Get a load of this e-mail exchange and how he resorts to insults when he gets cornered by professional engineering science experts
in energy transfer which know a perpetual motion machine when they see one
Half way through he has to dump the "Yes Virginia cooler objects can make warmer objects even warmer"
And later he has to dump Trenberth`s "energy balance".
Then he resorts to the usual "climate science" childish debating cop-out, claiming he is thee autority, attacking his critics with insults
and lastly that he has no time to waste for any such peer review.
http://www.tech-know-group.com/archives/Back-radiation_Story_21Mar12.pdf
From: Pierre Latour
in energy transfer which know a perpetual motion machine when they see one
Half way through he has to dump the "Yes Virginia cooler objects can make warmer objects even warmer"
And later he has to dump Trenberth`s "energy balance".
Then he resorts to the usual "climate science" childish debating cop-out, claiming he is thee autority, attacking his critics with insults
and lastly that he has no time to waste for any such peer review.
http://www.tech-know-group.com/archives/Back-radiation_Story_21Mar12.pdf
From: Pierre Latour
And there You have it...it`s what many others and I have been saying all along in this forum.To: Roy W Spencer
Subject: No Virginia, Cooler Objects Cannot Make Warmer Objects Even Warmer Still Date: Mon, 7 Nov 2011 17:38:14 -0600
While Earth’s radiating temperature goes up and down from time to time, and atmospheric CO2 concentration has been increasing during the last few decades, I have yet to see a plausible theory connecting anthropogenic CO2 to significant temperature effects, like plus or minus 1C for say 10% changes in fossil fuel combustion. Any net steady-state effect appears to be vanishingly small. I believe there are numerous flaws in GHG theory.
My resume is available upon request.
Sincerely
Pierre R Latour, PE, PhD Chemical Process Control Systems Engineer
President, CLIFFTENT Inc., Houston
From: Roy Spencer
Sent: Monday, November 07, 2011 5:49 PM
To: Pierre Latour
Subject: RE: No Virginia, Cooler Objects Cannot Make Warmer Objects Even Warmer Still
Hi Pierre: Good to hear from you. Rather than the hypothetical experiment with plates, etc., let me ask you one question: Why does a hand-held IR thermometer measuring a clear sky apparent temperature of, say, 0 deg. F, increase its reading to, say, 40 deg. F when it is pointed at a low cloud, in both cases the ground air temperature being (say) 60 deg. F? The point is that the sky-viewing portion of the thermopile warms when it is pointed at the cloud, even though the thermometer itself is warmer than the cloud. How do you explain that without downwelling IR radiation being part of the atmosphere's (and surface's) energy budget? -Roy
From: Pierre Latour
To: Roy W Spencer
Thermometers and thermocouples measure a different point property, thermal temperature of matter, the molecules surrounding the bulb or thermocouple, like the surface air around it. Radiating matter has two different types of temperatures.
That is why we use pyrometers to measure radiation intensity of electric fields and thermometers to measure thermal heat intensity of gases, liquids and solids. (This is basic physics, chemical engineering and instrumentation business.)
One of many causes of confusion in the low level public literature on GHG is failure to understand these two temperatures and how they are related to two different physical phenomena and energy transfer mechanisms: radiation by 300k km/s pure energy field of zero mass and slow conduction/convection by matter.
Does your prompt abandonment of your hot plates thought experiment indicate you see I may have a point? How firm are you in your belief Cooler Objects Can Make Warmer Objects Even Warmer Still? If you have elevated that assumption beyond belief to knowledge and your mind is quite closed on the subject, please tell me in fairness; we are both busy.
From: Roy Spencer
Sent: Tuesday, November 08, 2011 9:56 AM
To: Pierre Latour Subject: RE: No Virginia, Cooler Objects Cannot Make Warmer Objects Even Warmer Still, v1.1
Pierre: But the IR thermometer measurements can prove the same point at night, too! OK, so do the test INSIDE your house....let the IR thermometer warm up in your hand, then point it at the inside of a refrigerator (reading a cold temperature). Then point it at the outside of the refrigerator (reading close to room temperature). (Turn the light off in the room and do it again. Same result.) And, yes, I am aware of the differences between thermometers, pyrometers, thermocouples, etc. I have not abandoned the theoretical example of hot and cold plates...instead, the IR thermometer test described above is the most direct proof of the concept, which you can perform yourself. Because the lens-illuminated side of the thermopile is actually changing its temperature in response to changes in incident IR, and will warm even if the object it is viewing is colder than the thermopile (when its field of view is changed from the inside of the refrigerator to the outside). Pierre, surely you are smart enough to recognize this as basic thermal radiation physics. -Roy
Open Letter to Dr S Fred Singer, American Thinker
By Pierre R Latour, PE, PhD Chemical Process Engineer, March 9, 2012
First, I recognize your expertise at evaluating climate data and UN IPCC conclusions for validity; you are well-known to have proven GHG Theory effects on AGW are greatly exaggerated and not supported by any reliable data. You go further to claim CO2 does cause warming, without proof or quantification. Your key seminar point was one cannot prove causality from trend data correlations as UN IPCC climatologists do. Process systems engineers learn this from birth. This is also why you cannot disprove causality from trend data either.
