Derek Alker's Page

Hi All,You may be interested in this...It's why I have not been around here much lately. http://www.globalwarmingskeptics.info/forums/thread-855-post-6428.html  If I may take the unusual step of quoting myself..Excerpt," So, is the above the first attempt by anyone to try to describe global climate WITHOUT "internal" IR movements being THE dominant force. I think so. "At present there are some on going dramatic further developments arising from discussions on the thread with Nasif Nahle. Derek.See More

Hi All,For many years now, NASA has had it's own direct measurements of temperatures on the moon.Meanwhile we here back on planet earth are told there is an atmospheric greenhouse effect and that our CO2 emissions are increasing this atmospheric effect. That our pollution, sorry, CO2 emissions have such an effect is becoming a little more contraversial of late, but what is truely surprising and shocking is that NASA has had some relevant data we should all know about for so long yet they have said nothing about it.... The idea is very, very simple. We are told that earth would have a temperature according to "black body" theory, and that the temperature we measure in reality is actually 33 degrees (celsius) higher than this "black body" theoretical temperature.So, the GHG "theory" goes, earth has an atmospheric "greenhouse effect" of 33 degrees (Kelvin or celsius).The moon's "theoretical" black body temperature can also be worked out, and then compared with NASA's own directly taken measurements.As the moon has no atmosphere it should be that it has no atmospheric greenhouse effect  temperature difference to the black body temperature prediction.BUT THE MOON DOES, A 40 DEGREES DIFFERENCE....The moon has a 40 degrees atmospheric greenhouse effect, with no atmosphere,and NASA have known this for years now... Here is how NASA explained the difference between the temperature they measured and the predicted black body temperature of the moon.Excerpted from,http://www.ilovemycarbondioxide.com/pdf/Greenhouse_Effect_on_the_Moon.pdf " During lunar day, the lunar regolith absorbs the radiation from the sun and transports it inwardand is stored in a layer approximately 50cm thick. As the moon passes into night, the radiationfrom the sun quickly approaches zero (there is still a bit of radiation from the earth) and, incontrast with a precipitous drop in temperature if it was a simple black body, the regolith thenproceeds to transport the stored heat back onto the surface, thus warming it up significantly overthe black body approximation. " Now if you substitute earth for moon in the above NASA explanation, and oceans for regolith, you could easily apply the above to the earth.Maybe this would help to understand this diagram a bit more for many..http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g43/DerekJohn_photos/stuff/Dailywaterjacketsized.jpg  I suppose many maybe be reeling reading the above,but remember all the "back radiation" of photons you have been told about so often,when people try to justify the atmospheric greenhouse effect to you.These photons move at the speed of light, 186,000 miles per second.In an atmosphere less than (at most)  60 miles thick.It wouldn't take long to escape would it, however many times it was bounced about.   See More

Hi All,Elsewhere I have been given a version of the below "mental example" of howa cooler thing can warm a warmer thing by radiation flows.This is a central issue for AGW and climate science at present because it isone of the central tenants of the "the physics" ofthe man made climate change unproven hypothesis (formerly AGW).Imagine a large metal disk in a vacuum. This disk is at a relatively lower temperature in degrees celcius,than a nearby smaller metal disk that is relatively warmer in degrees celcius.If you could concentrate the radiation from the cooler disk and "focus" it on the smaller disk, then,the additional radiation from the cooler disk would warm the warmer disk further.This "mental example" is centrally dependent upon a magnifying glass similie, in which the "magnifying glass" is used to concentrate the radiation fromthe cooler and larger metal disk onto the warmer but smaller metal disk.If one understands that all radiation is positive then this "mental example" works.However if all radiation is absorbed relatively to the recieving and emitting disks temperatures then the result is very different.The "magnifying lens" would produce a relatively cool "beam" or "spot", which would have the effect of reducing the smaller disks temperaturefar quicker to the cooler disks temperature.Two opposite effects, for the same similie, depending upon whetherradiation is "all positive" or "absorbed relatively".I, and I would suggest most of us, can remember playing with a magnifying lens andconcentrating sunlight to burn things with.Unfortunately this could be "all radiation is positive" or "radiation is absorbed relatively".Adding up the concentrated positive solar radiation, orconcentrating a very disperse form of very high temperature radiation.But the opposite may give a better answer.Is there an example of a concentrated "cold" beam.Is such a beam "hot" (all radiation is positive) or"cold" (all radiation is relative to the sources of emission and absorbtion.)Can anyone think of an example of a concentrated cold radiation flow "beam" or "spot" please,whether it be hot or cold.Therein may lie the answer to whether radiation is "all positive" or "relatively absorbed".. ?See More

Hi All, Please see the attached word document. Any comments / suggestions for improvements. Heck, even corrections needed, gratefully accepted. I hope the piece explains why, with respect to global heat, or IR budgets (as they are commonly referred to), 1) A new view point is essential. 2) The unit used (W/m2) is completely unfit for purpose. In other words the present crop of global heat / IR budgets are BUNKUM,we need to start afresh, from a new view point and unit of comparison. Question - Do I need to address / include this point, that it has since occurred to me is not in the piece.http://www.globalwarmingskeptics.info/forums/thread-609-post-4305.html#pid4305 " A point Richard111 and myself have raised here on several occasions isthe transportation of "cold" down in the atmosphere by rain.I do not see this anywhere in the present K/T diagrams."Cold", in the form of cooling rain (and more obviously hailstone),is patently transported down in the atmosphere,yet no one seems to consider these massive "heat",or rather relatively "cold" movements / flows. "See More