Sunday, January 4, 2015

NoTricksZone Review - Too Many Tricks in Denier Article

Someone left a comment and asked me to take a look at an article appearing on the NoTricksZone website - Why There Is Global Warming. I agreed and did a review this morning. Basically, it was light work over my morning hot tea. You would think a website named 'No tricks zone' would avoid using any tricks. Sadly, that was not the case.

This article starts out with one of the most tired of all denier claims – if manmade global warming is real, how can you explain periods in the past that experienced global warming? The false argument here is the assumption there is only one way to cause global warming. I’ve discussed this false argument many times and you can read a posting about it here. But, let me summarize the argument and illustrate how it is a false one:

There was global warming in the past;
There is global warming today;
Global warming in the past was a naturally occurring cycle;
Therefore, global warming today is a naturally occurring cycle.
Let’s put this same argument another way to see how false it is:

Pneumonia kills people;
Gun shot wounds kill people;
Pneumonia is a naturally occurring disease;
Therefore, gun shot wounds are a naturally occurring disease.
The fallacy is that the second does not follow from the first. There are more ways to kill someone than just naturally occurring diseases. The same way, there are more ways to cause global warming than naturally occurring cycles.

The biggest problem with this claim is that, yes, there are naturally occurring cycles and those cycles are continuing today (in addition to manmade effects), but today’s naturally occurring cycle is a cooling cycle. If it were not for this naturally occurring cooling cycle, we would be in even worse shape than we are. I find it very interesting that every time someone pulls this argument out, they never discuss even the possibility that the natural cycle right now might be a cooling one, they automatically assume it is a warming one without any science to back them up.

Also, the graphic showing the warming/cooling cycles is in error. Here is a more scientifically valid temperature plot for the last 11,000 years. The blue arrows get in the way, but you can still clearly see the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age and can compare them to today’s temperature trend. It is a really different story when the facts are presented correctly.

Source: Climate Snapshots

The author of the NoTrickZone article then makes the case that manmade global warming can’t be real because the world is too big for us to change the temperature. Really? We can’t change the world? Take a look here:
Source: SIO

This is the Keeling curve and shows atmospheric levels of CO2. The ziggy part to the right shows the measurements taken since the late-1950s on Mauna Loa, Hawaii. The line-graph prior to that shows the CO2 levels as they have been reconstructed from proxy data. Wow! I would say we have managed to change the world. What’s that you said? You’re not convinced? Then, try this one. This is the data for the last 800,000 years. We’re the spike on the far right.
Source: SIO
At no time in the last 800,000 years has the CO2 level been anywhere near today’s level. The cause of that incredible spike? Manmade emissions.

So, yes, we can most certainly change the environment.

Also, the claim works against itself because we are not the ones warming the planet. The author claims the Sun and Earth are so large we cannot change the temperature. Well, it is the Sun that is heating the planet and causing it to warm, not us. We are merely causing it to cool down less rapidly. The Sun warms the planet’s surface and that heat is then radiated out into space. Greenhouse gases absorb this heat, in the form of infrared radiation, and slow the process down. As we add more greenhouse gases to the atmosphere, the cooling process gets slower. All the while, the Sun keeps warming the planet even more. So, you see, the author is actually making the case for manmade global warming.

Then, there is a bunch of false statements in the form of “Fun Facts about Carbon Dioxide.”

First false statement. “Of the 186 billion tons of carbon from CO2 that enter the Earth’s atmosphere each year from all sources, only 6 billion tons are from human activity.” Notice the author is trying to fool you by discussing the amount of carbon, instead of the carbon dioxide. This is an attempt to try and make it look less serious and is a deception. We are not concerned with carbon, per se. We are concerned with carbon dioxide. Why didn’t he address that issue? After all, this part of the article is titled, ‘fun fact about carbon dioxide.”

