Envelopes and ballpoints

Since I have been blocked from commenting at WTFIWWAW simply for asking which journal Anthony thought he could publish his drivel in (I did ask politely), I am forced to drag garbage from there over to here. His latest is a guest post from someone called David M Hoffer. I always worry about people who insist on using their middle initial. Anyway, this is one of those special posts where the person posting knows that not one single person amongst the sycophants is going to know what the hell he’s talking about because he’s got some maths in it. That won’t stop them from commenting on how clever he is without question. It’s the old adage, “if you can’t dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit.” Well it seems David M Hoffer, whoever he is, has determined that you can do climate science with a calculator, a ballpoint pen, and the back of an envelope. He’s decided that using anomalies or as he ever so wittily calls them anoma-lies is pointless. Why? I suppose if you don’t want to know how the Earth is warming up and you want to keep your head firmly buried in the sand it’s pointless. I have to admit, this is a new tactic I didn’t see coming. I’m calling it the “Hoarding Earth Anomaly Data Is Nonsense Stop Anomalies Now Dammit” tactic.

So, what is the post all about? David M Hoffer is claiming the IPCC have got it all wrong when using anomalies based on temperature data derived from measuring irradiance. At least I think that’s what he’s saying. He cites the Stefan – Boltzmann law and simplifies it for the readers down to a single equation.  He then plugs some numbers in and voila! A massive mistake…allegedly. Here it is.

Now, I’ll admit, I’m not up on this stuff myself (it’s not my field) but I thought I’d check it out anyway . Hoffer offered Wikipedia as a reference for the Stefan-Boltzmann Law so I went there. Now, I’m not sure but when you look at all the formulae given for calculating the temperature of the Earth, it is a lot more complicated than this.

 

So anyway, let’s get back to the difference that Hoffer is questioning. 5.4w/m2 versus 3.7w/m2. I reckon there’s about a 30% difference in those two figures. How could the IPCC be out by 30%? How about albedo? Isn’t the total albedo of Earth about 30%? Is albedo missing from Hoffer’s calculations? Did Hoffer need a bigger envelope?

I’m not asking these questions to be a smartarse. I would genuinely like to know.

Comments Off

Filed under Rogue's Gallery

Comments are closed.