Bill Ward wrote in
news
On Mon, 01 Oct 2007 17:28:11 +0000, William Asher wrote:

Whata Fool wrote:

snip

First, I am instantly suspicious when I hear you say phrases like:

"The premise is wrong, you can easily work the problem when the
simple truth of nature is known."

That is classic internet kook stuff.

And then it struck me that when you describe what you think is the
fundamental flaw in radiative transfer, it is like you are saying:

(1 + 1) + 2 = 4

and

1 + (1 + 2) = 4

so that this proves addition isn't associative because the
parentheses are in different places. See, you have all the physics
right, essentially, but then form this entirely bizarre conclusion
from it.

Anyway, any time you feel like going through Chandrasekhar's book and
pointing out how he has misunderstood the "simple truth of nature"
that you alone have discovered I am all eyes.

It's not Chandrasekhar's work that's in question, it's the way it's
applied. Since most heat transport through at least the temperate and
tropical troposphere is via poorly understood convection of latent
heat, you need to explain just which model you believe in and why.
Can you describe it in enough detail to be convincing?

Often "truth" is not simple.

The issue was not latent heat transfer or deep convection, the issue was
straight radiative transfer. Anyway, early on in my participation in
this thread I already stated that latent heat was more important in terms
of total heat fluxes. But it is the radiative flux that provides the
driver for climate change. WaFoo has a pet model that he claims explains
what really goes on with radiative transfer and that CO2 actually cools
the troposphere, regardless of what the latent heat flux is doing. I
claim WaFoo's model is non-physical and cannot explain other cases like
what happens on Venus (at that point, all of a sudden, WaFoo lost
interest in explaining physics (lucky for him you are here though eh?)).

As a second part of this discussion on radiative transfer, I have been
asking him or that C-babe dude to explain what part of Chandrasekhar's
work is so wrong it needs a completely different interpretation or
explanation as to physical mechanisms. Neither would do it, instead
displaying a complete lack of understanding of logic and asking me to
prove a theory was true. snort Now you are obfuscating the issue by
bringing in latent heat transport, which is a separate matter from
radiative transfer. Do you want to take a stab at explaining the
problems with radiative transfer theory in its currently accepted form?
Or are you going to waffle and dodge like Wa-C-Foo-babe and tell me I
don't understand it (which is irrelevant really, since all I am claiming
is that it is correct)? So, clearly, you must also think radiative
transfer is wrong or you wouldn't be trying to save WaFoo's bacon with
the misdirection, point out the equations in the radiative transfer that
are wrong, and why. Then we can go on to your likely completely bizarre
and erroneous interpretation of how latent heat transfer and deep
convection occur. But first things first.

--
Bill Asher