In addition, his numbers are still wrong. Try these numbers on for something more credible.
Source: Yale Climate Connections
Today, we are emitting in excess of 35 billion tons of CO2 per year. That is a lot more significant than saying we are emitting 6 billion tons of carbon. But, do the math. The atomic weight of carbon dioxide is 44 units (16 units for each of two oxygen atoms and 12 units for one carbon atom). Therefore, carbon makes up 27.3% of the mass of carbon dioxide. Apply that percentage to 35 billion tons of emissions and you get over 9.5 billion tons of carbon – that is more than 50% larger than the number the author states. By the way, we have other products that have carbon in them that are not included in this figure. Incorrect figures and deceptive practices, that is not a good start.

Next false statement: “At 380 parts per million CO2 is a minor constituent of the Earth’s atmosphere–less than 4/100ths of 1% of all gases present. Compared to former geologic times, the Earth’s current atmosphere is CO2-impoverished” See the Keeling curves above to see how today’s levels compare to historic levels. There is no comparison at all. Today’s levels have not been seen within the last 800,000 years, at least. Were there periods further back in history that had higher levels? Yes, there were. The Cambrian Period 500 million years ago had levels in the thousands of parts per million.  But, no one alive today would want to live during those times. Simply because some time hundreds of millions or billions of years ago had higher CO2 levels does not mean it would be hospitable to modern human life. And, it is not relevant to the discussion of today’s climate.

And, please explain to me how he justifies saying today's levels are 'minor.' Is he saying they are minor because they are .04% of the atmosphere? If so, then he is being deceptive because that .04% has a very significant impact. Take a look at this one example of the impact from those levels. An over-the-counter pain killer is a lot smaller percentage of your body weight than .04%, but it also has a big effect. So does alcohol at levels far below .04% of body weight. The claim that it is minor simply because it is 'only' .04% of the atmosphere has no scientific validity. 

Another false argument: “Carbon dioxide is a nutrient, not a pollutant, and all life– plants and animals alike– benefit from more of it.” Raw sewage is a nutrient, also and has been used in some countries for thousands of years to fertilize farm fields. Do you want it in your drinking water and do you want to breathe fumes from it? So, why does this argument not apply to CO2? Once you get too much of something, it becomes a pollutant. We now have so much CO2 that the environment cannot deal with it. CO2 has become a pollutant.

Next false argument: “CO2 that goes into the atmosphere does not stay there, but continuously recycled by terrestrial plant life and earth’s oceans.” No. Again, take a look at the Keeling curve above. The vast majority of CO2 produced is produced by natural processes. The vast majority of CO2 produced, by both natural and manmade sources, is absorbed. But, about 50% of manmade CO2 remains in the air (see the Keeling curve again). By the way, that CO2 that is being absorbed by the oceans is causing them to become more acidic. And, that’s also bad news

Finishing up with one last false statement: “If we are in a global warming crisis today, even the most aggressive and costly proposals for limiting industrial carbon dioxide emissions and all other government proposals and taxes would have a negligible effect on global climate” 

So, this person’s argument is that manmade global warming isn’t real because it would take too much money to fix it. That is not a scientifically valid argument. And, it is incorrect, too. Also note that he makes this argument after saying, earlier in the article, we are too small to be changing the planet. Wait a minute! If our emissions are so small, why can’t we do something about them? And, if they are so big we are unable to do anything about them, how is it they are so small they can’t change the environment? He’s playing two sides of his own argument. And neither one of them is valid.

We can, in fact, do something about global warming. The first thing we need to do is get people to stop making false arguments like this article.


  1. That raw sewage argument was brilliant!

  2. Hi Chris,

    I appreciate your prompt response.

    It seems to me that your first example doesn't stand.

    The fisrst comparison of global warning cycles is comparing apples to apples.

    The pneumonia/gunshot comparison is comparing apples to oranges which negates the analogy.

    You say "There are more ways to kill someone than just naturally occurring diseases". How does that follow from "Therefore, gun shot wounds are a naturally occurring disease"?.That's a non sequitur.

    You write "They never discuss even the possibility that the natural cycle right now might be a cooling one, they automatically assume it is a warming one without any science to back them up."

