Understanding that climate change is NORMAL.

An international multidisciplinary conference to be held in London, UK September 8-9, 2016 organized by The Independent Committee in Geoethics. The event takes place in the Main Hall of Conway Hall at Red Lion Square (Holborn) in central London.

Speakers include many leading climate scientists including Nils-Axel Morner, Nicola Scafetta, Piers Corbyn, Thomas Wysmuller, Madhav Khandeka, and Christopher Monckton of Benchley.

Register for free by informing Nils-Axel Morner at morner@pog.nu.

Voluntary donations to offset the cost of the conference are being accepted by the Secretary General (morner@pog.nu) via bank transfer, PayPal, or at the conference.

Extended abstracts of talks plus commentary notes available here.

For more information, go to

https://geoethic.com/london-conference-2016/.

excellent:-) I hope some items/articles might follow Robert?

There is a major problem with many sceptics and that is they refuse to discuss the validity of the greenhouse effect.

Worse, they fabricate “sciency” sounding thought bubbles and claim these “prove” the “greenhouse effect”.

Roy Spencer is a supposed sceptic who defends the “greenhouse effect” vigorously .

On his site he recently published an Excel spreadsheet he programmed to “prove” the “greenhouse effect”.

The problem with this is all the acolytes simply adore this “proof” and laud praise on the “creator” and heap scorn on any who dare criticize it on thermodynamic grounds.

Unfortunately for this absolute piece of unscientific crap there is a problem in the “equations” used to plot the graph “proving” the “greenhouse effect”.

The problem is the “equations” are not dimensionally consistent.

Anyone who actually looks at the “equations” in the spreadsheet can easily identify this fatal flaw !

If they are NOT dimensionally consistent – AND THEY AREN’T – then they are NOT even “equations” and the whole series of calculations is just totally wrong !

Some will try to claim this doesn’t matter – I can assure you it does – ensuring your equations are dimensionally consistent is one of the first things ANY science course teaches !

Fail to do this and you will certainly fail.

What Roy Spencer has produced is NOT science !

Science depends not only on getting your mathematics right but also using the appropriate terms and values in what equations you write.

Roy Spencer adds values expressed in Kelvin to values which evaluate to a here-before unknown scientific value of metre.Kelvin !

Obviously this is wrong !

To give you another analogy of what this means force and bending moment are intimately related in mechanics applications.

Bending moment is force times the distance from a fixed point to the line of application of the force.

Force has units of Newtons and bending moment units of Newton-Metre.

If I added these together when I was studying Engineering I would have been laughed out of the lecture room BUT this type of ERROR is what Roy Spencer claims “proves” the “greenhouse effect” AND ALL of the acolytes simply follow suit and abuse any who criticize the “preacher”.

Well I find this shameful !

Because I do not know if Roy Spencer knows this is wrong and simply “publishes” the spreadsheet anyway because he wants to “prove” his beloved hypothesis; or,

He failed to spot the error !

Deliberate deceit or incompetence ?

I know his followers will simply say that the fact that heat capacity has units of cubic metres while everything else has units of square metres doesn’t matter.

This is colossal fraud – if the units aren’t appropriate for the equations they are used in then the choice of “heat capacity” is inappropriate – FULL STOP – and this invalidates the whole thing !

I have never seen such deliberate (or incompetent) misleading as I see in defense of the “greenhouse effect” by using mathematics.

Roy Spencer’s reason for publishing this spreadsheet was to counter people who argue that “greenhouse effect” mathematics violates the second law of Thermodynamics –

“No process is possible whose sole result is the transfer of heat from a cooler to a hotter body.”

Roy Spencer and a whole host of “greenhouse effect” acolytes claim true sceptics do not understand what this law means.

YET EVERY equation I see them write ADDS the “heat” from a cooler background to an already hotter body.

If that isn’t representing a process …. whose sole result is the transfer of heat from a cooler to a hotter body then I don’t know what possibly could be.

All natural processes are irreversible is another form of the second law of thermodynamics :-

http://www.inscc.utah.edu/~tgarrett/5130/Notes/SecondLaw.pdf

They state “In the absence of external work done on a body, heat can only move from warm to cold.”

In this case we can move “heat” from cool to hot by performing work as in the refrigeration cycle where electricity supplies the energy to preform such work.

This is nothing like any natural process involving the exchange of thermal energy between Earth’s surfaces and the atmosphere.

Whilst I chose to challenge this fraud or error in the spreadsheet on the grounds of the “equations” are wrong I leave it to you to decide whether or not adding the radiation from a cold background at minus 20 degrees C can raise an already hotter body at 37 degrees C to 67 degrees C and does this violate the 2nd law ?

After this is what the whole thing was supposed to prove AND yet they still ADD the energy from cold to hot in every equation they write ?

Go Figure !

Do you have a link to this spreadsheet? I’d like to work through it, and see if I can reproduce your result. I took a quick look at his site, but could not immediately find it in the ton of information he has there.

A third possibility exists – he simply made a mistake, which does not make him incompetent. đź™‚

I have come to the conclusion long ago that Roy Spencer is a fake skeptic.