Scientific debates can be divided into
- those that are empirical observations in which
statistical differences are argued over
- "hard science" issues in which the predictions of simply
expressible ( in an adequate notation
) relations are considered to be truths with essentially infinite
precision . Newton's laws , as emended by Einstein , or Maxwell's , or
Stefan-Boltzmann's law that radiated power is proportional to the 4th
power of the temperature of a body are examples of the latter .
The issue here is of this latter sort . Below are 2 extended comments
NPR censored from their 13.7
by University of Rochester astrophysics professor Adam Frank .
They directly request peer review
from the Dr Frank of my quantitative explication
of classical physics showing the impossibility of Venus's extreme
surface temperature being explained as a spectral , greenhouse
, effect . Surely any errors in these basic experimentally
testable computations should be easy for a professional PhD in the
point out and provide the correct equations .
more than silence , censorship screams they cannot .
They can only
word-wave that their explanations are qualitatively in the direction
they claim :
I believe my comments are no more snarky
than many of the other comments or the article itself which is implicitly a trashing
of all the honorable individuals battling the global statist nonscience
Censored comments on
I had higher priorities the last couple of days , but I might as well
respond to your comment as any of the other ones .
As an example of how archaic the notion of pal review
is , I noticed that the author of this piece , Adam Frank , is a
professor of astrophysics at U of Rochester and so surely should be
qualified to either point out the errors in my analysis , or confirm
they are correct . Surely the computation of the temperature of a
radiantly heated uniformly colored ball is a homework level exercise in
the astrophysics curriculum . Back in the early `80s , when I was
consulting at Xerox , I attended a lot of the visual psychophysics and
computer science colloquia at U of R . The vision group was
historically one of the best in the world because of Kodak and , later
, Xerox . I actually was invited to sit in on a computer science PhD
candidate's defense because it made comparisons to neural processes . I
remember I asked a question more or less about the number of neural
elements he was positing and was satisfied with answer .
So , Adam is the ultimate person to either confirm the
classical physics I present , or give us the correct computations .
These computations , I cannot overemphasize , are rather easily
experimentally verifiable .
Surely Adam can spend the 12 minutes to watch my presentation
at http://climateconferences.hear... , and also the
Q&A at https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
which answers some additional points . Beyond that , the entire history
of my diversion into this problem due to the pathetic and stagnate
state of understanding of essential math and physics I saw in these
blog battles is on my website at http://cosy.com/Science/warm.h...
. And , of course I welcome any questions or clarifications of any
points he wishes .
I would emphasize also that the crux he ( and James Hansen ,
and Pierrehumbert , and ... ) face is , given that the spectrum of
Venus as seen from the outside is not even on the same continent with
what would be required for its internal temperature to be 225% the gray
body temperature in its orbit , How does he overcome the divergence
theorem which requires the internal energy density to equal that
computed for its surface ?
I had no good answer until a discussion at http://wattsupwiththat.com/201... finally got thru
to me that the answer is gravity , NOT a spectral greenhouse
I happened to meet Alan Guth when he gave a talk at the New
York Academy of Sciences . Adam would know him as one of the prime
authors of the inflationary universe theory . His talk and our
conversation were not about that , but it did induce me to buy his book
Alan has a brief appendix explaining why gravity computes as a
negative energy . It is only gravity which explains why equilibrium
temperature increase as one descends into the atmosphere and , in fact
, any gravitational body , and satisfies the requirement of the
divergence theorem . I never recognized the deep relationship between
equilibrium temperatures and gravity before - I always thought of it as
a dynamic effect which would dissipate , but as the references in the
comment on WUWT cited show , the computations are rather simple , as
one would expect , and match the observations on various planets quite
So , I request the courtesy of a peer review by Dr
Frank of my computations . By implication , when he lauds James
Hansen's and others' claims that Venus is a "runaway" , he is dissing
many many people I know to be among the most honorable and accomplished
individuals I have ever met .