    Chris I well remember 40 years ago it was global cooling, that morphed into global warming, now back to cooling or better yet it's all morphed into "climate change" so that all of man's economic wealth producing endeavors can be criticized if they utilize fossil fuels.

    CO2 is still less than .004 ppm and there were significant periods in history with much higher CO2 levels when the earth flourished because Co2 is a building block of all living organisms.

    Many are now arguing that an overall rise in CO2 levels will have a net benefit to the planet. Far from being a curse it is a blessing.

    Consider the thousands of active volcanoes on the planet that contribute far more toxic gases into the atmosphere that dwarf mankind's output.

    I could go on dissecting your arguments but don't have the time.

    It seems to me people on both sides are all twisting the facts and statistics to comply with their biases and beliefs which anyone can hardly argue with.

    As a student of both sides, so far I think the deniers have more credibility because they have sounder arguments.

    Here's an example of CO2 benefits which seems logical enough to me.
    Cheers, Robby

  3. What happened to the papers that give no opinion? (you know not every single paper on climate science has to be about global warming)

    Or what about the papers that implicitly support AGW? (a paper doesn't have to say "I believe that AGW is real" in order to give support to AGW)

    Misinterpreting data, typical of deniers.

  4. I'm sorry, but the two arguments are exactly equivalent. In both cases, the second does not follow from the first, but the arguer wants to make you believe they do. I'm sorry if you can't see the logical fallacy of the two arguments.

    As for the 40 years ago argument, that has been debunked so many times by so many sources that I am dismayed every time someone produces it. If you did even the most basic homework you would know that was simply not the case. In fact, the scientific literature of the 70s clearly shows the preponderance of climate scientists were concerned with global warming. The conclusion of manmade global warming was made in the 1950s and a presidential commission found such strong evidence of it LBJ sent a special communication to Congress on the subject in 1965. The science has been conclusively settled for that long. This business you cite is pure bunk pushed by the denier-industry to confuse the issue.

    And, despite claims by deniers, 'global warming' did not morph into 'climate change'. In fact, it was the Republicans that decided to switch the terms because it sounded less threatening. In reality, global warming refers to the warming of the planet. Climate change refers to all of the changes to the climate, including global warming but also including things other than global warming, such as ocean acidification, etc.

    As for the CO2 levels, there has been no time withing at least the last 800,000 years where level has been anywhere near the level it is today. The extreme level we are experiencing is due 100% to manmade emissions.

    The only ones saying CO2 is good for us are the people responsible for putting it in the atmosphere - the fossil fuel industry. Doesn't it make you even a little suspicious that they, and their paid minions, are the only ones advocating that position? Doesn't it bother you, even a little bit, that everyone else involved is showing how much damage increased CO2 levels will cause?

    In fact, volcanoes produce a miniscule amount of CO2 compared to us. Volcanic CO2 emissions amounts to a few hundred million tons of CO2 per year. Our emissions amount to over 35 billion tons per year.

    Please continue to dissect my arguments. You have not produced even one iota of valid science. If what you have produced seems more credible to you then you really have rejected science.

    I'm sorry for you, but there are lots of other people I hope I can help save. Good luck to you. The good news for you is you will still benefit from the efforts of people fighting this fight, even if you have rejected logic and science yourself.

  5. "religious bigot"? What was religiously bigoted?

    Post it and let the people read it and say for themselves.
    Are you afraid of the truth Mr. Keating.

    Post it and stop hiding behind fraudulent morality. there was nothing bigoted about anything I wrote.

    Calling you "Father Keating", and noting that you said a fine sermon is hardly bigoted, nor very religious.

    Post the truth.

  6. What facts are you referring to?
    State them and state your sources.

    Mr. Keating refuses to state his sorces. Dn't be a fraud, tell em where your information is coming from: NASA, NOAA, where?

    All sources are not equally valid.

  7. Actually, I did state my sources. I'm sorry if you can't operate hyperlinks, but that is not my fault. For your benefit, try these sources:

    If you can't accept NASA data, then we have nothing further to discuss.

