On Tuesday, May 24, 2016 at 4:41:12 PM UTC+1, Stephen Davenport wrote:
On Tuesday, May 24, 2016 at 11:29:03 AM UTC-4, Alastair wrote:
On Tuesday, May 24, 2016 at 11:57:50 AM UTC+1, Lawrence Jenkins wrote:
On Monday, 23 May 2016 22:05:30 UTC+1, Sir Jim Cannon wrote:
The Brittish naturists health has really suffered suince he came out against the global warming frausdters 3 years ago. Lets HOPE hes made of sterner stuff
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kuYEJTtbG94
I've looked and can find no reference anywhere to Bellamy's health. He does have a website which is co-run by him and Dr jack Barrett
Jack Barrett is a PhD, not a medical doctor. He was the author of an early sceptic paper which is essentially correct!
Barrett (1995) http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...4853994E0110Va
Both Sir John Houghton and Keith P. Shine replied but their objections were mainly appeals to authority. More correspondence followed which the editor finally ended siding with Barrett. It was the editor's opinion which stopped me rejecting the paper out of hand, as Houghton and Shine had done.
Of course, that paper is not the whole story because CO2 is causing global warming, but it does show that the computer models are fatally flawed.
Cheers, Alastair.
========
Your link does not work, I'm afraid.
Which are the authorities to whom Houghton and Shine appeal? Are they fallacious appeals?
What do you mean by the word "fatally"?
Thanks,
Stephen.
Here are the references to the complete story:
Barrett, J. ‘The Roles of Carbon Dioxide and Water Vapour in Warming and Cooling the Earth’s Troposphere’. Spectrochimica Acta Part A: Molecular Spectroscopy 51, no. 3 (1995): 415–417.
Houghton, John. ‘Comment on “The Roles of Carbon Dioxide and Water Vapour in Warming and Cooling the Earth”s Troposphere’ J. Barrett, Spectrochim. Acta Part A, 51 (3) (1995) 415’. Spectrochimica Acta Part A: Molecular and Biomolecular Spectroscopy 51, no. 8 (July 1995): 1391–92. doi:10.1016/0584-8539(95)01485-3.
Shine, Keith P. ‘Comment on “The Roles of Carbon Dioxide and Water Vapour in Warming and Cooling the Earth”s Troposphere’ J. Barrett, Spectrochim. Acta Part A, 51 (3) (1995) 415’. Spectrochimica Acta Part A: Molecular and Biomolecular Spectroscopy 51, no. 8 (July 1995): 1393–94. doi:10.1016/0584-8539(95)01486-1.
Barrett, Jack. ‘Reply to Comments by Sir John Houghton and Keith P. Shine on “The Roles of Carbon Dioxide and Water Vapour in Warming and Cooling the Earth”s Troposphere’ J. Barrett, Spectrochim. Acta Part A, 51 (3) (1995) 415’. Spectrochimica Acta Part A: Molecular and Biomolecular Spectroscopy 51, no. 8 (July 1995): 1395. doi:10.1016/0584-8539(95)01487-X.
Braterman, P. ‘The Role of Carbon Dioxide and Water Vapour in Climate: An Unnecessary Controversy’. Spectrochimica Acta Part A: Molecular Spectroscopy 52 (1996): 1565–1566.
Barrett, Jack. ‘Reply to Comment on “The Role of Carbon Dioxide and Water Vapour in Climate”’. Spectrochimica Acta Part A: Molecular and Biomolecular Spectroscopy 52, no. 11 (October 1996): 1567–68. doi:10.1016/0584-8539(96)01729-1.
Courtney, R. ‘The Role of Carbon Dioxide and Water Vapour in Climate’. Spectrochimica Acta Part A: Molecular Spectroscopy 53 (1997): 1601–1602.
‘Editor’s Reply’. Spectrochimica Acta Part A: Molecular and Biomolecular Spectroscopy 53, no. 10 (September 1997): 1603. doi:10.1016/S1386-1425(97)00115-7.
It is a while since I read these papers so my summary above was a bit crude, But Houghton's third paragraph is an appeal to the authority of the text books without answering Barrett's objections. Keith Shine appeals to LTE to explain everything, but does not explain what it is. In fact it describes the flow of radiation in the Sun, where the heat generated at the centre has to get out. On planets there is no net heat being generated at the base of the atmosphere, so there no net flow of heat from the base to the top of the atmosphere to balance the incoming radiation. [but that is not obvious.]
The models are fatally flawed because the radiation emitted by the surface is totally absorbed near the surface (in the boundary layer) as Barrett points out. So increasing CO2 does not affect the radiation out to space. The idea the the emission height of the radiation to space changes only makes sense if you believe that the surface temperature does affect the outgoing long wave radiation.
Note Shine argues that they don't use blackbody radiation theory. They use Planck's function. But that is the blackbody function B(T).
You can see similar arguments on my poster
http://presentations.copernicus.org/...esentation.pdf
Cheers, Alastair.