There is a new comment on the post "The self-contradictions of Marc Morano".
http://mind.ofdan.ca/?p=2501
Author: ScruffyDan
Comment:
As for your science, yous till have two basic error's.
1) you ignore albedo, as you explain on your site:
<blockquote>the false notion that a radiantly heated white ball will come to a lower temperature than if it were black</blockquote>
Sorry, as any kid who has walked barefoot on a freshly paved road (where the asphalt is still black) or anyone who has sat inside a black car on a hot sunny day, will tell you that is simply not true.
Your explanation attempting to disprove this commonly held notion is equally boneheaded:
<blockquote> If it were the case, one would expect a ball coated with Magnesium Oxide with an albedo of about 0.9 to come to an equilibrium temperature of about -120c in a vacuum bottle sitting in room temperature surroundings</blockquote>
Um, no it wouldn't. Though bravo for making your model planet match of your no atmosphere model, unfortunately the earth does have an atmosphere.
The difference between a ball in a vacuum and a planet is that the ball would be surrounded from a significant source of electromagnetic radiation from all sides, where a planet only has electromagnetic radiation hitting it from the side facing the sun. BIG difference there.
And 2) you ignore the atmosphere entirely, despite your claims to the contrary. As you make abundantly clear on your site, when you state that:
<blockquote>Temp_planet = Temp_sun * squareRoot ( Sun_radius / 2 * Distance )</blockquote>
Exactly which of these variables if affected by the composition of the atmosphere? I certainly can't see any that are affected, therefore by definition your equation completely ignores the atmosphere!
Perhaps the most obvious falsification of your model is Venus. As you point out it is far hotter than it should be based on your equation. Why is this? Could it have something to do with Venus' atmosphere and the greenhouse effect?
<blockquote>That’s the F’n 120 year old Stefan-Boltzmann equation ! That’s the fundamental law of radiant heat transfer . The implication of the fact that Venus is much hotter than it could be from input from the sun is that it must have an internal source of heat . DUH !!!</blockquote>
Nope, it is OBVIOUS that Venus has an internal heat source to explain this high temperature... it's just that no one has found it. Sure that makes sense.
Any attempt at overtunring the 'consensus' on climate science that ignores these two factors, is absurd, and obviously not a proper representation of reality.
The bottom line is that your equation is oversimplified to the point of being useless (in the context of climate).
But if you are so sure of yourself go '<em>journal shopping to find “peers” who are open to your work</em>' and get published. I suggest the journal <em>Energy and Environment</em>, though I doubt even then would publish this garbage.
Like I said earlier it is time for you to put up or shut up. Which should be easy enough given that you claim to be '<em>more or less agreement with 10s of thousands of others</em>'
See all comments on this post here:
http://mind.ofdan.ca/?p=2501#comments
To manage your subscriptions or to block all notifications from this site, click the link below:
http://mind.ofdan.ca/?wp-subscription-manager=1&email=bob%40cosy.com&key=cf28f344812041ce432d029d7cbe9ca5