Thanks Bob. I am copying a few others who may be interested. I appreciate the comments and I will take a look at your site.

 

 

 

 

Marc ,

It was nice to be able to at least shake hands at the end of the WDC conference . I just was watching a program on network structures , 6 degrees of freedom stuff , on the Science channel . The great majority of paths go thru a small number of hubs . Apparently they have an equation for the statistics of the topology but they only flashed it for a moment ..

Climate Depot has quickly become a very important hub . It is freqing them out .  I've been spending too much time taking the battle to various blogs you headline . I just vastly upgraded my Forum to better use it as a blog on which to archive my posts some of which usefully flesh out various issues .

My particular talent is physics . I can't leave a question alone until I get to as fundamental understanding of it as I can . And that means math - which notates physics . But it has to be really simple for me to get my head around it . That means , let me understand the classical first . That's what defines the null hypothesis .

That fundamental theory is Gustav Kirchhoff's brilliant insight , 150 years ago this year , that the  tendency for an object to emit radiation at a given temperature is identical to its tendency to absorb , combined with the ~120 year old Stefan-Boltzmann law that the power radiated by a body is proportional to its temperature raised to the 4th power . . That's it . That's the whole thing . The rest is geometry .

The crudest application of this relationship predicts objects in our orbit will be about 1/21 the temperature of the Sun . And we are . In fact , the notion of a temperature "runaway" as claimed for Venus is provably nuts .

Oddly , so far as I can tell , this foundational physics  seems ignored on both sides of the debate . When have you ever heard any classic , quantitative , confirmed  statement of the relationship of our temperature , indeed , Mercury and Mars's also , to that of the Sun ? Even on the realist side , the discussion always sounds like the Sun is just another "forcing" whose effect is still open to question  . I was astounded to hear Monckton say Stefan-Boltzmann was never even mentioned in the IPCC report .

So , I'm looking for some peer review . ( Someone please pass this on to Willie Soon , I don't seem to have have his address . The basic relationship should be able to be found in a peri/aphelion effect of about 1% in the temperature record . )

I really want to extend the algorithm to handle full spectra so the quantitative effect of , eg , changes of saturation of CO2's lines , can be calculated .

But the Dow went up about 300 points while I've been writing this , and must turn to my fiduciary responsibilities .

I'd greatly appreciate feedback on my Planetary Temperature page , especially suggestions on points which need to be clarified , or arguments as to why the equation doesn't apply to earth ( despite the fact that it clearly does ) .

Join the Forum and post any questions .

Thanks ,

Peace thru Freedom ,

Bob Armstrong -- CoSy.com -- 719-337-2733