While I am unpaid and have no obligation to disprove the GHG Theory, you might like to learn about the much stronger intellectual arguments against that theory by your natural allies than merely analyzing data.
Fourth, you acknowledge that this thermodynamics “argument is used by physicists and even some professors who teach thermodynamics”. If my engineering support of that denier claim when I spoke to you personally at U of H prompted this acknowledgement, I am pleased.
Fifth, then you say you are surprised this thermo claim is used. Does this indicate you have not studied engineering thermo as carefully as UN IPCC data?
Sixth, I accept the data provided by you and Roy Spencer that the sky emits infrared radiation toward the earth. Everyone knows gas scatters and emits in all directions. But this does not prove that the warmer surface absorbs all or any of the back-radiation from cold CO2 molecules, thus emitting more infrared than otherwise and heating the Earth. I took some care to describe this in English and math in my No Virginia post. If you can invalidate or validate my proof, that would help reconciliation. I recommend you brush up on absorptivity, emissivity, scatter, reflection, transmission and conversion of radiation by colorful matter.
Seventh, my post and personal email reply to you and Roy Spencer on this issue
Ninth, since my claim and proof, supported by physicists and professors known to you, that GHG Theory incorporates a perpetual motion machine to drive global warming in perpetuity is such a momentous result, and GHG Theory is such a ridiculous and falsified theory, it is fair to say your casual dismissal with this brief paragraph is quite unscientific and an affront to the engineering profession. It behooves you to study this science more carefully. You really owe them some evidence to support your charge “their minds are closed to any such evidence” or a retraction, to restore your sterling reputation.
From: S. Fred Singer
Sent: Sunday, March 11, 2012 8:01 PM
To: Pierre Latour Cc: Roy Spencer; Lubos Motl; Will Happer; Ken Haapala; Tom Sheahen Subject: Open Letter
Dear Pierre I read yr Open Letter (received via John O'Sullivan)
I am happy to respond but do not expect that you will be convinced by my arguments. So about the best I can do is to state my point of view as clearly as possible. As I understand it you claim that anthropogenic global warming (AGW) is impossible since it violates the first and second law of thermodynamics -- acc to your essay "No, Virginia, cooler objects cannot make warmer objects even warmer still" dated 6 Nov, 2011 As I understand it, you deny existence of "Back-radiation" (often referred as downwelling infrared radiation). This Back-radiation comes mainly from CO2 and water vapor molecules in the atmosphere but is absorbed by the earth and therefore adds energy and heat to the energy received directly from solar visible radiation I note that you have composed this essay in responding to Dr. Roy Spencer. So perhaps it would save time for both of us if I just associate myself with his position and his arguments. I will only note that this downwelling radiation can and has been measured in studies, so there is little doubt of its existence. Once absorbed it must necessarily add energy to the earth. In my opinion, this does not violate the laws of thermodynamics. Best wishes Fred S. Fred
From: Pierre Latour
Sent: Monday, March 12, 2012 3:46 PM
To: S. Fred Singer; Tom Sheahen Cc: Roy Spencer; Lubos Motl; Will Happer; Ken Haapala; Tom Sheahen; Larry Bell; Subject: RE: Open Letter Exchange v1
Dear Dr S Fred Singer,
Thank you very much for your response yesterday and analysis of the physics of radiation by Earth’s atmosphere. I am grateful you took time to study my work. I assume you won’t mind if I publish our exchange.
I rest my case.
Dr Singer is wise not to expect me to be convinced by his arguments, because he has no valid ones. All he is left with is his point of view, his opinion, as he honestly admits. He failed to answer any of my charges.
