I am a climate scientist (CV) interested in climate modeling, Earth’s energy budget, emergent properties of complex systems, chaos, statistics, climate-society interaction and quantifying difficult-to-quantify things.
Contact: pbrown at carnegiescience.edu
Advertisements
Good evening Michael:
I have been reading some of your research with great interest. I appreciate your willingness to publish material that doesn’t necessarily comport with the status quo on climate change. I am a big believer in creating a cleaner environment for our future generations but have never felt that climate change was the largest threat to humanity like some politicians like to tell us constantly.
I was recently involved in a discussion about your paper and someone who was very critical of your work said that your results could not be trusted as you are heavily supported by the oil industry.
I was wondering if there was anything you could share with me that would allow me to be able to either understand this or if it is untrue to be able to refute it.
In my industry ( I am the VP of a medical device company), Physicians have to disclose conflicts of interest as well as financial relationships with industry when they publish papers.
I don’t know if that applies to climate science or not but any info you can share with me would be greatly appreciated.
Thank-you for your time.
Enjoy the rest of your weekend.
Joe Salvati
I think you are a fake.
Pingback: Anthropogenic Global Warming: Evidence versus Hyperbole – Public Engaged
In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual.
Galileo Galilei
The ONLY^3 reason RGHE theory even exists is to explain how the average surface (1.5 m above ground) temperature of 288 K/15 C (K-T balance 289 K/16 C) minus 255 K/-18C , the average surface (now ground) temperature w/o an atmosphere (Which is just completely BOGUS!) equals 33 C warmer w/ than w/o atmosphere.
That Δ33 C notion is absolute rubbish and when it flies into the nearest dumpster it hauls RGHE “theory” in right behind it.
The sooner that is realized and accepted the sooner all of us will have to find something better to do with our time and the taxpayers’ money. Maybe that’s what keeps RGHE staggering down the road.
The genesis of RGHE theory is the incorrect notion that the atmosphere warms the surface (and that is NOT the ground). Explaining the mechanism behind this erroneous notion demands some truly contorted physics, thermo and heat transfer, i.e. energy out of nowhere, cold to hot w/o work, perpetual motion.
Is space cold or hot? There are no molecules in space so our common definitions of hot/cold/heat/energy don’t apply.
The temperatures of objects in space, e.g. the Earth, Moon, space station, Mars, Venus, etc. are determined by the radiation flowing past them. In the case of the Earth, the solar irradiance of 1,368 W/m^2 has a Stefan Boltzmann black body equilibrium temperature of 394 K, 121 C, 250 F. That’s hot. Sort of.
https://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2001/ast21mar_1/
But an object’s albedo reflects away some of that energy and reduces that temperature.
The Earth’s albedo reflects away about 30% of the Sun’s 1,368 W/m^2 energy leaving 70% or 958 W/m^2 to “warm” the surface (1.5 m above ground) and at an S-B BB equilibrium temperature of 361 K, 33 C cooler (394-361) than the earth with no atmosphere or albedo.
https://springerplus.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/2193-1801-3-723
The Earth’s albedo/atmosphere doesn’t keep the Earth warm, it keeps the Earth cool.
Bring science, I did. (6,700 views and zero rebuttals.)
http://writerbeat.com/articles/14306-Greenhouse—We-don-t-need-no-stinkin-greenhouse-Warning-science-ahead-
http://writerbeat.com/articles/15582-To-be-33C-or-not-to-be-33C
http://writerbeat.com/articles/16255-Atmospheric-Layers-and-Thermodynamic-Ping-Pong
Nick Schroeder, BSME, PE
“It’s easy to construct a persuasive arguement, it’s much more difficult to figure out the truth…”
The truth can be found out right here, …if you are interested, Patrick
https://sciblogs.co.nz/griffins-gadgets/2017/07/12/climate-sceptic-end-chris-de-freitas-dies/#comment-261280
Here’s also a recent explanatory comment of mine….
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/11/24/can-a-cold-object-warm-a-hot-object/#comment-2685034
I’m hoping this is not too disconcerting for you, Patrick, especially at this time of the year.
This comment I would also wish for you…
http://jennifermarohasy.com/2016/10/wettest-september-record-murray-darling/#comment-582559
Kind regards,
Mack.
Pingback: Eco Feature – December 28th, 2017 – WFHB
Patrick,
I am looking at defining the impact of climate change at a local level. I am interested in global average temperatures only in so far as it gives a feel for the severity of the impact at the local level. For example:
1. Intensity, Frequency and Potential for the Destruction of Human Settlements: Cat 4 and 5 Hurricanes of the Cape Verde Storm System.
2. Disruption of Water Flow Rates in the Major Rivers of the Indian Subcontinent. Impact to viability of the human settlements.
Can we have a chat?
Yours aye
Hugh