  8. Well, Bill, let me ask you why you think I should accept your argument? It looks like bald conjecture.

    As a lawyer, if I assert a legal proposition, I'm required to cite to the relevant authority. Making assertions which are not supported by precedent or which are contrary to authority, without alerting the court to the fact that I'm trying to change or expand the law, is unethical. Because of my background, you can appreciate why I strain my eyes over your posts looking for citation. Since I don't see any citation to the science in your post, and you haven't alerted us to any attempt on your part to disprove the science, you've given me nothing on which to hang my hat.

    Moreover, your argument is unavailing on its face because you fail to explain how, given Venus' CO2 level, a lesser degree of light reaching the surface wouldn't still account for Venus' temperature. Neither do you show us how Dr. Keating was wrong to insist that you calculation improperly omitted the energy necessary to change Venus' atmospheric pressure to match Earth's.

    I'll continue to accept Dr. Keating's explanation as to how your argument is scientifically invalid until you show us where in the scientific literature you derive your claim.

  9. sorry no money out their for hiring folks to defend science - it's left to the few and the motivated and the willfully underfunded…
    perhaps that should have been: woefully underfunded.
    ;- )

  10. And what about all the carbon based fuels, who's exhaust we are injecting into our atmosphere on a level that dwarf's "natural" cycles?

  11. Ah, I get it - politics and economic policy… and what's that got to do with appreciating what increasing our atmosphere's "insulating medium" by 40% in a geological blink is doing to our Global Heat Distribution Engine?

    But, I see it's the political ramifications you're all about.

  12. Try some links from folks who are dedicated to the science:

  13. Worth repeating
    "Out of tens of thousands of emails, some few were quoted out of context and even rewritten to make it appear they were acting improperly. Eight separate independent investigations showed there was no wrong doing on the part of the scientists and the claims about them were false"

    ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
    And even those few quotes, when read in full context and when examined against actual later actions - add up to nothing wrong -

    So Alan, why is a little personal venting about crap papers/science so wrong?

  14. Alan, how dare you!
    Dude, you've been doing nothing but avoiding the scientific arguments, (one cherry picked graph, ignoring the context, is not a scientific argument)

    But will you ever recognize that???

  15. I try to keep it on topic. Some people here really don't care for that, though.

  16. "Relentlessly."
    I do like a good adjective occasionally.

  17. I'm thinking of offering my own challenge, that the Earth is at the centre of the solar system. I will offer £100,000 to anyone who can prove to my satisfaction that it isnt. I will be the sole judge in this matter. Thought Id ask your permission first though Chris seen has you have invented this type of contest

  18. Once again, a denier demonstrates his lack of homework. I actually modeled this challenge after the Ultimate Global Warming Challenge on I used essentially the same rules with two main exceptions: I did not charge an entry fee and I posted a response to all submissions. By the way, JunkScience was the sole judge in his challenge. Did you bother to object to his rules? Or, is just people that stick to science that you object to?

  19. I notice that you dont question the worthlessness of your challenge, ie that you are the sole judge and jury and can reject any evidence as you choose fit.

  20. The challenge was completely valid. If someone had been able to show me AGW is not real (something I would love to learn), they would have won the money. Unfortunately, no one provided anything even remotely valid. Notice, I provided a critique of each and every submission showing, with references, why the submission was not scientifically valid. This is something the denier challenges never do. I would guess the reason they don't is because they cannot produce any valid science to support their positions. Those are the worthless challenges.

  21. No, the presidential commission merely put together an assessment of the existing science. The science figured out even earlier than that. In fact, there are fewer and fewer experts 'coming out' in opposition to climate change. Certainly, no credible climate scientist deniers climate change. The Oregon Petition Project brags about how they have 31,000 'scientists.' In fact, large numbers of those people signing the petition are not scientists. Some are not even human. In total, there are only about 200 climate scientists that have signed that petition and several of the signees claim they did not sign it. But, let's suppose all 31,000 are valid. That amounts to just .03% of the world's scientists. Yes, you read that figure correctly.