While at the same time climate science bounces along
from one scandal and failure to the next , desperately clinging to its
billions of dollars of government enforced cash flows .
Even silence will speak volumes .
I appreciate and respect your watching my Heartland
presentation and evaluating it rather than as so common with
AlGoreWarming cultists just spouting ad hominems and rejecting any
input other than their absurdly inflated "consensus" .
To say I'm not yet a physicist is being kind . You can
see more detail about my path at http://www.cosy.com/BobA/vita....
. But , I've ended up living an adult life with APL , evolved from the
notation for multidimensional ( matrix ) algebra at my fingertips and a
sufficient understanding of functional analysis to be able to read
Griffiths excellent texts ( I moved on to his Quantum ) and not be lost
The point about the first 2%3 of Griffiths E&M text being
on statics is that you've got to understand statics before even
contemplating dynamics . But I see no evidence that the journeyman
"climate scientist" has anywhere near that background in
"thermostatics" . I mean it quite literally when I say there is little
evidence that many of them know how to calculate the temperature of a
radiantly heated colored ball . They certainly don't seem to understand
the notion of orthogonal function decomposition or they wouldn't keep
parroting the "33c" warming meme rather than starting from the
computationally useful 279k gray body temperature in our orbit .
I would ask you how many of the people reading this blog know
what a dot product is . I'd love to give a course on the meanings of
the dot product , but for these purposes , it's the computation which
counts . The point of the notation is several-fold : It is the
executable notation I have at my fingertips ; it permits all the
computations to be completely presented on the slides ; it is ( 32 bit
) freely downloadable so anyone can replicate them . The importance of
APL notations is still all too little appreciated even a half a century
after Ken Iverson's original work . My friend Morten Kromberg gives an
excellent Google Tech Talk on a fully modern APL at https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
. I'm quite impressed that Roy Spencer's recent rewrite of the RSS
satellite data analysis is under 10,000 lines of FORTRAN . I strongly
contend that it would not be more than a couple of hundred lines of
well factored APL -- and therefore far more understandable .
Stefan-Boltzmann gets you the gray body temperature given the
total energy impinging on a point in our orbit . It is the ratio of the
dot products of source and object spectra which gives you the
difference from that temperature for colored balls . These are the
computations , the experimental validation of which would make a gang
busters science project .
It was ridiculously hard to figure this out because I know of
no explication of it on any supposed presentation of the "greenhouse
effect" -- just the endless parroting of the "255K" , "33c" meme .
Responding to Joey N's comment , the computation leading to the 255K
number is given by on this slide : http://cosy.com/Science/AGWppt... . Since the
actual Top of Atmosphere spectrum is measured , there is no value to
that crude hypothesis and it is too crude to be of value when
discussing a 4th decimal place phenomenon like the total variation in
temperature we have experienced since the Little Ice Age .
Again , our surface temperature is about 3% warmer , 288K ,
than the 279K of a gray body in our orbit . That could conceivably be
due to our ToA spectrum -- but that apparently is in the wrong
direction -- toward the 255K value . Venus's surface temperature , on
the other hand is 225% the gray body temperature in its obit . The most
sophisticated material humanity has yet created , TiNOX does not quite
exhibit that high a solar heat gain . Given its extraordinarily high
albedo with respect to the Sun , Venus would have to be an order of
magnitude even more reflective in the IR than TiNOX , and nothing is .
The temperature of Venus cannot be explained any sort of spectral
effect . If you claim it can , show me your equations and I will
implement them . I have a standing offer of $2250 ( I have no
income so that's the most I can afford ) If indeed they work
out and can be experimentally verified .
If I get a little personal in my attacks on the alarmist cult
, like calling James Hansen a charlatan , I'm sorry but continually
being called a denier and generally denigrated in articles like this
one perhaps makes me more than a little irritated .
you see my work as being useful to you in the largest sense , your support would be most helpful .
If you have any projects you would care to emphasize
, let me know .
If you have any product notions which could use my tek , let's meet .