Energy and global warming

[Paul Ward]

Originally Posted by AEBanner

Energy cannot escape from Earth either by conduction or convection, because the Earth is isolated in space. Do you agree? Presumably, you do.

So please let us be clear on this matter. As just explained, I am not claiming that energy cannot escape to outer space, but I maintain that the only method is by radiation.

I trust that this has satisfied your first, and main objection to my hypothesis

Irrelevant - the fact is it escapes, how it does so does not matter, your hypothesis requires it does not escape.

OK. You are making a big deal about the metabolic energy

Metabolic energy IS a big deal - a HUGE deal and is a gigantic spanner in the works of your hypothesis.

... and you say it has been proceeding steadily for millions of years. This will have put energy into the Earth?s system, and it will have entered the surface, and so can cause radiation. Now go to my explanation above, and you will see that the temperature increase is, in fact, minimised by Stefan? law, and this is the equilibrium temperature the Earth has attained for millions of years.

Stefan' law? You're obfuscating again in the way you originally with a lot of statistics that the vast majority won't or didn't check. You're now arguing against your basic tenet.

The reason I took a period of only 25 years was simply because the EIA data I found only went back to 1970, and practical observations were available for the period 1978 to 2003. If you want to extrapolate further back, and have the data, I should be pleased to see it, but it can only add more energy into the system and so strengthen my position.

You didn't take a period of 25 years - you took a period of 1 year - 2003. I extrapolated the full 25 years and the figures started to get silly.

Now with regard to hard science
My hypothesis has achieved excellent quantitative agreement with three practical observations in the Arctic, and two recent practical observations in the Antarctic.
The amount of anthropogenic energy which can be lost to outer space and/or allocated to the oceans is about 38% of the anthropogenic energy over a recent 25 year period.
What more do you expect?

It has achieved coincidental agreement when a selected 1 year period has been coarsely examined.

I expect that before you start touting such information about the web as "science", that you complete the work to a much higher degree of rigour. No scientist would operate like this unless after a period of peer assessment as I said earlier. I am a biologist and I now find it obvious to pick huge holes in the idea to the point where it is totally disproven. I doubt a physicist would spend more than a few sentences to do the same.

I am sure you a sincere individual, I have enjoyed reading your ideas, but it's just not the way things are. You have been polite, interesting and pleasant to talk to.

As for closing this thread, I consider that to be very premature. It has been open for only a few days, and has already received a large number of visitors. Why would you want to deny others the opportunity to learn of a new idea even if they do not agree with it?

It's not a case of agree or disagree - it's just wrong. It's pseudo-science, most people will just be baffled with the numbers and language and think it has some credence.

It does real science a dis-service and that matters to me.

I would no more give web-space to arguing about the earth being flat, that astology is real or creationism, no matter how many views it all received.

If you turn out to be proven right I will offer a full and open apology here. You will find an audience for your views on the web, but not here I'm afraid.