Actually he erred slightly in restating my position, a common debating trick. What I actually claimed is GHG theory is built on a notion of back-radiation in the infamous Kiehl-Trenberth diagram, which does indeed violate the laws of thermo and cannot exist in nature.
Singer restates my definition of back-radiation quite well, assigning it the property to be absorbed by warmer bodies than itself, and asserting “is absorbed by the earth and therefore adds energy and heat to the energy received directly from solar visible radiation” and repeats himself with great clarity “once absorbed it must necessarily add energy to the Earth”.
Since his down-welling radiation emitted by cold CO2 is already energy of the Earth, both statements are either imprecise expressions of what he means or more likely confirmation that he believes energy is indeed created by the GHG Theory back-radiation idea, driving AGW in perpetuity, in agreement with my contention and a direct violation of the First Law.
Then Singer associates himself with Roy Spencer “to save time”, the policy of appeal to authority that prevailed from ancient times until F Bacon inaugurated the age of Reason in 1620 to supplant it. Kors, A, “The Birth of the Modern Mind”, Teaching Company. That authority argument no longer washes. It was superseded by science some time ago. It is clear Singer cannot support his position by himself and relies on Roy Spencer to handle it. Since I already successfully debated Dr Spencer on the same issue, resting my case seems to be appropriate.
Your key seminar point was one cannot prove causality from trend data correlations as UN IPCC do.
I agree; process systems engineers learn this from birth. This is also why you cannot disprove causality from trend data either. Just because the sun rises from yonder hill exactly 15 minutes before the rooster crows does not mean that rooster causes the sun to rise each day, fifteen minutes after he crows.
While Tom Sheahen does not quite address my argument, he is suspicious of GHG Theory as well. He may be skeptical, even a denier. He certainly does not dispute my analysis or support Singer. Sheahen asserts his central point that radiation into and out of a particular molecular band is not blackbody radiation. He understands CO2 molecules don’t just absorb, they emit as well. I shall accept it until I find a falsification, because black-bodies are a theoretical simplification of reality. I do think Earth’s matter is colorful. Which is why EMR is reflected, scattered, transmitted or absorbed and emitted. There is more to it than GHG Theory KiehlTrenberth diagram. It is called quantum chemistry and chemical engineering.
I rest my case. I am your natural ally.
Pierre R Latour, PE TX & CA, PhD Chemical Engineer
President, CLIFFTENT Inc.
Houston
From: Roy Spencer
Sent: Monday, March 12, 2012 8:24 PM
To: Pierre Latour Cc: S. Fred Singer; Tom Sheahen; Lubos Motl; Will Happer; Ken Haapala; Tom Sheahen; Larry Bell Subject: RE: Open Letter Exchange v1
I must admit, I seem to be less critical of appealing to authority...when I'm the authority.
-Roy
From: Pierre Latour
Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2012 9:29 AM
To: S. Fred Singer Cc: Tom Sheahen; Roy Spencer; Claes Johnson Subject: RE: Open Letter Exchange v2
Should you care to learn about the experimental data that disproves cold radiation is absorbed and emitted from hot bodies, consider:
1. As two 100 watt incandescent light bulbs are brought together, their filaments continue to radiate 100 watts each, no matter how close they are.
2. As two focused reflecting headlights are directed at and approach each other, neither emits more brightly due to absorption from the other.
3. Moonshine does not warm hot surfaces during daytime.
4. GHG Theory back-radiation is never observed in natural gas fired furnaces, forges and boilers, heating flames even more. Engineers do not design radiant heat transfer equipment on that basis.
5. As colder IR emitting clouds pass overhead, their down-welling IR, detected by photometers, is not observed to be absorbed by hotter ground surfaces and is not re-radiated back up, warming the cold clouds one whit. For one thing the photometers Dr Roy Spencer reports pointing at the clouds are pointing in the wrong direction.
6. Cold, radiating CO2 molecules at 10 km may shine down the radiation they absorb from Earth’s surface and emit it in all directions, but it has never been observed to be reabsorbed by hot surfaces below.
7. The radiating colder plate hypothesized by Dr Roy Spencer does not heat the hotter one radiating to it, because energy does not transfer from cold bodies to warmer ones.
8. GHG Theory of back-radiation from CO2 creating energy has never been observed because it does not exist in nature.
9. Your suspicions should have been aroused when you read the quantities in the Keihl-Trenberth diagram were proclaimed rather than derived from physics, accounting for reflection, scattering and inverse square law and Beer-Lambert Law.
