jump to navigation

Excerpts from a scientific paper by Dr Martin Hertzberg September 10, 2009

Posted by honestclimate in Discussions.
Tags: , ,
trackback

Excerpts from a scientific paper by Dr Martin Hertzberg

By Dr Martin Hertzberg
Via ICECAP

Martin Hertzberg 2009, “Earth’s radiative equilibrium in the solar irradiance”, Energy & Environment v.20 no.1&2, pp.85-96 (Special double-issue: Natural drivers of weather and climate, 278p.)

“Many interacting regions, both homogeneous and heterogeneous, are involved in the complex radiative balance. Unverified models do not realistically represent that balance, and it would be absurd to base public policy decisions on them.

“… the controlling factor in determining the average temperature of the Earth is its absorptivity to emissivity ratio.

Even for those portions of Earth that are not covered with clouds, the assumption that the ocean surface, land surfaces, or ice and snow cover would all have blackbody emissivities of unity, is unreasonable.

It is certainly true that in the absence of an atmosphere, temperatures would drop drastically at night as the darkened portions of Earth lost infrared energy by radiation to Space; however, with all the incoming solar radiation being concentrated on the daytime half of the surface, daytime temperatures would rise as drastically as the night time temperatures would fall.

If the near-surface air temperature is not representative, is it realistically possible to measure the average temperature of the entire mass of absorbing and emitting entities with sufficient accuracy to make a meaningful comparison between the data and the predictions?

How high in altitude should one go in the atmosphere to include it all?

Similarly, how deep in the liquid fluid of the oceans should one go in order to include the mass below the ocean surface that influences the heat and mass transport processes near the ocean surface and in the atmosphere above it?”

“… looking at the problem in depth, it may be more realistic to conclude that its resolution may be unattainable given our limited understanding of the complex processes involved, and the lack of data available for the current thermodynamic state of those entities.

The heat and mass transport from that enormous ocean reservoir to the atmosphere are the dominant factors in determining temperatures and weather conditions over the entire globe.

It is implausible to expect that small changes in the concentration of any minor atmospheric constituent such as carbon dioxide, can significantly influence that radiative equilibrium.

Further quotes by this accomplished research scientist:

“In 1994 I tried to get an analysis of the then prevalent state of climate science published in Nature and Science, but they weren’t interested. I even sent a copy of it with a long letter to Burt Bolin, who was then chair of the IPCC. He replied to the effect that who was I to challenge the decades of work of so many distinguished scientists. He also argued that I was being disrespectful by referring to the some of the theories of the global warming advocates as “catechisms”.  After studying the issue more carefully and reading the well researched papers of the skeptics/realists, I now think that the AGW arguments do not deserve to be referred to as either “theories” or “catechisms”. In reality, they are elaborate hoaxes.”

“I tried explaining to [those] Senators that in order for them to accept the Gore-IPCC-Hansen theory as valid, they will first have to repeal the Second Law of Thermodynamics!”

Compiled by Hans Schreuder, 7 September 2009

Comments»

1. John K. Oswald, Esq. - September 10, 2009

Dogma is more like it.

2. Mack Thrasher - September 10, 2009

In my opinion Mr Hansen is out of touch with reality, and i have reminded him on a regular basis over the last 6 years that time would prove him wrong. Mr Gore is just Hansens wind up toy for the promotion of climate alarmism for profit. The climate alarmism house of cards is about to fall, as we appear to be in for at least ten more years of cooling due to the inactivity of our sun. The sad thing is billions of our tax dollars have been wasted on this nonsense, money that could have been used to improve health care and feed the less fortunate. This whole notion of humans causing climate change is the biggest fraud in the history of the planet and i hope those responsible pay dearly.

3. Interglacial John - September 10, 2009

God i love logic! Of course the personal attacks on Dr Hertzberg will come fast and furious now, but I believe the flat earthers (AGW’s) are getting a bit overwhelmed. Their cries are growing ever more shrill as the planet and heads cool a bit.

4. Bob Armstrong - September 10, 2009

Exactly ! The overwhelming effect of the atmosphere is to reduce the variance , not affect the mean , of our temperature .

I’ve been implementing the essential Stefan-Boltzmann/Kirchhoff equation on my website in a modern array programming language in which the code is as succinct as the formulas in a textbook . It’s kindly been translated into a couple of more accessible array languages .

As I have time , I’m implementing the full spectrum case which will allow quantitative values for any spectral distribution and put some solid numbers on just how much effect on our temperature any “greenhouse” gas can produce , “runaways” and “feedbacks” not withstanding .

Great to see Hertzberg’s work .


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: