tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1500584444083499721.post4451922456258730122..comments2019-07-13T14:09:25.604+02:00Comments on Claes Johnson on Mathematics and Science: Roy: Does More CO2 Cause Warming, Cooling or Nothing?Claes Johnsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07411413338950388898noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1500584444083499721.post-10650243980677987792013-10-13T00:11:58.850+02:002013-10-13T00:11:58.850+02:00Not to mention &quot;the Danger of Hanging Your Ha...Not to mention &quot;the Danger of Hanging Your Hat On No Future Cooling!!&quot;<br /><br />KuhnKatAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1500584444083499721.post-84147540196595806762013-10-12T15:59:12.192+02:002013-10-12T15:59:12.192+02:00All Spencer &quot;knows&quot; is that top-of-atmos...All Spencer &quot;knows&quot; is that top-of-atmosphere (TOA) measurements of upwelling longwave (LW, or infrared) radiation--in the specific bands identified as due to CO2--have decreased with time. Over 2 years ago, I responded to David Appell (a fraudulent science &quot;journalist&quot; and &quot;PhD in theoretical physics&quot;), on my blog, that this decrease is obviously--to any competent physicist--the result of increased CO2 in the atmosphere, which we also obviously already knew, from the Mauna Loa measurements of CO2 in particular. But Spencer, and I must assume all those who use the TOA measurements to tout &quot;proof&quot; of the global-warming &quot;greenhouse effect&quot;, instead say decreased upwelling radiation, in those specific bands, inescapably implies a rising atmospheric energy level, and increased global mean surface temperature. You and I, on the other hand, at least understand that they have gotten hold of a bad radiation transfer theory--in effect, a false dogma, which they refuse to have questioned--and are really measuring temperature, from various levels in the atmosphere, when they think they are measuring LW radiation intensity spectra at TOA. I haven&#39;t put together a re-analysis of those spectra (though I know you have, from your posts here), so I won&#39;t get into the details of those spectra--I don&#39;t know enough about them to be definitive. I will merely say that as a responsible (and honest) physicist, I have fundamental doubts about every aspect of the consensus interpretation of them, and I caution the public to give them no credibility, in the face of my clear and simple Venus/Earth temperature comparison, which show the Venus/Earth temperature ratio, at points of equal pressure in the two tropospheres, over the full range of Earth tropospheric pressures, is precisely due only to the ratio of their distances from the Sun, and nothing else--which inescapably means they both are warmed by direct absorption of the same physical fraction of the incident solar radiation, not from the planetary surface as all the &quot;experts&quot; here on Earth strangely believe.Harry Dale Huffmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03210275295826050501noreply@blogger.com