence of the EGE as a cause of present day global warming? If temperatures and water vapor in the upper troposphere were actually increasing, while surface temperatures have been increasing, then this would provide the evidence for EGE they seek. [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Niche Modeling &#187; Tears of a Clown</title>
		<link>http://landshape.org/enm/discredited-agw/#comment-1735</link>
		<dc:creator>Niche Modeling &#187; Tears of a Clown</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 29 Mar 2010 23:04:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://landshape.org/enm/?page_id=2750#comment-1735</guid>
		<description>[...] Niche ModelingAbout the AuthorContact Dr StockwellDiscredited AGWENM and Audit R [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Niche ModelingAbout the AuthorContact Dr StockwellDiscredited AGWENM and Audit R [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Niche Modeling &#187; Briffa McIntyre tree-rings etc</title>
		<link>http://landshape.org/enm/discredited-agw/#comment-1734</link>
		<dc:creator>Niche Modeling &#187; Briffa McIntyre tree-rings etc</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 09 Oct 2009 22:31:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://landshape.org/enm/?page_id=2750#comment-1734</guid>
		<description>[...] Niche ModelingAbout the AuthorContact Dr StockwellDiscredited AGWENM and Audit R [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Niche ModelingAbout the AuthorContact Dr StockwellDiscredited AGWENM and Audit R [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: John F. Pittman</title>
		<link>http://landshape.org/enm/discredited-agw/#comment-1736</link>
		<dc:creator>John F. Pittman</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 06 Aug 2009 02:08:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://landshape.org/enm/?page_id=2750#comment-1736</guid>
		<description>Perhaps you should add &lt;a href=&quot;http://climatesci.org/2009/08/05/comment-on-%25e2%2580%259crecent-changes-in-climate-extremes-in-the-caribbean-region-by-peterson-et-al-2002%25e2%2580%259d-by-rj-stone/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://climatesci.org/2009/08/05/comment-on-%e2...&lt;/a&gt; to your list. IMO Dr. Stone presetns a wellwritten case and is refused for not doing someone else&#039;s work. T&#039;is strange.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Perhaps you should add <a href="http://climatesci.org/2009/08/05/comment-on-%25e2%2580%259crecent-changes-in-climate-extremes-in-the-caribbean-region-by-peterson-et-al-2002%25e2%2580%259d-by-rj-stone/" rel="nofollow"></a><a href="http://climatesci.org/2009/08/05/comment-on-%e2" rel="nofollow">http://climatesci.org/2009/08/05/comment-on-%e2</a>&#8230; to your list. IMO Dr. Stone presetns a wellwritten case and is refused for not doing someone else&#039;s work. T&#039;is strange.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: John F. Pittman</title>
		<link>http://landshape.org/enm/discredited-agw/#comment-1733</link>
		<dc:creator>John F. Pittman</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 05 Aug 2009 21:08:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://landshape.org/enm/?page_id=2750#comment-1733</guid>
		<description>Perhaps you should add &lt;a href=&quot;http://climatesci.org/2009/08/05/comment-on-%25e2%2580%259crecent-changes-in-climate-extremes-in-the-caribbean-region-by-peterson-et-al-2002%25e2%2580%259d-by-rj-stone/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://climatesci.org/2009/08/05/comment-on-%e2...&lt;/a&gt; to your list. IMO Dr. Stone presetns a wellwritten case and is refused for not doing someone else&#039;s work. T&#039;is strange.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Perhaps you should add <a href="http://climatesci.org/2009/08/05/comment-on-%25e2%2580%259crecent-changes-in-climate-extremes-in-the-caribbean-region-by-peterson-et-al-2002%25e2%2580%259d-by-rj-stone/" rel="nofollow"></a><a href="http://climatesci.org/2009/08/05/comment-on-%e2" rel="nofollow">http://climatesci.org/2009/08/05/comment-on-%e2</a>&#8230; to your list. IMO Dr. Stone presetns a wellwritten case and is refused for not doing someone else&#039;s work. T&#039;is strange.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: John F. Pittman</title>
		<link>http://landshape.org/enm/discredited-agw/#comment-11633</link>
		<dc:creator>John F. Pittman</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 05 Aug 2009 21:08:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://landshape.org/enm/?page_id=2750#comment-11633</guid>
		<description>Perhaps you should add http://climatesci.org/2009/08/05/comment-on-%e2%80%9crecent-changes-in-climate-extremes-in-the-caribbean-region-by-peterson-et-al-2002%e2%80%9d-by-rj-stone/ to your list. IMO Dr. Stone presetns a wellwritten case and is refused for not doing someone else&#039;s work. T&#039;is strange.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Perhaps you should add <a href="http://climatesci.org/2009/08/05/comment-on-%e2%80%9crecent-changes-in-climate-extremes-in-the-caribbean-region-by-peterson-et-al-2002%e2%80%9d-by-rj-stone/" rel="nofollow">http://climatesci.org/2009/08/05/comment-on-%e2%80%9crecent-changes-in-climate-extremes-in-the-caribbean-region-by-peterson-et-al-2002%e2%80%9d-by-rj-stone/</a> to your list. IMO Dr. Stone presetns a wellwritten case and is refused for not doing someone else&#8217;s work. T&#8217;is strange.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Niche Modeling &#187; Errors Adding Up</title>
		<link>http://landshape.org/enm/discredited-agw/#comment-1732</link>
		<dc:creator>Niche Modeling &#187; Errors Adding Up</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 04 Aug 2009 07:35:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://landshape.org/enm/?page_id=2750#comment-1732</guid>
		<description>[...] Niche ModelingAbout the AuthorContact Dr StockwellDiscredited AGWENM and Audit R [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Niche ModelingAbout the AuthorContact Dr StockwellDiscredited AGWENM and Audit R [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Niche Modeling &#187; Weekly Roundup</title>
		<link>http://landshape.org/enm/discredited-agw/#comment-1731</link>
		<dc:creator>Niche Modeling &#187; Weekly Roundup</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 02 Aug 2009 21:18:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://landshape.org/enm/?page_id=2750#comment-1731</guid>
		<description>[...] Niche ModelingAbout the AuthorContact Dr StockwellDiscredited AGWENM and Audit R [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Niche ModelingAbout the AuthorContact Dr StockwellDiscredited AGWENM and Audit R [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