10. Reviewing my eight years of university science and engineering text books, all my professional acquaintances and all my readings since 1957, the literature of quantum chemistry and GHG Theory, I never encountered anyone promoting the notion cold body back-radiation warms hot bodies until Roy Spencer in July, 2010 and you in February, 2012. I cannot find any reference to quantify it. While being a minority of two does not make you wrong, it does make you a small minority.
The scientific and engineering consensus on this matter is universal because the data is overwhelming and thermodynamics rules.
Prof Claes Johnson has adopted a position similar to mine:
Claes Johnson on Mathematics and Science: Fred Singer Believes in Backradiation
His reasoning is at:
Two Proofs of Planck’s Law vs Backradiation – The World As Computation
With a bit more at: From Spectrum to Heat Transfer – The World As Computation
If you care to identify those physicists and professors you mentioned who agree GHG Theory violates the laws of thermo, I would be pleased to learn about their reasoning. If you come across any science to support your GHG Theory position, many like me would be pleased to review it.
I look forward to your next report on UN IPCC publications.
From: Dick Lindzen
Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2012 10:08 AM
To: Pierre Latour Cc: S. Fred Singer; Roy Spencer; Tom Sheahen; Claes Johnson Subject: RE: Open Letter Exchange v3
Dear Pierre, This rather bizarre 'discourse' seems to centered on the fact that the greenhouse effect that you are criticizing is essentially the one presented by Gore and possibly implicit in the Trenberth-Kiehl figure. This is not the greenhouse effect that Roy, Fred and I are talking about. The one we are talking about is the one that is actually working in all radiative convective calculations and in GCMs. Why don't you spend the little time needed to understand the difference?
Dick
-----Original Message-----
From: Claes Johnson
Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2012 10:15 AM
To: Pierre Latour Cc: S. Fred Singer; Roy Spencer; Tom Sheahen; Richard S. Lindzen Subject: Re: Open Letter Exchange v3
Dear Pierre:
I fully support your efforts to come to grips with the misconceptions carried by Roy and Fred (and probably also Lord M and Lindzen) as leading skeptics, of a greenhouse effect operating on "backradiation" or "downwelling" long wave radiation, misconceptions which are deeply troubling to the skeptics cause. I have myself tried to come to a constructive discussion with Roy and Fred, but I have not been successful.
-----Original Message-----
From: Roy Spencer
Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2012 8:42 AM
To: Pierre Latour Cc: Dick Lindzen; S. Fred Singer; Tom Sheahen; Claes Johnson; Larry Bell Subject: RE: Open Letter Exchange v4
Pierre:
Since Dick might be too polite to respond, I will.
When a scientist wants to learn what is known on a certain subject, he/she reads the pertinent literature. This is not easy, but it is also not our jobs to educate you on a difficult subject.
You could ask me to prove from first principles that force equals mass times acceleration (F=MA), but I am either going to ignore your request, or ask you to read the literature first.
Your requests waste everyone's time, and you seem to believe a lack of response means your views and criticisms have merit, when in fact they have too little merit to deserve a response.
If you want to play in this game and be taken seriously, do what scientists do...go do your homework first.
-Roy
-----
From: Pierre Latour
Sent: Friday, March 16, 2012 10:46 AM
To: Dick Lindzen Cc: S. Fred Singer; Roy Spencer; Tom Sheahen; Claes Johnson; Larry Bell Subject: Next Exchange, Lindzen & Latour
Dear Prof Richard Lindzen,
I am surprised you don’t want to talk about it. I hope you are not upset with me. You welcomed my inquires in the past. You are a preeminent teacher and writer on Greenhouse Gas theory. Every professor I ever met considered teaching a noble profession.
Now that you, Dr Spencer and Dr Singer are on notice a proof with backup evidence exists that the GHG Theory involves a perpetual motion machine, ethics calls you to 1) refute the proof, 2) study it and refrain from endorsing GHG Theory until the matter is settled, or 3) accept the proof and encourage others to stop working on a GHG Theory perpetual motion machine too.
I shall continue to read your publications even if you don’t want to read mine. I promote open debate, intellectual dialog and education. Heartland. (Heartland dropped your speech video May 17, 2010 in Chicago.)
Once I evaluate your model T = T0/(1 – f), I will keep it to myself until you ask for it. My plan is to verify the three variables relate to measurable phenomena, at least two can be determined from fundamental constants or well-known physical properties, the relation between them is based on established laws of physics, the relation fits data, the relation has predictive power, it contributes to knowledge and it is useful. Then I will make use it.
