What happened? Palo Alto Issues, posted by Walter_E_Wallis, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Jul 29, 2011 at 7:46 am Walter_E_Wallis is a member (registered user) of Palo Alto Online
What happened to the entry here about NASA discovering that heat radiated by the earth is much more than "predicted" by Hansen's little black box? This data essentially disproved ALL the Global Warming theories and the anti CO2 BS that has trebled our energy costs in recent years. All the anti-CO2 regulations are at least unnecessary and likely very harmful in their impact on energy availability and cost.
Posted by An Engineer, a resident of the Downtown North neighborhood, on Jul 29, 2011 at 10:01 am
"What happened to the entry here about NASA discovering that heat radiated by the earth is much more than "predicted" by Hansen's little black box?"
Too bad you evidently know nothing about Hansen and his work. Hansen bases his conclusions on paleoclimate records, not computer models. In fact, he firmly cautions against reliance on computer models.
Too bad you evidently know nothing about radiometry. For the education of anyone else reading this thread, a radiometer measures the temperature of the emitter it's pointed at using its blackbody radiation flux. For example, Smoot and his colleagues discovered the non-uniformity of the cosmic microwave background using an orbiting radiometer.
Since Spencer's radiometer says atmosphere is hotter than expected, then, because its blackbody radiation is isotropic, the atmosphere is sending more heat than expected downward toward the earth as well as into space. Spencer's data actually supports global warming.
Forbes needs to stick to what it does best -- fawning over the wealthy -- and leave science to those who understand it.
Posted by An Engineer, a resident of the Downtown North neighborhood, on Jul 29, 2011 at 12:15 pm
"Somewhere in his blather, there might have been such a caution, but most of is alarm was computer generated; generated with a Black Box."
You'll find that caution throughout Hanson's publications. I'd suggest you read the versions in his book "Storms of my Grandchildren." Don't worry; it uses small words and contains no math.
"The isotropicism is of little concern since the average heat from all quadrants of space except directly solward is negligible."
For the benefit of both other readers of this thread, I'll point out that this comment demonstrates you have no understanding whatsoever of the greenhouse phenomenon. The roughly half of the isotropic (omni-directional) blackbody radiation flux originating in the atmosphere that happens to travel downward toward the earth's surface is what causes greenhouse heating.
But thanks for prompting the Forbes reference. I urge educatable readers to go to John's link, follow the link in the Forbes article to Spencer's original paper in the journal Remote Sensing, and read the actual paper instead of parroting moronic misrepresentations from the billionaires' equivalent of People Magazine.
These reports can be read by those interested in the debate. It is not a settled issue, and probably won't be a for a long time. However, it should not have been censored by the Weekly...that is horrible journalism.
Posted by VoxPop, a resident of the Old Palo Alto neighborhood, on Jul 29, 2011 at 12:49 pm
"that is horrible journalism" -- the Forum is not journalism, it is a forum for people to discuss things. The Weekly is the host of the forum and, as such, has the right to moderate the contents of the posts thereto in any way it sees fit. This statement is reflective of a general misunderstanding of online forums that seems to permeate this particular one.
Posted by John, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Jul 29, 2011 at 1:23 pm
When the Weekly arbitrarily removes a rational post (no bad language, and a point of view that is rational), then it is censorship. For better or worse, this forum has become the town hall of Palo Alto. The Weekly uses this forum to publish its news stories. It is very much the journalsim of the future (ask Bill Johnson!). Such egregious censorship does not belong here.
Posted by An Engineer, a resident of the Downtown North neighborhood, on Jul 29, 2011 at 3:08 pm
In the actual practice of science (as opposed to the prejudiced metapractice usually encountered in popular blogs like this), one reads and evaluates the actual original publication. Commentaries by advocacy groups (or totally scientifically ignorant ones like Forbes) are not a substitute. That's why the once pre-eminent USA is becoming the joke of the scientific world, which accepted anthropogenic global warming as an established scientific truth long ago.
But, hey, thanks again for publishing the reference.
For the possibly confused wannabe scientists out there, the direct link to the paper in question is: Web Link. I wish you a good read and a productive education. To peruse more real science, try Web Link.