    The jury is in and has been for decades. The science is so conclusive there is absolutely no doubt about the reality of AGW. Sorry to burst your bubble. And, it isn't my point of view. Science is not an opinion you believe in. You either understand and accept science or you reject it. You don't 'believe in' gravity. Neither do you 'believe in' AGW. It is a reality and you accept it. Or, you reject science (which is your right, but please don't try to fool yourself or anyone else).

    As for 'living through the hysteria', there was nothing to live through. A Newsweek article ended up on the front cover. That hardly counts as a scientific conclusion. Tell me, do you reject modern medicine and refuse to go to your doctor because some magazine ran an erroneous article in the 70s and you 'had to live through the hysteria?' I bet not. That's because you realize what a ridiculous argument that is. Where is the scientific relevance to your statement? There is none! So, why do you keep pulling that out? I suspect it is a vain attempt to justify your preconceived conclusion because it certainly has no scientific merit.

    Yes, everything changes. But, tell me, how do you account for the global warming we are experiencing when the naturally occurring cycle we are in is a cooling one? Natural events would lead to things being cooler right now, not warmer. So, if it is just a natural change, how do you account for that? Without rejecting science, that is.

  22. Hi Chris,

    I don't claim to be an expert on the subject like you but this highly educated, erudite and respected man Lord Christopher Moncton is.

    I doubt anything will change your mind but his presentation is full of interesting facts, figures and observations. which debunk your cherished beliefs.

    He also includes a cost benefit analysis at the end which is quite an eye opener,

    I invite you to watch the program as although you may find it disagreeable you may also find it enlightening.

    . ttps://

    Cheers, Robby

  23. Christopher Monckton is an enormous fraud. I'm sorry for you if you believed even a single word this man says. Really? You don't bother doing ANY homework on this matter at all?

  24. To a worthless contes

  25. The word "Denier" should not be taken too seriously it is simply a term of abuse. In the school yard you would probably been called a "geek". The word denier is simply used to prevent any debate on the CAGWA issue. If the science was solid there would be no reason to resort to this underhand derogation. It isnt a coincidence that it was invented to label those who questioned the holocaust and the emotion links associated with that part of history.

  26. Thanks for your thoughts, Alan.
    It upset me quite a lot to begin with, because I remember seeing the newsreels at the cinema of concentration camps in 1945, when I was young.
    I've been called a denier in emails I received from a couple of well known climatologists who should know better, so it now amuses me in some ways.
    I wouldn't compare it to geek at all, that's a compliment by comparison.

  27. Some may have thought I was being sarcastic, but I wasn't the commenter wanted me to produce an experiment and that is what I did. It is actually a very effective experiment that anyone can do.

  28. Once again, deniers reject the evidence. The term is not a term of abuse and was actually originated by deniers themselves. It comes from the idea of 'we deny there is any global warming.' It is, therefore, not surprising that you should now find it offensive. For the record, I find it offensive that you should deny the vast, overwhelming amount of science.

  29. The new tactic by deniers is this attempt by deniers to make it sound as if science advocates are grouping science deniers in with Holocaust advocates. Very lame. I will be writing a post about this today.

  30. I suppose you are referring to the Ultimate Global Warming Challenge when you say 'worthless contest.'

    If not, then why not?

  31. Chris, It hardly surprised me that you reply with a pejorative attack on Moncton. That's what people do when confronted by facts they can't handle, often referred to as the truth.They start calling names and slandering. His whole presentation is based on facts which you obviously don't want to hear. You keep coming up with this 97% number as if you have some evidence that all the science climatologists in the world were polled scientifically and that they somehow all magically agree. I don't buy it as the jury is still out. It seems like a manufactured number. Your claims on the list of 30,000 deniers are patently absurd and false. Monctons CV is lengthy and extensive, no doubt much more impressive than yours. Obviously you have never listened to him and don't care to which is your privilege. The thing is there are many more like him with the same message all mover the internet if you care to listen to the other side which I know you don't want to do. We won't change each others opinions and when the debate reaches the name calling stage, because your junk science leaves you nothing else, then I'm outta here. Thanks for the debate. I enjoyed listening to your point of view but when comparing it with others as I have recently done thanks to you I think I will stay with the more rational side of the debate. Cheers, Roby

  32. "New tactic?"