-----Original Message-----
From: Roy Spencer
Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2012 10:14 AM
To: Claes Johnson
Cc: Pierre Latour; Dick Lindzen; S. Fred Singer; Tom Sheahen; Larry Bell
Subject: Re: Open Letter Exchange v4
My blog post simply points out that less infrared energy escaping from the Earth to space leads to net energy accumulation, and a temperature increase.
If you consider conservation of energy a "triviality", I cannot help you Claes.
-Roy
From: Claes Johnson
Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2012 9:52 AM
To: Roy Spencer
Cc: Pierre Latour; Dick Lindzen; S. Fred Singer; Tom Sheahen; Larry Bell
Subject: Re: Open Letter Exchange v4
No Roy, this is a very important discussion which you attempt to kill with ridicule. Why not instead present your greenhouse theory, if you have one.
What you presented in Alabama two-step is a triviality.
You have taken an important role in the debate and you have a responsibility to live up to.
Claes
From: Roy Spencer
Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2012 9:17 AM
To: Claes Johnson
Cc: Pierre Latour; Dick Lindzen; S. Fred Singer; Tom Sheahen; Larry Bell
Subject: Re: Open Letter Exchange v4
Claes, are you suggesting it is unscientific to ask someone to do a little studying up, rather than agreeing to by tutored by us on the meaning of acronyms and other basics?
You are lucky that some of us still have enough patience to even respond to your comments. I sometimes get the feeling you only bait us so that you will have material for your blog.
-Roy
From: Pierre Latour Sent: Friday, March 16, 2012 10:47 AM To: Roy Spencer Cc: Dick Lindzen; S. Fred Singer; Tom Sheahen; Claes Johnson; Larry Bell; Marc Morano Subject: RE: Open Letter Exchange Spencer v5
Dear Dr Roy Spencer,
Good to hear from you again. I respect authority, particularly when it is correct. Clever reply on March 15 below. I deduce you selected Option 3: Adopt GHG Theory in my email (I deny it was angry or belligerent). May I publish our exchanges?
Agree on research. When a professional engineer wants to learn what is known on a certain subject, he/she reads the pertinent literature. Then evaluates it, draws conclusions, categorizes it as information, belief or knowledge, and tests it if they are so inclined. Sometimes it is easy; sometimes it is hard. Depends on the ability of the author and the reader; the teacher and the student; complexity of the subject.
Authority 101. What is the source of your authority? Limited to what fields? What are your credentials? Are you an authority on engineering thermodynamics? Why do you believe you are competent to recognize when a theory will result in a perpetual motion machine and can you provide reasons to certify GHG Theory does not constitute one? Have you ever done it? Do you know the difference between the First Kind and the Second Kind? Would you like me to guide you to the appropriate references? Are you an authority on detecting attempts to build perpetual motion machines? (I am.) If you have any problems or questions about my helpful No Virginia rebuttal, are you able to formulate them? Are you aware the main reason great engineers like Michael Faraday, Thomas Edison, George Westinghouse and Henry Ford refrained from working on perpetual motion machines was because they were avid students of their predecessor engineer, Sadi Carnot, 1824? Do you know what he proved? Cold plates don’t heat hot plates. Do you have any issues with these other engineers, or just me?
Position of authority. Some perceive your position on a high mountain, in a tall ivory tower, on top of a pinnacle, inside clouds that look like fog. Seriously. I am just trying to save you from embarrassment. Honestly. Why would you object to an engineer reviewing your work?
Your first Yes Virginia on July 23, 2010 did not go over so hot; your second Alabama Two Step attempt on March 14, 2012 flopped more quickly. Was it a response to Dr Fred Singer’s March 11, 2012 request of you to defend him? Would you be interested in a low cost professional peer review of your Alabama Two Step by a Texas Two Stepper? You got 250 replies in first 48 hours! Many thoughtful ones rebutted you with less care than I did. Don’t tell me there is wide consensus supporting your position. In fact Alabama Two Step was quite a step back from your Yes Virginia, at least two. Dr Singer must be disappointed in your performance defending his indefensible support of perpetual motion machines. No new physics. Where is the beef? What is your job anyway? Since you and Dr Singer deny the Second Law of thermo applies to “down-welling” radiation from cold to hot matter, I have an impeccable reference that says you are deniers too, Webster’s Dictionary.
It is not my job to prove GHG Theory embodies the notion of a perpetual motion machine to sustain AGW, I just did it as a favor to you. It is your job to deny it because you publically affirmed it in July 2010 Yes Virginia.
Do you consider yourself a teacher, a student, or neither? I ask that because some who have tried to teach you about how radiation works feel despair at your inability to learn.
Literature. If you wish me to infer that you claim I have not read the pertinent literature before daring to rebut you, you need some evidence to back up that charge. I reported I read your essay and all bloggers. You did not demand that of any of your bloggers, many of whom refuted your essay, just as you invited us to do, so why single me out for unfair innuendo? Your proper move was to 1) refute my rebuttal if you can, 2) acknowledge you are analyzing it carefully, 3) accept it with professional grace, or 4) cover up my rebuttal. When a debater resorts to personal attacks it is a clear sign they realize they lost the debate but lack the ability to admit it. I learned this law of human nature in high school debate club, 1955. When a debater resorts to saying his opponent "wastes everyone's time", that is considered a very weak reason for avoiding or blocking debate. Professional engineers are trained not to do that. Court juries are too.
Proof requested. I do indeed ask you to prove from first principles your very important public back-radiation claim. Or at least provide some references to support it. Asking your students to scour www and Library of Congress to verify your bizarre claim cold heats warm asks too much. You are free to ignore mine and ask me to read more unspecified literature until the cows come home, but that simply confirms your No Virginia essay cannot stand on its own. Your second essay blog creation on the same subject, Alabama Two Step, shows you concluded your first
one didn't express what you meant to your satisfaction or do the job you intended. To be clear, it didn’t pass muster. I welcome your next attempt.
From: Pierre Latour Sent: Saturday, March 17, 2012 6:00 PM To: Marc Morano Cc: Dick Lindzen; S. Fred Singer; Tom Sheahen; Claes Johnson; Larry Bell; Roy Spencer Subject: Perpetual Motion Machine Work
Marc,
I discovered GHG – AGW promoters are relying on a Perpetual Motion Machine, PMM12, to drive warming in perpetuity!
Remember me, the registered chemical process control engineer you placed in US Senate 700 Dissenters List, pg 87 because I proved during 1997 Kyoto any thermostat for whole Earth adjusting fossil fuel combustion would never work?
Good Stuff. Well many engineers have studied a basic tenet of GHG Theory: cold atmospheric CO2 radiates IR back down with sufficient intensity that Earth’s warm surface, that radiated it up to them, will absorb all of it and radiate it back up, as shown in famous Kiehl-Trenberth diagram explaining GHG Theory that drives AGW. They concluded that 333 w/m2 Back Radiation at far-right would constitute heat transfer from cold to hot, a violation of the Second Law of thermodynamics.
Dr Roy Spencer brought this issue to the world’s attention in July, 2010 with Yes Virginia. I looked into it and discovered that back-radiation assumption mathematically leads to energy creation, just what AGW promoters need to drive AGW. I posted my analysis No Virginia. Cold plates do not warm hot plates. Prof Claes Johnson has the quantum physics to explain why radiation doesn’t work that way. This means a perpetual motion machine concept, PMM, is the real foundation of GHG Theory and explains why that theory cannot predict anything, there is nothing to it. Until the world realizes they are wasting time and treasure in perpetuity researching to build an impossible thermostat with a PMM, they will continue working, researching and spending in perpetuity. We are talking about real money here, eventually
Since then Dr Fred Singer personally confirmed to me he knows of other scientists and professors that share that conclusion. A dialog on the matter ensued between Dr Roy Spencer, Dr Pierre Latour, Dr Fred Singer, Dr Richard Lindzen and Dr Claes Johnson. I copied you on some. I have collected the Spencer-Latour-Singer-Lindzen-Johnson exchange in attached Singer Letter 9Mar12.pdf.
You will note Lindzen says our exchange “seems to be centered on the fact that the greenhouse effect that you are criticizing is essentially the one presented by Gore and possibly implicit in the Trenberth-Kiehl figure.” Since that is precisely the greenhouse effect we are criticizing, I assume Dr Lindzen has some misgivings about that theory like so many engineers do and may be open to reviewing my thermodynamic analysis, supported by physics Professor Claes Johnson.
Pierre R Latour, PE Texas & CA, PhD Chemical Engineer,
President, CLIFFTENT Inc., Houston
Last edited:
