New book: Slaying the Sky Dragon

New book: Slaying the Sky Dragon“. You know a climate denial book is on shaky ground when even Anthony Watts has trouble with the list of authors! Yes, “Iron Sun” kook Oliver K. Manuel is among this confederacy of dunces.

Windmills on the Moon and dragon-riding astronauts!

Still, Anthony’s happy to report that Slaying the Sky Dragon: Death of the Greenhouse Gas Theory, available as an e-book only, has debunked the greenhouse gas theory. Funny how these devastating “refutations” of accepted science never seem to find their way into an actual scientific journal. Damn those cliquish scientists and their social networks!

Read the author’s modest description of their own work. Bemused emphasis mine.

Even before publication, Slaying the Sky Dragon was destined to be the benchmark for future generations of climate researchers. This is the world’s first and only full volume refutation of the greenhouse gas theory of man-made global warming.

Nine leading international experts methodically expose how willful fakery and outright incompetence were hidden within the politicized realm of government climatology. Applying a thoughtful and sympathetic writing style, the authors help even the untrained mind to navigate the maze of atmospheric thermodynamics. Step-by-step the reader is shown why the so-called greenhouse effect cannot possibly exist in nature.

By deft statistical analysis the cornerstones of climate equations – incorrectly calculated by an incredible factor of three – are exposed then shattered.

This volume is a scientific tour de force and the game-changer for international environmental policymakers as well as being a joy to read for hard-pressed taxpayers everywhere.

Journeyman denialist and former professor of geography Tim Ball seems the only author with even faintly relevant scientific credentials…

5 thoughts on “New book: Slaying the Sky Dragon

  1. Pingback: Greenhouse Thought Experiment « Wott's Up With That?

  2. Clearly you’re appealing to authority(a discredited one!) and have not read the book which shows that disproves the Kiehl and Trenberth chart (upon which all IPCC calculations are based) with separate back radiation from the troposphere and the lowest stratosphere, which has a few different numbers in it. It is full of mind-boggling errors in many ways. But the net 321 W/m2 of back radiation to the ground claimed there is generated by having the troposphere absorb 100% of the back radiation they claim comes from the lowest stratosphere, which itself absorbs 271 W/m2 of the IR radiation emitted toward space from the troposphere, providing 147 W/m2 of additional back radiation power into the atmosphere after adding 10 W/m2 absorbed from incoming solar radiation in the troposphere and 13 W/m2 direct from the ground as IR and then dividing the sum by 2, since half of the IR is radiated to space and half back to the ground. Odd that none of that radiation makes it directly to the ground. But their flux numbers in and out do add up in that diagram in the stratosphere, the troposphere, and at the ground, though many of them are nonsense. In the Kiehl and Trenberth diagram 169 W/m2 is dumped into the atmosphere and is noted not to be the 324 W/m2 in the back radiation direction. The method in the diagram that they used would give a larger value than 169. They claim that of the 390 W/m2 emitted from the surface, the atmosphere absorbs all but 40 W/m2. This means that all but 10.3% of the outgoing 390 W/m2 is absorbed by the atmosphere. That seems to be a considerable over-estimate of the power absorbed in the atmosphere. But 169 + 350 = 519 W/m2 and half of this is then supposed to be back radiation, or about 260 W/m2 using the method they used in the more recent diagram, which is still short of the 324 W/m2 of this version of other of their diagrams. In some of their rationale was that of the 350 W/m2 of surface emitted IR radiation absorbed by the atmosphere, they say 165 W/m2 is emitted into space as IR radiation. This is about half of 350 W/m2 and half is radiated back to the earth’s surface. In their earlier work they claimed that a geometric series applies with the energy due to back radiation absorbed at the surface being again absorbed by the
    atmosphere and half of that was radiated to the ground, which repeats in an infinite series. Thus the back radiation energy would be 165 (1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + 1/16 + …) where the geometric series equals 1, but they claimed it was 2. We believe their error came from missing the fact that the first term (n=0) of the general series ar^n is 1 for a =1 and they forgot to subtract it. With that error, they claimed the back radiation was 2 (165) = 330, which they must have fudged to 324 to balance the surface fluxes in and out. Newer diagrams do not apply the geometric series at all. Later versions have the 67 + 24 + 78 figures just vaporized! The science is really that bad! The 390 W/m2 of surface radiation comes from assuming the ground is a black body radiator with an emissivity of one, so that is also nonsense. The 169 W/m2 absorbed by the ground from the incoming solar radiation is a much lower fraction of the incoming solar radiation than various reported measurements indicate. This is only 49% of the incoming solar radiation, while measurements I have seen claim that should be between 65% and 75%. Let us examine the implications of this figure for the daytime versus night balance of energy. If the daytime warms the surface, the nighttime must cool it by about the same amount or the earth would burn to a crisp. At night the surface radiation and back radiation are not much changed since the temperature is only about 5 C lower than the daytime temperature and the back radiation is insensitive to change due to thermals and evaporation (if you accept their low values for these). The night time cooling rate should be between about: 390 + 24 + 78 – 324 = 168 W/m2 and 390 + (24 +78)/2 – 324 = 117 W/m2 The daytime warming rate is between about 2(168) – 24 – 78 + 324 -390 = 168 W/m2 and 2(168) – (3/2) (24 + 78) + 324 – 390 = 117 W/m2, which is good balance between day and night. But, when we apply the same method to their newer diagram
    with the stratosphere back radiation, the nighttime cooling rate is between 120 and -27 W/m2, where -27 means nighttime warming. The daytime warming rate is between 120 and 169 W/m2 and adjusting for the different night and day surface temperatures makes the minimal overlap at 120 W/m2 disappear. Clearly a more careful calculation should be made, but this is suggestive that their newer diagram has problems with the numbers.

    [Dunning, meet Kruger. You expect me to read that indigestible blob? Stick to your “anti-corruption” crusade. – Ben]

  3. Pingback: Thanks to Michael Mann’s response, a newspaper censors a letter to the editor ex post facto « Wott's Up With That?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s