    As Predicted:
    Global Warming Skeptics Linked With Holocaust Denial

    Paul Joseph Watson
    Prison Planet
    Friday, February 9, 2007
    In an article we published in November about global warming being caused
    by the sun, we commented somewhat tongue in cheek that people who express
    doubts about global warming would soon be compared to holocaust deniers
    by the media and other self-appointed cultural kingpins who demand total
    adherence to orthodox religion style beliefs about climate change.

  33. Citation required for "the term being originated by. .."

  34. Yet again, you have not done your homework, have you? I have handled every bit of non-science deniers have thrown my way. As for a 'perjoravite attack' on Monckton, let's review the facts:

    Monckton claimed to have won the Nobel Peace Prize;

    he claims he was Margaret Thatcher's science adviser. He was actually her economy adviser;

    he advocated for a monthly, entire world-wide blood testing of the entire population for AIDs and said anyone testing positive should be immediately isolated, even against their will;

    he is on record as stating all scientists should be required to state they belong to a religion before being allowed to practice science;

    he has claimed to have been published in peer-reviewed scientific journals. He hasn't;

    he claims to be a member of the House of Lords. He isn't;

    he is a birther, claiming Obama's birth certificates are fake;

    he has proposed banning all public readings of the Koran.

    These are just a few of the factual issues with Monckton. And, yet, you want to cite this individual as a credible source. By the way, he stated in a debate, "It is particularly hard [to challenge climate
    scientists], if like me, you have no scientific qualification to do so."

    As for his 'facts,' I have heard them all and I have personally debunked them. Moreover, I am merely one in a long line of people that have shown Monckton to be a complete fraud. You would know this if you bothered doing any homework.

    Another thing you are completely wrong about - I have indeed listened to many of his presentations. Now, you have no evidence what-so-ever that I never listened to him. So, why did you say that? Why did you jump to a pre-conceived conclusion without any evidence so support it? You seem to be in the habit of doing that.

    And, in fact, I listen to denier videos and read denier claims all day long. That is how I can debunk them so easily. Know your enemy. Deniers are the enemy of humanity, so I need to know what they are saying and doing.

    As for CVs, it isn't a competition, but I know mine is better than his because I have one and he doesn't. He has no training or experience in science. He just claims to.

    And, really, you demonstrated that you are the one that has abandoned all reason if you consider this massive fraud to be a credible source. Do a little homework. And, I mean places other than denier blogs. But, I know you won't.

  35. As far as I know, there are no climate scientists grouping deniers in as Holocaust deniers. That is something the deniers themselves are advertising. The reason anyone even talks about it is because you guys keep bringing it up.

  36. Chris, you spent all that energy berating Moncton. OK maybe I could have used a better example, because there are lot's of them out there, many with fewer blemishes then Moncton, but you are wrong about him in many of your false claims about him although some are accurate. His facts and figures seem to be reasonable to me though and are in line with others. If there were a debate between the two of you I'd be in the front row. Cheers, Robby

  37. Not really, it's because "you guys" keep referring to anyone who dares to question your dogma as "deniers."

  38. Do you really think I spent "all that energy" on Monckton? Exposing a fraud of that magnitude is both fun and easy. He really is light work. By the way, everything I said about him is not only true, but is accurate and easy to verify. So, why didn't you? Maybe, you aren't interested in anything that is counter to what you want to hear? I listen and read denier claims all day (such as the one that Monckton is a credible source). Why aren't you listening and reading the science? No need to answer, that was a rhetorical question.

    As for debating him, I would just so love to get him into a public debate. I would make minced meat out of him. In fact, I have a standing invitation to deniers to debate them in a public forum. Funny how no one will accept these kinds of challenges from any scientist. They all want to have the forum all to themselves so they don't have to answer questions and justify their claims.

