There is… 1) No “Greenhouse effect”. 2) No “Greenhouse gases”. 3)No Anthropogenic Global Warming… AGW.

I’ve decided to do a summary of the science at home here on this site which I hope the readers can understand.

Firstly, there is the huge fundamental mistake made by every scientific institute on this planet……and that is the mistake of thinking (calculating) that the solar radiation arriving at the TOA (Top of the Atmosphere) is about 340 watts/sq.m. as depicted in Trenberth’s looney Earth Energy Budget Diagrams, .. when it is in fact the reality of about 1360 watts/sq.m. This is argued here.. with a bit of follow up …

The fact that it is 1360 watts/sq.m. solar radiation at the TOA derived by orbital mechanics and calculus (the Earth going round the Sun) …. calculated, as well as being the measured reality….so that the solar radiation at the TOA is non-directional covering the whole globe at the TOA., something like an outer shell. … a bulk load.

An analogy would be the Sun constantly spraying out radiation like a paint sprayer, with a variable (flickering, waxing and waning) ejection system, and the radiation received at the TOA is the thickness of that coating of the paint received over one year.

It is 1360 watts/sq.m. solar radiation at the TOA… it is measured, real and must remain as just that.

Next we want to know what that means for the solar radiation arriving at the real Earth’s surface…..but, with that horrendous mistake, ie. 1360 watts/sq.m. solar….not 340 watts/sq.m.; we’re already aware that there is only a slim chance there could be a “greenhouse effect”.

My understanding is that the surface of the Earth we stand on, receives solar radiation of about 320 watts/sq.m..

How do we get that? Well, again by orbital mechanics and calculus we get the “inner shell” (at about 5ft. off the ground where we have the Stevenson screens,) …of about 340 watts/sq.m…..but which, by mathematical coincidence, is exactly the same as the geometric “attenuation” of the solar rays. ie divide in 1/2 for day/night attenuation then 1/2 again for the Earth’s curvature. ie divide by 4. So that is the geometric “attenuation” without accounting for the atmospheric attenuation. There was this (unintentional) confusion by Dr Roy Spencer who pointed this out in his reply to me here..

Then there is this bloke, Rick who got himself terribly confused (probably my fault) with his confrontation with me ,from this comment and the thread down, where all of this is covered…

My understanding is that the atmospheric solar attenuation is about 20 watts/sq.m. The atmosphere attenuates by either absorption or reflection (albedo is just a fancy name for reflection) This will bring you down to the about 320 watts/sq.m. at the Earth’s surface.

Take the 320 watts/sq.m and slot it into the Stefan-Boltzmann equation but using an Earth’s measured total emissivity of 0.82 , which was explained to me by Nasif Nahle back in 2011, here, and you come out with about 15 deg C… which is the Global Average Temperature…what instruments at the Earth’s surface measure.



The “Man of Thessally”clash.

Over at Richard Treadgold’s blog, I had a little arm-wrestle with the MOT troll.  Looked like he’d had enough at the end.  In this post…

Academic tells us to use Maori stars for planning

That links back to this thread where I started in on “Nick”.

Climate rebuttals to crack the activist grip on our mind

Enjoy …. btw,  RT just got rid of 3 trolls at the end of that first thread…..even Simon..who’d been there for years…. so things could get a bit quiet now.


Breakthrough into the Academia

A strange thing…. an invitation just popped up out of the blue in my email from The Conversation,  asking me to reply on a conversation there.  I had a look, saw a target and took it from there.

Because The Conversation is the number one, government funded blog of the Universities, I have to go by my real name, have to be very polite, and curb my tongue.  They will delete your comments at the drop of a hat.  It starts here, the thread is between me and David Arthur…..



“Climate Change” is a load of bollocks.

I’ve got myself in amongst the heartland of the lefties here in New Zealand with a blast onto the scene at The Standard. The bloke, RedLogix, especially didn’t like my presence with his final shot being that he resented me disturbing them after years of living in their cosy little AGW believing bubble. (or words to that effect).  Then there was Dennis Franks who told me to take it “elsewhere”….so bombs right on target….to the extent that I was quite surprised, that the moderators at The Standard, allowed my comments to remain. In the end, many thanks to the The Standard moderators … for them…. probably worse than swallowing razor-blades.

Anyhow, here is where to start reading….

Further down in this thread, here is the comment which explains the lack of any  “greenhouse effect”….

I’m quite happy about that comment…. but in the 2nd paragraph, a better read would be…..”…… to account for the day and night, Earth curvature, geometric “attenuation”…..”

In this thread, readers can discover that adding more CO2 to the atmosphere, actually has a COOLING effect…

Following all my links can lead you on a reading voyage of discovery… something like War and Peace.


OK,Right,I’m Setting up a blog.

After spending years on the internet posting comments on climate blogs, I’ve decided that it would be nice to have a little place of my own…..which could probably be called home, except every man and his dog on the whole planet could walk in the front door at any moment.

Punters in the great debate about “climate change” probably already know what I’ve written on the other climate sites, so these ramblings are not going to be very interesting to them…..also, I’m a techno-lazy dinosaur, so things are really out of my control with this blogging carry on.

What I’m saying, is that the blog is targeting all those who believe human activities are warming the planet, but have this little niggling doubt, that somehow this doesn’t seem to be real….and looking at it from a proper total perspective….doesn’t make any sense at all…ie it could be crap.

So if you are a “climate change” believer… before you start abusing me as a “denier” in the comments , you need to see where I’m coming from with my comments on Richard Treadgold’s site Climate Conversation Group in this thread……