Physics of the atmospheric greenhouse(?) effect

Sam Wormley

unread,

May 23, 2013, 11:44:07 AM5/23/13

to

Physics of the atmospheric greenhouse(?) effect
> http://judithcurry.com/2010/11/30/physics-of-the-atmospheric-greenhouse-effect/

> There is a big gap between the simple explanations and the radiative
> transfer texts. The blogosphere has stepped in to fill the gap.
> Good explanations that I have come across are:
>

1. Science of Doom
> http://scienceofdoom.com/roadmap/co2/

2. Real Climate
> http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/07/a-simple-recipe-for-ghe/

3. Chris Colose
> http://chriscolose.wordpress.com/2008/03/10/physics-of-the-greenhouse-effect-pt-2/

4. Skeptical Science
> http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php?a=164

Sam Wormley

unread,

May 23, 2013, 12:02:23 PM5/23/13

to

On 5/23/13 10:44 AM, Sam Wormley wrote:
> Physics of the atmospheric greenhouse(?) effect
>> http://judithcurry.com/2010/11/30/physics-of-the-atmospheric-greenhouse-effect/
>>
>
>> There is a big gap between the simple explanations and the radiative
>> transfer texts. The blogosphere has stepped in to fill the gap.
>> Good explanations that I have come across are:
>>
>
> 1. Science of Doom
>> http://scienceofdoom.com/roadmap/co2/
>
> 2. Real Climate
>> http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/07/a-simple-recipe-for-ghe/
>>
>
> 3. Chris Colose
>> http://chriscolose.wordpress.com/2008/03/10/physics-of-the-greenhouse-effect-pt-2/

>> http://climatephys.org/ <=== ADDED

benj

unread,

May 23, 2013, 5:03:32 PM5/23/13

to

On Thu, 23 May 2013 10:44:07 -0500, Sam Wormley wrote:

> Physics of the atmospheric greenhouse(?) effect

>> Good explanations that I have come across are:
>>
>>
> 1. Science of Doom

>

> 2. Real Climate

>
> 3. Chris Colose

>
> 4. Skeptical Science

In other words Sam picks all the usual paid propaganda sites. No actual
science anywhere in site. Thump your bible Sammy!

Poutnik

unread,

May 23, 2013, 5:59:58 PM5/23/13

to

benj posted Thu, 23 May 2013 21:03:32 GMT

> In other words Sam picks all the usual paid propaganda sites. No actual
> science anywhere in site. Thump your bible Sammy!

Why do not you mention anti GW propaganda ?
There is much more business interest in denying of GW.

--
Poutnik

7

unread,

May 23, 2013, 6:46:12 PM5/23/13

to

Sam Wormley wrote:

> Physics of the atmospheric greenhouse(?) effect
>> http://judithcurry.com/2010/11/30/physics-of-the-atmospheric-greenhouse-
effect/
>
>> There is a big gap between the simple explanations

And the simplest of all explanations is that climate trolls and
their junk spewdo science is based on narrow band absorption
spectrums being stretched to infinity to arbitrarily demonize life saving
atmospheric supplies of CO2 and methane in favour of solar farms.

Despite the junk status of their spewdo science, with every single
claim being contested and retracted over the years, they
still get massive funding from the illegal specific routing
of finances from green companies to specific junk climate spewdo science.

benj

unread,

May 24, 2013, 1:30:12 AM5/24/13

to

Nonsense. When is there no business interest in collecting vast sums of
money? And quite frankly, speaking as someone who as seen the actual
data for many of these issues, I've seen VERY little anti-GW propaganda.
Mostly the people causing the GW problems (like loaning third world
countries vast sums of money which they waste and then cutting down their
rain forests to pay off the loans) don't bother with coverups. They own
the media so it says what they want. Hence they cause climate change with
their greed and then blame everyone else who uses energy for their own
crimes. Sweet deal, no?

Poutnik

unread,

May 25, 2013, 5:57:11 AM5/25/13

to

benj posted Fri, 24 May 2013 05:30:12 GMT

>
> On Thu, 23 May 2013 23:59:58 +0200, Poutnik wrote:
>
> > benj posted Thu, 23 May 2013 21:03:32 GMT
> >
> >
> >> In other words Sam picks all the usual paid propaganda sites. No actual
> >> science anywhere in site. Thump your bible Sammy!
> >
> > Why do not you mention anti GW propaganda ?
> > There is much more business interest in denying of GW.
>
> Nonsense. When is there no business interest in collecting vast sums of
> money?

There is interest, and the reason why oil, coal and car industry
sponsort anti GW propaganda. They can loose huge amount of money.

> And quite frankly, speaking as someone who as seen the actual
> data for many of these issues, I've seen VERY little anti-GW propaganda.

Our former President Vaclav Klaus, succsessor of Vaclav Havel,
was well known from anti GW propaganda. And former, most of policitians,
until the pressure forced than to admit it is really a problem.

Addressing steps leading to decrease emission,
would cost much money or the profit of oil, coal and car industry.

> Mostly the people causing the GW problems (like loaning third world
> countries vast sums of money which they waste and then cutting down their
> rain forests to pay off the loans) don't bother with coverups. They own
> the media so it says what they want. Hence they cause climate change with
> their greed and then blame everyone else who uses energy for their own
> crimes. Sweet deal, no?

Greed of exploatation is closely connected to to greed of big industria
companies, not interested in chnaging anything.

--
Poutnik

Wally W.

unread,

May 25, 2013, 7:35:47 AM5/25/13

to

On Sat, 25 May 2013 11:57:11 +0200, Poutnik wrote:

>
>benj posted Fri, 24 May 2013 05:30:12 GMT

>> Mostly the people causing the GW problems (like loaning third world
>> countries vast sums of money which they waste and then cutting down their
>> rain forests to pay off the loans) don't bother with coverups. They own
>> the media so it says what they want. Hence they cause climate change with
>> their greed and then blame everyone else who uses energy for their own
>> crimes. Sweet deal, no?
>
>Greed of exploatation is closely connected to to greed of big industria
>companies, not interested in chnaging anything.

Big industrial companies are interested in changing things that will
improve their profits.

They are not interested in pissing money away to "solve" the
non-existent problem of emitting "greenhouse gases."

Policies, or religions, built on the premise that a "greenhouse
effect" exists are misguided.

<http://johnosullivan.wordpress.com/2012/10/22/industry-radiation-experts-call-it-greenhouse-gas-theory-debunked/>

Wally W.

unread,

May 25, 2013, 7:36:25 AM5/25/13

to

On Thu, 23 May 2013 10:44:07 -0500, Sam Wormley wrote:

Provide a convincing quote from any of your links.

Poutnik

unread,

May 25, 2013, 7:42:18 AM5/25/13

to

Wally W. posted Sat, 25 May 2013 07:35:47 -0400

>
> On Sat, 25 May 2013 11:57:11 +0200, Poutnik wrote:
>
> >
> >benj posted Fri, 24 May 2013 05:30:12 GMT
> >> Mostly the people causing the GW problems (like loaning third world
> >> countries vast sums of money which they waste and then cutting down their
> >> rain forests to pay off the loans) don't bother with coverups. They own
> >> the media so it says what they want. Hence they cause climate change with
> >> their greed and then blame everyone else who uses energy for their own
> >> crimes. Sweet deal, no?
> >
> >Greed of exploatation is closely connected to to greed of big industria
> >companies, not interested in chnaging anything.
>
> Big industrial companies are interested in changing things that will
> improve their profits.
>
> They are not interested in pissing money away to "solve" the
> non-existent problem of emitting "greenhouse gases."

The way how to do that is to claim them as non existing.
It will safe their profits very much.

--
Poutnik

Wally W.

unread,

May 25, 2013, 7:53:17 AM5/25/13

to

Acting rationally usually is better for profits.

What do you propose to tax if they don't make a profit?

Do warmophobes want to eat the seed corn?

Poutnik

unread,

May 25, 2013, 8:03:49 AM5/25/13

to

Wally W. posted Sat, 25 May 2013 07:53:17 -0400

> Acting rationally usually is better for profits.

Your profit or profit of your children and grandchildren ?
As maximizing one is not maximizing the other.

I am not going to get involved to usual AGW wars.
This is SP, not AGW.

--
Poutnik

Poutnik

unread,

May 25, 2013, 8:08:27 AM5/25/13

to

Wally W. posted Sat, 25 May 2013 07:53:17 -0400

>
> Acting rationally usually is better for profits.

Physical gas properties are profit independent.

--
Poutnik

benj

unread,

May 25, 2013, 1:11:42 PM5/25/13

to

He can't Wally, because they are all paid propaganda outfits. They are
all paid to make up lies and try to convince the public they are
"science". Sam isn't even competent enough to even be allowed to make up
lies. He's only allowed to quote them. So don't expect any understanding
there.