    As I said before, if you want to think his nonsense makes sense, then that's your business. You have a right to reject science and ignore the evidence and I am not interested in interfering with that right. But, it doesn't change the fact you are rejecting science and ignoring the evidence. So, don't be upset when someone calls you a denier.

  39. I've been to the three web cites above and they are all Venus' info web cites. YOU didn't discuss Venus in your work, you were responding to me. Also, you didn't mention any Venus facts in your rebuttal, you just claimed that Pressure heat didn't exist.

    Specifically CITE the source that SAYS:

    1. That the earth's atmosphere doesn't block out the sun's rays;

    2. That all the heat the sun sends into the earths atmosphere is reflected back out! and,

    3. Cite the source that says Pressure heat is not real?

    NASA's web site clearly states that their satellites measure the earth receiving 1370 watts of solar energy per meter square, and that the earth radiates out only 239.7 watts of energy per meter square.

    You wrote above

    "The amount of heat going out has to be close to the amount coming in or the planet will not just warm up, it will incinerate – literally, at Mr. Andrews’ quoted rate. It is very important to the planet to have a net heat balance of zero, meaning just as much heat goes out as comes in."

    SO direct me to the web page at NASA that says you are not lying, and that there is a net balance of "zero" as you said there is?

    Or send me to a page at the Environmental Protection Agency, or the Oceanic and Atmospheric and Administration, or any Major University Science Department web cite that backs your claims up?

    Finally what is there on those three pages that you cite that backs you up, please copy and past the exact sentences, and explain how you think that they back you up?

  40. You have definitely entered the realm of the Flat Earthers.

    Each of those sites shows the temperature on the surface of Venus to be nearly 900 degrees F, not the minus 444 you claim.

    If you need a source to prove to you that the atmosphere doesn't filter out the sunlight, I suggest you just step outside during the day time and make the observation yourself. If you can see anything, there's sunlight getting through the atmosphere.

    This NASA graphic says the incoming flux is 340 W/m^2:

    Here is a Wikipedia graphic that is very similar:

    Now, what is interesting about your comment with the numbers is that 1370 W/m^2 is only 5.7 times as big as 240 W/m^2, and yet you claimed the incoming energy was 30,000,000 times as big as the outgoing. Even with the new quoted values above, you're numbers are still wrong.

    Pressure heat is not real. I don't know how else to explain it. Do a search. I cannot find even a single source that cites it as being real. Think about it this way, if I have a compressed air bottle and the gas inside is compressed to 90 atmospheres, I can then take that bottle and refrigerate it to any temperature I want. I can even do that and keep the pressure a constant 90 atmospheres by adding more gas. If there were 'heat pressure' as you claim, I would not be able to do that.

    Now, I have been glad to show you the science and to point out where you are making errors, but I am not interested in debating the lunatic fringe. If you have something rational to say, please come back. But, if all you can do is to claim the temperature on Venus is minus 444 degrees then please don't take up my time.

  41. Sorry Professor, apparently I've fed a troll.

    Bill, it's one thing to be mistaken, but it's another thing to continue to make the same mistakes after they've been explained to you. That is the sign of an inability to learn. Also, an assertion purportedly supported by facts is an argument. If you don't know that you are making an argument, I can't help you.

  42. You think you fed a troll? Did you see the reply from Tahoe Steph? I really started something there. I guess even trolls need to be fed.

  43. For what it's worth Dr. Keating, I didn't think you were being sarcastic. I thought your experiments were accessible and smart. Not to put too fine a point on it, I learned how to think about radiated heat in an entirely new and concrete way from your examples.

    I mention this in an abundance of caution since I thought your comment about people finding your thought experiment sarcastic may have been directed my way. I mean to signal delight, not derision.

  44. I wasn't specifically referring to you, but when I reread my comments it occurred to me someone might have taken it that way. That's the trouble with the written media without any body language or inflection being communicated along with the words.