Posted by VoxPop, a resident of the Old Palo Alto neighborhood, on Jul 29, 2011 at 3:10 pm
It is a place for people to have discussions...it is not journalism. Those who own the place set the rules, not the people who post comments. Journalism involves investigation of a subject and reporting on it with some sense of thoroughness, fairness, and balance.
Commenting on a forum is just trying to have a conversation. If you're in my house and I don't like what you're talking about, I can ask you to stop, and if you don't, I can throw you out. Same here; it's the Weekly's house.
Put another way, the Weekly ALLOWS you to post under certain circumstances, all of which are under their control. The forum is no different than the Letters to the Editor columns, which are edited all the time in all newspapers and magazines. The difference is that this can seem like a conversation because you can reply to a comment in what seems like real time.
Posted by John, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Jul 29, 2011 at 3:43 pm
I can accept your criticism of the original paper, of course. I am not a scientist, although I did take a number of physics and engineering classes in college, and I must admit that I am confused by the various "forcing" issues in the atmosphere, including complex cloud cover issues, infrared radiation escape, deep mixing of ocean layers, etc. You seem to have it figured out, because you are an engineer. I suppose I should trust you, but I don't. I also don't trust the skeptics. I continue to be perplexed by the issues. However, if you are convinced, then I am convinced that you are convinced.
This forum has become, over time, the news and editorial lead of the Weekly. It is no longer a mere conversation, like many blogs are. It captures the eyeballs, becasue it is the new version of the Weekly. Rank censorship does not belong here. If it continues, there will be a lot fewer eyeballs (thus less advertisement revenues).
Posted by John, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Jul 29, 2011 at 4:40 pm
I think I got the definition of a forcing effect in my physics class in high school. However, As I progressed through physics classes in college, using differential equations to solve various physics problems, I learned about the underlying assumptions. This is where science becomes partiularly interesting, at least to me.
I am perplexed about cloud cover issues, in particular. Infrared radiation (long wave...heat) has a focing effect on cloud formation, and weather patterns that include very complex 'holes' in the atmosphere to release IFR, or at least it should. However, I am not aware of a model that predicts what it should be (then confirmed by real data)...just many assumptions. Perhaps you have a clear answer to my question. I am still perplexed, even though you, as an engineer, appear to be quite confident. Perhaps you can explain the true model to us?
Posted by Bill Johnson, publisher of the Palo Alto Weekly, on Jul 29, 2011 at 5:18 pm Bill Johnson is a member (registered user) of Palo Alto Online
The topic was removed because it was posted by an out-of-town poster, "food for thought," who repeatedly posts long, generally inflammatory items on many websites around the country. We remove all of his posts, as we do anyone who we determine is out of the area and attempting to use local forums to advance their political agendas, regardless of his or her particular slant.
Posted by Walter_E_Wallis, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Aug 1, 2011 at 1:39 pm Walter_E_Wallis is a member (registered user) of Palo Alto Online
"An Engineer" says "...That's why the once pre-eminent USA is becoming the joke of the scientific world, which accepted anthropogenic global warming as an established scientific truth long ago."
And I, a ME and EE, [Two Engineers] enjoy the scurrying of rats trying to hide from revealed truth with high sounding rhetoric. More heat is escaping from the atmosphere than was predicted by Hansen's and other black boxes, in spite of the nudges given the input data to influence the output. This is what happens when the experimenter has an interest in the outcome. This is scientists lying "for the public good" as in "The coming ice age" and "Nuclear winter" and "The hockey stick".
In simple terms, the world is the temperature it is because it wants to be that temperature, and man's contribution to atmospheric gases is miniscule compare to that of volcanoes and the oceans. We have been conned into spending trillions of dollars to avoid a doomsday that wasn't. Some have profited immensely from this scam. Perhaps even "an Engineer?"
Posted by truth?, a resident of the Meadow Park neighborhood, on Aug 1, 2011 at 1:48 pm
Some of us did not know the possible truth.
I was in a biggest polluted city this year.I was amazed by what i saw,this year, 1 out of 3 days i saw the clear blue sky,it was amazing to see that. I remember 3 years ago, I stay there for more than one month, i had not seen a single day went by like this,now we will know why this earth has healed by itsself,if we can stop it just in time.