by Judith Curry
On the Pierrehumbert thread, I stated:
So, if you have followed the Climate Etc. threads, the numerous threads on this topic at Scienceofdoom, and read Pierrehumbert’s article, is anyone still unconvinced about the Tyndall gas effect and its role in maintaining planetary temperatures? I’ve read Slaying the Sky Dragon and originally intended a rubuttal, but it would be too overwhelming to attempt this and probably pointless.
I was hoping to put to rest any skeptical debate about the basic physics of gaseous infrared radiative transfer. There are plenty of things to be skeptical about, but IMO this isn’t one of them.
Well, my statement has riled the authors of Slaying the Sky Dragon. I have been involved in extensive email discussion with the authors plus an additional 10 or so other individuals (skeptics). Several of these individuals on John O’Sullivan’s email list actually agree with my assessment, even though they regard themselves as staunch AGW skeptics.
One of the authors, Claes Johnson, along with John O’Sullivan, expects a serious critique from the climate community. Johnson says he intends to submit his papers to a peer reviewed journal. I agreed to host a discussion on Johnson’s chapters at Climate Etc., provided that the publishers of Slaying the Sky Dragon would make Johnson’s chapters publicly available on their website (which they have).
Johnson’s first chapter is entitled “Climate Thermodynamics,” which presents an energy budget for the earth and its atmosphere that does not include infrared radiation. The second chapter is entitled “Computational Black Body Radiation,” which seeks to overturn the last 100 years of modern physics and concludes that “back radiation is unphysical.”
For background info:
- Claes Johnson’s website is here
- Johnson’s blog is here, see specifically these posts ( here and here)
- John O’Sullivan’s advert for the debate at Climate Etc. (note Monckton and Costella are in my “corner” in criticizing the book and Johnson’s chapters).
I suspect that many undergrad physics or atmospheric science majors at Georgia Tech could effectively refute these chapters. I’m opening up this discussion at Climate Etc. since
- the Denizens seem to like threads on greenhouse physics
- I’m hoping we can slay the greenhouse dragon that is trying to refute the Tyndall gas effect once and for all.
It will be interesting to see how this goes. Claes Johnson has said that he will participate in the discussion.
Note: this is a technical thread, please keep your comments focused on Johnson’s arguments, or other aspects of Slaying the Sky Dragon. General comments about the greenhouse effect should continue on the Pierrehumbert thread.
It’s an interesting concept, that an atom cannot absorb (but only reflect) incoming EM at a cooler temp than its own blackbody emission temp at that instant. No idea if it’s true. My layman’s understanding of the thermodynamics constraint was just that it described net transfer, which must always be from hot to cold.
I have to agree with omnologos on this. By inferring that all those skeptical of the man-made global warming meme (some, like us, skeptical of the greenhouse gas theory, itself) are supposed to be seeking a unified front as if we are a political or military force is, frankly, absurd.
We prefer to leave ambitions to claim a consensus to the post-normal science green brigade; they appear to have abandoned the traditional tenets of the scientific method. Consensus is utterly meaningless- being proven right is the goal even when the so-called ‘consensus’ is adamant we are wrong.
The statement, “I suspect that many undergrad physics or atmospheric science majors at Georgia Tech could effectively refute these chapters” is so funny coming from someone who is “too busy” to do what she infers is such a basic task, herself.
Well, I mainly found it interesting that a number of people on your self selected email list were highly critical of the book and Johnson’s chapters. Your email list does not begin to reflect the broader range of skeptical opinions.
Judy, I intentionally invited to participate those who I knew to have contrary views . This is the whole point of debate isn’t it? Let’s see some actual analysis please rather than insults and hand waving so far displayed by those made uncomfortable by what the book presents.
Thank you for mentioning me John as my comment has been snipped out. Perhaps I should be glad it deserved that much of an attention.
Hi judith,
I was positively surprised by the first chapter, which correspond to the mental model I have formed about GH effect, but I do not really see where it is in conflict with mainstream view nor why it is independent of infrared radiation. On the contrary, it explicitely agree with mainstream view, that is that TOA is variable in height and the higher the more GH gaz is present. The only thing it add is that lapse rate below TOA is related to thermodynamic and not radiation, and that lapse rate can vary with humidity and thus is a potential feedback (negative feedback). Up to here, I perfectly agree, appart that one should mention that it is an approximative model because all radiation does not happen a a precise TOA height, but that TOA is an average concept, the atmosphere is not perfectly IR opaque and then IR transparent, it is semi-transparent so radiation is a diffuse process and all radiation occuring at TOA is only a (usefull?) approximation.
At this point, the model does not allow to predict the change of T_ground when CO2 is doubled, what would be needed is the change in TOA from CO2 doubling, and the various H2O feedbacks (on TOA itself, and on lapse rate). Still, this model seems to me much more useful and closer to reality than pure radiative model with an IR opaque shell-like atmosphere concentrated at TOA, and the (negative) feedback of H2O on lapse rate seems perfectly valid (and not mentioned explicitely on previous GH accounts I have read).
This first chapter does not ring any physical alert bells though, so I guess reading the rest makes sense, and I am for now positively surprised by “Slaying…”…
oups, forgot to say: read the Pierrehumbert thread where I attempt to expose the mental model I built about GH effect. Done that only from the various GH threads here, at wuwt and rc, not from the “Slaying….” chapters….So u see why this first chapter was appealing to me :-)
ouch, started reading second chapter about blackbody…yikes, this one is definitely in crackpot territory, so “Slayer….” is a kind of mixed bag imho, if most chapter are long the first one, it is worthy, else (or if conclusion hold only if all chapters are true), then it will easily debunked…
Kai, the first chapter rests on the result of the 2nd chapter (they are both written by Claes Johnson), i.e. there is no back radiation and atmospheric infrared radiative transfer is not important in the earth’s energy balance. So if Ch 2 is crackpot, then Ch 1 is also.
Dr Curry,
To help the readers understand, please:
1. elaborate your definition of back radiation and your concept of it,
2. explain whats wrong with ” atmospheric infrared radiative transfer is not important in the earth’s energy balance”.
The Earth’s mass is so huge compared with atmospheric mass. The Earth’s IR energy emitted is so huge as compared with atmospheric absorption of IR energy. Will you care to do a comparison? Why is NASA’s radiation energy balance for K-12 incorrect?
Sam, I essentially agree with Pierrehumbert’s essay on this topic, see the previous pierrehumbert thread
Dr. Curry,
I admire your tactics of diverting your GT students’ attentions for avoiding direct answers to direct questions soon I found the Figure 1 model there is not a true representation of the atmosphere radiation transfer, namely, lack of the cloud radiation transfer and lack of layers direct radiation transfer to the Earth surface.
kai,
“… this one is definitely in crackpot territory”. This is very unrespectful to an an author who try to sort out radiation misconceptions, care to elaborate?
Is he really trying to sort out radiation misconceptions?
Whether he tries it or not, the result leads to think the opposite. The book in, which the article appears is definitely trying to increase misconceptions.
Its easy to make a generalized comment. I find generalised comments do increase misconceptions. Will you be more specific, such as list them out item by item, concept by concept, misconception by misconception, page by page? Doing it this way helps the readers understand your points of view.
Sam
I have done that kind of commenting in tens of messages. Repeating similar statements hundred or thousand times more, is not going to stop requests like yours.
When you stop commenting, there will always be a new participant, who starts from the beginning again. That will go on as long as this site is active.
Dr. Curry,
I am sorry you felt obliged to give so much space to the ‘Dragon’ book.
But if anything, it will unify skeptics by giving many something to agree on that fails as a skeptical case.
I see this book as sort of a left hand paranthesis to Hansen’s Venus-ization of Earth as a right hand paranthesis, expressing clear markers where wishful thinking has taken over.
Judy: I do not say that radiative transfer plays no role in climate. It would be
helpful for the debate if you woul read what I write and not freely invent crackpot themes.
Well yes, you admit to solar radiation and black body radiation. But your treatment in the first chapter completely omits atmospheric gases (and cloud) infrared radiative transfer (and includes that ludicrously incorrect diagram from more than 10 years ago that somehow continues to exist on a NASA web site).
Having said that Johnson is wrong, I’d like to point out that his first chapter on climate thermodynamics – emphasizing heat transport by convection and evaporation, but not including radiation from the atmosphere, is no more wrong than Pierrehumbert’s article which does the opposite – making the incorrect claim that the surface temperature can be determined by calculation that only includes radiation, ignoring convection and evaporation.
And yet of these two incorrect articles, Judith refers to one as “excellent” but says that the other could be refuted by undergraduates. I wonder if these same undergraduates could refute the Pierrehumbert article? I expect most could not, because the new generation of students are being brainwashed in the same way, for example by the GaTech course “EAS8803 – Atmospheric Radiative Transfer”. I note that the blurb for this course says that “Topics to be covered include the radiative balance at the surface”. I do hope that you have some students bright enough to realise that there is no radiative balance at the surface, and that one day this fact will dawn on those who design and teach the course.
Sorry, posted this in the wrong place in the thread.
Why NASA did not correct it and misled the general public for over 10 years with that incorrect diagram? Or NASA is incapable of understanding the subject of radiation? Or under the authority of James Hansen, no one in NASA dare to correct it?
This diagram apparently first appeared in a doc designed for K-12 education. The names Eric Barron (currently president of Florida State University) and John Theon were on the doc (back when theon was still employed at NASA and Barron was at Penn State, which places it in the mid 90’s). But I assume this diagram was drawn by a staff person, and Barron didn’t pay close attention. That is the only way I can explain this. Somehow John O’Sullivan spotted this (or at least publicized this). And it sits on a web site to the present day. In spite of my contacting several people about this. The bottom line is that there is too much form and not enough substance oversight on public communication documents (as opposed to satellite data quality issues, where there is a lot of oversight and checks and balance in place at NASA).
Over the 10 years, this diagram has misled the K-12 students, the teachers, the politicians and the world who visited the NASA site. This is a serious American educational flaw that NASA, Eric Barron and John Theon should be informed to correct the diagram or delete from the NASA website and owe the American Education and the world an apology.
If you have not asked them to correct it, please do as an educator at the Georgia Tech.
Ok fine then Judy: You don’t like the Kiehl-Trenberth diagram. So what is then wrong with it, as you see it? Maybe we share some insights?
I’m not clear which diagram you are discussing here. If it is Fig 5 of Chapter 2 of Johnson then it does closely resemble Fig 7 of Kiehl and Trenberth 1997. If the latter was ‘ludicrously incorrect’ then it was still given pride of place 10 years later (with added colour but no other changes apart from the caption) in IPCC AR4 WG1 Chapter 1, p 96 (2007). But I thought Dr Curry was referring to Fig 4 of Ch 1 of Johnson, which is also attributed to NASA, but which differs from the Ch 2 version in not showing any downward long-wave radiation. Is that also derived from K & T?
Judy: You say that “I suspect that many undergrad physics or atmospheric science majors at Georgia Tech could effectively refute these chapters”.
I suggest that you actually try this as a take home exam for your students.
From your teaching they will understand that Kiehl-Trenberth is wrong
but maybe they will find something they think is right. Go ahead!
Apart from an over-indulgence in post-modern civility, the chapter on Climate Thermodynamics pursues the misconceptions underlying current AGW theory. A helpful touchstone for pdf files is a scan for the word equilibrium where used to describe what physical science calls steady states. I find three such instances in this chapter, all wrt the adiabatic lapse rate. Equilibrium states have no net fluxes of matter or energy entering or leaving. (Canonical ensembles allow fluctuations.) Equilibrium profiles are isothermal and the adiabat is not. Steady states require external fluxes to prevent them from relaxing to equilibria. The alert student should now be asking, how do I determine this flux needed to maintain an adiabatic profile?
With CO2 doubling, one typically calculates a 2% flux reduction and then presumes a 2% increase in the thermodynamic potential difference (1/T) is needed to restore the flux level. Thus, given a 65K tropospheric differential, 1.3K. An alternative interpretation is that adding CO2 increases the resistivity of the troposphere, just as traces of phosphorus disproportionately increase the resistivity of a copper wire. Thermodynamics asks, what change in potential is required to restore the original rate of dissipation of free energy? In high school we learned the expression E^2/R, albeit in a different guise. Ergo, only a 1% potential change now compensates a 2% resistivity change to restore energy balance.
When our student resolves the difference in these solutions, he should be able to answer his earlier question. Perhaps herein lies Sommerfeld’s dilemma – thermodynamics is not the intuitively obvious subject it may superficially appear. To paraphrase yet another quotation, ” …, and you’re no Arnold Sommerfeld.”
Is the presumption of a 2% change in (1/T) tied to a 2% change in flux found in textbooks, and generally accepted in the climate change literature?
If so, then the generally accepted value for climate sensitivity is a factor of 4 too large. The reason is that the Stefan-Boltzmann law says j is proportional to T^4. Taking the derivative of both sides with respect to T, and then dividing both sides by the Stefan-Boltzmann law, and rearranging shows that the % change in T will be 1/4 times the % change in flux. Because 1/T contains T^1, the % change in (1/T) will also be 1/4 times the % change in flux. You and all other knowledgeable bloggers are asked to comment on and make any corrections to my calculations found at http://judithcurry.com/2010/11/30/physics-of-the-atmospheric-greenhouse-effect posted on Feb. 7 at 7:44 pm.
Well, of course Johnson is wrong. It is perhaps instructive and useful to try to explain why. In the ‘blackbody’ chapter he seems to think that a warm body can warm a cooler one but not a warmer one. He says at one point (sadly no page numbers) that there is two-way propagation of waves, but only one-way propagation of energy. How does that work? Are there two types of EM wave, one transporting energy and one not?! We can also ask him this : an isolated backbody is radiating into a vacuum. Then a warmer body is brought in. How does the first body ‘know’ to stop radiating energy in that particular direction?
Later on he tries to use equations – but his equation (4) is just wrong. Where does this equation come from? What is u supposed to represent? Why is radiation given by the third time derivative of u?
The email debate of last week was the first geniune airing of the flawed Physics of AGW in all history. The fundamental flaws are explained in “OMG….Maximum CO2 Will Warm Will Warm Earth for 20 Milliseconds” posted at ClimateChangeDispatch.com and at the SlayingtheSkyDreaong.com website. Surprising that the truth was hidden in plain sight for so long. Since the show is now over, I felt it necessary to add one final comment “Climate Follies Encore” which explains the post 20 Millisecond exchanges. This has been the greatest education process, for the wisest among us, and we will now share.
My chapter includes over 100 pages of footnotes and is supported by 60 articles in archive and Canada Free Press. We share a glorious future of truth. My thanks to Judy for enduring my repeated, well meaning barbs for over a year now. (co-author of SSD)
To PaulM: You have not read and understood my argument: I present a differential equation modeling two-way wave propagation combined with
radiation and with a dissipative effect making the energy transfer one-way,
from higher to lower frequency. If you don’t like this equation, give me one you think is a better model. Just words is to diffuse to discuss.
Perhaps you should start by reading a standard text book on Radiation Heat Transfer and then move on to some papers (H C Hottel would be a good start) and learn about the subject rather than propose some wild theory? The fact of ‘backradiation’ has been well tested in many situations, furnaces, radiation shields for thermocouples etc., let’s see you apply your theory to such situations and see how it works?
Please define back radiation which confuses me even though I had written something about it. To me, back radiation is reflection from the back with wall or relective radiation. A thermocouple when placed at the center of a pipe gain heat from the flowing media as well as radiation directly from the wall concentrated at the thermocouple measured an erronous fluid temperature. With such a wall you get radiation concentration. Without a wall, the radiation is minmal.
Similar analogy for the greenhouse situation, greenhouse has glass or sheets of clear plastics to trap most IR, without this layer of wall, no trapping of IR and hence no greenhouse. It is obvious.
2 black bodies at different temperatures, they all emit IR with the resultant energy flow from the hotter to the colder in a free radiation condition. The colder can have an extremely small effect of slowing down cooling of the hotter unless a back wall from the colder reflect the radiation to other directions are reflected by the back wall.
I have not read Mr. Claes Johnson’s article about the radiation. I will assume he is mostly correct in a free field radiation as in most climate situations. There is no back radiation. Furnace, thermocouples etc cases are not free field radiation cases which involved walls of reflecting radiations. Radiation involves walls of reflection has back radiation.
curryja | January 31, 2011 at 8:31 am
” (and includes that ludicrously incorrect diagram from more than 10 years ago that somehow continues to exist on a NASA web site). ”
As an “update” how about this diagram and text on Wikipedia,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Greenhouse_Effect.svg
it appears a little more recent. The text does not appear “improved” either.
So, no real changes to it appear warranted according to AGW.
Maybe you could explain what makes the old one and the “new” one “ludicrously incorrect”,
that might help in discussing what the “slayers” are showing, saying, suggesting, and raising for discusion.
Heck, we might even get to a better understanding of where the science actually is at present.
PS to PaulM: I start from the same equation as Planck did 100 years ago, but combine with finite precision computation instead of freely invented ad hoc
statistics. Statistics is not physics, just imagination, and physical particles have little imagination.
“Statistics is not physics, just imagination, and physical particles have little imagination”.
How dismiss 200 years of thermodynamics and physical statistics, with the only clue of a single metaphor: the “not-thinking” particle. Funny (what about: Einstein debunked, there is no light speed maximum: photons don’t care about cops and driving speed limits ?).
Anything else more substantial, perhaps?
Read the second chapter – it’s goofy, not physics. The initial clain to get rid of wave particle duality pretty much floored me, since this aspect has been very well experimentally shown. To accept this assertion means ignoring what you can see with your own eyes (and instrumentation) in a laboratory. A fatal flaw is confusing net energy flow with absolute energy flow – this is in the black body discussion. To say that a colder black body can’t radiate to a warmer black body (he calls this “back radiation”) is beyond ridiculous.
Basically, he presents a circular argument without proving his ridiculous premise, throws a bunch of jibberish (maybe not jibberish, but I don’t call it physics) in the middle to make it all seem scientific, and then returns to his unproven assertion that a colder body doesn’t have black body radiation in the direction of a warmer body. Thus, besides claiming no one knows the nature of a photon (as part of an argument against the traditional treatment of blackbody radiation – yet single photon experiments have been run for decades) , he negates the Superposition Principle and relies on some mysterious instantaneous knowledge existing in one body about the temperature and direction of all other bodies in the universe. I think the spook guys would love to have this type of instantaneous directional communication device in their hands.
Just to make it more clear, suppose you have two black bodies at different temperatures facing each other, with a shutter over each blocking all radiation. Remove the shutter in front of the colder body an very short time before removing the shutter in front of the hotter one. Then initially radiation would flow from the colder one toward the hotter one, and then reverse direction when the second shutter is opened.
The question is, can a cold body make a warm body hotter? Everything with mass and a temperature radiates. Who disputes that?
Imagine a hot body (with an internal or external heat source) and a passive body floating in the vacuum of space. Can the passive body make the hot body hotter? Imagine the passive body gets closer to the hotter…it will absorb more radiation, right? It will get warmer. If there was such a thing as back-radiation heating, then the hot body gets more of it back. Then the bodies get so close together…that they touch. Now the radiation effect is greatly magnified (whatever radiation can do, conduction does much better).
Does the hot body, at any time during this process, ever get hotter?
Radiation from a passive source cannot make a hot body hotter.
Radiation from a passive source cannot make a hot body hotter.
It certainly can, put a thermocouple in a flame and you’ll measure a certain temperature which is lower than the surrounding flame because of conductive losses down the wire and radiative losses to the surroundings. Surround the ThC with a silica tube and the temperature measured will increase due to radiation from the cooler tube.
Check out ‘Suction Pyrometers’:
http://www.combustion-centre.ifrf.net/requipment/temperature-heat/suction_pyrometer.html
I can’t tell if you’re kidding, Phil.
Transport your experiment into space so we can focus only on radiation effects. Then replace the flame heat source with a resistive one so it will work in a vacuum. Now, tell me how the passive thermocouple can increase the temperature of the heated body. The only thing it can do is cool the heated body…at various rates and with varying degrees of coupling, sure. But, under no condition can it make the heated body hotter. The passive body is never a source of heating for the source. Never.
Now, what does that tell you about Trenberth and Keihl’s energy balance schematic? The earth’s surface is heated by back radiation from passive CO2 and water vapor?
I never kid, your complete failure at understanding the applicable physics, lack of reading comprehension and refusal to read the cited material makes responding to you a complete waste of time!
The topic is radiation, Phil, the supposed mechanism for global warming caused by increasing CO2 in our atmosphere. You love to talk about conduction and convection as if I don’t understand these concepts, but that is a hand-waving distraction. Focus, Phil. We’re talking about radiation…and how a passive body can heat a body with a heat source. I know how a passive body can cool a hot body…let us count the ways. Your GHG theory depends on passive materials heating hot materials.
What are you going to do with radiation, Phil. Store it? Delay its transit time to space? You can reflect it, diffuse it, deflect it or focus it. You can’t store it or “back radiate” it to make a warm surface warmer.
”
You can’t store it or “back radiate” it to make a warm surface warmer
”
It reradiates in all directions – the use of “back” is arbitrary and capricious, and assumes the location of another black body is somehow important. To be correct in what you say, it would have to stop radiating in a particular direction just because there is a black body in that direction – that’s ridiculous.
You’re confusing net heat flow with absolute heat flow. A hot black body is in fact warmer if there is a cooler black body radiating toward it, simple because net heat flow is less.
Dr Curry may confirm that I’m a definite skeptic, but I’m also a physicist and the linked chapter 2 and the posts here based on it are not even close to reasoned.
Reading comprehension still lacking I see!
“radiative losses to the surroundings. Surround the ThC with a silica tube and the temperature measured will increase due to radiation from the cooler tube.”
Missed this did you?
And this, the first sentences in the cited reference:
“When a bare thermocouple is introduced into a flame for the measurement of gas temperature, errors arise due to the radiative exchange between the thermocouple and its surroundings. In the standard suction pyrometers a platinum-rhodium thermocouple, protected from chemical attack by a sintered alumina sheath, is surrounded by two concentric radiation shields.”
Yes Ken we are talking about radiation but unfortunately you don’t understand it.
If you are checking things out: try the 2nd la of Thermodynamics.
PW
Phil,
apparently you are confused by the slowing of a flux as you are not actually measuring the temp of the hot body, only the heated body, the thermocouple.
The atmosphere is in thermodynamic equilibrium. There are slight variations which are caused by certain cyclical processes which the proponents of AGW mostly refuse to accept.
CO2 concentration is not one of them. John Tyndall did not prove a damn thing about CO2 absorption. His equipment was far too primitive to distinguish between absorption, reflection, refraction, diffusion, scattering or anything else. He incorrectly concluded that all energy missing between the source and the pile in his half baked experiments had been absorbed by CO2. Above all he ignored Kirchhoff’s law.
The conservation of energy falsifies the “greenhouse effect” because as per Kirchhoff’s law that which absorbs, equally emits. This fact is absent from Tyndall’s ramblings and exposes him for what he was.
Nothing traps in heat, quote:
“All matter–animate or inanimate, liquid, solid, or gas–constantly exchanges thermal energy in the form of electromagnetic radiation with its surroundings. If there is a temperature difference between the object in question and its surroundings, there will be a net energy transfer in the form of heat; a colder object will be warmed at the expense of its surroundings, a warmer object cooled. And if the object in question is at the same temperature as its surrounding, the net radiation energy exchange will be zero.”
“In either case, the characteristic spectrum of the radiation depends on the object and its surroundings’ absolute temperatures. The topic of radiation thermometry for example, or more generally, non-contact temperature measurement, involves taking advantage of this radiation dependence on temperature to measure the temperature of objects and masses without the need for direct contact.”
“The development of the mathematical relationships to describe radiation were a major step in the development of modern radiation thermometry theory. The ability to quantify radiant energy comes, appropriately enough, from Planck’s quantum theory.”
According to Kirchhoff’s Law any substance which absorbs energy will equally emit that energy. CO2 has a lower specific heat capacity to O2 and N2. The atmosphere which is 99% N2 and O2 is in relative equilibrium. Therefore adding more CO2 at trace amounts to the atmosphere will simply force the CO2, with its lower specific heat capacity, into equilibrium with the rest of the atmosphere. The higher the concentration of CO2 the lower the overall atmospheric temperature will become.
“A simple reproducible experiment”
“Specific Heat Capacity of Gases”
AGW theory requires that we suspend our knowledge of this obvious fact and accept that it is the 0.0385% CO2 which forces the other 99% of the atmosphere into equilibrium with itself.
It is the same logic as claiming that by taking a pee in the ocean, you have warmed the ocean. When in fact your pee has been chilled by the ocean. It’s called semantics.
It is interesting that Judith has played the appeal to authority card. It is also interesting that those who appeal to the authority of Tyndall and the RS (7GT/1Gt human v’s natural CO2!) fail to acknowledge that they are relying on primitive out of date 150 year old “science” which has not even been critically re-examined.
Anyone who quotes John Tyndall as the man who proved the “physics” of the “greenhouse effect” displays nothing short of sheer ignorance. It is the ultimate in the bogus appeal to authority. John Tyndall was fool and a fraud. Above all he was an insider at the Royal Society. Tyndall’s experiments have as much value as Sir Paul Nurse’s implication in his recent Horizon “program” that natural processes account for 1 Gt CO2 while humans account for 7 Gt CO2, i.e. NONE.
So can we quickly dispense with the pseudo science of John Tyndall and get back to reality? That appeal to authority was for yesterday’s people, those who had faith in the integrity of science, scientists and trust in the Royal Society.
Those people are long gone. (Last seen heading south on highway 51 with Trust in the passenger seat and Faith at the wheel!)
You can see why I am personally not taking this on in any detail, it is just endless. You incorrectly state Kichoff’s Law. αλ = ελ, where Lambda should be a subscript. it says that at a particular wavelength, the fractional absorptivity equals the fractional emissivity, where the fractional part is relative to the intensity of black body radiation at that wavelength. So if an oxygen molecule at temperature 200K receives a bunch of solar radiation in the ultraviolet bands, it will also emit in the ultraviolet bands, but because the oxygen molecule is relatively cold, there is almost no actual energy emitted by an oxygen molecule with temperature of 200K. Your next sentence is a mistaken interpretation of very basic elements of the kinetic theory of gases. And on and on . . .
My point in not rebutting all this personally is that I would need to spend an hour on each incorrect sentence to try to educate people that don’t already understand this. Roy Spencer and scienceofdoom have already tried. And there are hundreds of such sentences to rebuke.
I fully understand agree on your point on this issue.
I can not understand your thoughts/position on “post normal science” and why “climate scientists” opinions should be given an preference in regards to governmental policy.
when did I EVER say that scientists should be given a preference in regards to governmental policy? I have been very actively fighting against that!
Then I have misunderstood your thoughts and the meaning applied to post normal science.
yes, that is my great frustration.
Post Normal Science, or Special Pleading?
I have to admit to misunderstanding it too, in that case…
Judy,
The tail does not wag the dog.
E in = E out.
“My point in not rebutting all this personally is that I would need to spend an hour on each incorrect sentence to try to educate people that don’t already understand this. Roy Spencer and scienceofdoom have already tried. And there are hundreds of such sentences to rebuke.”
DITO darling.
no, energy in does not equal energy out.
Yes it does!
No, energy in does not necessarily HAVE TO EQUAL, on virtually any time scale equal energy out.
Does energy never get used?
Does energy never get taken out of the system “permanently”?
Of the energy taken out of the system, what determines when it is put back into the system, and how, as what?
Derek,
Please consider the principal of the “conservation of energy”.
“Does energy never get used?”
I believe “converted” is the word you are looking for.
“Does energy never get taken out of the system “permanently”?
Of the energy taken out of the system, what determines when it is put back into the system, and how, as what?”
Sorry, NO COMPRENDE ? ? ?
Taken out by what Derek ?
Will,
Sorry, NO COMPRENDE ? ? ?
K&T “timescales”, do NOT compute Will.
Hence “permanently”…..ie, sedimentary rocks.
Re “converted” – does that mean “some” will never be returned to escape from the “system” as heat (energy lost to space)?
“Life”, and “work done”, being the obvious examples.
Derek I have made the point about the energy that does not leave the system in my paper here: http://www.spinonthat.com/CO2_files/The_Diurnal_Bulge_and_the_Fallacies_of_the_Greenhouse_Effect.html
I think you know what I mean when I say E in = E out.
Apart from hair splitting, do you actually have a point?
E in = E out.
That’s an equilibrium condition, Will. Given that we’ve been doubling the amount of CO2 we add to the atmosphere every three or four decades for the past century or more, we are nowhere near equilibrium. Nor will we be until (a) we hold constant the amount of CO2 we add each year and (b) nature catches up. Expect (b) to happen roughly three decades after (a). But don’t expect (a) to happen until we can no longer afford fossil fuel. And at that point (a) won’t happen anyway since our CO2 production will decline thereafter rather than holding steady.
David Archer believes things will remain hot thereafter. I disagree: I believe that after we stop emitting CO2 the temperature will plummet even faster than it has been rising due to the way equilibrium works. Conceivably by 2150 we’ll be in a Younger Dryas type ice age, though at that point we’ll surely have figured out some way of preventing that.
Will, earths atmosphere is not a closed system. The sun adds energy to it, which it then rediates to open space. Hence E in = E stuck in system + E out.
That is probably the most enlightening statement in this thread!!!!
Ein – Eout = delta global energy storage (mostly as heat in the oceans and atmosphere)- only at top of atmosphere
Energy is also stored with chemical changes, plant growths, animal grows … and stored energy dissipated thru plant deaths, fossil fuel uses …
To Harold: Yes physics is very goofy, in particular particle statistics physics.
I start from the same wave equation as Planck and use a finite precision dissipative effect instead of jibberishy statistics. So what I do is less spooky
than what you hint at. It is remarkable that in a discussion about the “greenhouse effect” physicists have nothing to say. To me it is a physical phenomenon that physicists should be able to grasp, but it seems they don’t.
I guess you didn’t get it. I’m a trained Physicist, now retired. I was pretty sure I just said something about the greenhouse effect, and particularly pointed how a simple thought experiment shows how wrong your theory is. I don’t intend to try to convince you, but my thought experiment should convince almost any reasonable idiot your theory is wrong.
I don’t use different standards for either side of AGW. I have fairly rigorous standards,, which you have failed, and most ot the AGW papers also fail my standards. Sloppy work on the AGW’s crowd’s part doesn’t excuse sloppy work on the anti-AGW’s side. As for dragging Tyndall into the discussion and how the physics hasn’t been looked at, try reading some of Dr. Earl W. McDaniel’s and others’ books from decades ago on details of atmospheric excitation and radiation.
Dr. Curry – FYI, Dr. McDaniel taught Physics at Georgia Tech, and had a great sense of humor.
Harold,
I am a somewhat reasonable idiot. Please try again.
maybe this one is easier for you:
Harold | January 31, 2011 at 5:44 pm | Reply
“Statistics is not physics, just imagination, and physical particles have little imagination.”
If there’s a more rigorous, more unchallengable, more awe-inspiring development in physics than the development of statistical thermodynamics I am not aware of it.
What are the main results of statistical thermodynamics with some form of informative content?
Claes
This is a very interesting thread. If it wouldn’t be too much trouble, would you mind using the ‘reply’ button to respond to comments. It can be found next to the name and date/time of the person that you are replying to. It positions your response at the correct point in the blog and makes it easier for us lurkers to follow the argument. Many thanks.
Having read just the first couple pages of the second chapter, I know this argument is going to ‘creative’.
The first argument is rather interesting. Blackbody radiators absorb all frequencies of light (definition of ‘black’), but only emit radiation with a specific spectrum determined by the body’s temperature. I think that’s fairly standard physics canon.
But the train gets off the tracks pretty quickly after that. The author makes the statement,
‘The net result is that warmer blackbody can heat a colder blackbody, but not the other way around.’
which is obviously wrong.
But why?
Before this gem of a statement, the author goes through several analogies (which aren’t as informative as equations) proving to himself that only high frequency light that is not being emitted by the blackbody can increase the temperature of the body. This energy is absorbed, then Stokes shifted to lower energy by coupling to internal modes of whatever form of matter we’re discussing. In molecules, mostly vibrational and rotational degrees of freedom, along with intermolecular collision, play this role.
The implied converse of this statement is that energy absorbed by the warmer blackbody from the colder blackbody is not outside of the frequency range of the warmer blackbody’s spectrum, therefore it doesn’t add heat and doesn’t increase the temperature!
Brilliant!
The question then becomes, if we are talking about blackbodies that absorb ALL frequencies of light, what happens to the energy in the lower frequencies absorbed by the warmer blackbody? Surely there is energy in those photons/waves. Because the warmer blackbody is, in fact, a blackbody, it MUST be absorbing those lower frequencies. What happens to that energy?
I think most of us know that according to the conservation of energy, those lower frequencies absorbed by the warmer blackbody increase the temperature of that blackbody, even though the radiation was emitted by a colder blackbody. Kirchoff’s law is the mathematical manifestation of this fact. The emissivity of the blackbody in thermal equilibrium equals its absorptivity. Therefore, the thermal equilibrium of a blackbody can be shifted by changing its absorptivity in ANY SPECTRAL REGION, not just the high frequency region. This can be accomplished by increasing the inward flux of low frequency radiation due a nearby colder blackbody, as is the case with atmospheric greenhouse gases in the case of climate.
So, I don’t doubt that the author’s math and equations are correct. Unfortunately for him, it’s the interpretation of those equations, along the lines of high pass filters and classrooms, that is flawed and ultimately leads to the incorrect conclusion that the greenhouse gas can’t exist. Not even that it doesn’t exist, but that it can’t. It’s brilliant in its simplicity, really.
I would like to see this author handle the fact that we clearly observe a completely isotropic cosmic microwave background surrounding everything corresponding to a 4K collection of intra-solar and inter-stellar gases. I think that fact is fairly irrefutable proof that this guy is totally wrong.
Moreover, why are we continuing to clamor to convince people like this that they are incorrect. Anyone who put enough time into convincing themselves of this type of theory after many, many attempts of others to ‘disprove’ them is not going to be swayed by observational evidence, proof of principle experiments or even reason. It’s better to not give their theories credence by taking the time to ‘debunk’ them.
Comments welcome.
You must be aware that the authors are partaking in these discussions on this thread. They’ve already posted a number of comments.
So why are you referring to the authors in the third person?
‘So why are you referring to the authors in the third person?’
Correction: Substantive comments welcome.
snap
snap? what snap Mosh?
Is that so? Well, that deserves the following response…
“Surely there is energy in those photons/waves. Because the warmer blackbody is, in fact, a blackbody, it MUST be absorbing those lower frequencies. What happens to that energy?”
Take a glass of water at 99 C and surround it with a dozen glasses of water, all also at 99 C. Does the water in the glass in the center get warmer? Does it cool off more slowly than it would if the other glasses were not present?
The net transfer of energy between the 99C glasses of water will be zero but all will be radiating energy at a rate appropriate for a single glass of 99C water. Again, all radiating but net transfer zero.
As for cool down, yes the central glass will cool slower. I suppose you could say that the other glasses are insulating it. What is happening mechanically is that the outer glasses are exposed to a cooler room so the net energy flow between them results in heat loss to the room. The inner glass then is exchanging energy with an incrementally cooler glass of water so it experiences an incremental net loss of energy. Until final equilibrium is achieved, the inner glass will remain warmer than the outer glasses and the outer glasses will remain warmer than the room.
So at what point does the glass in the centre become warmer?
Answer: At no point.
Take note Roy Spencer and Science of doom, its called ENTROPY.
Without a continuous energy input you have no net increase from so called “back radiation”.
But there is a continuous energy input into the Earth’s climate system; it is provided by the Sun.
“But there is a continuous energy input into the Earth’s climate system; it is provided by the Sun.”
There is also continuous darkness.
In reality, any given spot on the surface directly under the solar point receives at most 25% of the continuous energy input from the sun in any 24 hour period, but generally much less.
You know that night/day warming/cooling thing?
Wow, this is really simple physics. I’m not a all sure how this can be so hard to follow.
In the water glass case, there is no steady energy input to the center glass of water so it will loose energy to the environment. The surrounding glasses increase the time that it takes to cool by radiating heat ‘back’ to it as they also cool by radiating their energy.
To increase the temperature of an warmer object by a cooler object, the warmer object must have an continuing energy input that must be dissipated. In that case, the presence of the cooler object near it radiating part of its energy toward the warmer object results in that energy being added to the total that the warmer object must dissipate. The temperature of the warmer object must increase again to radiate that somewhat larger total energy input.
Of course, if you insist there is no such thing as a photon or that two streams of photons cannot pass each other traveling in opposite directions, we probably will never be on the same ‘wavelength’. I’ve spent my life around electronics, radio, and nuclear physics. Maxwell’s equations rock for many aspects of electronics and radio but they are just very handy tools. Because Maxewell’s math works a good share of the time does not mean it defines reality. It is not very useful for use when counting gammas to determine the activity level of a radioactive source. Calculations based upon photons and nuclear interactions are the tools that work there. You should use the tool that suits the job at hand. I believe the photon view is the correct one for radiated energy discussions.
This is basic physics and basic engineering stuff. However, do not take this to mean that I believe doubling of the atmospheric CO2 is going to be a big problem. I don’t. I just prefer simple physics not be twisted to make a point.
jae
Could you have picked a more complicated example, if you’re being rhetorical?
Dr. Curry’s more creative students will no doubt be asking about partial gas pressure, room temperature, convection, conductivity, where the lights are in the room, and will you refill the glasses as evaporation causes volume change, to start with. ;)
A glass ingot at 99 C, I could understand.
Especially if you included conditions like, “in a closed system initially at STP,” and “surrounded in all directions with no significant gaps,” and “all ingots behave as uniform spherical black bodies,” etc.
Does the water in the glass at the center get warmer? Unlikely, though Dr. Curry’s students could contrive extrinsic conditions to make it so, I am sure.
Does it cool more slowly? Likely, for most sets of extrinsic conditions, I think Dr. Curry’s able students will find.
More to the point, could you expand on your point, please, as it elludes me. (Though I’m sure Dr. Curry’s students would be able to explain it to me.)
I think we have to be very careful about how we set this problem up.
We are using language of ‘external energy sources’ versus the system of interest, the surface of the earth in most of this discussion.
In this case, the outer glasses ARE an energy source for the central glass. They just happen to be at the same temperature as the central glass, in stark contrast with the earth-like situation in which the sun has a dramatically different temperature from the earth.
So let’s a assume the ‘other’ glasses are in a circle around the central glass and that the glasses can only emit energy out into the plane that contains all the glasses, for simplicity. Being all at 99 C, each glass will have some the same emissivity and emit the same spectrum. It is very likely that each glass can absorb most, if not all, of the energy emitted by the other glasses.
Now, to me, there seems to be two parameters that matter the most. 1) the temperature of the surrounding air and 2) the distance of the 12 ‘other’ glasses from the central glass. The temperature difference between each glass of water and the surrounding air will determine the difference in the energy absorbed by the central glass and the energy that it gives off due to the air by conduction. The distance between the 12 ‘other’ glasses will determine what percentage of the emitted energy from those glasses can be absorbed by the central glass. The closer the ‘other’ glasses are to the central glass, the more of the emitted energy the central glass can absorb. The further away, the smaller the percentage of energy that can be absorbed.
There *should* could be an air temp and distance from the ‘other’ glasses at which the central glass is taking in more energy from the surrounding air than it is giving off. In such a case, the central glass would increase in temperature as per the conservation of energy.
It would be an interesting experiment to set up at least.
maxwell
…..”It would be an interesting experiment to set up at least.”….
Its been done.
Sounds like the proof of the zeroth law of thermodynamics.
Bryan,
‘Sounds like the proof of the zeroth law of thermodynamics.’
I don’t think this experiment would prove that there is no thermal motion at 0 K. I mean, that is the zeroth law of thermodynamics.
Can you please explain a bit more what you are saying?
maxwell |
There are a number of glasses at the same temperature
“Being all at 99 C, each glass ”
The zeroth law of thermodynamics may be stated as follows:
If two thermodynamic systems are each in thermal equilibrium with a third system, then they are in thermal equilibrium with each other.
In the early days this was assumed but later questioned.
It had to be experimentally determined and since we already had Laws 1,2 and 3 it was called the zeroth.
Perhaps you are thinking about law 3 which is about absolute zoro
I have to agree with Zorro.. er, with Bryan, I mean.
Zeroeth law well-established, a black body among bodies of equal temperature will not increase in temperature, though this says nothing of how quickly each will lose temperature or in what pattern.
If the air were above the temperature of the glasses, or if there were certain complex salts that underwent a physical change in solution in the central glass, if it contained fissile materials in high enough concentrations, if exothermic chemical changes happened in the ‘water’, if the air pressure were suddenly increased compressing tiny soda bubbles (or at 99C, nearly boiling so water vapor bubbles), if the glass were in an atmosphere of pure reactive metal particulate suspension (potassium, say), if there were a series of lasers deflected toward the central glass, or electric currents, or sound waves.. there are all sorts of extrinsic conditions that might raise the temperature of the central glass.
Which, as I said, a complex example.. and I still don’t follow the point of it originally being posted.
It looks like a jumped the gun under some confusion. Sorry for that.
How about debunking quickly this way – two black bodies at different temperatures separated by a perfect reflector. With the reflector in place, heat travels from each black body, bounces off the reflector, and returns to the originating black body. Under the theory that was proposed in chapter2, when the mirror is removed, the heat from the cooler black body must still return to the cooler black body – it has to act as if there is still a reflector in place, but not so for the hotter black body. A ridiculous result. Bad physics…
No reasoned rebuttal yet?
Harold,
before quantum physics and the idea that a photon was an actual particle there was wave physics that was, and still is, experimentally proven. Those physics experiments described scattering, reflection, interference, and cancellation. Why would this section of physics suddenly become null just because you apparently have forgotten it?
There are several possible explanations of why a cooler body would not heat a warmer body contained in this PROVEN area of physics and which are contained in the correct energy equations that give a NET energy flow.
When creating the waves and waves of orcs in the big battle of Gondor CGI, one of the directors apparently asked one of the programmers, “That one orc, why’s he running the wrong way?”
The programmer answered, “Looks like he panicked.”
Panic didn’t make the waves of orcs not waves of orcs, or invalidate the wave equations, or nullify the physics of Middle Earth.
And while waves of panic can be observed in mobs, a one-orc wave isn’t really well-modeled by wave equations.
Which are, after all, only proven mathematical models, not themselves mathematical axioms.
Bart R,
we don’t need no stinkin’ wave EQUATIONS!!
We have stinkin’ empirical data.
That’s all I am asking of the cold object heating, or slowing the cooling of, the warm object by radiation. Empirical data.
One of the thought experiments I really like is the one where the heated object is surrounded by a cooler sphere which is thermostatically controlled. My imagination tells me that the radiation from the sphere is cancelled by the radiation from the heater leaving the net to be drawn off by the cooling system of the sphere with nary an effect on the heater itself.
I am told that this cool sphere will actually heat the heater. If the heater is made hotter by the cooler sphere, its radiation should be elevated measurably. If it isn’t measurable I really don’t care with respect to the climate disagreements.
Right, right. Data and thought experiments, very nice.
But then why were you bringing up data and thought experiments in a discussion of wave equations, again?
I’m not sure I follow the analogy built into your thought experiment. Which is the thermostat? Which the air conditioner?
Help me with my own thought experiment:
There is a mall full of inventory that is replenished through another channel, with customers entering and leaving all the time through multiple sets of doors. The doors are designed to allow customers in without hindrance, but to slow some customers on the way out by redirecting them randomly through the mall (the mall hopes to increase sales this way). There’s a ‘sellostat’ set by the mall manager designed to set how much the doors slow outbound customers, but the manager’s salary is set by sales figures, and every day he gets greedier.
Can you see where my thought experiment is going, and maybe suggest improvements?
Uhh, Bart R, where did I suggest a thought experiment?
Haven’t the vaguest on yours. I’m a simpleton remember?
By the way, doors are NOT a way to allow people in without hindrance. A strip mall does that.
kk
To your first question, that’d be:
“One of the thought experiments I really like is the one where..”
And one simpleton to another, remember what?
I like your idea about using a strip mall rather than doors. Much clearer, and suggests better parallels.
So, strip mall manager welcomes all buyers to his locale, and takes some steps (advertising posters facing people as they walk away from the strip mall, principally, but also shills who block the way out and chat up secret sales, and the smell of food from the strip mall’s food vendors) to hinder buyers as they leave.
At first, the manager sets out only small hindrances, but he believes that they work because the theory of advertising tells him so, and his mall sells more and more as he puts more hindrances up, and he sees no reason to stop putting up hindrances since he’s rewarded by profit. He’s so rewarded by profit, he pays off the local officials to allow him to put up more posters, and muscles out any competing shills trying to get buyers to leave for their strip malls up the street.
So, do you think the mall will be more crowded, the more the manager hinders buyers from leaving?
And I continued saying I would like it done as an experiment. I still would. I do not want to discuss it as a though experiment. It has been done to death.
kk
Right, but all experiments start with design, with an analogy or meaning to the model built, with some hypothesis they test… And I’m still not sure what yours tests.
Could you expand on that?
I wouldn’t say test so much as measure. It would seem that climate science, and maybe other fields, agree that there is backradiation and that either it slows cooling of the hotter body or heats it. I want at least one experiment, preferably several differing ones, that quantifies that relationship.
If it slows cooling, by how much. If it heats the body, by how much. Does there appear to be conditions that increase or decrease the effect we need to research more…
Why am I so adamant about real experiments? Because thought experiments are limited to the variables that we put into the experiment, you know, just like models. If we do not know about it or do not know it well enough to get a reasonable ball park figure, or cannot convert it to mathematics at a resolution that is useable, we have no way of knowing whether the results of our thought experiment is valid.
The world has a reality that we need to include and we do not know all that reality. Look at the empirical experiments that detail an effect very well, yet, we do not see the result of the effect generally in reality due to offsetting effects.
I will grant that there needs to be a lot of thought put into designing the experiments for these same reasons and there is where we find a good use for thought experiments. If we allow contamination the physical experiment will not be giving us results useful for the original purpose. Thought experiments can help us design the experiment to try and exclude contamination so we have a higher certainty of measuring what we think we are measuring.
kk
I’m aware of multiple real measurements cited in this topic and elsewhere on this blog using advanced and proven equipment for decades.
I’m aware of multiple real experiments cited in this topic and elsewhere on this blog and in countless other sources.
On its face, the phenomenon of reflected radiation is so everyday commonplace that it would take extremely strong evidence, and with the addition of so much experimental proof, much better rebuttal than has yet been offered on these pages, to credit your words, “I want at least one experiment..” as anything but flat-out, and excuse me for being blunt, lie.
Bart R,
when did Backradiation become REFLECTED radiation?? This is something I definitely missed along with 99.99% of papers and work I have never read that are obviously inexistence in spite of my ignorance.
Please note, I am NOT trying to claim there isn’t literature, only that I am extremely limited in my exposure to the literature and reality.
kk
You get the distinction between reflected radiation and back radiation?
Good.
Means you have an advanced and subtle grasp of the topic, and should be able to handle the things talked about in the blog by people who do serious measurement, experimentation, analyses and interpretation of these things for a living. (Which would be not me.)
You want quantified relationships, and that’s all well and good. Check out the slightly unpleasant quote referenced in http://judithcurry.com/2011/01/31/slaying-a-greenhouse-dragon/#comment-37898 or the very nicely put http://judithcurry.com/2011/01/31/slaying-a-greenhouse-dragon/#comment-38047 lower down this page for context and background about quantified measurements, and some of the problems with experimental interpretation present in the subject.
I frankly don’t believe we are going to get to widely accepted experimental results along the lines of your suggestion any time soon, unless someone builds a pair of hermetically-sealed IR-transparent domes the size of Nebraska and experiments with changing their CO2 concentrations repeatedly under differing conditions of sunlight.
Too much room for waffle, and too much brute force logic. And even then, questions of applicability will bedevil us.
What we need is a guy with a teacup and some milk, and the ability to clearly explain so anyone can understand why the milk particulates suspended in it move.. erm, sorry. Wrong experiment. But you get my drift?
Bart R,
I have just a thin veneer of knowledge and none of the math skills making it a very thin veneer.
Photon? Why did you switch frames? I said heat, nothing about photons – I’m using a classical EM frame. Maybe you thought I was talking about photons, since the waves would have to suddenly turn around and return to their source under the proposed theory, which doesn’t make sense to you. That’s my point, the proposed theory doesn’t make physical sense.
Harold,
how does the HEAT travel without waves or particles??
Sorry Harold, I got lost.
OK, back to waves. The classical wave experiments show that waves can interfere, cancel, and augment (sorry for the layman’s terminology). Interference partially cancels or deflects, cancellation negates and augmentation adds. What happens to the energy Harold??
This has been shown to happen in experiments. Doesn’t it happen out there in the atmosphere? The thought experiment is that 2 bodies are radiating against each other. The colder body will be radiating at a lower energy peak, but the warmer body will be radiating at that wavelength also. Why won’t the waves at the same frequencies cancel or interfere?
At the quantum level I am even less adept, but, I understand that the particles need to have a correct energy state to absorb energy. What happens if the bodies do not have the correct open energy state to absorb the wave/photon carrying the energy? Won’t it be deflected/reflected instead? Isn’t this a more reasonable explanation of what we see in the atmosphere between GHG’s and the surface and each other for that matter?
Finally you suggested the wave would HAVE TO RETURN TO ITS SOURCE. . The wave would be deflected in another direction, although it would seem that it could be deflected back to the originating body.
What amazes me is that there is all this partially understood and misunderstood knowledge being tossed around. Yeah, kinda like me.
kuhnkat, reference your comment about e/m waves from several sources interacting with each other, maybe you should take intensity and phase (and polarisation?) into consideration too. It may help to move your though experiment on if you gave some consideration to a practical experiment carried out around 1800 by English scientist Thomas Young described in “Instruction Manual and Experiment Guide .. ADVANCED OPTICS
SYSTEM .. Experiment 4: The Wave Nature Of Light (http://www.fceia.unr.edu.ar/fisicaexperimentalIV/Pasco/Advanced%20optics%20system.pdf). Alternatively you could set up youjr own experiment using a candle and some card board sheets with slits cut in them (http://philmintz.tripod.com/Optics/page3.html).
If you’re interested, this interaction of e/m waves from a single source taking different routes to a common destination can present a surprising problem for Line-of-Site (LoS) radio communications links. Although the optical path from transmitting to receiving aerial may be unobstructed, the radio signal can be reduced (even to zero) as a result of cancellation of the signal travelling over several different paths (http://home.comcast.net/~dnessett/quietbird/HCJB.pdf).
I’m sure that Joel, the thread’s resident expert in all things to do with theoretical physics, can explain it all in simple terms far better than I. He must do it all of the time when lecturing to his RIT students.
Best regards, Pete Ridley
Pete, to be honest, I find kuhnkat’s posts quite painful to read. He understands just enough about the existence of interference to be led astray into a variety of completely wacky conclusions.
First of all, interference occurs in only a very carefully prescribed set of circumstances. The light has to be of the same wavelength and to be “coherent”, which means that the waves are in lock-step with each other. Also, the geometry matters. Waves traveling in opposite directions (even assuming the coherence and all) don’t cancel each other out except at very specific locations separated by distances of half of wavelength, which means on the order of microns for what we are talking about. In between, they add together constructively. The result is a standing wave, such as is seen on a guitar string.
So, I really don’t see anything useful coming out of kuhnkat’s ramblings. They are just an attempt to turn the nonsense that we know Claes and the other Slayers are spewing into something intelligible. But, you can’t produce sense from nonsense by adding more nonsense.
Hi Joel,. I felt confident that a top lecturer like you woujld be able to present a compexy subject like e/m wave interactions in a simple manner. Well done, but can you please try to avoid unusual words like “coherent” and concepts like “standing waves” which might confuse us simple lay people.
Best regards, Pete Ridley.
Pete,
(1) The adjective “top” as in “top lecturer” is yours, not mine.
(2) I gave brief descriptions of what “coherent” and “standing waves” mean. However, I also wanted to use the correct terminology so that people can easily look on the web to find more detailed description. For example, here is the Wikipedia page on coherence: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coherence_%28physics%29 and here is their discussion of standing waves: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standing_wave
The problem was, Joel, that Ridley turned to his library to look it up. But he couldn’t find either “coherent” and “standing waves” in his dog-eared copies of The Elders of Zion and Mein Kampf. So it’s good that you’ve given him links to look the terms up.
The other problem is, he won’t. Like Kuhnkat, Ridley uses ignorance as a war club to bludgeon his enemies.
Pete also prefers using his time and bandwidth to search for Holocaust deniers, Neo-Nazis, and Jihadists like Daniel E. Michael to quote. (Did you READ the Michael letter Ridley quoted yesterday that ends with “Death to America!!!”)
Joel,
As the earth emits a relatively continuous band it emits the same wavelengths that are emitted by the GHG’s. While I readily agree that the amount of interaction is probably quite small, if we toss out enough minimal influences we make other amounts larger. (one of many issues with models)
How about an actual experiment to measure the backradiation effect. Something like a tube with earth at one end and a short wave source at the other. Use at least two runs, one with atmospheric gasses with no GHGs and one with GHGs computed to give the actual backradiation of a column in the open atmosphere. Measuring how fast the earth is warmed with and without GHGs should give a rough idea of how much the backradiation effect is. Or, has this been done and can you point me to the paper?? Simply shining IR through a tube of co2 tells us little about the effects of the radiation emitted by that co2 or h2o or ch4… on the ground. For the truly anal we could use differing types of material such as granite, dirt, wet dirt, loam, sand… to see how the effect is modified if there are measureable differences.
Actually a third run with close to a vacuum would be good to show that there is no difference between non-GHGs and a vacuum insofar as the rate of warming of the surface. That is, there is negligible backradiation from non-GHGs matching their negligible absorption.
This is the type of straightforward experiment that MIGHT convince some sceptics and deniers that there really is a measurable, significant in relation to the earth system, increase in warming speed. It should be able to clarify which of the ideas of no effect, slows radiation from the earth, or warms the earth is correct. I would note that some significant warmists apparently believe there is a real warming. An actual series of experiments should be able to sort this mess out!!
It is really silly to have all these conflicting discussions over the number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin when we should be counting them with electron microscopes or other detectors. (well I guess there is the issue of finding the pin they are dancing on or luring them to our dance)
Kuhnkat: I don’t even understand your experiment…and I don’t really see why scientists should waste their time running it.
For one thing, the basic physics of the radiative transfer in the atmosphere and specifically radiative forcing of CO2 is well-accepted and well-tested science by everyone who has even a small modicum of respect within the scientific community (e.g., Roy Spencer and Richard Lindzen accept it). So, the issue comes down to feedbacks and that is not something that can be settled by such a simplistic experiment.
For another, I am under no illusions that we can ever convince “skeptics” who doubt such basic tenets of science to become AGW believers. Such people are like Young Earth Creationists: they don’t disbelieve AGW because they doubt the science; rather they believe any bogus nonsense attacks on the science because they are ideologically opposed to the actions that follow from addressing AGW. If you guys can’t even comprehend and accept basic science about which there is no serious controversy whatsoever and instead believe nonsense, how am I ever to convince you on the issue of feedbacks and climate sensitivity, which actually require weighing the balance of the evidence? It is like telling me that if I can only get a Young Earth creationist to abandon the belief that the earth is only 6000 years old, he will actually fully accept evolutionary theory…Ain’t gonna happen!
Hi Joel, I agree with your comment (yesterday at 9:09 pm) about the heat retaining effect of water vapour and some trace atmospheric gases preventing some of the IR energy that is emitted by the earth from radiating back out unobstructed (AKA the Greenhouse Effect) and that humans adding a tiny amount of CO2 could result in a small (beneficial?) rise in temperature. Ias you say there are not many respected or knowledgeable scientists who consider otherwise.
On the other hand I’ll be very very surprised if you can provide a sound analysis of your own that convinces true sceptics that the balance of evidence indicates that a global climate catastrophe looms as a result of our continuing use of fossil fuels.
Rest assured that the use of fossil fuels will continue for many many decades yet and all of the scare-mongering by the power hungry, the UN, the politicians and the environmental activists will not change that.
I still haven’t seen your refutation of the analysis carried out by Roger Taguchi showing that the feedback effect is negligible. Was it too hard for you? OK, here a simple question. If positive feedback due to increased water vapour arising from a slight increase in global temperature due to our use of fossil fuels is able to cause a global climate catastrophe in the next 90 years why didn’t such a disaster happen during the Roman warming or during the MWP? I’m sure that you can explain that in simple enough terms for lay people like me to understand, but please don’t try to argue that the rate of warming now is far greater than ever experienced during the past 300M years or that Mann was correct and there was no such thing as the MWP.
BTW, have you started reading “The Hockey Stick Illusion” yet – no, I thought not.
Best regards, Pete Ridley
Joel,
the experiment is to see how fast the material warms with and without ghg’s in the atmosphere giving an empirical figure for the effect of backradiation in a carefully controlled experiment.
Why is this important? Because deniers like me say there is none. Luke-Warmers and warmers believe in varying amounts of slowing of the surface cooling, and some alarmists say the backradiation actually raises the temperature of the material above the level that the short wave can make it. Even if everyone suddenly went sane and decided there was only a reduction in the rate of cooling (faster warming also) it would be good to actually quantify by empirical experiment exactly what the magnitude of the effect is.
You say:
“the basic physics of the radiative transfer in the atmosphere and specifically radiative forcing of CO2 is well-accepted and well-tested science by everyone who has even a small modicum of respect within the scientific community”
Yet, that statement says NOTHING about the magnitude of the effect on the earth itself. I am sure you agree that different materials would react differently even if your theory is correct. Being able to put constraints on the effect in the models would be a real contribution outside of just making some people happy that their position was proven.
The Climate Science community appears to me to be adverse to the drudge work of detailed science. It is time they stopped talking about saving the earth and started doing the real work necessary to prove the hypotheses and giving us more information on what may need to be done.
This one paragraph shows how hopelessly confused you are about something that is just basic physics! You make this distinction between “rais[ing] the temperature of the material above the level that the short wave can make it” and “a reduction in the rate of cooling”. There is no such contradiction between those two pictures: CO2 slows the rate of cooling and, in doing so, it causes the temperature of the earth to be warmer than it would be in its absence because the earth is heated by the sun and its steady-state temperature is determined by the balance between the rate at which it receives energy from the sun and the rate at which “cools itself” by sending energy back into space.
The fact that you have been unable to comprehend this shows how you are unwilling to allow yourself to comprehend the most basic of scientific principles.
The magnitude of the radiative effect of CO2 is not under debate in any serious quarters. Roy Spencer and Richard Lindzen and the rest of the scientific community all agree it is 3.8 W/m^2 (+/- 5%, or at most 10%). The magnitude of the resulting temperature change is still under debate, but this involves the question of feedbacks, which alas can’t be settled by any experiment smaller than the entire scale of the earth. (Which is not to say we can’t learn a lot about feedbacks from empirical data. In fact, we can and have. See, for example, here: http://www.sciencemag.org/content/310/5749/841 )
Joel,
“CO2 slows the rate of cooling and, in doing so, it causes the temperature of the earth to be warmer than it would be in its absence because the earth is heated by the sun and its steady-state temperature is determined by the balance between the rate at which it receives energy from the sun and the rate at which “cools itself” by sending energy back into space. ”
You have very bad radiation, the Earth cooling and the energy content concept here. 0.04% CO2 in the atmosphere has absolutely minimal energy content in it when comparing the energy content of the atmosphere (orders of magnitude more than CO2) not to mention the LW radiation energy from the Earth surface (orders of magnitude larger than atmosphere). I guess you know the mathematical differention of infinitely small -> 0, thats CO2 capable of warming the air -> 0, warming the Earth -> 0 and CO2 capable of slow cooling -> 0. CO2 cooling warms the Earth is absolutely absurd if you have any energy concept at all. Warming and cooling are mainly due to huge amount of water presents on the Earth. The movement of water causes most weather changes. I would advise you to appreciate the energy contents in them and study the physical properties of water, CO2 and the energy they are involved or you will never learn and keep on misinforming the general public wasting your life unless you have an agenda in order to stay on the gravy train.
The Earth receives the Sun energy, stores (chemically and physically) some of it, reflects some of it, refracts some of it, conducts some of it, convects some of it, radiates (naturally including decays, volcano eruptions, human consumptions of food and fossil fuels) some of it. The Sun itself also in an ever changing state of emitting energy. There is no steady state temeperature, only instantaneous temperature.
The fact that you have been unable to comprehend this shows how you are unwilling to allow yourself to comprehend the most basic of scientific principles of energy, cooling, heating and radiation.
“Warming and cooling are mainly due to huge amount of water presents on the Earth” should be amended as “Warming rate and cooling rate are mainly due to huge amount of water presents on the Earth”
Sam NC: It would have been more precise of me to talk about the rate at which energy is emitted or absorbed by the earth. Yes, the conversion of this into a rate at which temperature changes involves the heat capacity which, as you note, is largely due to thelarge amount of water. However, this doesn’t change the end result, i.e., the final steady-state temperature, but just how long it takes to get there. [Of course, this ignores water vapor or cloud feedbacks, which can affect the end result.]
Well, if I fail to comprehend this, I am in good company with basically all of the scientific community. Why do you think you understand these things better than the National Academy of Sciences, the authors of the major physics textbooks which discuss global warming, etc., etc.? You are just fooling yourself…It is the Dunning Kruger effect ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning_kruger_effect ).
Look, if you want to believe nonsense, I can’t stop you. Go play with your fellow travellers who believe the Earth is only 6000 years old and all the rest of the folks who would rather believe pseudoscience than science that conflicts with their ideology. Ignorance can only be cured if someone wants to learn. You want to remain ignorant and so you will.
To Judy: It is clear that you miss the points I want to make. Of course there are endless little things you can focus on and question, but in the spirit of Leibniz I ask you to try get the main message. I am not saying that my model is perfect. I try to make a point about radiative heat transfer based on a mathematical analysis of the same equation Planck tried to use but gave up with. If you focus on this equation, do see something of interest in my analysis? What is your model for radiation? Does it contain “backradiation”?
Is it a stable phenomenon in your model?
Next, you said you did not like Kiehl-Trenberth, and I asked you why? I do it again.
And have you given your students my chapters for homework? It could be an educational experience, and students need assignments, right?
“I am not saying my model is perfect”
Your model and main message are fundamentally flawed, as was easily shown.
To Maxwell: A warm body also absorbs low frequency waves but re-emit them
and thus avoid getting heated by low-frequency stuff. Like an educated person
simply does not get heated up by silly remarks from uneducated, only by remarks from more educated. Right?
Claes, to me, that seemed to be a weak response to a very clear post by Maxwell. You wanted Judith to give you the opportunity to debate the science contained in your book, so debate it properly rather than handwaving away difficult objections.
Mr. Johnson,
Is the irony lost on you?
‘A warm body also absorbs low frequency waves but re-emit them
and thus avoid getting heated by low-frequency stuff.’
Without warming the warm body with low frequency light from the colder body, there is lack of energy conservation. In order to emit more low frequency light (ie the low frequencies already being emitted and the absorbed low frequencies from the colder body) the thermal equilibrium must change, coming to a higher temperature according to the Stefan-Boltzmann law. Raising the temperature costs energy.
So there are two options 1) your theory violates the conservation of energy because the emission of low frequency light by warmer blackbody doesn’t change in response to increase flux of low frequency light from a colder blackbody or 2) conservation of energy is preserved and your thesis (cold blackbody can’t heat warm blackbody) is wrong.
I’ll let you pick which options you want.
With respect to your poorly thought out classroom analogy, I am constantly learning from people who have less education than me. On an almost daily basis in fact. So not only is your analogy not informative in the context of energy transfer via radiation, it’s as fundamentally incorrect as your physical theory.
Any other thoughts?
One thing that may be overlooked, in these discussions on whether or not a cold object can heat a warm body though exchange of radiation is that, a photon doesn’t know where it came from, the only thing it “knows” is its frequency. All the properties, momentum, wavelength and energy are directly related to its frequenncy and vice-versa. Measure one of the four and you know all of them.
The trouble with photon particles carrying energy back and forth is that it is
an unstable phenomenon, or do really think there is a highway with left
and right lanes connecting two bodies? Why would photon respect such
traffic laws? Which equation is describing the physics you are hinting at?
Why does there have to be left and right lanes, or what happens when two photons traveling in opposite directions reach the same point in space?
Do they collide, or interact in anyway?
Or do you have anything other than handwaving to support this statement from your book?
“We argue that such two-way propagation is unstable because it requires
cancellation, and cancellation in massive two-way flow of heat energy is
unstable to small perturbations and thus is unphysical.”
Why does it require cancellation and why is it unstable?
Like two opposing waves on a pond.
Which go right through each other and continue on their merry way.
Why would it be unstable? In second chapter you obtain an equation witch is the same as Boltzmann law for 2 bodies and infinitely small T difference. So conclusion about stability should be the same. By the way, your equation is not symmetrical, meaning that cold and hot temperature have not the same influence. So how do you generalise to a N>2 body problem? Looks trickier than classic Boltzmann to me.
But more important, you throw out quanta interpretation. Sure it is not intuitive, but since Boltzmann it has been used to derive a huge amount of physical equations, and explain a lot of experimental results. Throwing out quanta to obtain radiative transfer equations you like better is only the begining of the story, because now you will have to reinterpret THE major part (more important imho than relativity) of modern physics ( post WWI physics). This is not out of question, but it is a huge task, and a task far far far too big to start from just radiative heat transfer…even if historically it was the start up of quantum mechanics. To make such a body of inference collapse, a single new fact may be sufficient, but the new fact will usually not be the same as the one at the origin of the old theory, and the new theory should be as powerful as the one it replace. Not bearing well for your new interpretation, so yes, even if I like the first chapter a lot, the second one is definitely in crackpot territory…
I notice you have avoided the challenge of applying your theory to a real world problem such as heat loss from a pipe, the concept of a cooler body transferring heat to a warmer has great success in these situations and has been tested many times. Cut to the chase, try some of the problems on page 582 of Mills, ‘Heat and Mass Transfer’.
Here’s a link in case you don’t have a copy.
http://tinyurl.com/4e63abx
BTW, your interpretation of radiative heat transfer is very easily testable experimentally: consider heat exchange between a hot body at T_h and a cold body at T_c=T_h/2.
classic equation (eq 20 in chapter 2) gives R =sigma (T_h^4-T_c^4)=15/16*sigma T_h^4
your new equation (eq 21) gives R =4*sigma *T_h^3*(T_h-T_c)=2*sigma T_h^4, i.e. almost 2 times the heat transfer predicted by S-B. Quite easy to test using simple calorimetric experiment, no?
Believers in the greenhouse effect will not honestly take in information counter to their belief, no matter how it is couched. As long as everyone pretends that there is a legitimate scientific debate being engaged here, it is obvious that situation will continue unchanged. Meanwhile, the truth lies elsewhere than the mass of climate scientists, and the hapless public, supposes. What follows is a comment I started to post on Claes Johnson’s site a few days ago, but didn’t because I realized no one was listening. I’ll put it here just because I exist, and the facts exist, and it has to be said, and eventually admitted by everyone:
You need to establish first how the atmosphere is basically warmed: By atmospheric absorption of direct solar infrared irradiation, or by surface absorption of visible radiation followed by surface emission of infrared. Climate scientists, and their defenders, who tout the greenhouse effect, believe the latter [which leads to the infamous backradiation], and ignore the former.
But as I have tried to communicate, to other scientists and to the public (see my blog article, “Venus: No Greenhouse Effect”), comparison of the atmospheric temperatures of Venus and Earth at corresponding pressures, over the range of Earth atmospheric pressures (from 1 atm. down to 0.2 atm.), shows the ONLY DIFFERENCE between the two is an essentially constant 1.176 multiplicative factor (T_venus/T_earth) which is just due to the relative distances of the two planets from the Sun. Nothing more. It has nothing to do with planetary albedo, or with the concentration of carbon dioxide or other “greenhouse gases”. The only (small) deviation from this general condition is in the strictly limited altitude range of the clouds on Venus (pressures between about 0.6 and 0.3 atm. only), where the Venus temperature is LOWER (not higher, despite the carbon dioxide atmosphere) by just a few degrees than the strict 1.176 x T_earth relationship, due no doubt to the cooling effect of water (dilute sulfuric acid) in those clouds.
The only way this overwhelming and definitive experimental finding (T_venus/T_earth = essentially constant = 1.17 very closely, encompassing the data of two detailed planetary atmospheres) can be explained is that the atmospheres of both planets are heated by the SAME PORTION of the solar radiation, attenuated only by the distance from the Sun to each planet. This means absorption of visible radiation at Earth’s surface, followed by surface emission of infrared (heat) radiation into the Earth atmosphere, cannot have anything to do with the basic warming of the atmosphere, because Venus is largely opaque to the visible solar radiation, and it cannot reach Venus’s surface (and is thus not part of that common portion warming both atmospheres).
So the first unarguable fact is: Earth and Venus are both warmed by direct atmospheric absorption of the same infrared portion of the solar radiation. There is no speculation, no theory in this statement: It is an amazing (because so many scientists believe otherwise) statement of experimental fact, based on the actual detailed temperature and pressure profiles measured for the two planets (which have been available to climate scientists promoting the greenhouse effect for nearly 20 years now, which means they are incompetent). And it completely invalidates ANY “greenhouse effect” of additional warming by adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere: Venus has 96.5% carbon dioxide (compared to Earth’s 0.04%), yet its atmospheric temperatures relative to Earth’s atmosphere have nothing to do with that huge concentration, but only and precisely to the fact that Venus is closer to the Sun than is the Earth. Venus’s surface temperature is far higher than Earth’s, because Venus’s atmosphere is far deeper than Earth’s. To tell the public — and to teach students — otherwise is to recklessly spread an obvious falsehood and steal hard-earned knowledge from the world, thereby misusing and ultimately defaming the authority of science in the world.
Stop playing around with theoretical put-downs, and talking past each other, and admit that the Venus/Earth data completely and unambiguously invalidates the greenhouse effect.
Dale
You may be interested in this paper, in particular, the references to the Diurnal Atmospheric Bulge about halfway in:
http://www.spinonthat.com/CO2_files/The_Diurnal_Bulge_and_the_Fallacies_of_the_Greenhouse_Effect.html
Sorry Harry, rather.
You get several basic facts wrong.
The earth and venus are both warmed by solar radiation of shorter wavelength than the infared.
Venus has almost no water in its atmosphere, maybe 20 ppm, so there are no clouds of dilute sulfuric acid.
The earth and venus recieve about the same amount of solar radiation due to Venus having a higher albedo, most of the incoming light is reflected fromVenus.
I could continue but why?
Rather, “the first unarguable fact is: The atmospheres of Earth and Venus are both warmed by direct atmospheric absorption of the same infrared portion of the solar radiation.”
But I didn’t say that was wrong.
Most of the enery warming both planets is in the visual range, which you said could not heat the atmosphere of Venus due to the opaqueness of that atmosphere.
Claes starting point is not concerned with the climate change issue as such.
His contribution is to question if Plank and Einstein were correct to abandon classical wave theory in favour of the quantisation of electromagnetic radiation.
To be sure Plank and Einstein were deeply unhappy with the situation and regarded the concept of the photon as a “fix” or even a “trick” which would give way to some fuller explanation of phenomena like the photoelectric effect and so on.
IMHO the photon explanation is the best we have at the moment but I’m glad that imaginative people like Claes are ready to reexamine the fundamentals from time to time.
I’m sure if a real problem about heat transfer required a solution Claes would produce a solution that competent Physicists would agree with.
He would probably use the Poynting vector to give the direction and magnitude of heat flow.
Which of course as Clausius pointed out is always from higher to lower temperature bodies.
On the climate change issue he would say I’m sure that the colder atmosphere cannot increase the temperature of the warmer Earth Surface.
”
His contribution is to question if Plank and Einstein were correct to abandon classical wave theory in favour of the quantisation of electromagnetic radiation.
”
And he, in turn, throws out the superposition principle ( the two black bodies’ radiation patterns can be solved for indepandantly, and then added together), which holds for classical wave theory. I don’t see switching to a classical EM frame, and then having to destroy a central tenet of the classical EM theory an advance. You can’t have it both ways – classical EM holds and classical EM doesn’t hold. The very frame it’s put itno says his theory is flat 100% wrong.
Maxwell posts:
“But the train gets off the tracks pretty quickly after that. The author makes the statement,
‘The net result is that warmer blackbody can heat a colder blackbody, but not the other way around.’
which is obviously wrong.
But why?”
One warm body in dark space radiates energy in all directions except back at itself (ignoring internal self-balancing). Two warm bodies in dark space do that but also each warms the other which reduces the rate at which they cool. This is true regardless of relative temperatures. The cooler body radiates the warmer body (can’t be helped – it doesn’t know it is the cooler body and science doesn’t care) and that unavoidably slows the rate of cooling of that warmer body.
Unlike electricity passing through a straight taut wire (and a tapered wire will demonstrate distributed radiated energy), no part of the wire radiates any other part of the wire. It is like that solitary radiating body in space. The thermal distribution is a consequence of the local resistance and thermal conductance.
Not the case with radiated energy. Each object paints any other visible object and that object is compelled to react to that energy.
dp,
it was a rhetorical question, but I appreciate your answering it in the context you used. It’s more practical than my own and hopefully will get through to more readers.
Thanks.
OK, I’m late to this and have what may be a very dumb question. But, dp, in the scenario you posit isn’t it possible, depending on the temperature, size, and proximity of the two bodies, that the cooler may actually increase in temperature, at least for a period of time, while it is never possible that the warmer object would increase in temperature? And isn’t that the point some are making, i.e. the colder body can not warm the hotter body?
The warmer body does indeed warm the colder body, but at the same time the warmer body gets also warmer than it would be without the colder body. It would still radiate as much as without the colder body and this radiation would disappear to the empty space. What the colder body does is that it is also radiating (although less) and some of this radiation is going to hit the warmer body and bring some heat to it. Some additional heat is heating the body whatever its source is.
Pekka,
I have seen this explained before.
If the colder body causes the warmer body to heat then the radiation of the warmer body will increase and it should be measurable. If we cannot measure it the effect is so small as to be ignored in the context of the climate debate (much larger effects are ignored by the Models). Can you point us to papers showing the experimental data on this?
No one else has bothered to beat us over the head with the actual empirical data, that I have seen, and my head is really hard so takes a lot to penetrate it.
Claes, I could recommend some books on statistical thermodynamics if you’re interested. It seems to me that if one is going to dismiss it as “jibberishy” one ought to know something about it, if one is not to be be considered a crank.
To David: I have tried to learn from books on statistical thermodynamics but
I belong to the large group of mathematicians who cannot understand what
this theory tells you about reality.
As Harry DH says: A constructive debate requires constructive minds. To argue
with a three year old who has decided to not do something, requires something
else than good old logic.
Yes; it is a good idea to go back and understand that Planck and Einstein and Schrodinger were not happy at all with particle statistics. Maybe they had
some good reasons not to be which are still valid.
http://knol.google.com/k/did-einstein-not-understand-math#
did you in fact write this?
Right, they are challenging Planck and Einstein so we should prove it.
From the chapter on Blackbody radiation:
“7.13 Stefan-Boltzmann’s Law for Two Blackbodies
The classical Stefan-Boltzmann’s Law R = T 4 gives the energy radiated
from a blackbody of temperature T into an exterior at absolute zero temperature
(0K). For the case of an exterior temperature Text above zero,
standard literature presents the following modification:
R = T 4 − T 4
ext, (20)
where the term T 4
ext conventionally represents ”backradiation” from the
exterior to the blackbody. It is important to understand that this is a convention
which by itself does not prove that there is a two-way flow of
energy with T 4 going out and T 4
ext coming in.
In our analysis, there is no such two-way flow of heat energy, only a
flow of net energy as expressed writing (20) in the following differentiated
form
R 4T 3(T − Text) (21)
with just one term and not the difference of two terms. The mere naming
of something does not bring it into physical existence.”
If you have two bodies, or one body radiating to an exterior, which can be considered as two bodies. They both are radiating, and how do they know of the existence of the other, which would be required to determine the magnitude of the net flow of energy.
Pretty much requiring inanimate objects having knowledge of other inamimate objects is what your analysis requires.
We can detect the cosmic background radiation, and those photons, when they enter a detector, must add that energy to the detector in order to satisfy consevation of energy, which warms the detector, slightly. That cosmic background radiation is just blackbody radiation extremly red-shifted.
I guess we are getting somewhere, as those who are trying to disprove the greenhouse gas effect, realize that in order to do that, they must attack Einstein, Planck and the Photon, and you wonder why they are labeled crack-pots.
I often find challenges to my existing perspectives to be enlightening, because in responding, I’m forced to review my own understanding, and on ocassions, revise it. In this case, however, the claim that a cooler body can’t cause a warmer body to become warmer still (if that is indeed claimed) is so nonsensical that it would be hard to learn anything from refuting it. Instead, I will simply suggest a simple experiment.
I assume most of us are located in what is now a relatively cold time of year. Here is what I suggest. When the temperature outside is 2 deg C and your body skin temperature is, say 35 C (measured by a thermometer taped to your skin and insulated to shield it from the outside), go outside dressed only in a short-sleeve shirt and shorts, wait for about an hour, and then take your temperature. It will be lower – record the value. It might be around 32-33 C.
Now go back in the house, and put on heavy clothes and an overcoat, taken from the closet at 20 C (obviously colder than your body skin temperature). Again, take your temperature after an hour.
Did the 20 C clothes cause your 32 C temperature to go up or down?
The mechanism of warming by the clothes is primarily convective, while the warming of the surface from the atmosphere is primarily radiative, but the principle is the same – a cooler body can cause the temperature of a warmer body to rise. For this to happen, of course, the cooler body must itself be exposed to heat that originated in an even warmer source than the current temperature of the warmer body. In the absence of such a source, a cool object can’t raise the temperature of a warmer object (although it can cause it to cool less than if the warm object were simply radiating to space). For your skin, that heat is generated by metabolism sufficient to maintain your internal temperature above the 32 C skin temperature, and the clothes retard its escape. For the atmosphere, the heat comes from the sun, and is transmitted to the atmosphere by absorption of solar radiation and IR radiation from the surface. Ultimately, of course, the net heat flow is from warm to cold – from the sun, via various routes, to the Earth, and then to space. In the meantime, the greenhouse effect operating on the atmosphere makes the Earth’s temperature habitable.
Fred, with all due respect, everyone here understands conduction and its little brother convection (and convection’s little brother advection) just fine. The nonsensical greenhouse gas theory is based on radiation and radiation balance causing heating. Bringing conduction, convection and insulation into the conversation is off-topic and a distraction…and certainly seems intentional to me…like a magician trying to distract the audience from the things going on in his left hand.
Fred Moolten |
……”In this case, however, the claim that a cooler body can’t cause a warmer body to become warmer still (if that is indeed claimed) is so nonsensical that it would be hard to learn anything from refuting it. Instead, I will simply suggest a simple experiment.”……..
During a school lesson the Physics teacher might say the force of gravity causes “bodies” to accelerate towards the Earth at 9.81m/s2.
A pupil might ask “is the body alive”.
Fred we are not talking here about heat sources that have a means of regulating their power output such as an animal.
Will putting clothes on a bronze statue at a temperature of say 350K cause its temperature to rise above 350K if the ambient temperature is say 275K?
Of course not!
All the clothes can do is to insulate the body i.e. to reduce the rate of heat loss from the object.
I believe most readers will understand the point I made.
Fred Moolten
Most readers will conclude you don’t know much about heat transfer!
I’ll take my chances, Bryan.
Fred, I do hope you are joking here as the reason I will be warmer after putting on the 20c clothes is the energy I’m burning and turning into heat (you know, calories) will not be lost as quickly allowing my body to warm.
Ken – Your explanation is correct, but there was no joke intended. The point is simple – as long as a heat source is available for the cooler object to operate on, that object can raise the temperature of a warmer object. In this example, the heat source is body metabolism. For the greenhouse effect, the heat source is the sun. The inability of a cooler object to raise the temperature of a warmer object applies when there is no source of heat for the cooler object to divert back toward the warmer object, but that is not the case with our atmosphere.
Bryan,
if a reader came to the conclusion that Fred was discussing convection or conduction it would point more to reader’s inability to decipher the most important aspect of the his example rather than a real lacking on the part of Fred. Yet, here you are.
Fred seemed to have interlinked lines of confusion .
Power sources that regulate their output.
Insulation does not imply that the insulator transmits heat by any method to the source of heat.
Actually I don’t understand Fred.
Let me see, if I put a brick out in the sun and it warms to X degrees, and if I then split the brick in 2 and seperate them a couple of centimetres, they will “become warmer still”?
Possibly yes, because of increased surface exposure to sunlight, but it depends on air temperature, the absorptivity of the bricks for solar and IR wavelengths, their IR emissivity, conductivity and temperature at the surface they are resting on, and other variables.
I don’t know why you would introduce all those variables. It’s the one brick under the one sun sitting on the one surface. All I do is tap it with my trovel and split it in half (like a good brickie would) the properties of the 2 halves are identical. If it’s T rises due to the greater surface area, what has that got to do with the discussion about a cool body increasing the T of a warm body via radiation?
OK we’ll void the extra surface area by placing a brick under the sun until it reaches X degrees. We now get a 2nd brick from the shed and place it next to the first one.
Will the T of the first one now rise above X degrees because a 2nd brick was placed next to it?
Yes, under many circumstances (see Frank Davis’s link below to Spencer’s blog).
that means we could….for instance…..increase the surface temperature of the Moon from 107DegC to a somewhat higher T by placing an atmosphere around it?
The mean (day/night average) lunar temperature could be increased by an atmosphere containing greenhouse gases.
Why are you mentioning the mean T? The moon has a T of 107DegC during the day. If we introduce a cool body next to it (an atmosphere) will it increase the moons T? It’s a simple question expanding on our discussion so far. You didn’t introduce ‘mean’ or day night into the brick example.
So what will the new daytime T be?
BH – It will increase it more at night, but it would also increase the daytime temperature as long as the cool body did not shield the moon from the sun.
Splitting a brick is a very good example. If we split the moon in two halves, will they warm each other, so each alves become warmer? I dont thnk so.
At equilibrium, the temperatures won’t change as long as the new surfaces have the same physical properties (emissivity/absorptivity) as the original surface. That is because the moon’s temperature is determine by the level at which radiative loss to space equals radiative gain from sunlight. Since splitting the moon won’t change the incoming solar energy in W/m^2, the outgoing flux and therefore the surface temperature won’t change.
actually if you split the moon in half, the two halfs would both be cooler as the combined surface area would be greater
Rob – the extra surface area would both absorb and radiate more heat. The temperatures would remain unchanged, because they are dictated by solar absorption on a W/m^2 basis. Surface area is therefore irrelevant.
Fred- If you slice a moon or planet in half wouldn’t it expose the warmer core of each half, which would result in greater heat loss
just kidding
Baa Humbug
Indeed, what a number of the IPCC adherents miss out is that a colder object can make a warmer object colder than it would be in the absence of the colder object.
Why do they have this blindspot?
I don’t understand your (Moolten’s) point either. Clothing does not heat up a human body via “back-radiation” or “back-conduction.” There is no heat transfer from cold to hot without work input (Clausius), and clothing (and likewise the atmosphere) cannot add work input.
see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_body
“The total surface area of an adult is about 2 m^2, and the mid- and far-infrared emissivity of skin and most clothing is near unity, as it is for most nonmetallic surfaces. Skin temperature is about 33 deg C, but clothing reduces the surface temperature to about 28 deg C when the ambient temperature is 20 deg C. Hence, the net radiative heat loss is about Pnet = 100 W.”
Clothing “reduces the skin surface temperature” because the human body has to supply heat energy to the colder clothing to increase the temperature of the clothing. Clothing does limit convection, as do glass panes in a greenhouse, but CO2 has no such ability. Thus, the analogy fails.
Please point me to a textbook of physics which contains the terms “back-radiation” or “back-conduction.”
Without the clothing, the temperature would decline even further. If you are skeptical, try the experiment I proposed.
“I belong to the large group of mathematicians who cannot understand what
this theory tells you about reality.”
It is impossible to take anything you say seriously when you make statements like this. When classical thermodynamics fails to explain the specific heat of your atomic crystalline solid, to where do you turn? Maybe you can guess what technique Einstein used to model the solid.
No I am serious, as serious as Einstein when he distanced himself from statistics as a way of understanding physics.
As in the statistical emission properties of a theoretical S/B, solid two-dimensional black-body disc.
As aposed to the physical emission properties of a real, fluid, three-dimensional grey-body gas.
The Stefan/Boltzmann BBD argument is a infra-red herring.
It leads nowhere because it is an apple and oranges comparison.
We can easily compare a body of CO2 to a body of air and clear up the argument in seconds.
“An easily reproducible experiment”
This simple experiment demonstrates that CO2 in the atmosphere is forced in to equilibrium by and with, the O2 and N2.
Not as AGW has it, the other way around.
Interesting. You choose a classical frame for your work, and then use a statement about the interpretation of QM wave functions to boslter your argument .. but fail to note that Einstein didn’t distance himself from statistical mechanics, etc.
I see no clarity in your thoughts or arguments, merely throwing in red herrings instead to answering the obvious inconsistencies which result from your theory .
Judy says that something is wrong with the KT energy budget, but refuses to
tell what is wrong. What kind of debate is this? Is it some kind guess play?
So Judy, please tell me now what it is you find is wrong with KT?
Exactly when and where have I said something is wrong with the KT energy budget? KT’s numbers are almost certainly inexact. Attempting to do some sort of globally averaged energy balance may not be the best way to go about it. But that does not mean that atmospheric infrared back radiation does not exist.
To Fred Molten: Can you give me the equations you are using showing that
heat by itself (without external input of energy) can move from cold to warm?
Of course putting on clothes makes it possible to keep a higher body surface temperature but the heat comes from the catabolism of your body, not from your clothes, at least if you live in Sweden.
The external input comes from the sun.
Would that you would answer the question directly. Very frustrating when you choose to redefine it.
The present physical theories are perfectly able to describe all basic processes that need to be considered in analyzing atmosphere and they have been tested extensively in very many different setups. There are no reasons to replace any of this knowledge by some conflicting physical laws. Most physicists are, however, unaware about, how much of the physical understanding can be described in several different ways. Handling of electromagnetic radiation is one good example.
One of my former colleagues did theoretical research on laser physics. Most descriptions of lasers start immediately with quantum field theory, but his approach was based on classical electromagnetic field theory and it was very successful. It was not in contradiction with quantum mechanics, but the mathematical approach was very different.
I can see in Claes Johnson’s texts superficial similarities with that approach. The way quantization is brought into the calculations can be chosen from several alternatives. In some approaches it can make sense to state that there are not forward radiation and back radiation, but only the net radiation. If the final results differ from the conventional approach they are certainly wrong as the conventional approach has been validated so well, but the alternative approach may also be correct as long as it leads to the same results.
I do not believe that the alternatives would often be easier to understand or of any particular value, but I would be careful before declaring some non-conventional approach automatically wrong. The case of analyzing lasers that I mentioned at the beginning is proof of the fact that sometimes one may indeed find advantage from postponing the quantization and using classical formulation as far as possible.
Using obscure alternative formulation and vague argumentation as evidence on weaknesses in the conventional understanding of physics is another matter. When it is done in parts of physics, which have been applied widely for years without any conflict with observation, I would not give any weight on such claims.
Thank you Pekka
Judy.
I’ll suggest a cage match.
Johnson versus maxwell.
no other commenters allowed. People can then see that Johnson will not be able to maintain his position. we will them ask him to admit his honest error and ask the publishers to correct the book.
As publisher of the North American and Oceania version…I accept this challenge. I’m happy to publish errata and a new edition if and when the errors reach a critical mass.
I’m not sure how to prove anything when the topic gets this esoteric…I prefer lab experiments where the data verifies or falsifies a claim. No models. No dueling weblinks or appeals to authority in any form. It makes things tough when you need a vacuum to isolate the experiment from conduction and convection effects. We’ll see how it goes, I suppose.
Good idea, Steve.
Thank Ken. I suggested the same thing for the IPCC. We need to make room for the admission and correction of honest error. The IPCC could not do it. I do not trust them as a consequence and thus am forced to look at primary research on my own to come to a considered judgement.
Now that we have aired some stuff, I agree that the discussion is best left to those with a degree in physics (maxwell, pekka, and there are others among the denizens of climate etc that have not shown up).
I’d be down for this ‘cage match’ if I thought it would do any good. Alas, we’ve seen that even when faced with the idea that his theory violates the conservation of energy (the 1st law of thermodynamics, the very theory he claims supports him), he is unwilling to concede or even engage.
It’s my opinion, based on this fact and the lack of transparent discussion perpetuated by some other commenters, that science is not of interest to these people. Maybe it is an ‘honest’ mistake that Johnson has gotten to this place, but I see his poorly thought out analogies beginning Chap. 2 as a way for him to rationalizing away the physical meaning of some of the most well-known and thoroughly tested laws physics has given us thus far. In such a case I have to wonder how much honesty is involved…
Pekkka,
a good historical example of what you are saying is the Drude model. It posits that electrons are classical in enough numbers when confined in a solid. There is a basic kinematic equation describing the force acting on each electron that, when solved for the appropriate situation, gives an answer that fits ‘reasonably well’ to observations. You may be familiar with this model if your friend works on lasers.
But the Drude model, and other so-called ’empirical models’, is flawed physically. Just as your friend’s laser theory is flawed. That is to say, it is practical for a well-trained experts to use such a theory because he/she understands its flaws and faults. It works for back of the envelope calculations which are quite important in the lab.
What happens when we are trying to determine a ‘physical understanding’, however?
In such cases, it’s my opinion that we must do our damnedest to get to the meat of a problem. Even if that means dispelling a computationally practical and useful formalism like the Drude model. Because the Drude model doesn’t give us transistors or quantum wells or superconduction…or lasers for that matter. Having relied on the Drude model takes away from our understanding of reality.
In the same way, while Mr. Johnson’s attempts might seem like an interesting facet of science, they fundamentally take away from a broader understanding of reality. There is no basis in it’s being real other than the words on a pdf. It is especially problematic since so many here are willing to simply regurgitate his memes without any skepticism at all.
I think the most important aspect of doing science, as Mr. Johnson claims he is doing, is determining whether or not you can handle being wrong. If you cannot handle such an outcome, as Mr. Johnson’s reaction to the criticism he has faced here makes me think, you are not interested in science. I don’t think Mr. Johnson is interested in science.
I’d be interested in your take on that.
Thanks.
Thank you maxwell.
You and John Sullivan utterly mis understand the concern about the “united front”
If, for example, the AGU were to offer some session time to discuss skeptical
issues, the first question is WHICH skeptical positions should be given time?
If, for example , a research center were to open its laboratory time to test skeptical ideas on GCMs WHICH skeptical positions should be given time.
It was a PRAGMATIC discussion about a PRACTICAL problem.
Now then warmists could pick the WORST skeptical ideas and only discuss those. this is what realclimate does.
Give an some specifics for a really good skeptical idea that Real Climate has ignored.
Paul Middents
As far as I remember RC has covered just about every paper which has been promoted by the skeptics in recent years.
In the end there aren’t good skeptical ideas and bad skeptical ideas, there are just good and bad ideas, and good ideas will generally get proper consideration.
Maybe there are some exceptions – if someone can provide evidence that there are good, credible ideas out there which are not being considered then fine, until then I remain, well, skeptical.
Andrew Adams,
I will be glad to give you an example of bad ideas that RC still supports. Hockey Sticks. Have they admitted yet that Mann’s and associated work are all severely flawed and should be withdrawn? That they do NOT support the claims they make?
Hi kuhnkat, I suspect that none of the “Hockey Team” ground staff at RealCLimate have been allowed to read respected investigative science journalist Andrew Montford’s excellent exposé “The Hockey Stick Illusion” (http://www.bishop-hill.net/). This was declared by another respected investigative science journalist Matt Ridley (http://isteve.blogspot.com/2011/04/you-cant-get-much-richer-and-whiter.html) as being “…a rattling good detective story and a detailed and brilliant piece of science writing .. ”.
Ref. your comment yesterday at 11:48 pm, for Andrew to “ .. Dig harder man!!! .. ”, he had the opportunity on 1st July and because he refused to remove his blinkers he threw it away. Investigative science journalist? – pull the other one.
Best regards, Pete Ridley.
Montford is a “respected investigative science journalist” by what standards exactly? Has he won awards of his colleagues? Has his work appeared in prestigious publications?
I haven’t read Montford’s book but my experience is that those who have make lots of charges regarding Mann that they can’t actually defend, most likely because they are false. (At least if they are true, noone has provided evidence to rebut my evidence that they are false.) I am not sure whether they got this info from Montford but that has been my impression.
I strongly recommend reading Montford’s book. It is very well written and extremely well documented.
Joel, instead of waffling from a position of ignorance try reading the book and following the references, do your own assessment then go over to the blogs of Steve McIntyre’s blog (http://climateaudit.org/) and Andrew Montford (http://www.bishop-hill.net/) and try to convince them that you know better than they do. Let me know how you get on. They may let you co-author a paper with them on the subject.
Best regards, Pete Ridley
Pete and Dr. Curry:
Well, next time I find it in a bookstore, I will look through it and see what it has to say about the “censored” directory and about the Tiljander proxies. If it just repeats the same unsubstantiated nonsense that I see from people like “Smokey” on WUWT, I will be very unimpressed. If not, then maybe it is more worthwhile.
Joel, rather than reading the books, try going to their websites and reading the archives. Especially Climate Audit, Steve McIntyre’s site, as he was central to debunking the Hokeystick. You might even ask him directly about the “censored” directory with r2 information that was not published as he wrote about it first I believe.
Of course, even if that was an inflated anecdote by some unknown person, the fact is that the r2 statistics for the Hokeystick FAILS! The difference is whether Mann knowingly misled people or is just sloppy and ignorant about the statistical methods he uses.
Here is a start at CA: http://climateaudit.org/?s=BACKTO_1400-CENSORED
Be sure to ask Steve directly about how he knows the “censored” directory really came from Mann’s FTP server.
To Pekka: You seem to agree that macroscopic physics cannot be modeled by
quantum mechanics, and so macroscopic equations are needed for atmospheric radiation. Now macroscopic radiation seems to be well described by Maxwell’s equations, modulo the difficulty of the ultraviolet catastrophy, which destroys everything. What I suggest is a rational way to avoid the catastrophy and keep the great advantage of Maxwell’s equations as compared to primitive particle statistics. Isn’t that something to think of a bit, in the spirit of Planck and Einstein, rather than dismissing without reflection?
And the radiative transfer equations are much cruder than Maxwell, right?
Claes,
I do not agree that quantum mechanics cannot be used in those parts of atmospheric physics, where it has been used. What I was saying that in some situations the agreement with quantum theory can be obtained in surprisingly many different ways. Even for effects where the quantum theory differs from traditional classical physics the correct results may sometimes be obtained in ways where the quantum effects are somehow hidden.
Hamiltonian formulation of mechanics allows for presenting some quantum effects in less common fashion etc.
Einstein was not happy with quantum theory. I think that the main reason is related to conceptual difficulties in joining it with general relativity described in the elegant ways that he had developed. His dissatisfaction came out also in his statement about God not playing dice or in his paper with Podolski and Rosen, which has now been proven to be in conflict with experiments after Bell had formulated his inequality along the lines of that paper. In this case Einstein erred and quantum mechanics prevails.
The problems in interpreting quantum mechanics are also related to some of the possibilities of doing the calculations differently. The quantum mechanics is, however, extremely successful in giving correct predictions with high accuracy. Thus it is a very good and valid physical theory in pragmatic sense. Most physicists do not worry about the philosophical problems and do their work successfully. Whether the philosophical difficulties turn out to have some relationship to the next paradigm, which would solve the problems of Einstein and unify gravity and quantum mechanics in a elegant way, remains to be seen. Perhaps not by our generation, but our children or grandchildren.
I am still not telling the name of my former colleague, but I can tell that he has been later professor at KTH. When we were working at the same institute, we had some very interesting discussions on the foundations of quantum mechanics.
I add that sometimes it has also turned out that results generally thought to depend on quantum mechanics turn out to be true in more general settings. This is not very common and I cannot give examples, but I have certainly heard about such cases.
Claes,
Concerning back radiation I certainly believe that it is a useful concept and that the radiative energy transfer can be handled most easily by including it in the calculation. I cannot figure out, how all correct results could be obtained without considering it explicitly. On macroscopic level avoiding it may be possible, but on the more detailed microscopic level it seems almost impossible, but only almost.
To Judy: OK so now you say the KT is basically correct and that backradiation is a real physical phenomenon. Very good because we now have something concrete to discuss.
May I then ask you about the equations describing your effect of backradiation? Without equations anything is possible.
Read texts on atmospheric radiative transfer by Goody and Yung and others.
You might also remind him of the ARM observational data that you have linked to earlier.
This review by Richard Goody is quite interesting…particularly as he reaches his conclusions at the end.
https://www.cfa.harvard.edu/~wsoon/DaveLegates03-d/Goody02review.pdf
Yes – the bit at the end is very interesting and gels with much of what has been said on the Lisbon thread. Thanks.
Mr.Johnson:
In your description of a IR camera you admit that the instrument , directed appropiately, show radiation. At the same time you negate that this radiation reflect some reality. Could you please explain this ? I am extremely confused.
I think that what Claes is saying, is that the radiation you measure is a result of the temperature. Not the other way around. Sounds good to me.
To Judy: Do you claim that radiative transfer equations model backradiation?
I hope that this is relevant to the discussion:
Yes, Virginia, Cooler Objects Can Make Warmer Objects Even Warmer Still
July 23rd, 2010 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.
Frank Davis
Google the famous “Pictet Experiment”
Its of great historical importance and quite relevant to this discussion.
IPCC adherents miss out is that a colder object can make a warmer object colder than it would be in the absence of the colder object.
Why do they have this blindspot?
Thanks, Dr. Curry, for hosting this debate.
@ Frank Davis:
Dr. Spencer says in his article: “So, once again, we see that the presence of a colder object can cause a warmer object to become warmer still.”
However, the process he refers to is not heat transfer by radiation from a colder system to another system, but a kind of isolation, like in a thermos. Yet, the colder system is not providing “more” energy to the warmer system, but just would be avoiding that the warmer system emits heat towards the colder system. This argument is not true because the thermal energy is transferred to the colder system, invariably, unless the colder system is a perfect reflecting material or the colder system has a very low heat capacity. I would make Dr. Spencer to recall that the Earth is not a thermos; his argument could be possible if the highest layer of the Earth’s system, i.e. the thermosphere, had a mass density higher than that of the surface. It’s not the case for the real Earth.
On the other hand, if you wish to consider QM on this thread, you must include also the well-described by Einstein induced emission, which has been corroborated experimentally and in the construction of some devices, and the well-know and demonstrated radiation pressure. These two real physic phenomena debunk any idea of a “backradiation” from the atmosphere warming the surface.
Nasif,
I think you are confused. Roy’s posts on this topic are very clear and definitely show that there is in fact backradiation toward the surface from the atmosphere. He ultimate experiment used an IR thermometer to measure the actual temperature of the air several hundred feet above via the IR light it emits.
Even more confusing are your statements concerning stimulated emission and radiation pressure. Can you please explain specifically how those physical processes play a role in radiative transfer or the lack there of in the atmosphere?
@ maxwell… No more than you are.
Roy’s “experiment” only demonstrates that there is energy flow by radiation, whatever his conclusions could be.
Both processses, induced emision (or induced radiation) and radiation pressure, influence radiation. If you know what those terms mean, you won’t be so confused, as you are, on “backradiation” issues.
Nasif,
you’re damn right I’m confused. You still haven’t provided a physical mechanism for how those interesting terms have to with the most important aspects of radiative transfer.
On the point of Roy’s experiment, what type of energy transfer is he measuring? If the IR thermometer is conducting energy from the surrounding air, his thermometer would have measure about 300 K. Instead, his thermometer read around 200 K. Where does that difference come from in terms of energy transfer? Are you saying that the thermometer can conduct energy from the upper reaches of the lower atmosphere without conducting through all the layers?
That would be a monumental theory!
Also, if you’re going to charge that a particular person doesn’t understand some terms you use, you should make sure you know what you’re talking about. I have extensive experience in classical optics, quantum optics, atomic and molecular spectroscopy and nonlinear optics (I built an optical parametric amplifier over the past week in fact) so I KNOW those terms you’re using have absolutely nothing to do with this discussion, the greenhouse effect or ‘backradiation’. It’s a purely quantum mechanical, spontaneous effect.
It was an interesting go at it though.
Dear Maxwell,
Please, visit again Roy’s experiment and see what the box floor is and on what kind of surface it was placed on. You’ll get the answer.
Regarding induced emission, you should not forget the natural photon streams, so upwards, during nighttime, as downwards, during daytime. On the other issue, if you make the proper calculations on radiation pressure, you’ll find that the downwelling radiation heating up the surface is not possible in the real world.
If Dr. Curry, the owner of this blog, grants me permission to go out of topic, I will proceed to answer properly your questions.
Regards,
Nasif
Nasif,
the hole just keeps getting deeper.
The experiment to which I was referring had Roy traveling around in his convertible sedan pointing an IR thermometer into the air. Not his make-shift holhraum.
In that case, where he is clearly measuring the temperature of the atmosphere directly several hundred feet above him, how does energy interact with the thermometer to produce a reading of 200 K?
I’ll give you a hint, it has nothing to do with radiation pressure.
It’s becoming more and more clear to me that you are using words that have one meaning to you, but a totally different meaning to actual optical scientists. You ought to look into the ways in which these terms are used in scientific circles so that you can more easily communicate your points in a scientific debate.
Dear Maxwell,
Don’t go further on this or you’ll get disappointed on your own limitations about those concepts. Take your book on Radiative Heat Transfer and you’ll see I’m absolutely correct. I don’t want to go further on discussing those concepts because they are out of topic and I respect the admonitions of Dr. Curry on the purpose of this blog thread.
Well, what the ground on which Roy placed his box and what the floor of the box was? Could you be so kind as to tell us what was it, specifically?
Third, when he was “meassuring the temperature travelling around on his convertible sedan”… maxwell, tell me honestly, don’t you know how thermometers work and what thing makes them work?
Regards,
Nasif
Nasif,
I’m trying to determine if your lack of comprehension of my comments is due to the possibility you are not a native English speaker or just plain stupidity. I’m willing to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume the first option, but not for too much longer.
Again I’m discussing Roy’s use of a IR thermometer, not his makeshift holhraum. Please make an important mental note of that fact and stop your persistent confusion over this fact. It’s making you look dumb.
An IR thermometer measures IR light (heat) emanating from a body or gas. Therefore, if Roy is pointing this thermometer at the sky, the thermometer reads the temperature of the sky via its IR emission. Therefore, the atmosphere is emitting IR radiation toward the ground that began its journey in ‘life’ at the surface, making it ‘backradation’. QED.
As for radiative transfer, I’ve extensively studied ‘Introduction to Three Dimensional Modeling’ by Washington and Parkinson. From this text I am able to recover what both quantum mechanics and thermodynamics imply should be a downwelling IR emission from the atmosphere.
Do you have other certified texts that you feel are better than Washington and Parkinson?
Furthermore, you continue to lack any sort of meaningful physical description of what you are talking about. Based on the plethora of these facts so far, I must say I don’t think very highly of your opinion on this matter.
It’s been real though.
Maxwell, I have an analogy I think is quite good.
Voltage.
If you have a 6Volt potensial, and a “current sink” at 1 Volt, you will have a current from 6 Volt to 1 Volt. Increase the “sink” to 4 Volts.
The 6 Volt source will drain slower. But the current is still seen as going from 6 Volts to 4 Volts. But we dont talk about “back-current”. That would be confusing.
Maxwell,
darn, you probably will never see this to answer my question, but, just on the offchance that someone does and can:
I am under the impression that the atmosphere absorbs virtually all of the IR radiation (except the window) within about 15ft of the surface. if this is so, exactly what was Dr. Spencer measuring from the ground?? Wouldn’t downward IR also be absorbes so that all he would be able to measure would be about 20 feet over his head and not an average of several hundred feet????
Lucia Liljegren has a post critiquing the first chapter
http://rankexploits.com/musings/2011/slaying-the-sky-dragon-muddled-confusing/
@Dr. Curry… But Lucia forgot the flow of electrons in her example about a solid that is being heated up. Plasma is everywhere (Supplee. The Plasma Universe. Oxford. 2009).
OT
Again Judy: Which equations do you claim model backradiation? As I said I want equations and I want the equations to be motivated or derived mathematically. Which equations are you referring to?
The equation that models backradiation is the Planck law for the intensity of light emitted by a blackbody at a specific temperature. This equation is carried out for every layer in the atmosphere, which has a stratified temperature profile. The absorption of light, all frequencies, is modeled by the Beer-Lambert law which is easily derivable from Maxwell’s equations via the electromagnetic wave equation.
If we wanted to get down and dirty with the most fundamental equation governing the behavior of absorbing material to first order in the perturbation due to the interaction with light, we would have to use the quantum master equation with a phenomenological coupling to the vacuum field. We can go to second order in the perturbation to get to scattering processes if we liked as well.
Ever wonder why the sky is blue?
This process would allow us to see absorption and spontaneous emission (the dominant form of emission in the atmosphere) on a per atom/molecule level. The Beer-Lambert and Planck laws get the overall average effect of the quantum master equation in this context.
So from first principles, we can easily calculate (grad school quantum problems) the rate of absorption and emission of a particular molecules when the light in question is on resonance with a particular allowed quantum transition, the linewidth of that transition based on different broadening processes and the necessary equipment to test the predictions of any such calculation. From there, we can sum over all the molecules in our volume and get an answer to compare to the observational laws used in climate models.
You can see whether the agreement between these methods is good. Let me know how it goes.
Maxwell,
doesn’t CO2 absorb and emit based on its molecular bond configuration as opposed to planck energy?? Maybe someone can jump in and explicate what the difference is if any??
For example, CO2 emits at 15 microns at an intensity according to the number of molecules and their temperature using the Planck function for temperature that wavelength (which actually peaks not far from 15 microns for normal atmospheric temperatures). This emission is seen at the ground as part of the back-radiation, together with all the other CO2 and H2O bands in clear sky that make up all the back-radiation.
kuhnkat,
Not one opposed to the other but both combined.
The molecular properties determine which wavelengths have strong emission and absorption, i.e. they determine the emissivity, which is equal to absorptivity. Planck’s law tells how strong the emission is at those wavelength as the strength is a product of the emissivity and Planck’s law for black body at that wavelength.
When the emissivity of a gas is strong for a particular wavelength, it means that its is significant already for a thin layer and very close to one for a thick layer in accordance with the Beer-Lambert law. Then the the strength of emission at that wavelength is the same as for a black body of the temperature of the gas. This is true for those wavelengths, but at other wavelengths the gas does not emit at all or very little.
Then Planck’s laws are applicable to emission whether it is from level changes in single atoms or bond interactions.
As Pekka pointed out above it sets the upper limit at any wavelength, if there is no allowed transition at a particular wavelength then the emission will be zero no matter what the Planck value is. The Co2 band at 15μm will emit strongly up to the Planck limit. O2 can emit in the UV at around 220nm but in the atmosphere the Planck limit will be generally so low that this emission will be very weak (Judith made this point earlier).
To Lucia: If you had read the equations I refer to as Navier-Stokes you would have seen that they express conservation of mass, momentum and total energy
and are the basic equations of thermodynamics describing transformation
between kinetic and heat energy through work. Are you familiar with thermodynamics?
Claes,
The basic equations of thermodynamics are called “The first law of Thermodynamics” and “The 2nd law of Thermodynamics”. One of the clues is that these equations contain the word “thermodynamics”. In contrast, conservation of momentum is “mechanics” and the navier-stokes equations are basic equations for fluid mechanics.
Conservation of mass is used in analyses, but that doesn’t transform the equation into “a basic equation of thermodynamics”.
Are you familiar with thermodynamics?
I’m laughing myself to tears here. I am familiar enough to know that you are making errors. :)
This is lucia.
======
Kim— You are correct. I don’t know why wordpress auto-filled the name incorrectly. I should have seen that.
The mistake is to think that it is possible to consider thermodynamics and fluid mechanics as separate in a gas or liquid.
They are inseparable in the context of free atmospheric thermalisation.
To imply otherwise is erroneous, perhaps even fallacious.
To Lucia: The convective adjustment that you think is science, is just an ad hoc fix up without any mathematical basis. If you are allowed to adjust what your
equations tell you, then you can get anything you want.
Still waiting for you to apply your model to a real world example such as those which I showed above. Most applications of standard radiation heat transfer have a substantial overlap between the incoming spectrum and the emitting spectrum by the way.
Claes–
Since your paper suggests you think the first law of thermodynamics is the 2nd law, and the navier stokes equations is the basic equation of thermodynamics, I am not surprise that you think the convective adjustment is just an adhoc fix up. To understand the physical motivation, will need to apply thermodynamics. At my blog I gave you a tip on how to distinguish the first law from the second:
As for this:
Yes. I agree.
Also lucia.
=====
The above is me– Lucia.
Lucia,
I did not check carefully, but I think the equations that Claes is presenting do present correctly the second law. The inequality is hidden in the requirement that D ≥ 0.
The formulation is not the one we all have seen most often, but I think it is correct.
The same statement that Claes presents correct formulas in a less conventional way seems to apply to the other chapter as well, but there I have doubts on, whether all equations are correct or only some of them. I did not read in this text at all carefully or study the equations more than superficially as I do not think that his approach is useful even when it is correct. Many of the claims in the text are strange if not outright wrong.
Pekka–
Specifying 0≤D where D is dissipation is a consequence of the 2nd law of thermodynamics. However, it does not turn those equations into the 2nd law.
That equation may be a correct representation of something but it is not the 2nd law of thermo. This is not a matter of notation. Other puzzling things about that equation may have something to do with non-conventional representations — for example, it’s not clear to me that it’s even a correct formulation for the first law. But in order to pinpoint the problems, I need to know whether that’s supposed to be a control volume formulation or an analysis on a fixed volume, and possibly where the boundaries are etc. My impression is it’s supposed to be a control volume with the top at the top of the troposphere– but if so quite a few terms may be missing. (Or not. It depends on whether we have a control volume whose shape is permitted to change– in which case…. well…)
Lucia,
My purpose is not to defend the book or conclusions presented by Claes Johnson in the book. I certainly disagree on very many things. I am only noting that texts that are obviously wrong, when they lead to definitely wrong conclusions may not be wrong in all of their details. Most people seem to agree that this chapter is actually correct in what it describes. Its content may be used in reaching wrong conclusions outside its range of validity, but that is another matter. It is also possible that the unconventional way the equations are presented contributes to wrong conclusions, but even so the equations may be correct.
Claes Johnson presents two inequalities in eq. (2). They are equivalent when combined with the first law /eq. (4). Of course this is not the most general presentation of the first and second law, but for the problem considered they appear to be equivalent with the general formulation. It is clear that using these laws as more basic than the general formulation may lead to errors. Perhaps such an error is really done, when considering radiative processes in the other chapter. I am not really interested enough to even check.
Also in this chapter the formulas (5) and the related discussion are obscure. If not for other reasons then at least in the total neglect of considering units properly. The equations can only be valid in units where temperature is dimensionless (i.e. 1 K = 1) and the unit of acceleration is inverse of the unit of length. Furthermore it is stated that specific heat capacity cp = 1. Whether all that is possible at all is certainly not obvious. But then again all that is more or less forgotten when the next formulas are standard knowledge.
The whole paper is confusing and may well be misused, but even so it is good avoid erroneous claims about its content.
Pekka–
I have never suggested things that are wrong in their results must be wrong in all their details. I am pointin
I am saying is that those equations are not “The second law of thermodynamics”. The reason I am saying they aren’t is that they aren’t.
In undergraduate fluid mechanics problems, students solving pipe flow and other simple problems, often use an equation referred to as “the mechanical energy equation” or sometimes “the energy equation”. It is derived from conservation of mass and momentum, sort kinda-sorta like the first law of thermo and includes a dissipation term. The 2nd law requires that dissipation term to be positive.
So, using that equation lets students impose the requirements of the 2nd law on their analysis. However, you don’t get to call that equation “the second law of thermodynamics” merely because it permits students to correctly incorporate the effects of dissipation on pressure drop in pipeflow.
Likewise, what Claes writes down is not the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
Moreover, I find your clain that
To be rather dubious.
In fact, based on the text, I’m not convinced it is possible to pin down what “the problem considered” really is.
Lucia,
At least I agree on your last point. Reading the text of CJ it is often very difficult to pin down what he is writing about or where he is aiming to.
Dear Friends,
I come late to the interesting discussion, so I did not read through all. Therefore I do have a remark.
A flat hot body with two sides, unit heat capacity and with time dependent temperature Th(t), starting at Th(0)without an internal or external energy source cools from both sides with the rate dq/dt = sigma Th(t)^4 per unit area.
Now you put a cold body with Tc(t) adjacent, facing exactly one side without touching, the hot body cools from this side with the rate dq/dt = sigma*(Th(t)^4 – Tc(t)^4) per unit area and with dq/dt = sigma Th(t)^4 per unit area from the other side. Therefore the hot body in both cases is cooling all the time, since Th(t) is always greater or equal to Tc(t).
However, the hot body Th(t) stays in the second case warmer all the time than in the first case. But this is different from saying it gets warmer than initial Th(0). If Tc(0) is smaller than or equal to Th(0), then Th(t) is always smaller than Th(0).
Of course as Roy Spencer showed a hot body with an internal or an external energy source can get warmer than Th(0), if you put a cold body adjacent to it.
Best regards
Günter
Dear Günter…
Anyway, the colder system IS NOT heating up the warmer system, but cooling it, continuously, if we wish, but only up to the point of equilibrium, i.e. when both systems reach the same energy density. And even so, the internal or external source of heat would continue heating up the warmer system.
Take off the internal or external operator, for example, and you’ll see the colder system cannot heat up to the warmer system but quite the opposite.
It is the internal or external PRIMARY heat source what heats up the system, not the colder system. The latter is Dr. Spencer’s argument.
Dear Nasif,
that’s what I wrote if you reread my paragraph..
Therefore I said: “Of course as Roy Spencer showed a hot body with an internal or an external energy source can get warmer than Th(0), if you put a cold body adjacent to it.”
Of course it is the energy source that heats the body up.
I think it is important not to confuse “getting warmer” or “keeping warmer” with a energy source that heats a body up.
Regards
Günter
Dear Günter,
Yes, you’re right. I misinterpreted the last paragraph of your post. Sorry… You’re also right on not confounding “getting it warmer” and “keeping it warming”.
All the best,
Nasif
In his discussion of a hot plate next to a cold plate, Dr Roy Spencer says:
The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics: Can Energy “Flow Uphill”?
In the case of radiation, the answer to that question is, “yes”. While heat conduction by an object always flows from hotter to colder, in the case of thermal radiation a cooler object does not check what the temperature of its surroundings is before sending out infrared energy. It sends it out anyway, no matter whether its surroundings are cooler or hotter.
Yes, thermal conduction involves energy flow in only one direction. But radiation flow involves energy flow in both directions.
Of course, in the context of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, both radiation and conduction processes are the same in the sense at the NET flow of energy is always “downhill”, from warmer temperatures to cooler temperatures.
But, if ANY flow of energy “uphill” is totally repulsive to you, maybe you can just think of the flow of IR energy being in only one direction, but with it’s magnitude being related to the relative temperature difference between the two objects.
Clearly Spencer thinks that radiative heat transfer is completely different from conductive heat transfer, and can go ‘uphill’. He writes:
The only way I know of to explain this is that it isn’t just the heated plate that is emitting IR energy, but also the second plate….as well as the cold walls of the vacuum chamber.
Does that mean that while radiative heat transfers don’t ‘check’ to see which way to go, conductive heat transfers actually do ‘check’?
Frank,
The separation is not that clear. On molecular level even conduction may “go uphill”, but this is not visible and can be ignored. In conduction as in radiation energy goes in both directions at micro level. In conduction this is related to the motion of energetic atoms or molecules or to vibrations (phonons) in solids. The distances are usually very short. Therefore only the collective conduction is observable and described by an equation that describes only the net flow.
In radiation it is often possible to set measuring equipment to detect separately radiation in each direction. One photon may go over a large distance etc. The back radiation is thus observable and it may also be that the easiest way of calculating the net energy transfer represents separately the two directions. In some cases it may be easier to consider directly the net flow, but as I said above, this is not always true.
On molecular level even conduction may “go uphill”, but this is not visible and can be ignored. In conduction as in radiation energy goes in both directions at micro level.
Ah! So there is ‘back-conduction’.
Does that mean that while radiative heat transfers don’t ‘check’ to see which way to go, conductive heat transfers actually do ‘check’?
I would express it differently. Conduction describes the *process* by which heat flows along an existing temperature gradient. Radiation is a something that a body *does* based on its temperature and emissivity. The former process directly involves both/all bodies that define the local temperature gradient; the latter by definition only depends on the characteristics of the radiating body itself.
At least that’s the way I look at it.
The approach used in describing conduction can easily be extended to part of radiative heat transfer, to those wavelengths with strong absorption. Heat is transferred in accordance of essentially the same diffusion type differential equation in atmosphere by radiation near the center of the 15 um IR band.
For wavelengths with weak absorption this approach does not work well, because such radiation does not proceed with small steps in diffusive fashion but by long leaps to a point where the temperature may be significantly different or even escape through the whole atmosphere. Most backscattering occurs in the region where the diffusion-like process describes the heat transfer rather well. On this basis one could describe all this with the diffusion equation and remove most of the back scattering from being considered explicitly.
The way the calculations are done does of course not affect what really happens, but it affects often the way this is described.
Frank,
Radiative heat transfer consist of two radiative energy flux, one from hot to cold and one from cold to hot.
Radiative heat or net radiative energy flows from hot to cold, radiative energy in both directions.
It is a little bit confusing, since “energy” and “heat” are sometimes used interchangeably, which is strictly speaking a bit wrong. However, scientists are doing that occasionally and the reader needs to bring it into context. Bad style, though.
The second law as stated by Clausius reads: “There is no change of state that only results in transferring heat from cold to hot.”
Note, it is not energy in general.
Heat in this context should not be interchanged with energy.
Best regards
Günter
Frank Davis
Look at the blackbody spectrum of an object at say 300K.
Superimpose the BB spectrum of the identical object at 400K
Now using the spectra predict what would happen if these two objects were brought closer together so that they radiate to each other.
We notice that;
1. The hotter object has at the short wavelength end, frequencies absent from the lower temperature object.
2. Pick any wavelength that both objects have in common.
You will notice that the hotter object is emitting more radiation than the colder once.
Now examine the hot surface;
It is emitting more radiation of every wavelength than it is receiving.
You can now hopefully appreciate that a colder object can never increase the temperature of a hotter object.
I understand your point, Bryan. Perhaps you agree with Guenter Hess’s comment just before yours, in which he wrote:
Radiative heat transfer consist of two radiative energy flux, one from hot to cold and one from cold to hot.
If that’s how it is, then if it were possible to block or divert the radiative flux going from the hotter object to the colder object, while continuing to allow the radiative flux from the colder object to the hotter object (a sort of diode), then the colder object would heat the hotter object.
Frank Davis
For the hotter object to radiate to the colder it must “see” the colder object.
Since light rays must be able to travel backwards (rectilinear propagation) no such diode effect is possible.
We therefore are forced to agree with Clausius that even for radiative transfer Heat only travels from the hotter object to the colder object.
Yes I agree with Guenter Hess’s comments.
I would like to take this section of Chapter 1 as a point of departure for my comments. It says:
“We have formulated a basic model of the atmosphere acting as an air
conditioner/refrigerator by transporting heat energy from the Earth surface to the top of the atmosphere in a thermodynamic cyclic process with radiation/gravitation forcing, consisting of ascending/expanding/cooling air heated by low altitude/latitude radiative
forcing,
• descending/compressing/warmingair cooled by high altitude/latitude
outgoing radiation,
combined with low altitude evaporation and high altitude condensation.
The model is compatible with observation and suggests that the lapse
rate/surface temperature is mainly determined by thermodynamics and not by radiation.”
_____
Yes, of course they’d like to formulate a simple “model” that works this way, as some of their other conclusions might nicely fall in line, and in so doing, to re-write some laws of physics in the process, but unfortunately, their simple thermodynamic model is simply not the way the real atmosphere of the planet works, nor in fact the way the laws of physics work.
It takes hardly anything more than a few basic real world observations to provide proof that radiational balance is a far more potent regulator of atmospheric temperatrue then the authors of this book would like in their “simple” model. But then, isn’t that the point they are trying to refute? For observational proof, take the role of water vapor as an GH gas, using the predicted GCM forecasts that the planet will see higher night time temperatures due to the increase in water vapor keeping more LW radiation near the surface. Witness to this is the fact that 37 U.S. cities and hundreds of other cities across the globe set night time high temperature readings in 2010, a year in which saw a record in precipitation. Based on a their simple thermodynamic cyclic process, this result would not be expected as that additional night time heat at the surface would surely have been carried away via convective thermal processes and added to the TOA output. This increase in global water vapor, measured over the past few decades is exactly as predicted by every GCM when using well established and quantified GH physics with the addtional radiative forcing caused by the additional accumulation of CO2 and water vapor in the atmosphere. Warmer night time temps are exactly what one would expect when considering the real world (i.e. measured) absorbtion and retransmission of LW radiation by increasing amounts of GH gases in the troposphere.
Futhermore, one only needs to step outside on a calm cloud-less winter night and then step outside on a similar night when is has a nice overcast sky to feel the radiative GH effects of the water vapor in those clouds.
I would ask the authors this: how would their model explain the warmer night time ground temperatures as measured throughout the world if not for the LW radiative effects of additonal GH gases?
Futhermore, one only needs to step outside on a calm cloud-less winter night and then step outside on a similar night when is has a nice overcast sky to feel the radiative effects of a smaller delta-T between the earth’s surface and the water vapor in those clouds.
Some data/citations, please?
A word of caution – a clear night can feel much colder than an overcast one, even if the air temperature, as measured by thermometer, is the same.
That’s because your perspiration evaporates more readily in drier air, so the perception of temperature can be largely subjective.
R. Gates:
“I would ask the authors this: how would their model explain the warmer night time ground temperatures as measured throughout the world if not for the LW radiative effects of additonal GH gases?”
So, how do you explain the Medieval Warm Period?
1. our knowledge of the extent and amplitude of the MWP is VERY uncertain.
2. The presence of large amplitude warmings is evidence FOR long term natural oscilations, it is NOT evidence against the physics of radiation.
3. The final temp is the result of many forcings, not merely C02.
Basically, your comment is OT to the discussion of the physics of the tyndall gas effect
Thank you Steven, I couldn’t have said it better myself, though I would welcome a discussion of the MWP on some other thread, perhaps in the context of Dansgaard-Oeschger and their likely Holocene cousins, the Bond events, a subject which fasninates me to no end…
not to hijack the thread but mostly for my own clarification, can we also agree to the converse: that the existence of the physics of radiation are not evidence against long term natural oscillation?
Discussions such as this one may frustrate some, but I do feel they go a long way to clarifying what aspects of the science are clear and where and why there is uncertainty and/or a lack of clarity.
Moreover, can we acknowledge basic processes but still differ as to their relative impact, rate and magnitude of change, and, of course, our ability to adapt to the changes they invoke?
To R Gates: Yes the model is simple but the point is that it is more complete (with thermodynamics) than a model with radiation only, which is the basic model of CO2 climate alarmism based on a “greenhouse effect” from radiation alone.
I would agree that both forms, thermodynamic and radiative, need to be included in any full understanding of the climate dynamics, but specifically, when speaking to the well-established science behind the GH properties of atmospheric gases, I believe the simple thermodynamic model falls far short, and can simply not explain or predict real world effects of GH gas increases as well as a GCM’s can when considering their full LW absorption/retransmission radiative effects.
Dear Mr. Gates,
it is the other way around.
The main physical reason for the effect of GH gases is not „back radiation“ , but rather the effect on the TOA balance, which is a decreasing outgoing longwave radiation (OLR), before reaching a new stationary state.
“Back radiation” is only an internal energy flux that does not alter the energy content of the earth system. Changing OLR, however changes the energy content.
The concept of emission height or “cooling to space” together with thermodynamics/lapse rate is enough to explain the greenhouse effect. Heat transfer by radiation, latent heat or sensible heat is enough. “Back radiation” is a parameter included in heat transfer by radiation ,though.
Absorption/Reemission or “back radiation” alone cannot explain the greenhouse effect: I know that there are texts out there that try that, but they stay incomplete.
Regards
Günter
I agree that back radiation shouldn’t be invoked as the “cause” of surface and atmospheric warming. A TOA flux imbalance is required for the temperatures to change, but the mechanism by which the imbalance is transmitted by the atmosphere to the surface involves back radiation. If downward radiation to the surface didn’t increase as a result of greenhouse gas forcing and the consequent TOA imbalance, the surface wouldn’t warm.
“…but the mechanism by which the imbalance is transmitted by the atmosphere to the surface involves back radiation…”
Precisely.
In the context of the greenhouse effect surface and troposphere warm simultaneously because of the TOA imbalance, we have a radiative – convective equilibrium. The sun warms the surface. The net effect of longwave radiation is cooling to space, integrated across the globe.
Back radiation increases with temperature, not the other way round. Back radiation is a parameter in the energy balance of the surface, even though you can measure downwelling radiation. Downwelling longwave radiation can heat a patch of surface, if the air is warmer on top of it. However, globally integrated downwelling longwave radiation is more than balanced by sensible heat, latent heat and radiative energy from the surface. Otherwise we would not have an decreasing temperature gradient with height on average.
Back radiation increases with air temperature, and in turn increases the temperature of the surface. That is how atmospheric heating from an energy imbalance is transferred to the surface. If the lapse rate is linear, the temperature changes equally at all laltitudes. In reality, lapse rates may not always be perfectly linear, but the approximation is a reasonably good fit with observations.
It is not correct to imply that downwelling radiation only heats the surface if the air is warmer on top of it. It heats the surface even when the air is cooler, as is typically the case.
To avoid confusion about terminology, my point is that back radiation from an atmosphere cooler than the surface makes the surface warmer than it would be otherwise. The net IR flow is from the surface upward.
Thanks Guenter.
You will note however that now the conversation has shifted from Johnson defending his mistakes to you explaining how things really work. They are of course related.
Are we discussing CO2 greenhouse effect, or general atmospheric warming?
It is important to note that there is no way to determine if “downwelling” IR has been emitted from CO2 or any other atmospheric molecule.
All molecules and therefore all gas molecules emit IR.
So “downwelling” IR should be expected. But that does prove a net increase in energy, or “greenhouse effect”.
If you cannot show with real world experiment that more CO2 = higher temperature, you fail.
“More CO2 = less temperature”
Why? Because of specific heat capacity.
http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/spesific-heat-capacity-gases-d_159.html
But that NOT does prove a net increase in energy, or “greenhouse effect”.
I should have said!
“It is important to note that there is no way to determine if “downwelling” IR has been emitted from CO2 or any other atmospheric molecule.”
The origin of downwelling IR can be identified by its spectral signaature. Almost all will be from CO2 and water.
Incorrect.
The spectral signature is not determined by the substance that emits IR but by the temperature of that substance compared to the surrounding ambient temperature when the IR was emitted.
Claes Johnson, do you agree with Will since he seems to be on your “side” of the debate?
I am on no ones side Judith.
I just happen to know that adding CO2 to the atmosphere does not cause warming. In fact it causes cooling.
I have demonstrated it with experiment. I have given an explanation with supporting references with regard to specific heat capacity.
Further evidence :
http://climategate.nl/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/CO2_and_climate_v3.pdf
Will,
If the experiment you reference is the one in the link given in an earlier comment: More CO2=Less Temperature”, then you should know that this experiment, even if conducted with utmost care and precision (which I doubt), proves quite the opposite of what you’re stating. For the container with pure CO2 SHOULD BE, by the very processes you claim don’t occur, be cooler than the one with “ordinary air”, as that “ordinary air”, would, I presume, contain ordinary water vapor, and as such, with a much greater percentage of “ordinary water vapor” and would naturally show a greater GH effect (assuming of course that all the other varibles are the same).
In addition the experiment is flawed for many other reasons, for the title states “more CO2 = less temperature,” and in such an experiment one would expect to have a control container that is kept under the same conditions as all the others, and then one would expect that the only varible to change would be the amount of CO2 in a serios of other containers. One could then produce a series of data points that would show how the temperature of the container varied with the only variable being the change in the amount of CO2.
All this aside, I highly suspect that the container with “pure CO2” is indeed that, as one can see condensation on the inside, and since CO2 (under these pressure and temperature conditions) is a non-condensing gas, then that condensation is most likely water vapor, so the entire experiment is invalid as the container is certainly not “pure CO2”.
Will
I agree.
Another proof:
http://bit.ly/eUXTX2
In a scientific argument, the judge is the observation, not the theory!
Visit the HITRAN database. Each IR emitter has a spectral signature. The temperature of the emitter vis-a-vis its surroundings is irrelevant, and in fact, the temperatures are for practical purposes identical – i.e., they exist in local thermodynamic equilibrium (LTE). The temperature of the emitter does influence the quantitative balance in the intensity of one spectral line vs another from that emitter, but the wavelength of the CO2 and H2O lines is almost completely unaltered by temperature – at least within the atmospheric range of temperatures.
“the wavelength of the CO2 and H2O lines is almost completely unaltered by temperature – at least within the atmospheric range of temperatures.”
Nonsense!
All you need to know: http://www.cfa.harvard.edu/hitran/Updated/ref-table.pdf
Will – Using emphatic language (“Nonsense”) doesn’t strengthen a case that can’t be made. To the extent the site you link to is informative, it confirms my statement. It refers to positions, intensities, and line widths of CO2 and H2O, but with no suggestion that the wavelengths oft these molecules are shifted by temperature. Any such change under atmospheric conditions would be miniscule. If you have data to the contrary, link to it specifically rather than citing a long list of article titles.
Wrong again Will, the spectrum is determined by the identity of the emitter, however it can not emit more at any wavelength than that defined by S-B.
Which is determined by its absolute temperature. Which in turn is determined by its surrounding ambient temperature as per its altitude.
Say above 5km @ -80º C .
As for your comment below :
“Not true, O2, N2 and Ar notably in our atmosphere do not!” (emit IR)
Really?
So that would mean that 99% of the atmosphere cannot cool to space via radiation at TOA right?
Come on!
Judith Curry wrote in her posting:
We see again that there is little sign of that becoming true.
Downwelling IR is not “Backradiation”.
Downwelling IR does not add energy to the system because it is energy which is already present. It does not cause net E increase.
Let us leave the subject of downwelling radiation there.
The so called “Backradiation” is the energy we expect to find from the claimed “greenhouse effect”.
The ability of a substance to absorb/emit, or radiatively transfer IR does not say anything about its ability to store that energy.
Increasing CO2, increases the radiative transfer properties of the atmosphere in the far infra-red region. How is that even remotely like a “greenhouse effect”?
How does a decrease in overall resistance of a poor conductor such as air, produce an increase in temperature? It is unphysical.
It is the opposite of reality.
“The physics of deep convection have been formulated since 1958 and are based on sound thermodynamics and measurements on location. The trends of the temperature in the high atmosphere in the last half century are very negative, starting on this height where the convection reaches. That means that more CO2 has a cooling effect rather than a warming effect.”
See here:
http://climategate.nl/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/CO2_and_climate_v3.pdf
So that would mean that 99% of the atmosphere cannot cool to space via radiation at TOA right?
Correct, now you’re getting it, which is precisely why the change in CO2 concentration is so important (999645 ppm of the atmosphere does not absorb or emit IR).
Phil you are silly.
ALL substances above 0K emit IR. That is not controversial physics.
Your misleading statement has been repeated many times by the warmist’s but repetition cannot make it true.
Why are you here making such false statements and clouding the issue?
“It is important to note that there is no way to determine if “downwelling” IR has been emitted from CO2 or any other atmospheric molecule.”
Wrong. Please tell me you have nothing to do with the design of aircraft, sensor systems, or other devices meant to protect our country.
Start with this design guideline.
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=6&ved=0CEEQFjAF&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.everyspec.com%2FMIL-HDBK%2FMIL-HDBK%2B(0200%2B-%2B0299)%2Fdownload.php%3Fspec%3DMIL_HDBK_268.1863.pdf&ei=FUtHTa-WE4aasAPdw8GOAg&usg=AFQjCNGagMdCabbmnkqoTN0i4Y7deW8epg&sig2=tYO8nu2XA-4JwMzPmEKGlg
LOL – Very good Mosh. As a former weapons instructor I appreciate why you attached this citation. Those rocket scientists certainly knew a thing or two about missle guidance, CO2 and the IR spectrum.
Another non-sequitur Steven?
All molecules and therefore all gas molecules emit IR.
Not true, O2, N2 and Ar notably in our atmosphere do not!
Imho Johnson first chapter is quite good, and is consistent with the explanation Guenter gives. Chapter 2, on the other hand, is…hum, well, it is clearly inferior to classical black body radiation, which is the most polite thing I can say ;-)
Problem is that below the troposphere, heat is exchanged by both radiation and convection (with latent heat release ), only conduction can mostly be ignored. So no simple model, either purely convective or purely radiative, is complete. However, all flux analyses I have seen show clearly that more heat is transported by convection (and a lot more when latent heat release is present) than by conduction. It follows that, if a simple model including only one heat transfer mechanism has to be chosen, better to use a convective one.
Moreover, convective lapse rate is a stability condition, so I see it (and, from what I get, classic climatology “above the atmosphere=rigid shell level” see it the same) as a limit for temperature gradient that can not be exceeded, due to stability reason. It thus makes sense that one can derive a max ground temperature from TOA temperature using this lapse rate, without knowing exactly how much the heat flux. Above TOA, we have radiative transfer, so we know TOA temperature from S-B law. Heat flux is then determined by conservation of energy, convective heat flux is just what is missing to ensure equilibrium.
The only error I see with this model is that it is too simple: 1D, and it does not take into account the fact that radiation is diffuse, so all radiation to space does not occur at a precise TOA level, it is only an average notion.
But still, compared to simple shell-like purely radiative atmosphere (1D also, all those shells and the earth are considered perfectly conductive in the horizontal directions), the model with the lapse rate is head and shoulder above: at least it does not neglect the largest heat transfer to keep only the smaller radiative one because it is tractable.
This is one of the biggest error in climatology vulgarisation: the CO2 blanket is completely wrong, but it may be enough for those allergic to science/mathematics. The radiative shell (or multishell) models are mathematically complex enough do deter those one, and thus is presented as a simple but usefull model. It is not, it is almost as wrong as the CO2-reflective blanket, and frankly, it paint a very poor image of climatology for those scientifically-minded enough to understand it, but who start to evaluate it compared to an earth-like atmosphere …
The first chapter has a major error in assigning the 10 C/km lapse rate to radiation while also referring to it as the dry adiabatic lapse rate. Radiation has nothing to do with the 10 C/km dry adiabatic lapse rate. A radiative equilibrium is isothermal, not isentropic. This mess confuses the whole later argument about lapse rates.
Jim D
Bad news and good news
First the Bad news
…….”a major error in assigning the 10 C/km lapse rate to radiation while also referring to it as the dry adiabatic lapse rate. “……
The dry adiabatic lapse rate is given by dT/dh = -g/Cp
=-9.8K/km
Where g = Gravitational Field Strength
Cp = Heat Capacity.
In other word the temperature acquired by air molecules after contact with the surface drops by almost 10K per Km of ascent.
Now in the case of the dry adiabatic troposphere although water vapour may be absent, CO2 being well mixed should be there as usual.
However it seems to play no part that I can see.
Even more alarming, in this Nasa description of the atmosphere with various conditions specified there is no mention of greenhouse gases!
Surely the radiative effects of CO2 must get at least a tiny mention, shouldn’t they?
http://rst.gsfc.nasa.gov/Sect14/Sect14_1b.html
Now the good news
The greenhouse theory has been banished to the TOA.
The radiative gases radiate long wavelength EM radiation to space to attempt an overall radiative balance for the Earth.
It acts like the drain hole at the bottom of the bath.
The Sun acting like the water flowing from the bath taps.
If the drain hole is too narrow, water level rises(temperature); if too wide temperature falls.
Now back to a dry atmosphere; the temperature lapse rate will still fall at 9.8K/km in the troposphere.
The net effect then of changing CO2 and H2O vapour is to move the tropopause up and down.
Now this truncated version of the Greenhouse Theory is one that I think is very plausible.
In some way we can agree that the tropospheric lapse rate is fixed by the dry and moist adiabatic lapse rates, and therefore its whole temperature profile is linked to the surface temperature, which is in turn affected by a radiative balance. CO2 can’t change the lapse rate, which is based on physical constants, such as g, cp, latent heat constant, gas constants, etc., but can only affect the surface temperature to raise the effective radiating level of GHGs. The troposphere’s only degree of freedom is the surface temperature in this simplified model that represents CO2 effects in one atmospheric column.
The lapse rate is determined by thermodynamics of moist air as long as there is a sufficient heat flow from the surface to the upper atmosphere to keep the real lapse rate at the adiabatic limit. That requires that the surface is warm enough to release the required amount of energy excluding that part that escapes through the atmosphere without being absorbed. The heat flow is a combination of radiative transfer, convection and advection of latent heat. Convection is the part that guarantees automatically that the temperature gradient cannot exceed the adiabatic lapse rate. Therefore the strength of the radiative transfer does not influence the result as long as the surface is warmed so strongly that the adiabatic lapse rate would be exceeded without convection.
Adding CO2 influences the situation in at least two ways. The first is due to the reduction in the amount of energy that escapes without being absorbed. Due to this effect less energy is leaving directly from the surface. The same applies also to the low clouds. In equilibrium all this reduction must be compensated by increased radiation from the upper atmosphere and increased heat flow from the surface to the upper atmosphere.
The second effect occurs around tropopause. The increased CO2 concentration moves the effective radiating altitude of CO2 higher up.
Combining both effects we notice that the radiation that escapes from the upper atmosphere must be both stronger and originate higher up. Both requirements lead to an increase in the temperature of the atmosphere at a fixed altitude if upper troposphere near tropopause. The two effects are separate. The first comes from the increase of CO2 at lower altitudes, the second from its increase at tropopause. My understanding is that the first effect is stronger than the second, but I have not done any calculations to support this conjecture.
Pekka
Look at a description of the broad outlines of the atmospheres structure with particular emphasis on the troposphere.
There is no mention of the greenhouse effect.
The effect of water vapour is explained through the mechanism of latent heat.
Of course CO2 and H2O radiate in the IR.
It just doesnt seem to be that important.
http://rst.gsfc.nasa.gov/Sect14/Sect14_1b.html
Bryan
That is a description of certain issues. That something else is not mentioned there is not an argument against that. I didn’t notice anything there that would in some way contradict what I wrote here or in numerous other messages on this site.
It is also dishonest to pick one sub-chapter from the tutorial stating that it does not discuss greenhouse effect when the previous sub-chapter does discuss it. I think you might try to avoid being dishonest.
http://rst.gsfc.nasa.gov/Sect14/Sect14_1a.html
Pekka
…”I think you might try to avoid being dishonest.”..
I try to avoid using language like that.
I have no way of knowing how honest you are but I give you the benefit of the doubt.
I was genuinely surprised when I came across the NASA document.
Beforehand I would have thought that the radiative effect of CO2 would have to be accounted for even in a dry adiabatic Earth atmosphere.
In fact it would be a good experimental method of isolating the CO2 effect from the H2O effect in the limit.
There seems to be a growing body of opinion that the radiative effects of CO2 are either minor or self cancelling.
A number of IPCC advocates are now promoting this and say the real and significant greenhouse effect is to be found at TOA.
To put it simply, CO2 affects the absolute temperature, not the lapse rate in a dry atmosphere. This is why it is important. It displaces the whole temperature profile according to its radiative effect.
Bryan,
I have become less polite to you after your baseless insulting comments towards me some times ago.
I told you that the previous sub-chapter of the same tutorial tells that the CO2 is important. Why do you neglect that and choose to concentrate on the next, which discusses other things.
If you find the chapters contradictory, the fault may be in your understanding of the content and its significance. For that the only help comes from studying the basics. Trying to make guesses from more advanced texts (even when they are tutorials like in this case) leads often to such misunderstandings that are visible on this site all the time.
Jim D
I think we are in close agreement about the broad outlines.
On the dry adiabatic atmosphere I used to be a bottom up advocate.
Surface temperature determined by Sun/Earth interaction.
Gravity giving rise to lapse rate of 9.8K/km.
This very simple structure then modified by convection, latent heat and radiative effects till the convective impetus petered out at the tropopause.
Above the tropopause the radiative effects adjusted to keep the Earth energy in/out in balance.
However recently I find the top down approach quite compelling.
The TOA conditions acting like a gate.
The consequences of the gate being too narrow being passed back down by the same dry adiabatic lapse rate to determine the surface temperature.
Pekka
I’m sorry if I addressed you in a way that you found disrespectful.
I think I used the word IPCC apologist rather than my usual term IPCC advocate so I must have been loosing my cool.
I think that one undisputed plus for Judith’s site has been to tone down the insult level.
However if you are a sceptic you have to develop a much thicker skin.
For a laugh go onto a site like Deltoid and pretend to be Nasif Nahle.
You wont get out alive!
Bryan,
The net discussions are often difficult. Short messages cannot always transmit the tone correctly. Some of the participants are provocative by purpose, and some others write claims that they know to be false, even deliberate lies.
In climate science and in particular in the physics behind the climate science there is very much that I have full confidence in based on my schooling and understanding based on that. There are many other things I have much less confidence in and also conjectures that I consider more likely to be false than true.
In these discussions I comment most often on issues I am certain about. Trying to do that as well as I can and getting answers that show no evidence on willingness to learn, is often frustrating and leads to doubts about the goals and even honesty of other participants. All concrete hints to the same direction strengthen these suspicions. At the same time I know perfectly well that many points are difficult and cannot be verified personally without specialized education.
I try to stay polite, but sometimes it leads to a point, where I start to think that I am played with and that I am making fool of myself unless I react strongly. I know that this is going to happen also in the future, if I continue to comment on climate sites.
Bryan, I think the dry adiabatic atmosphere can be thought of from both perspectives, top and bottom, which both lead to a requirement that the whole temperature profile is displaced in the warmer direction when CO2 is added.
My view is that more CO2 initially reduces outgoing IR but also causes the surface to warm, which in turn convectively forces the atmosphere to warm, increasing the outgoing IR till it balances again.
I just came across this discussion, and since it was a discussion rather than an argument, I thought I would offer my perspective. In general, a TOA radiative imbalance due to impeded loss of IR to space is translated into more energy at each layer, ultimately impacting the surface temperature. In turn, this further warms the atmosphere over time as the surface temperature rises. The immediate result of atmospheric warming is an increase in lapse rate beyond the adiabat due to greater warming at low than at high altitudes. This results in static instability that triggers a convective adjustment restoring an adiabatic profile (which in most regions eventually proves closer to a moist than dry adiabat due to latent heat transfer with release at higher altitudes).
The radiative changes are very rapid. The dry convective adjustment (according to Andy Lacis) is slower, and the full change including the latent heat effects occurs over many days or longer.
The “super-adiabat” would tend to enhance surface warming because of the higher lapse rate. On the other end, the moist adjustment creates a negative lapse rate feedback that reduces the warming effect. This, however, is accompanied by a positive water vapor feedback, and the combined water vapor/lapse rate feedbacks are generally computed to show a net positive effect.
Fred,
are you finally going to tell us about the hot spot? I believe you need a hot spot for there to be any appreciable top down warming don’t you?
kuhnkat,
Is this really so difficult?
Nobody claims that there would be warming in the sense you imply – nobody at least of people supporting main stream climatology. Therefore there is absolutely no need for such a hot spot.
This is not in contradiction with the fact that atmosphere radiates to surface and contributes to a temperature increase. If you do not understand the point after all these discussions and hundreds of messages where it has been explained in different words, then I propose looking in the mirror.
Pekka,
you are a very reasonable, intelligent, respectful person. I respect you for your knowledge and comportment. Unfortunately I am often none of the above.
Frank started discussing heating at elevation which is caused by bottleneck in IR emissions. He did not give a mechanism for the purported bottleneck. He also talked about heating from the top down.
With emissions bottlenecks, heating from top down, backradiation, and eventual heating of the surface, exactly what am I supposed to assume he is talking about??
I have actually read explanations of this effect and have always been confused about how the bottleneck comes about. The statements seem to say that the heating will raise the effective emission altitude as the heated atmosphere expands. As the new higher altitude is supposed to be cooler than the old average altitude less IR can be emitted.
Hopefully you can clear this up for me. If the atmosphere expands from warming, doesn’t that say the higher altitude will be about the same temperature as the old altitude? That is, the altitude will average higher but the temp will be about the same because everything is warmer.
If we are saying that this warming will not happen it would seem to me that the temperature is more controlled by the lapse rate and convection, in which case there will be no significant warming in the first place without major perturbation.
Thank you for any clarification you can give on this “hot spot” issue.
kuhnkat,
Nobody of us is capable of always finding clear expressions for his messages. While many issues are not really complicated, they involve anyway numerous details and attempts to explain the issues in limited space and simpler language requires leaving something out. All too often happens that just those things left out are for some reason in the mind of the other party of discussion.
Another problem is that the concepts are not defined precisely. What means “warming a body”? In these discussions some participants expect that the effect that warms must be the final source of heat or energy that rises the temperature to its final value. A colder body can never do that for a warmer one.
Many others mean by the sentence “body A warms body B” that taking the A away would lead to a colder B. This is very often possible even when A is colder than B, if B is heated also by some other source. I have still difficulties to understand why this second way of interpreting “A warms B” is not understood by everybody.
I commented to the most recent post of Judith that many people can much better form general views on issues than present scientific type arguments in their support. It is very common, that the role of detailed arguments is overvalued. They are overvalued often both by those who are competent in presenting them and by others for whom a more general intuition works much better.
This is also a source of dispute and confusion, when people are sure that they are right in the main issue, but cannot justify it by a detailed arguments. There is too much belief that detailed arguments are the way of winning argumentation, even when that does not work at all. In climate issues this fact comes up all the time. Even for experts a more general and intuitive approach may give more reliable results than trying to prove by detailed arguments when not enough is known about those details.
You certainly nailed it! Very good.
You will note however that now the conversation has shifted from Johnson defending his mistakes to you explaining how things really work.
This may be because it’s now past midnight in Sweden.
Judith,
I want to comment that I am increasingly an admirer of your approach, especially on this technical thread.
By letting others take a turn at being the authority, people seem to come to more openly examine their own ideas and knowledge – including errors. By just minding the store, wrong assumptions and weak knowledge claims are brought to the surface by others, instead of driven underground by your authority. It’s a better learning process than confrontation.
cheers
To complement the many comments made above indicating that the radiative transfer principles contributing to the greenhouse effect, including the role of back radiation (downwelling longwave radiation) are consistent with the laws of physics, it’s worth pointing out that the back radiation predicted from these equations has been confirmed by measurement. For a general overview, readers should revisit the Radiative Transfer Models post to review the links Judith Curry has cited, with particular reference to the Atmospheric Radiation Measurement (ARM) program – the post is at Radiative Transfer
For a particularly informative description of the ARM program, see –
ARM Prrogram
Claes,
You write:
“Let us now sum up the experience from our analysis. We have seen
that the atmosphere acts as a thermodynamic air conditioner transporting
heat energy from the Earth surface to a TOA under radiative heat forcing.
We start from an isentropic stable equilibrium state with lapse rate
9.8C/km with zero heat forcing and discover the following scenario for
the response of the air conditioner under increasing heat forcing:
1. increased heat forcing of the Ocean surface at low latitudes is balanced
by increased vaporization,
2. increased vaporization increases the heat capacity which decreases
the moist adiabatic lapse rate, if the actual lapse rate is bigger than the actual moist adiabatic rate,
then unstable convective overturning is triggered,
4. unstable overturning causes turbulent convection with increased heat
transfer.
The atmospheric air conditioner thus may respond to increased heat forcing
by (i) increased vaporization decreasing the moist adiabatic lapse rate
combined with (ii) increased turbulent convection if the actual lapse rate
is bigger than the moist adiabatic lapse rate. This is how a boiling pot of
water reacts to increased heating.:”
I think your model is incomplete, since the “heat forcing” as you name it is external and you describe only energy flux that is internal. “Heat forcing” increases the energy content of the earth system and therefore leads to increased temperature on the long run to decrease your so-called “heat forcing” by increasing outgoing longwave radiation (OLR). Your model leads necessarily also to increased temperature. You describe radiative-convective equilibrium as well. So what is different in your model compared to the classical model
Best regards
Günter
“If they are wrong, prove it”
Done already
One thing that always puzzles me when IR and the GHE are discussed is why on a nice clear summer day in Atlanta I don’t melt. I mean, we supposedly have an AVERAGE downwelling radiation of 324 wm-2. I would imagine that the downwelling radiation at noon on a humid day in Atlanta would be higher than the average due to all the water vapor in the air. Let’s make it 25% higher, or 405 wm-2. Now, let’s add the sunshine, which is certainly greater than 900 wm-2 at noon. So we now have 1305 wm-2 on my greybody. Using the SB equation, with emissivity of 1, that translates to 116 C. Something doesn’t add up.
Hi Jae… Excelent observation! You could calculate the energy the human body would absorb, from those 405 W/m^2, by knowing that it has an average absorptivity of 0.7. Imagine the hard work the body would perform for getting rid of that excess of energy!
Regards,
Nasif
A black body radiates 400 W/m^2 at a temperature 0f 17 C. It’s the sunlight that would cause a problem for an object unable to shed heat via perspiration, reflection, conduction, or respiratory heat loss. With 900 W/m^2 absorbed, its temperature would equilibrate at 82 C.
At an ambient temperature of 40 °C, a normal human body absorbs 43.4 W. That figure represents an intensity of 160.71 W/m^2. However, Jae mentions c.a. 1305 W/m^2 the energy emitted by the atmosphere, if the stuff of backradiation were true. Fortunately, as Jae points out in his post, it’s not true because, if it were true, the human body would absorb the dizzying amount of 913.5 W, which would represent an intensity of 3,383 W/m^2.
On the other hand, if you are considering an idealized blackbody emitter, emitting 400 W/m^2, then the human body would absorb 280 W, which corresponds to an intensity of absorption of 1,037 W/m^2.
Now, let’s consider a blackbody-ambient at 17 °C; the human body would be losing, not gaining, 23.17 W (-23.17 J/s), which corresponds to -85.82 W/m^2.
Your figures aren’t well explained. The average human has a surface area of about 1.7 m^2, so I’m not sure what you mean when you imply that 160 W/m^2 corresponds to 43.4 W absorption.
More importantly, an ambient temperature of 40 C is very hot (and represents much higher than average back radiation). It is equal to a Fahrenheit temperature of 104 F, which is very difficult for humans to tolerate on a sustained basis, although they can adapt temporarily through sweating and panting.
It is incorrect to state that 1305 W/m^2 is emitted by the atmosphere. Most of that figure comes from the assumed value of 900 for sunlight, which would be an immense problem for an individual who could not adapt, and would be unsustainable for any extended period. Back radiation has little to do with it.
Finally, in the example I gave, which you cite, of ambient temperature at 17C, this is easily tolerable, because human metabolism generates enough heat to compensate for the heat loss. In fact, tolerable climates for humans require some degree of heat loss to the environment, because we can’t shut down our metabolism, and so if we couldn’t lose heat, we would quickly die.
In essence, the values I gave in my earlier comment are correct, and the most significant problem in the cited example is the sunlight.
Fred:
“It is incorrect to state that 1305 W/m^2 is emitted by the atmosphere. Most of that figure comes from the assumed value of 900 for sunlight, which would be an immense problem for an individual who could not adapt, and would be unsustainable for any extended period. Back radiation has little to do with it.”
I originally thought you digged the conversation, bro., but it appears that you don’t have a clue!
Dear Fred,
Corrections:
0.27 m^2 exposed to radiation, unless it is naked.
40 °C is a usual temperature, here, during summer.
The average absorptiviy of the skin, in a normal human being, is 0.7.
I never said you’re wrong. I only made the calculations for the conditions you specified in your post. At 17 °C the human body would lose 23.17 W of energy, which would be transferred to the environment. It would be a problem if we were endothermic organisms. Fortunately, we are self-regulating thermodynamic systems; otherwise, we should spend many hours under the sunbeams, as lizzards, for example.
Now, if you say that a blackbody at 17 °C is emitting 400 W of thermal energy, how much Watts it would emit in my location when the temperature can reach, easily, 40 °C in summer?
Nasif – A true black body at 40 C (313 K) would radiate about 544 W/m^2 in accordance with the SB equation.
Humans can’t afford to sustain a body temperature of 40 C for very long. At 37 C body temperature, they lose heat by all the mechanisms I mentioned above, not just radiation. I’m sure humans can tolerate an ambient temperature of 40 C for intervals, but I doubt they can tolerate it for a very long sustained period, day and night, without some exogenous cooling source, such as drinking cold water.
Dear Fred,
Exactly! An idealized blackbody at 40 °C would emit 544 W/m^2, which is not the case if we consider the real system atmosphere-lithosphere. The external operator, for the case of my location, where we undergo up to 40 or higher degrees Celsius during the summer daytime and 30 or more degrees Celsius through the nighttime (and, believe me, we have survived it through many days), cannot be other but the Sun, and you will agree on this because the atmosphere cannot “store” such load of heat. Primarily, because the absorptivity of the whole atmosphere, including a 4% of water vapor, is quite low (by the order of 0.01 when considering the mean free path length of photons and the time they spend to leave the Earth’s atmosphere). That’s why, I sustain that the current models on TAO (or TOA) are absolutely flawed.
I’m not sure what your point is. The emissivity of the atmosphere in the IR range of greenhouse gas emssion and absorption is certainly less than unity, but although the emissivity of any small atmospheric layer, even near the surface, is small due to the low concentration of greenhouse gases, the total downwelling longwave radiation comes from multiple layers and is substantial.
Radiative transfer codes derived from the Schwartzhcild radiative transfer equations, in conjunction with observed values of CO2, H2O, and surface temperature, yield values for both OLR and downwelling radiation that match observations very well, confirming the validity of the principles on which they are based.
Fred… I’m referring to the time that a photon takes to abandon the atmosphere, as wide as it is, and to the distance that a photon can travel without touching a molecule air, those molecules that can absorb it or scatter it. From the databases of both parameters, we find that the air, as dense as it is, we find that the emissivity of the air, 4% of water vapor included, is 0.01; no more. The atmosphere is not a blackbody.
Perhaps those observers on the downwelling radiation are observing other things, except any downwelling radiation?
Here is the reductio ad absurdum. A human body is like a black body at 37 C which emits about 525 W/m2. Now according to this theory proposed above, nothing can emit towards a human body that isn’t as warm as it, so when you go out at night you are losing heat at 525 W/m2. Wouldn’t you cool down really fast even on a balmy night with a 20 C ground temperature?
The fact is, everything emits towards everything else regardless of relative temperature. We do have incoming radiation to us at night even from the cooler ground. Go out and try it. Explain how this is different from the atmosphere radiating towards the warmer ground.
Wow! Jim! You have got rid of S-B Law! Please, tell me, are you related in some way to the Hockey Stick producers? Besides, you made us, humans, real blackbodies!
Jim, a human body has a temperature of c.a. 37 °C. If it (the human body) is exposed to an environment at 17 °C, it would lose 23.17 W, i.e. the energy transferred by radiation from the human body to that environment at 17 °C, according with the S-B Law derived formulas. No more. The formula is quite easy:
Q = e (A) (σ) (Te^4 – Thb^4)
Where e is the emissivity of the system (human body in this case), A is the area exposed area of the human body, σ is Stefan-Boltzmann constant, Te is the ambient temperature in K, and Thb is the average temperature of a normal human body.
Go on, make your calculations.
See, you now have the ambient air radiating towards the body when the slaying book says it can’t because it is colder.
Jim…
I’m not having the air radiating towards the body, but quite the opposite. The body is losing energy, not gaining it from the environment. Under those conditions, the body is pushed to generate more thermal energy, from metabolism, to maintain his energy state in a quasi-stable state.
In summer, only when the environmental temperature is higher than the body’s temperature, the body gains energy from the environment; however, the thermoregulating system starts working to get rid of the excess of thermal energy absorbed.
If you applied the S-B formula correctly, you had to obtain a negative result, which means that the body is losing energy, not gaining it; the body must generate more energy through the cellular respiratory process and other mechanisms for not cooling off, in this case.
The Te term in your equation comes from back-radiation is all I am saying. If you believe your equation, you implicitly agree with back-radiation. I am not saying your equation is wrong, I am saying it proves back-radiation exists.
The Te is the temperature of the environment and it comes from the energy it has absorbed from the surface.
Q = e (A) (σ) (Te^4 – Thb^4)
Where e is the emissivity of the system (human body in this case), A is the area exposed area of the human body, σ is Stefan-Boltzmann constant, Te is the ambient temperature in K, and Thb is the average temperature of a normal human body.
e (A) (σ) Te^4 Heat received from surroundings
e (A) (σ) Tb^4 Heat emitted by body
Jim and Phil…
You’re much confused.
It’s the energy from the human body to the environment… Have you noticed that the energy flows ALWAYS from the warmer system to the colder system? Backradiation doesn’t apply because it is the human body what is radiating, not the environment.
Again, for this case, the human body is LOSSING energy, NOT gaining it.
No, Thb is from the body to the environment, Te is from the environment to the body, which is why they have opposite signs. Since the environment is colder than the body, this is the term the slaying book says should be zero. We clearly agree the book is wrong on this matter. The environment is preventing the body from losing heat at an unrealistic rate of 525 W/m2 in the same way as the atmosphere prevents the ground from losing heat at an unrealistic rate (where a similar formula applies with Thb being from ground temperature, Te from the atmosphere).
LOL…
Thb is temperature of the body in K, and Te is temperature of the environment in K. :)
If you read well my posts, I’m always referring to an “idealized” blackbody. Got it or start again?
Nasif, you have already contradicted slaying the dragon by having the Te term, but you haven’t realized it yet. I suggest you argue with those authors about that term. I am not arguing about it.
I’m afraid it’s you who’s confused Nasif, the environment radiates according to its temperature and the body absorbs it, the body also radiates according to its temperature. The net effect is that when the body is warmer than its surroundings the body loses heat (when the environment is hotter than 37ºC the body gains heat).
The environment doesn’t stop radiating because the warmer body is present, ‘back radiation’ is always present. that’s what the term, e (A) (σ) Te^4, represents.
Nope, confusion is on your side. I’m afraid you think the environment is never colder than your body. The formula is the S-B equation, and you’re blatantly misinterpreting and twisting it, as usual in AGW idea.
Good Grief, why dont you give it a rest. Nahle is correct.
Phil, you’re absolutely wrong. If you eliminate the term Tb^4 from the formula, you would be referring to the energy of the atmosphere. It has nothing to do with “energy received from surroundings”. You have only one term, the temperature of the environment, and it is the result of the FLOW of energy IN the environment.
To Phil…
Anser this question for me: what the value of “e” could be in the formula that you say it is “energy received from surroundings”? If you are referring only to the temperature of the air, then you have to introduce the value of “e”, and in the case of the human body, you have to introduce the value of “e” for the emissivity of the human body.
It’s very simple. You’ve dissected the formula and you’re referring to two different things.
To Phil…
Anser this question for me: what the value of “e” could be in the formula that you say it is “energy received from surroundings”?
I suggest you look up Kirchoff’s Law, as the heat is being absorbed it should be ‘a’ not ‘e’, however a=e.
@Phil
My question:
“To Phil…
Anser this question for me: what the value of “e” could be in the formula that you say it is “energy received from surroundings”? ”
Phil’s answer:
“I suggest you look up Kirchoff’s Law, as the heat is being absorbed it should be ‘a’ not ‘e’, however a=e.”
You didn’t answer my question… Yours is blah, blah blah.
I repeat, it is S-B equation. Check your books.
If your environment has e = 1 and a = 1, you’d be scorched… Mmm…
Fred??
Everyone keeps telling me that we ADD all incident radiation, no matter where it is from, to determine what the temperature should be. What are YOU saying here??
What I’m saying is the Noel Coward song line – “Mad dogs and Englishmen go out in the midday sun.”
Is THAT your scientific basis for all of your comments?
jae, absolutely correct. Another simple example of how the purely radiative calculation as proposed by Pierrehumbert and other climate scientists gives completely the wrong answer. The correct answer of course, is that you need to take into account other mechanisms of heat transfer such as convection and evaporation. This point has been made dozens of times on all these threads.
There is convection etc, within the Earth’s atmosphere, but the only way that heat (energy) is released from the Earth to outer space is through radiation. Reflection of incoming solar radiation by clouds is the big question. Until someone can accurately define how this changes the amount of incoming energy, predictions of future temperatures cannot be accurately calculated.
No sweat?
GREENHOUSE EFFECT QUESTION.
1) Water vapor in the air changes from 1% to 4%.
2) CO2 in the air is about 0.038%.
3) Since the industrial revolution, the proportion of CO2 in air has increased by 0.01 % (from 280 to 380ppm)
3) Both water vapor and CO2 are greenhouse gasses.
4) A natural change in 3% of water vapor in air does not cause global warming.
5) How can a change in 0.01% of CO2 (3/100th of the natural change in water vapor) due to human use of fossil fuel cause global warming?
Your question is somewhat off-topic, but relative humidity has not increased over the past century, while CO2 has risen almost 40 percent over its pre-industrial concentration. Water vapor, in fact, has such a short atmospheric lifetime that its absolute humidity value cannot remain elevated in the absence of some other factor that causes the atmosphere to warm and thereby retain more water. That is why it operates as a feedback mechanism amplifying warming mediated by CO2, solar increases, or other forcings rather than acting as a forcing in its own right. If the average relative humidity had in fact increased by 300 percent, the warming would have been immense.
I believe this has been discussed in the threads on feedback and on climate sensitivity. You might want to review the previous discussions before proceeding further, so as not to repeat material already covered.
Water vapor, in fact, has such a short atmospheric lifetime that its absolute humidity value cannot remain elevated in the absence of some other factor that causes the atmosphere to warm and thereby retain more water.
I don’t agree with “short atmospheric lifetime” argument regarding water vapor.
Does not every half a day, the temperature drops at night?
Is the “atmospheric lifetime” of water vapour less than half a day?
Do not tell me what I discuss here. This is not your blog!
Girma
Do not tell me what I discuss here. This is not your blog!
Interesting point.
In light of what Dr. Curry has said elsewhere:
Note: this is a technical thread, please keep your comments focused on Johnson’s arguments, or other aspects of Slaying the Sky Dragon. General comments about the greenhouse effect should continue on the Pierrehumbert thread.
Now that we have aired some stuff, I agree that the discussion is best left to those with a degree in physics (maxwell, pekka, and there are others among the denizens of climate etc that have not shown up).
..could you help me out by relating what you say directly to the topic at hand, and how the two connect?
Much obliged.
Thanks, Bart. I tried to say it very tactfully, but your direct approach is better.
Please take discussion of water vapor to the Pierrehumbert thread.
you might find an answer of sorts here
THE POTENTIAL DEPENDENCE OF GLOBAL WARMING ON THE RESIDENCE TIME (RT) IN THE ATMOSPHERE OF ANTHROPOGENICALLY-SOURCED CARBON DIOXIDE
by Robert H. Essenhigh, Department of Mechanical Engineering, The Ohio State University, Columbus, USA. In press in the journal ‘Energy and Fuels’, but now available at ACS website http://pubs.acs.org/articlesonrequest/AOR-fAEJXMX3JgkNFmgAkdpu
Derry… The residence time of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere could be as long as you wish… The important thing here is that the lapse time for the thermal energy to stay in the atmosphere is quite low: 0.0097 milliseconds! The mean free path lenght of one photon of thermal energy is 21 m. Besides, from experiments realized by many physicists, at its current concentration in the atmosphere and under the current physical conditions of the atmosphere, the carbon dioxide cannot absorb-emit more than 0.002 of thermal energy.
“carbon dioxide cannot absorb-emit more than 0.002 of thermal energy.”
Hi Nasif.
Is this figure a percentage? If so, what is it a percentage of? Surface emission?
As you rightly imply, it cannot.
The bottom line in all this is that there is absolutely no proof–or even a reasonable demonstration–of an “atmospheric greenhouse effect.” All planets/moons with an atmosphere have a surface temperature that is much higher than the SB equations–based on the IR from those bodies–at about 100 mbar–suggest. It is high time that the “climate science community” HONESTLY faces the questions that are posed by the skeptics (and stop with the dishonest, unconvincing, meaningless, disgusting, and typically liberal insult of “denialists). The “community” has already lost the public and only has politicians and rent-seekers on its side. The smart ones are already publishing papers refuting the stupid, ever-present “catastrophe” of our times (aka, Chicken Little). Grow up!
Fred Molten,
one can make an interesting thought experiment about “back radiation”.
Let’s assume we have the earth system as a stationary state with 280 ppm CO2, well mixed. Normal lapse rate.
In the first case, we bring in a thin layer of CO2 that contains a similar amount of CO2 compared to the whole atmosphere in a thin layer next to the surface.
In the second case, we bring in a thin layer of CO2 that contains a similar amount of CO2 compared to the whole atmosphere in a thin layer next to the top of the atmosphere.
Both layers are equilibrated with respect to temperature.
“Back radiation” is highest in the first case, but surface temperature is lowest. It is the emission height that counts.
As I said, it is the cooling to space that rules. That is, why I don’t think “back radiation” is a necessity to explain the greenhouse effect.
Best regards
Günter
I don’t believe there is any way to warm the surface without back radiation. In its absence, radiative imbalances in the atmosphere would change atmospheric temperature but not surface temperature (except for the minimal effects of conduction).
Regarding your thought experiment, my assessment is the following, at least at first consideration. If we ignore water vapor as well as non-radiative phenomena, I believe that the same number of CO2 molecules will absorb the same number of photons, regardless of altitude. At equilibrium, they will emit as much energy as they absorb, and the temperature of that layer will therefore rise until it suffices for that emission to occur. For the high altitude case, this would cause a temperature inversion such that temperature is much higher at the height of the absorbing layer than it is below. This is clearly an unphysical situation, but something vaguely similar occurs in the stratosphere, where ozone absorbs solar UV, resulting in a temperature inversion.
There may be other factors that I’m ignoring in addressing your thought experiment, but my first paragraph rather than the second is what I would emphasize – the surface can’t warm unless it receives the radiation needed to warm it.
There is only one way the physics really works, but there are many ways of putting this into words and more than one way of formulating the equations used to calculate the correct results.
There are no limits on the number of ways the physics can be misrepresented and we have already seen pretty many in comments on this site. Countering these erroneous claims is made more difficult by the fact their details may well be in agreement with some of the correct descriptions while the errors are in putting these pieces together. Some of the erroneous theories are pure nonsense from start to end, but not all of them.
There is a continuing argumentation on whether one mechanism can heat an object which is actually receiving heating through many processes or from many sources. Then one may claim that any single process cannot heat it, if the processes are individually weaker than cooling of the object. Such arguments are presented as if all heat sources would not add up whatever their mechanism is and as if each of the heat sources would not have its share in the total heating. How can this kind of argumentation be supported by so many?
Claes Johnson,
Your statement that “back radiation” is fictional, a figment of the imagination for any length of time longer than a fraction of a second, I totally agree. I will read your paper (book) as I get time and I might not totally agree with the methods you use to describe this. Maybe so.
I have always viewed “back radiation” as a null operator:
— 2 units or energy leaves a surface cooling the surface by that 2 units.
— That 2 units are absorbed by molecules (GHGs) warming the gases locally.
— 1 unit of energy is radiated to space and lost to the system and also cooling the gases by 1 unit.
— 1 unit is radiated back to the surface to be reabsorbed warming the surface by 1 unit and also cooling the gases by 1 unit.
— NET EFFECT: In the end the surface has cooled by 1 unit and 1 unit is lost to space, all in a few milliseconds.
All other effects have totally cancelled. One way to view this is a reduction of effective emissivity of the surface by at factor near one half.
That seems very close to your initial statements I was reading and I agree, there is no real warming. After reading onward I may not agree with the exact methods you use to place this effect into a physics framework but I will read it, that takes time.
Yes, Wayne, but if the surface was at a temperature that demanded it radiate 2 units and it only radiated a net 1 unit, then it is not in equilibrium anymore and its temperature must go up. (I think I got that right, I normally lurk on the technical threads and keep my head well down!) Regards, Rob
Hi Rob,
I started to write you a detailed explanation, but after reading many of your comments, I’m afraid it would be pointless if you are not able to take my example above and limit it the exact case I gave. The two units must be radiated upward, those two are not all radiated upward (your injection of temperature), and those two units must be absorbed and not transported directly to space without absorption (window).
If you can not grasp even that simple example there probably is no hope of you understanding Dr. Miskolczi’s methodology he used in his latest papers and which is very close to my example above.
Kind regards. I like to lay low too. Open your mind, the AQUA AMSU temperature just hit the same temperature that was read thirty years ago, how can that be? If I were you I would get real curious right now. I have already found my answers.
Whatever else can be said of this thread, I am enormously grateful for the earlier link to Roy Spencer’s explanation of the GHG effect which is worth repeating:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/07/yes-virginia-cooler-objects-can-make-warmer-objects-even-warmer-still/
This is the clearest explanation for non-specialists like me that I have ever come across. I’ve saved it to my hard drive.
I have a question. Spencer says that with no atmosphere, the earth’s surface would be around 0 deg. F (-18 deg C or 255 deg K). Suppose all GHGs (but nothing else) were removed from the earth’s atmosphere (I’m assuming there would be no water on the planet). Would the temperature be greater than 0 deg. F?
I’m hoping that’s on topic, because I’m trying to establish in my own mind whether just the presence of an atmosphere pretty much as dense as the one we have now, but sans GHGs, would in some way produce warming. I hope it makes sense to ask the question.
afaik, yes: what I think would happen is that all radiation would occur at the surface, because the atmosphere would be perfectly transparent for all wavelength, at by K., would also emit no EM radiation (In reality, it would not be like that, but I guess it is the idealised situation you have in mind).
So, the surface T at equilibrium would be computed the same as in the no-atmosphere case.
But I am not so sure about the T profile in this transparent atmosphere. Quite fast, we should reach the lapse rate for this gravity field and adiabatic fluid, by convection. I think, after some time, conduction should produce uniform T, which seems to be the no -heat flow limit regime (well, assuming 1D problem)… but I am not sure uniform T is the equilibrium in a gravity well, some equirepartition principle may mean that T goes down the higher you go (some interpretation of virian theorem would say so too, which makes sense: monoatomic gases modeled as elastic spheres, should have a lower velocity at top of atmosphere…else they would reach escape velocity) which would falsify simple conductive transfer, except if “total” temperature incorporate somehow potential energy. Interesting question, I would be interested about what gaz kinetic theory specialists would have to say about that, all in all my hinch would be for non-constant T and conduction process acting with a “total” T incorporating potential energy….
yes, definitely a non-constant T at equilibrium due to gravity: after all, simple heat transfer linearly proportional to T gradient is not a fundamental law, it is derived from kinetic gas theory, one of the hypothesis being, iirc, no volume forces. Gravity is a volume force, so I am almost sure the Fourier law for conduction is not strictly valid in this case (it is a first order phenomenological law, nothing fundamental there), but that heat transfer must incorporate gravitational potential energy…..
Yes the convective equilibrium lapse rate is g/cp, about 10 K/km, so I would expect something like that. It is complicated by variations in surface heating with latitude and the diurnal cycle, so it is not clear what temperature this would equilibriate to over the surface, but since the non-GHG atmosphere has no other cooling mechanism than contact with a colder surface, the surface temperature would somehow control its eventual equilibrium temperature profile.
“I have a question. Spencer says that with no atmosphere, the earth’s surface would be around 0 deg. F (-18 deg C or 255 deg K). Suppose all GHGs (but nothing else) were removed from the earth’s atmosphere (I’m assuming there would be no water on the planet). Would the temperature be greater than 0 deg. F?”
Michael – Removing only GHGs would have slightly greater cooling effects than removing the entire atmosphere. This is because atmospheric molecules (O2, N2, CO2, etc.) scatter some sunlight back to space, and in their absence, all solar radiation would reach the Earth’s surface.
The 255 K figure assumes no other changes. In fact, in the absence of water, there would be no ice, snow, or clouds, and the Earth’s albedo (percent of sunlight scattered or reflected back to space) would decline significantly. As mentioned above, some scattering would still occur from air molecules, and some from light-reflective surfaces such as sand, but it would be far less than the current 30 percent figure. As a result, the Earth would absorb more heat, and warm well above 255 K. I don’t know what the exact temperature would be. It would be colder than today, but probably by only a modest amount.
A small correction – Above, I should have omitted CO2 from my example of light-scattering molecules, because you were asking what would happen if it were removed. Of course, N2, O2, argon, etc., would remain, and their contributions would be little diminshed by the removal of a minor constitutent by volume such as CO2.
Thank you for your clear and not-too-technical response, Fred. Might have seemed a peculiar question, but it elicited useful extra information for me.
To summarize my position:
1. Radiative heat transfer is carried by electromagnetic waves described by Maxwell’s equations. The starting point of a scientific discussion of radiation
should better start with Maxwell’s equations than with some simplistic ad hoc model like the ones typically referred to in climate science with ad hoc invented “back radiation” of heat energy. If there is anything like “backradiation” it must be able to find it in Maxwell’s wave equations. In my analysis I use a version of Maxwell’s wave equations and show that there is no backradiation, because that would correspond to an unstable phenomenon and unstable physics does not persist over time.
2. Climate results from thermodynamics with radiative forcing, and radiation alone cannot tell anything of real significance, such as the effect of changing the atmospheric radiative properties a little: It is not clear if more clouds or
water vapour will cause global cooling or warming, or the effect of a small change of CO2. Climate CO2 alarmism is based on a postulate of a climate sensitivity of + 1 C which is a formality without known real significance.
I welcome specific comments on these two points.
2. Agreed. And I am not too comfortable with the model hierarchy used in Climatology: pure radiative models are imho correct,but they do represent the main heat transfer in earth system well…so are useless for earth. TOA+lapse rate is better, but I think they are not so solid mathematically, I do not really like the treatment of it. Should be consolidated, and then it is 1D, so predictive value is not clear, but at least this model could have heat transfer similar enough to actual heat transfer on earth to be somewhat useful.
Finaly, there are GCM….but they are huge, use numerical methods I do not like (FD for something with complex continental shapes – yuck), and introduce a lot of approximation (solving NS equation on earth lenghtscale is ridiculous…so it is not NS that is solved, but some kind of approximation of it. Never really have seen the PDO that are solved in fact, which is in itself very worrying. Lot of blackboxes modelling different process connected to each other (radiative module – ocean module – salinity module – biological C cylce module), so it is more an ad-hoc model that something starting from first principles or even a solid set of PDO. OK, not easy to do better, but the validation is pitifull for this kind of model, which live and die by extensive validation.
1. Not agree: Maxwell’s equation are ok, but you need quanta (or a replacing full theory) to deal with radiative heat transfer: It is not even needed to accept black body treatment by Plank to know Maxwell alone will not be up to the task: those EM are radiated by molecules, that can not be modeled by
maxwell: remeber the paradox for Bohr atom model of orbiting electrons? Why does the electrons not fall down in the nucleus, when all its kinetic energy should be dissipated by bremstrhallung/synchrotron radiation? This was a fundamental problem (before or at the same time as BB radiation) that was solved by quantization. You may not like Quantum mechanics (I myself have trouble with it, it seems like an unfinished and overly complex theory), but it is extremely successfull, maybe the biggest success of physics. Going against it is a huge task, there is a reason it was accepted between the wars although it is quite often counter-intuitive: it explains and predict a lot, much more than simple BB radiation.
By the way, you continue to mention that backradiation would be unstable. A few posts (some of mine too) challenged this. You still not have explained why you believe it would be unstable, just that it is and is a flaw of S-B model. This is not a tenable position, you need to show how S-B is unstable and how your theory is not. Good luck!
So if you don’t accept Maxwell’s equations for radiation, which are then your equations and what do they tell you?
Maxwell equation are valid for propagation. For emission/absorption, you need to take into account the quantitized nature of emmiters/absorbers when those emitters are molecules or atoms. Which is the case for the IR wavelength of interest. If you want to use continuous Maxwell down to atomic lenghtscale and energies, you predict unstable atoms. Everything should go back to neutronium, which will be a problem for predicting EM radiation with Maxwell equations ;-)
Actually I believe that it is possible to describe the situation without the need of standard way of introducing the quantization. The quantum field theory of electromagnetism (QED) is used in practical calculations as perturbation theory in the form of Feyman diagrams, but this is not necessary in principle. Similarly the quantum transitions of molecular states are introduced in the spirit of Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics. This is again not necessary while very useful in practice.
Both choices are valuable practical tools in quantitative physical analysis, but they are not really required. In principle one can formulate the whole problem by writing the full equations to describe all molecules in the atmosphere and all radiation by Schrödinger equation and Maxwell’s equations and possibly introducing modifications related to QED. There is no basic reason to assume that these equations cannot be used in another way, which does not involve the traditional way of quantization at micro level but aiming directly to answering some macroscopic questions. It may even be possible that this approach gives many results more easily and directly than the standard procedure.
What I have seen in the text of Claes Johnson is certainly not a complete and valid presentation in this line of thought, but it may be partially correct and it might be possible to continue in this direction and reach correct results. I have full trust that the final results would agree with the results of the standard approach, but it is likely that the same results would indeed be reached in a way that does not include back radiation. This would be an extension of the idea of wave-particle dualism. The description in terms of waves does not include back radiation, but it would still give the same quantitative results.
Agreeing with accepted physics does not require dogmatic adherence to the standard way of describing the details.
agreed, that’s what is a little bit disturbing about QD imho: not easy to draw where quantum description start, and where classical physics end. For example, a lot of classical QD imply wave/particles in external potential….but those potential are themselves caused by phyical objects, so by W/P assemblies. Why are they represented by perfectly know and unchanging potential fields them, like some kind of ghost of classical Newtonian entity? I guess QD has progressed since (I only have some training about early stage QD, probably from the Plank/Einstein era, and still it is vulgarisation).
But I have 2 problems with C. J. approach. one is that is is hopeless imho to try to use Maxwell equations only, you have to introduce some quantization, or an equivalent effect, to avoid molecules to radiate even at 0K just by electron orbiting. Or you can say that bohr atom model is not correct, but this is just another way to make QD come back through the backdoor…As you said, QD can be introduced in many ways (which I find slightly disturbing, but I also agree with you that QD is one of the most (if not the most) succesful physical theory), but Maxwell has to be complemented somehow. C.J approach seems to be “add a phenomenological structural damping for elementary resonators”. I am fine with that, even if I think it explain less than quanta as introduced by planks and so is a poorer approach.
The problem number 2, unfortunately, can not be bystepped just by saying that choosing the method is a matter of personal preference: the radiative exchange presented is not equivalent to S-B law, we have R = 4 s T³ (T-T_cold) versus R = s (T⁴-T_cold⁴).
Not the same, and I prefer S-B for symmetry reason (the fact that each body radiates without having to know his surrounding is a huge plus in S-B), but here personal preference has no play: the difference is so high as to be easily tested by simple calorimetric experiment.
Maybe I have misunderstood C.J., and his derivation is in fact strictly equivalent to S-B. But then, why the fuss? it is only a re-interpreation of the same formula, and by definition, should have exactly the same effect, being used for computing calorimeter calibration, heat exchange in a turbine, or GH effect…
kai,
I am not for CJ, I am only noticing that much that has been used against it is not valid argumentation but presents lack of knowledge about the variety of the ways the same basic physics can be approached in practice.
The full dynamic equations are very complex and cannot be solved directly. Therefore some ways have been developed for solving then stepwise. The standard approach goes through the micro physics. The method is based on perturbation theory which is equivalent to introducing photons. The method implies also discussing the emission and absorption of the photons by transitions between the ground state and vibrational state of individual molecules. Each photon is a separate entity having a random phase of EM fields in relation to other photons. This is in accordance with a state collapse in the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics. Thus we describe the wide macroscopic phenomena as a combination of a huge number of independent microphysical phenomena. This leads to good results because the higher order terms of the perturbative analysis are very small and the coherence between micro-processes very weak.
While the above approach has provided very good results, it is not the only possible approach of making the original insolvably difficult problem solvable. Another approach would be to look at the macroscopic problem and use some clever averaging and smoothing to make the field equations solvable. I am not at all sure that this can be done in practice, but it is not excluded. If the approach works in is likely to involve solving Maxwell’s equations with some clever way of describing the interaction of electromagnetic fields with molecules. This interaction must conform with quantum mechanical description of molecules, i.e. with the Schrödinger equation, but this may be done without the use of the state collapse of Copenhagen interpretation. Like the Schöringer’s cat the molecules will remain both alive and dead, i.e. it is not known whether they are in the exciter on in the ground state.
What I have written is highly speculative and would have its right surrounding in a site, where different interpretations of QM are discussed, such as Copenhagen interpretation, many worlds, hidden variables etc. What I have written is in line of my own longstanding thoughts on these issues and I do not know, how many others would agree on them.
One may ask, how is the above second approach consistent with the fact that we can measure backradiation with a measuring device. There is no problem in that. In that approach electromagnetic field is present everywhere in space and the measuring device is interacting with this field.
In this approach the field is no more forward or back radiation, it is just EM field in a state consistent with all matter that interacts with it. Gas that is conventionally described as radiating back-radiation is influencing this field reducing the energy carried by the field upwards, but there is not specific back-radiation.
Backradiation is unstable because it would correspond to a negative dissipative effect, which is unstable just like the backward heat equation with negative diffusion. This is well known and supported by solid math. You cannot unsmooth a diffused image by negative diffusion. If you don’t believe try it
in photoshop.
It is not: “back radiation” (I put it in quotes, because there is only radiation, not main or back) is always lower than the other one. You can not analyse stability of “back radiation” only, you have to include all radiative exchange in your stability analysis. Including all radiative exchange, S-B always predict net heat exchange from hot to cold, never the opposite. In a many-body case, it is thus a diffusive equation, not a negative diffusive equation, and it is thus stable. If you do not agree with this statement, you just have to provide an example using S-B relations that would lead to unstable situation, where entropy would decrease (hot will get hotter, cold colder). Best would be to start with isothermal and find a perturbation that grow, but even in non-isothermal situation, if you can find an example where entropy is decreased by S-B, it would be enough ;-)
How do you derive SB? I do it fr.o.m.
Maxwell.
Claes,
for clarity can we also stipulate that “Backradiation” in this context refers to the net energy increase caused by the so called “greenhouse effect”.
As opposed to downwelling radiation which is the result of general emission based cooling of air at 30km alt and above.
There’s no ‘negative diffusion’ and no instability. The cooler body transfers heat to the warmer one, but the warmer one transfers more heat to the cooler one, so the net heat flux is always from the warmer to the cooler.
Sometimes experiments serve better than words at resolving differences of description.
Consider a 1-D system of two black body plates set at 100K and 400K. The Stefan-Boltzmann flux is 1446 W/m^2. Next, insert two intermediate plates, positions otherwise irrelevant. The steady-state temperatures become (100K, 304.53K, 361.62K, 400K) and the flux drops to 482W/m^2. Next insert a central fifth plate. The temperatures are now (100K, 283.67K, 336.69K, 372.36K, 400K) and the flux 361 W/m^2. Adding the fifth plate has lowered the temperature of one plate and raised that of another.
Does Johnson’s physics yield these numbers? (I have no idea!) If not, there’s a simple experiment to do. If so, where’s the beef?
“Sometimes experiments serve better than words at resolving differences of description.”
Sorry Quondam,
I did not see an experiment, I just saw words. Please go and perform your experiment, preferably recorded to video, see how that goes.
I doubt you will achieve the same results as your “thought experiment”.
I have no doubt that he would since that is standard Radiational Heat Transfer Engineering which is applied in such situations every day! I invited Claes to apply his method to such problems several times but he ignores it. I guess the mathematician likes to derive his new equation but can’t test it against real world situations.
Perhaps on this point we could also ask:
– How much time does the energy represented by a photon from the Sun spend in the Earth system before it is lost to space?
– How many individual molecules does that energy represented by a photon from the Sun spend time in before it is lost to space?
– Why does the surface only warm by 0.017 joules/m2/second during the height of the day when the sunshine is beating down at 960.000 joules/m2/second.
– Why is there no “time” component in any of the greenhouse radiation physics equations.
The vacuity of the greenhouse gas hypothesis to answer these questions, to my mind, is its undoing especially since we are now finding so much empricial evidence telling us CO2 causes no warming.
Are these your questions, John? Bill Illis asked the same questions at lucia’s last night.
=======
They are Bill’s- it seems no one wants to answer that at Lucia’ s blog so I’m repeating them here.
John,
I think those are very good questions to ask in my opinion. I have always thought that the best way we can understand the effect of manmade CO2 was to calculate the extra time energy spends in the earth climate system in response to an increasing greenhouse effect. I think that way of thinking about the problem gives us the best handle on how big of an issue it really is.
I think the essential problem, however, is that the transient nature of climate is neglected in most of these treatments. As a molecular physicist who studies time-dependent transient behavior of absorbing molecules, it seems to me that this is the area in which climate science needs the most work.
I heard a talk by Ricky Rood in which he told an audience member that the typical atmospheric transient is gone in a few days, yet La Nina and El Nino events, which represent the coupling of the atmosphere and oceans, have very long time transients. These could be represented in the amplitude fluctuations of the El Nino/La Nina events, their phase or their damping and range from a few weeks to a few years, maybe even decades. We don’t even know yet. So his answer struck me as quite odd.
The steady state solution in most important cases in a limiting case. Since we (the community of scholars and interested public) are convinced this case is pretty well understood, it’s time to move on to transient scenarios that better model the real world each person sees on a year to year basis. I think from there we might be able to answer the questions you pose. I think they deserve an answer.
John – let me address your various points one at a time.
1. Time is an important component of computations involving radiative warming of the Earth and atmosphere as a function of the concentration of CO2 and other greenhouse gases. However, this is not because of the time needed for radiative energy transfer within the atmosphere, which is almost instantaneous. Rather, it is because heating of the surface is a time-related function of specific heat capacity, combined with elements of thermal conductivity, and in the oceans, turbulence and convective mixing. More below.
I don’t know where your figure of 0.017 W/m2 for solar heat uptake come from – can you provide a reference to the relevant data? However, I’m not sure the figure is very meaningful. Land warms (and cools) much faster than water, but 70 percent of the Earth’s surface is ocean, and most of the heat from the sun and from back radiation originating in the atmosphere is stored in the ocean. Because ocean heat capacity is so enormous, diurnal changes in radiation entering from above exert appreciable temperature effects only near the surface. Mixing of the upper layers quickly averages out these effects, so that temperature changes in the entire mixed layer are very unresponsive to short term variation in radiation. For this layer, one tends to think in terms of months and years, and for the entire ocean, centuries to millennia – not hours. In essence, most of the W/m^2 radiated into the ocean is absorbed, the remainder being reflected as a function of albedo, which in the case of water is relatively small. Of course, increased absorbed radiation is met with an increase in emitted radiation, along with an increase in latent heat transfer via evaporation and convection. I suspect the figure you cited, if accurate, may refer to very superficial layers of the ocean, but in any case, one must specify what “surface” is involved when citing such statistics. Ultimately, the warming from the exposure you describe will be greater than the figure you cite.
2. The number of molecules among which a photon’s energy is diffused is astronomical because of thermalization. The vast majority of excited CO2 molecules, for example, are de-excited by collision with neighboring gas molecules, thereby raising the average kinetic energy (i.e., the temperature) of their surroundings. Since the energy of each collision is immediately distributed widely via further collisions, one would have to calculate a mean number based on the Boltzmann distribution. I’m sure it could be done, but I’m not sure how informative it would be for our purposes.
3. By similar reasoning, I’m not sure how informative we would find an analysis of the mean time a photon’s energy spends in the climate system, although the calculation could probably be done. Perhaps it would provide a clue as to the warming potential of greenhouse gases, but if so, it would be a very indirect means to that end. In explaining the greenhouse effect to non-scientists, CO2, water, and other GHGs are sometimes described as “delaying” the escape of radiation to space, but the description is misleading. It is true that energy radiated from the surface, and absorbed and reradiated many times before escaping is delayed in a temporal sense, but the time delay, which is extremely small by our mundane concepts of time, is not the mechanism underlying the warming. Rather, warming occurs because of a temporary imbalance between the incoming solar radiation and the longwave radiation escaping to space due to the fact that the GHGs intercept upwelling radiation and cause it to be reradiated in all directions including downward. This imbalance is translated into increased radiative energy absorbed within each layer of atmosphere down to the surface, and a balance can be restored only when each of these entities warms sufficiently so that outgoing longwave radiation, which depends on temperature, returns to its former level. Because escape is impeded by higher GHG levels at any given altitude, energy must reach a higher altitude for adequate escape, and since higher altitudes are colder, they must be warmed from below to mediate IR emission sufficient for a full restoration of balance. In essence, the greenhouse effect can be quantified not by asking “how long?” but rather by “how high, and how cold?”, and computing the results over a spectrum of wavelengths. These theoretical calculations are now well confirmed by observational data.
4. I’m surprised by your claim that empirical evidence refutes a warming role for CO2. I’m familiar with the climate science literature, including data from recent and current measurements, as well as data extending back more than 400 million years – all converging from multiple sources to demonstrate a very substantial role for CO2. It would be illegitimate in science to insist that any phenomenon, including a warming role for CO2, can be demonstrated with 100 percent certainty, but in this case, the level of certainty is high enough to approach 100 percent. I’m unaware of any evidence at all that suggests the absence of CO2-mediated warming, and so I believe your statement is simply wrong. However, I would be interested in appropriate data references that have led you to make your claim. In truth, though, the realistic element of uncertainty is not whether CO2 warms the climate appreciably, but to what extent. This quantitation has been the subject of numerous discussions here and elsewhere.
Fred,
that was a thorough answer and quite informative.
I did take notice of one particular statement.
‘…although the calculation could probably be done. Perhaps it would provide a clue as to the warming potential of greenhouse gases, but if so, it would be a very indirect means to that end.’
I think this statement is only meaningful if we assume the climate system is a strictly steady state system. Obviously, for a steady state system time dynamics are not interesting because we’ve assumed that they have dissipated, whatever they were. That is the definition of steady state.
The climate system, however, is inherently dynamical and its the transient in the climate system that cause the up ticks/down ticks in snowstorms, hurricanes, floods (when people aren’t causing them) and the other ‘wonderful’ events we witness in this world.
I also think that it is incomplete to think that the radiative transfer happens instantaneously. I agree that when we focus on the gases in the atmosphere thermalization occurs very quickly and when a lone CO2 or water is excited and along enough, radiative decay happens faster than we can perceive. That said, it may be possible for transients in the atmosphere to manifest themselves in other aspects of the climate system and get propagated for much longer times.
Couplings to the oceans, cryosphere and biosphere are very poorly understood at this point in time, especially because they are heterogeneous. I can imagine reasonable cases in which transients of greenhouse effect could cause plant growth that impacts an ecosystem for many years or cause the overturning of a current in a different way or melts/freezes portions of glacier, in all cases causing changes that last much longer than ‘instantaneous’.
To the zeroth order, I think the steady state picture provides a useful tool. I just wonder if we’ve used most to all of its utility.
Bill Illis has answered these question’s at lucia’s Blackboard. Hey, Judy, how about a main post for this gem. It’s shiny.
========================
Maxwell – I agree completely that in our current non-steady state, time constants are an important element in determining climate dynamics. I tried to make that point when I mentioned the very long times involved in ocean heat storage. I can’t agree with John that these elements are neglected, and in fact, both models and observational studies are often aimed at quantifying the time relationships. My more limited point was that radiative changes in the atmosphere in response to a change in radiative balance at the top of the atmosphere occur extremely rapidly. It is the non-radiative elements of climate dynamics, including convection in the atmosphere and energy transport and storage in land and oceans that consume more time.
I’ve been looking for easier ways to understand what’s happening to global temperature and why. The concepts of back radiation and the second law of thermodynamics both seem to me to make the reasoning very complicated, with the result that one can use these concepts to prove anything you want, including that the planet is cooling, or that it is warming. We’ve seen endless examples of this sort of reasoning not just on Climate Etc. but all over the web.
So I asked myself, is there one single phenomenon to which all such questions can be reduced, which doesn’t allow the outcome to be argued either way according to what one believes?
I think there is. It is how many photons are leaving Earth. Or how much radiation if you don’t like thinking about photons.
There seems to be no serious debate as to how much radiation is arriving. The intensity of sunlight at 1 Astronomical Unit (AU) from the Sun, which is where we are, is around 1370 W/m2. The area of the Earth capturing this as a disk is around 127 .5 million sq. km (precisely one quarter of the area of the surface of the Earth as a sphere). And Earth’s albedo is around 0.3, meaning only 70% of the intercepted insolation is heating Earth.
Multiplying these together gives 1.37 * 127 * 0.7 = 121.8 watts, with the decimal place 3+12 = 15 places to the right. This comes to 122 petawatts, a phrase that’s easily googled if you want to check the math.
For equilibrium, that is, in order to maintain a steady temperature, Earth must radiate 122 petawatts to outer space. Each photon of that radiation can come from only two places: the Earth’s surface, or a molecule of one of the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.
These two sources of radiation behave very differently. Earth’s radiation is sufficiently broadband as to be reasonably modeled as radiation from a “black body” at around 288 K. In sharp contrast the greenhouse gases radiate at certain wavelengths called emission lines. These lines coincide in wavelength, if not always exactly in strength, with absorption lines.
The radiation leaving Earth can therefore be classified into two kinds: the black body radiation leaving the surface of the Earth, and the emission lines leaving the atmosphere.
The last line of these tables shows that 80% of the blackbody radiation leaving Earth’s surface is between 7.62 and 32.6 microns in wavelength. Some of these wavelengths are open to the escaping radiation while some are blocked by the absorption lines of the atmosphere’s many greenhouse gases.
The two dominant greenhouse gases are H2O or water vapor and CO2 or carbon dioxide, having respective molecular weights of 18 and 44. (There are variants of these with an extra neutron or two in each atom but those are in a distinct minority and hence can be ignored here.)
Human population has been growing exponentially for many thousands of years, doubling around every 90 years or so in the past couple of centuries. The per capita fuel consumption has also been growing exponentially over this period, with the result that we are doubling our contribution of CO2 to the atmosphere every three or four decades.
The late David Hofmann, shortly after his retirement as director of NOAA ESRL Boulder, claimed a more precise doubling period of 32.5 years, along with 1790 as the approximate date when the residue remaining in the atmosphere from our additions was 1 part per million by volume (ppmv) of CO2. He assumed this residue to be added to a natural base of 280 ppmv during the previous few centuries.
Barring any strenuous objections to these numbers I’m happy to go along with them. The upshot is that we can estimate CO2 over the past few centuries as 280 + 2^((y − 1790)/32.5) where y is the year. For example if y = 2010 then this formula give 389 ppmv which is in excellent agreement with the CO2 level measured at Mauna Loa.
All this arithmetic is mainly to make the point that we are increasing the CO2 in the atmosphere, while adding a little corroborative detail.
Of the photons escaping from Earth’s surface, some are at wavelengths blocked more or less strongly by CO2. Call a wavelength closed when the probability that a photon leaving Earth’s surface will be absorbed by a CO2 molecule before reaching outer space is less than 1/2, and open otherwise. (Sometimes 1/e instead of 1/2 is used, in conjunction with the terminology of unit optical thickness, but it doesn’t make much difference to the outcome and 1/2 is easier to relate to.)
The HITRAN08 database of CO2 absorption lines lists 27995 lines in the above-mentioned range from 7.62 microns to 32.6 microns. Currently 605 of those lines are closed. According to Hofmann’s formula CO2 will double by 2080, which will close a further 120 lines. This will leave 27,270 absorption lines of CO2 still open, of which only a further 2502 lines will close when and if the CO2 level rises to 40% of the atmosphere by volume, a more than lethal level for all mammals.
Now the closed lines aren’t truly closed because they can emit as well as absorb. These account for the photons radiated to space from the atmosphere, as opposed to from the surface of the Earth.
It is tempting to argue that increasing CO2 will increase the radiation from these closed lines. To see why this is wrong, picture the CO2 molecules in the atmosphere as grains of white sand on a black sheet of cardboard. When there are very few grains the cardboard looks black, but as the grains fill up it gradually turns white. Furthermore the more grains there are, the higher above the cardboard are the visible grains.
The same effect is happening with CO2 molecules that both absorb and emit. For any given wavelength, with very little CO2 an observer in outer space looking at just that wavelength sees the surface of the Earth. As the CO2 level increases the observer starts to see CO2 molecules covering the Earth’s surface. And as the level continues to increase, the visible CO2 molecules are found higher and higher, just as with the grains of sand. But the higher they are, the colder, at least up to the tropopause (the boundary between the troposphere and the stratosphere). So radiation from CO2 molecules decreases with increasing level of CO2 in the atmosphere. This is not true of the CO2 molecules in the stratosphere, but there are too few of them to make a significant difference.
This is a complete analysis of the impact of increasing CO2 on how much radiation leaves the Earth at each wavelength. It describes what’s going on both simply and precisely, unlike accounts based on back radiation and other phenomena which are far harder to analyze accurately.
This analysis ignores the impact of feedbacks, most notably the increase in water vapor in the atmosphere expected from the temperature increase induced by the increasing CO2. That increase could work either way: more water vapor could block heat at other absorption lines since water vapor is a greenhouse gas. But water vapor also conducts heat from the surface to the clouds, a cooling effect. Hence the net effect of such feedbacks needs to be analyzed carefully.
However the feedback cannot result in an overall cooling, since the feedback depends on CO2 raising the temperature in order to evaporate more water. The question is only whether the feedback reduces the warming effect of CO2 by some factor between 0 and 1, a negative feedback, or enhances it by a factor greater than 1, a positive feedback. It cannot reduce the warming effect to zero since then there could be no feedback.
This pretty much covers the whole thing.
Vaughan: “This pretty much covers the whole thing. ”
Nope, you missed out entirely geothermal energy loss from Earth’s core. Where’s that 5000 C degrees of heat going? IN = OUT or BOOM!
Your equation means ‘BOOM!’
John, you raise an excellent question, one that was asked in the 19th century. Based on the thermal insulating qualities of the Earth’s mantle and crust, Lord Kelvin calculated that the heat at the core must be leaking out at a rate that would prove that Earth could not have formed more than 50 million years ago.
However the geologists were unable to reconcile Kelvin’s figure with what they were observing in the geological record, which suggested the Earth was billions of years old. This huge discrepancy was a great puzzle for a while, until it occurred to physicist Ernest Rutherford to calculate the heat that could be generated by a small quantity of radioactive material (uranium etc.) in Earth’s crust. He found that it would not take much to exactly balance the amount of heat leaking out through the crust. If this were not so, in the four billion years of Earth’s life the core would long ago have cooled down to something closer to the surface temperature. In effect the small amount of radioactivity in the crust is acting like a stove to keep Earth’s core at a steady temperature over billions of years.
Global warming has only kicked in strongly over the past half century. Compared to the billions of years in which the core could have cooled down but didn’t, half a century is nothing timewise.
@ Vaughan Pratt…
You say:
This analysis ignores the impact of feedbacks, most notably the increase in water vapor in the atmosphere expected from the temperature increase induced by the increasing CO2. That increase could work either way: more water vapor could block heat at other absorption lines since water vapor is a greenhouse gas. But water vapor also conducts heat from the surface to the clouds, a cooling effect. Hence the net effect of such feedbacks needs to be analyzed carefully.
I have led myself to make the calculations, from the observational and experimental derived formulas, and have found the results corresponding to Photons Mean Free path and to Photons Lapse Time before the absorbent molecules of the atmosphere hit or diffuse them. I have done it for each component of the atmosphere and for the whole atmosphere. Most relevant results are as follows:
Crossing time-whole column of mixed air (r = 14 Km, wv = 0.04) = 0.0097 s
Crossing time dry atmosphere (r = 14 Km) = 0.0095 s
Lapse time rate-whole mixed air (r = 14 Km, wv = 0.04) = 20.78 m
Absorptivity-whole mixed air = (r = 14 Km) = 20.79 m
Crossing time-water vapor at 0.04 (r = 14 Km) = 0.0245 s
Lapse time rate-water vapor at 0.04 (r = 14 Km) = 8.05 m
Crossing time-whole column of carbon dioxide (r = 14 Km) = 0.0042 s (4 milliseconds)
Absorptivity-whole column of carbon dioxide = (r = 14 Km) = 46.8 m
Total aborptivity of the whole mixture of air (r = 14 Km, wv = 0.04) = 0.01
Total emissivity of the whole mixture of air (r = 14 Km, wv = 0.04) = 0.0096
Total absorptivity of dry air (r = 14 Km, wv = 0.04) = 0.01 (rounded up from 0.0099)
Total emissivity of dry air (r = 14 Km, wv = 0.04) = 0.0094
Total absorptivity of water vapor at 0.04 = 0.024
Total emissivity of water vapor at 0.04 = 0.0237
Total absorptivity of carbon dioxide at 0.0004, whole column = 0.0039
Total emissivity of carbon dioxide at 0.0004, whole column = 0.0039
Overlap water vapor/carbon dioxide, absorptivity = 0.024
Overlap water vapor/carbon dioxide, emissivity = 0.0235
Those are well reviewed results, supported by observation and experimentation.
Now tell me, do you think the “downwelling” radiation heats up the surface? Why to talk about a “downwelling” radiation when we perfectly know that the possibility for the energy to be emitted is, equally, at every trajectory?
Besides, there is a photon stream, stronger than any photon stream coming from the atmosphere that nullifies any backradiation” or “downwelling radiation from the atmosphere. The term “backradiation” is absolutely invented and incorrect; why? Because the air is not a mirror.
Why dismissing convection, when we perfectly know that it is the prevailing way of heat transfer in the atmosphere?
WordPress have mixed up all the lines corresponding to the data. Please, go to the following table:
http://www.biocab.org/Comparison_l_and_t_in_H2O_CO2_and_Dry_Air.jpg
The term “backradiation” is absolutely invented and incorrect; why? Because the air is not a mirror.
Since both you and I have rejected the concept of “back radiation” as not helpful (if not for exactly the same reasons—in particular I don’t consider it incorrect, just harder to work with) it sounds like we’re both more or less on the same page regarding that aspect.
Why dismissing convection, when we perfectly know that it is the prevailing way of heat transfer in the atmosphere?
I agree that convection can make a difference in the thermal insulating qualities of the atmosphere, for example by transporting heat from the surface upwards, e.g. via thermals. What I was focusing on however was the heat leaving Earth for outer space, which cannot be accomplished by convection because there is no significant flow of matter from Earth to outer space. Radiation is the only way available to Earth to shed the 122 petawatts of heat that the Earth is constantly absorbing from the Sun. Hence to understand how an increase in CO2 could heat up the Earth it suffices to consider how increasing CO2 blocks some of the departing radiation.
One point I neglected to make is that the heating resulting from blocking radiation raises the temperature of the Earth until it is once again shedding 122 petawatts, the amount of heat it is absorbing from the Sun. The additional lines closed by increasing CO2 make for a smaller atmospheric window through which to push those 122 petawatts. In order to get the same amount of heat through this smaller window, Earth’s temperature has to increase. This is analogous to having to raise the voltage across an increasing resistance if you want to maintain a constant current.
Judith,
The misconception of science is that it is suppose to be a balanced system.
It is far from it.
Our concept is so far out of balance with what is actually happening due to the past down theories that apply to ALL of the planet at the same time.
Hmmm. Round Planet rotating.
I put up a short analysis of the debate on my blog
http://claesjohnson.blogspot.com/2011/02/analysis-of-greenhouse-effect-debate.html
Claes, the issue is this. For the past many decades climate researchers and physicists have put their equations, data and analyses out there. The story of IR emission by gases hangs together very well in terms of observations, theory, and radiative transfer modeling. The challenge is in your court to demonstrate that any of this is incorrect, and to put forward a coherent case that convinces people that are knowledgeable of the observations, theory, and modelling. IMO you have failed to do this. This isn’t about exchanging equations. The body of physics and chemistry that underlies the calculations of gaseous absorption and emission made by line-by-line radiative transfer models is well understood, apart from some issues related to the water vapor continuum absorption under very high humidity conditions (this is understood in terms of the observations, but not theoretically, and hence is parameterized empirically in the models).
“The story of IR emission by gases hangs together very well in terms of observations, theory, and radiative transfer modeling.”
And yet still all the counter arguments which have been presented here supported by hard evidence and real-world observation are far more compelling.
No thought experiment or computer model can change reality. As Richard Feynman said:
” It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with experiment, it’s wrong.”
Judy: You just repeat a mantra without mathematical basis. I prove that the “backradiation” of the KT energy budget which you say you believe describes real physics, is not to be found in Maxwell’s equations, which have shown to model almost all of macroscopic electromagnetics. You say nothing about this proof. You are still convinced and probably teach your students that in some mysterious way a cold body sends out some mysterious particles which in some mysterious way heats a warmer body. It is a mystery in every step from scientific point of view, but mystery is not science. I have demonstrated that “backradiation” is fiction, and it
is now up to you show that my proof or assumption is incorrect, or accept it as correct. Can we agree on this? So what is wrong with my argument?
Have you read it?
Your argument is incapable of explaining radiational heat transfer which is used in practical situations everyday where theoretical predictions are confirmed by measurement. You have dodged the challenge to apply your ‘theory’ to a practical situation, until you do you’re just hand waving. Show your working for us to follow your calculations, until you do it’s just ‘hot air’, I’ll await your calculations.
Sure, they are on the way. There are many things you can compute from Maxwell’s equations.
You talk too much… Demonstrate that Claes is wrong with your own numbers. I’ll be waiting here… … … … …
Do you dispute that if you put an infrared radiometer on the surface of the earth and point it upwards, that it will measure an IR radiance or irradiance (depending on how the instrument is configured)? Go to http://www.arm.gov for decades worth of such measurements. And that this infrared radiation comes from IR emission by gases such as CO2 and H2O and also clouds? If you say yes, well this is what people are calling back radiation (a term that I don’t use myself). If you say no, then I will call you a crank – all your manipulations of Maxwell’s equation will not make this downwelling IR flux from the atmosphere go away.
Dr. Curry,
The IR irradiance from the lower temperature/frequency/entropy atmosphere cannot heat the higher temperature/frequency/entropy Earth, as explained by another author of “Slaying” here:
http://objectivistindividualist.blogspot.com/2011/01/blackbody-radiation-and-consensus.html
even though “back-radiation” can be measured by a thermocouple or thermister that has been cooled by liquid nitrogen to temps lower than the atmosphere in order to measure said “back-radiation.” [alternatively, less expensive units can measure “back-radiation” at ground temperature by e.g. a thermister increasing or decreasing resistance (depending on the type) due to the thermister losing heat to the atmosphere and a mathematical correction is applied to measure temps lower than the sensor]
How about a little thought experiment, or actually a quiz, anyone?
Imagine two blackbodies, one has emitted a 9um photon, which will interact with the other blackbody, the other has emitted a 10um photon which will interact with the first blackbody.
Now both blackbodies will be warmed by the photon it interacts with.
The question is:
Which blackbody is warmer, the first or the second?
I will listen only to those who can answer the question.
Warmer blackbodies emit more energetic radiation.
Photons are very small.
I have nothing to add.
Blackbodies make me warm.
I have nothing to add.
Given the amount of information you have provided for your ‘quiz’, it is not possible to tell which body is warmer. Two bodies at different temperatures can both emit photons at both 9 and 10 um. The distribution of frequencies emitted is very large.
If you are more precise and specific with the question, I should be able to answer it.
The question is vague because the real question is whether or not there is a two-way flow of energy between the two blackbodies or not.
If Cleas Johnson is right, then Planck, Einstein, and the Standard Model is wrong, and there should be some exchange of Nobel Prizes.
And maybe a photon can carry more than one peice of information.
Like it needs to know where it has been and where it is going.
bob,
I don’t know why the question is vague, but it is.
More to your point though. If one blackbody gives off energy, and another gives off energy, why wouldn’t they flow energy to each other?
Johnson is basically saying that one blackbody (the warmer one) KNOWS that the other blackbody is colder. And he is saying with by only referring to this fact via the source-less Maxwell’s equations, according to his comments here.
Did I miss something?
Now that I realize it was your question originally I take back my previous comment.
You won’t understand it.
No, you didn’t miss a thing.
That’s what I have been trying to say, that Cleas Johnson requires that the photons know where they are going and where they have been.
If Einstein is right, then Claes is right.
Nasif,
you do realize that Einstein was the first to propose the existence of the photon, don’t you?
@ maxwell…
Don’t you? I know also Einstein deduced induced emission many years before it was confirmed by observation/experimentation.
you do realize that Einstein was the first to propose the existence of the photon, don’t you?
In 1678 Huygens proposed that light was a wave, contradicted in 1704 by Newton who claimed light consisted of particles. Newton’s particle theory was generally accepted over Huygens’ wave theory until 1801 when Young’s two-slit experiment showed that Huygens was right. The wave account then survived for a century until Einstein showed that Newton was right too.
However Huygens had no idea what the wavelength was, while Newton had no idea how big the particles were or how a mirror could reflect them. So neither of them had as much claim to their respective theories of light as Young and Einstein, who were the first to actually observe respectively the wave and particle forms of light.
Newton called the particles “corpuscles” while Einstein called them “light quanta.” The snappy term “photon” was introduced later.
The IR irradiance from the lower temperature/frequency/entropy atmosphere cannot heat the higher emperature/frequency/entropy Earth,
Yes, but what it can do however is reduce the loss of heat. When (for each square meter of surface) you have U watts of heat going up and D watts going down, with D < U, the net loss of heat from the surface is U − D.
If U is 396 W and D is 0 W then the net loss of heat from the surface is 396 W. If however D is 333 W then the net loss of heat is only 63 W. This does not contradict the 2nd law of thermodynamics because the net flow of heat is still from the hotter to the colder entity, there just isn't as much flow between two entities that are at relatively similar temperatures. Although 63 W might seem like a lot of heat, in terms of temperature the difference is only 289 − 277 = 12 degrees. (100*sqrt(sqrt(396/5.67)) = 289 K.)
There is incidentally a fundamental error in Dr. Anderson’s website. He says “Each time a greenhouse gas molecule absorbs ground radiation energy, it sends half of it back to the surface.” While it’s true that half the energy goes up (not necessarily straight up) and half goes down, the latter need not reach the surface because it may be intercepted by another GHG molecule first. That possibility is one of the things that makes it extremely hard to calculate just how much heat GHGs intercept.
This is why I recommend my much simpler way of calculating it, namely solely in terms of the number of photons escaping to outer space. Those are the only ones capable of cooling Earth: if none escape the temperature will rise enormously. Those photons reradiated from the atmosphere bounce around the atmosphere, sometimes hitting the ground and sometimes escaping to space, and are much harder to reason about. Rather than even try to reason about them, just ignore them altogether on the ground that only those photons that escape to space make any difference to global temperature.
Vaughan,
a couple of nit picks. Some of the IR goes sideways and depending on height some of the generally downward doesn’t even go to earth as the earth is round and not infinite, so, less than half goes in the direction of the ground.
Increasingly less with altitude.
As far as what is moving between earth and GHG’s, part of the argument is whether observed IR really transfers a quantum of energy that translates to heat.
Various arguments include the fact that a photon is a wave front until it actually transfers its energy to something, which means in quantum mechanics it simply may not do it where we think it should.
As there really do appear to be teleconnections between “particles” the photon may KNOW not to transfer its energy to the higher temperature bit just like in conduction where the material KNOWS not to move energy from cold to hot.
Finally, fitting in with the idea of a slower cooling of the surface, the warmer surface may simply reradiate the energy from the incoming IR without it affecting the temperature.
Then there is the older solid science of wave interference. Long before quantum theory was relatively solid it was known that waves interfered and cancelled each other. Why that is not considered as a possibility for colder not heating warmer or not slowing the warming I simply don’t understand. The energy equations show a NET energy flow and the interference, scattering, and cancellation could be components of creating this NET flow. In the case of a NET flow it should be noted that there would be NO slowing of the rate of radiation from the hotter surface unless the scenario where the photon coming from the colder source is absorbed and reradiated is correct. I am unsure why the lower energy photon would be able to cause a quantum increase in the warmer material though. Again, where are the quantum mechanics to explain this stuff!!
My problem with the reradiation of the colder sourced IR is that there is an additive effect that would seem to cause more warming or at least extending the cooling time. This should be measurable. If it isn’t the effect probably isn’t large enough to worry about. The problem with the current numbers is that they do not appear to break out the effects of conduction from depth in the surface. This is a small effect, but, so is the amount of CO2 heating that is alledged to cause feedback with water vapor.
So many choices and so few people with the skills to guide us to the correct conceptualization of what is actually happening.
Kuhnkat,
The quantum electrodynamics (QED) developed by Feynman and others is an extremely successful theory in describing how photons are created and how they interact. It has been tested empirically to a better accuracy than perhaps any other physical theory. From QED we know how photons interact with material. We know that the photons do indeed release their energy in well understood ways. The is no change that the alternatives that you propose might be true.
Yes. And I am almost sure you can check that low frequency photons can heat “high” temperatures bodies, if, like most westerners, you have a microwave.
The food you put in is usually between 270 and 300 K. It is very rapidly heated to 370+K by photons at 2.4 GHz, about 0.1 m wavelength. I do not have blackbody emission curve at hand, but this should be the typical max emission wavelength for a bb opf a few K, maybe 10 K max, no? Much lower than the food temp, for sure. So why is it heated? Because magnetron is a coherent source? I doubt it, nowhere in the heating proces is coherence required afaik…
Kai,
why do you forget the concept of heat pumps? Is it just convenient to ignore the actual physics.
Kunhkat,
sorry, but here, I completely fail to see any relationship between heat pump and microwave heating.
Appart from the fact that a fridge and microwave oven are often quite close to each other in a typical kitchen or in the mall ;-)
Seriously, you will have to elaborate a lot more before I consider my failure to see any connection something to be corrected…
Kai,
how much energy does you microwave “consume” to heat your food and how efficient is it??
It is very efficient. Do you think microwave would have been introduced for industrial food heating if they were not? (the first one were much more powerful than the current one – they were scary ;-) ).
Efficiency for a heating apparatus is something extremely easy to achieve though, depending on how you measure it.
typically almost 100% of input energy is converted to heat…because everythin is ultimately converted to heat!
So I guess you refer to heat energy IN FOOD/input energy instead total heat energy/ energy input (which is usually near 100% -possibly escaping sound and EM wave are absorbed too far to be counted).
For the “food” efficiency, microwave ovens are very efficient. Magnetron are nice efficient device (I am quite fascinated with tube-age power electronics, klystron, fusor, all that stuff. Nice that everybody have his own magnetron nowadays) , and not much heat is lost outside the oven nor transmitted to recipient (well, it depend in what you put your food). Or maybe you refer to efficiency compared to a perfect carnot cycle (hence you heat pump reference). Sorry, I do not know of any food warming technology using heat pump. Maybe there is, but I never saw any. If there is, I guess for large amount of food it can me more efficient than microwave…
Why, you are just about bringing to market an ultra-efficient combined fridge/oven based on heat pump? Congrat to you, but what does it have to do with C.J. theory about radiative heat transfer???
Try this Kai,
http://www.wag.caltech.edu/home/jang/genchem/infrared.htm
it actually explains in detail how ir excites h2o molecules. Notice that if a molecule does not have the correct configuration it will NOT be excited by this method.
So, what molecules exactly are preferentially excited by 15 micron IR from CO2??
Pekka,
it is interesting you couch your closing sentence to me with the phrase “there is no chance” when theoretical physicists tell us that the universe may just be one of those chances that you blithely suggest doesn’t exist.
Quantum mechanics, as I am sure you are much more aware than I am, is based on statistics. Statistics allow for many stranger things than my simpleton maunderings.
But, I am a hardheaded simpleton. Can you refer me to experiments showing the increased radiation from a heated object caused by moving a cooler object close to it??
You could probably do an experiment yourself at home that would test the ability of a cooler object to raise the temperature of a warmer object. It wouldn’t be perfect, but should give a reasonable approximation.
Start with a cool room, and in the center, a 100 Watt light bulb. Turn on the bulb, and let the room temperature equilibrate. Also place a thermometer against the light bulb (shielded from outside influences) and record the temperature at the surface of the bulb. At this point, the bulb is radiating 100 W and the room is losing 100 W through walls, windows, etc.
Now surround the bulb at a distance of about 1 meter with wire mesh at room temperature. The purpose of using mesh is to provide space for air currents to escape so as not to interfere with convection. We can also leave the mesh open at the top so that rising heated air will not affect it. Also, because the conductivity of air is very low, we can reasonably assume that most heat transfer will occur by radiation – admittedly, it would be better to perform the experiment in a vacuum, but that wouldn’t be practical.
Place a thermometer on the mesh (again shielded, so that it records only mesh temperature). Allow equilibration. The room temperature will not change, because 100 W are still flowing into the room – the amount from the warmed mesh compensating for the reduction due to heat absorption by the mesh.
Here are my questions:
1. Do you agree that the mesh will warm due to radiation absorbed from the light bulb?
2. Do you agree that the mesh will remain cooler than the light bulb surface, because not all the 100 W are absorbed by the mesh?
3. Do you agree that the warmed mesh will radiate some of the wattage it receives back to the light bulb?
4. Do you agree that the surface of the light bulb will also continue to receive 100 W from its internal heating element?
5. Do you agree that the internally generated 100 W plus the W from the mesh will exceed the wattage the light bulb surface was receiving prior to being surrounded by the mesh?
6. Do you agree that at equilibrium, the light bulb surface will now be radiating the W described in 5?
7. What do you think will happen to the temperature of the light bulb surface? Why?
Fred,
if what you are suggesting starts to happen the filament increases its resistance changing the energy flux.
Assume a filament that emits a constant 100 W. How would you answer the questions?
Fred,
I am happy to read about real experiments and discuss them to the extent my garbled knowledge allows. Are you planning on doing this one with appropriate instrumentation?
Kuhnkat – I’m not planning to do the experiment, because I don’t feel a need to prove anything. However, I would still welcome your thoughts about how it would come out on the basis of the questions I asked. I also wrote those with the thought that other interested readers besides yourself might appreciate the reasoning that has been expressed by many of us regarding the ability of a cooler object to raise the temperature of a warmer one, as long as the cooler object didn’t depend on its own energy but could gain energy that originated from an external source.
If you would like to answer the questions simply from the perspective of a thought experiment, I hope you’ll go ahead.
Fred,
How can my misconceptions contribute to the advancment of the discourse??
For distinction between Downwelling IR and “Backradiation”, as already discussed and apparently ignored.
http://judithcurry.com/2011/01/31/slaying-a-greenhouse-dragon/#comment-36344
http://judithcurry.com/2011/01/31/slaying-a-greenhouse-dragon/#comment-36266
http://judithcurry.com/2011/01/31/slaying-a-greenhouse-dragon/#comment-36293
And for an important understanding of why the “Backradiation/greenhouse effect” in unphysical pseudo science :
http://judithcurry.com/2011/01/31/slaying-a-greenhouse-dragon/#comment-36370
Also apparently being ignored.
As some of my writing in this chain may appear obscure and even support Claes Johnson’s texts, I want make clear that I do not see anything wrong with the standard description involving photons, back radiation and transitions between ground state and the vibrational state of CO2 molecules. I wanted only to tell that the same physics with the same conclusions may perhaps be formulated totally differently. This alternative formulation would be closer to, what Claes Johnson has presented, but would definitively not change the results of the standard approach, which rest on solid experimental and theoretical knowledge of physics. Thus I disagree totally with all his statements that would modify the final conclusions.
Well Pekka, either there is backradiation or there isn’t. It can’t be just a play
with words unless physics is a swamp where something can mean anything.
Claes,
The physics is the same, but it can be described in different ways. The only way that si well developed and known to work includes back radiation. It may be possible to drop the particles and stick to fields without (second) quantization, but nobody has developed theory on that basis.
The wave-particle duality is reality when ways are searched for describing quantum physics in classical terms. People cannot discuss directly in quantum physics. Therefore such different classical type descriptions are used although there is just one real quantum physics behind.
Back radiation is a part of the particle type description. It would not be part of the wave type description if that would really exist. The physics would still be the same. Using Maxwell’s equations is a small step in this direction, but it has not been made complete (by you or anybody else as far as I know).
Claes Johnson
To your claim 1) aka non existence of “back radiation”.
As you prefer equations , so just a few very simple ones.
Let us consider 3 interacting systems.
S1 is the void
S2 is the atmosphere
S3 is the Earth
We will consider that we know some things about the Earth and the void but the atmosphere is complicated . There are clouds , moving gases , many mysterious and complex processes.
So we will consider S2 as a black box where the only knowable parameters are the energy fluxes at the interfaces.
The only assumption we will take is that S2 (atmosphere) and S3 (Earth) are in a steady state . They may transport and transform energy internally as they want but they neither store it nor release it.
For S1 (Void) we will assume that it is in an approximate radiative equilibrium with S2+S3.
If we call the energy fluxes F (W/m²) then we have the following equations :
At the interface S1-S2 we have F1->2 = F2->1
At the interface S2-S3 we have F2->3 = F3->2
There is no contact and no interface between S1 and S3.
That is 2 equation , 4 unknowns.
However we can measure F1->2 and F2->1 and find that they are 340 W/m² and indeed approximately equal.
Remark : Of course the conservation of energy would require that I write the equation for the whole system and use energy (units J) for a certain time scale .
However once I have the TOTAL in and out energy , without loss of generality I can always divide the result by the surface of the interface and by the time to get back to fluxes (W/m²) which are more familiar . This of course doesn’t mean that it is assumed that the real fluxes are 340 W/m² everywhere . They aren’t . This “average” value is just what represents the energy conservation.
Back to S3 (Earth) . It is behaving like a grey body with an excellent approximation and emits according to F = ε.σ.T⁴.
When we integrate that over the whole surface and divide by the surface to get homogeneous units for all fluxes , we get a value of about 390 W/m² .
But the radiation is not the only component of the F3->2 flux .
We have also convection , conduction and latent heat transfers .
These 3 components can be computed and estimated to about 100 W/m².
Now only 1 unknown is left , the energy flux from the atmosphere to the Earth , and it is necessarily 390 + 100 = 490 W/m² .
What can that be ?
Even if the radiation from S1 (Sun/Void) goes completely through the atmosphere and we know it doesn’t, it is only 340 W/m².
There would be still 150 W/m² missing.
Convection and conduction towards the Earth is very weak because it is generally warmer than the atmosphere . Part of the latent heat may possibly return.
But whatever part of the 100 W/m² come back to Earth , it is still not enough .
As what is missing is neither convection/conduction nor latent heat it can only be radiation.
Conclusion : the atmosphere radiates “back” on the Earth (hence “backradiation”) at minimum 50 W/m² but actually probably significantly more because not all incoming 340 W/m² get through and not all 100 W/m² of convection/latent return to the Earth .
Thus it appears clearly that one doesn’t need any quantum mechanics , second thermodynamics principles or complex radiative transfers to conclude that the “back radiation” is a necessary consequence of the dynamics of the interacting systems S1,S2,S3 , as long as they conserve energy and are in a steady state at least approximately in a temporally averaged sense what we indeed observe.
Of course one can then become much more specific and explain how the “backradiation” can be deduced from the first principles too . But I won’t repeat what has already been written 100 times above , I wanted merely to prove its existence which can be of course confirmed either directly or by measuring the fluxes I defined above .
To your 2)
I largely agree with this opinion . I have exposed on other threads the arguments why I believe that. It has mostly to do with the fact that the system is governed by non linear dynamics which lead to spatio-temporal chaotic solutions.
Analytical or statistical considerations of spatial averages alone destroy all spatial correlations and have no possibility to recover the right dynamics.
As for the computer models, their resolution doesn’t allow and will never allow to really solve the dynamical equations.
What the computers produce are plausible states (e.g states respecting more or less the conservation laws) of the system but they are unable to discriminate between dynamically allowed and forbidden states.
This inability to discriminate between allowed and forbidden states becomes of course worse when the time scales get bigger .
But you are dismissing something very important, the total emittancy of the carbon dioxide, which, from experimentation and observation, is quite low. Well applied, the algoritms give 0.02 for CO2 and 0.01 for the whole mixture of the air, including water vapor. I must say that the algorithms derived from experiments give a ridiculous total emittancy for CO2, which is 0.002, at its current partial pressure in the atmosphere. Those are important parameters that are not taken into account by the current models. Carbon dioxide is not a blackbody, according to the most elemental definition of blackbody, but a graybody. The ignorance on this physics issuesintentonally or not, has taken to many people believe in backradiations heating up, or keeping heat, the surface.
Sorry, it should have said:
“Well applied, the algoritms give 0.004 for CO2 and 0.01 for the whole mixture of the air…”
Nasif I make no assumption about the blackbox atmosphere , what it contains and what it does .
I just observe and measure the fluxes at interfaces and apply energy conservation for systems in a steady state .
From there follows necessarily the existence of a radiation flux from the atmosphere to the Earth .
I do not attempt to say how much or by what mechanism because others have developped it ad nauseum .
I demonstrate that observation tells us that the number is strictly positive what is enough to establish its existence .
“At the interface S1-S2 we have F1->2 = F2->1
At the interface S2-S3 we have F2->3 = F3->2
There is no contact and no interface between S1 and S3.
That is 2 equation , 4 unknowns.
However we can measure F1->2 and F2->1 and find that they are 340 W/m² and indeed approximately equal.”
?? Isn’t that 2 equations and TWO unknowns? If you know F1->2, you already know F2->1, if they are equal.
One area that Claes approach may give a new way of looking at a problem that has often been discussed on SoDs site.
That is what is the fate of the radiation from the colder object when it arrives at the hotter object.
To keep things simple lets say both objects are blackbodies.
Three tenable approaches are generally given.
1. No radiation from the colder object arrives.
2. The radiation arrives but is simply subtracted from the greater amount of radiation of every wavelength leaving the hotter object.
3. The radiation arrives and is completely absorbed.
Lets see how the 3 approaches deal with a simplified problem.
Let the colder body be at 290K
Lets consider an area of 1m2 some way from the colder object.
With the hotter object absent;
this area has a flux of 100W/m2 passing through it. (This means 100joules per second pass through the area)
If examined the spectrum of the radiation would be BB centred around 15um.
Now bring the hotter (1000K) object to this area.
Approach 1 says the radiation from the colder object no longer arrives at this area.
I consider this to be unphysical and will now drop this as it seems unreasonable.
Approach 2 says the subtraction of the radiation will still leave more radiation of every wavelength leaving the hotter object.
This satisfies the Stephan Boltzmann equation and also means that the colder radiation has no effect on the temperature of the hotter object.
Approach 3 says the 100Joules per second is totally absorbed and add to energy of hotter object.
The temperature of the hotter object is increased even if only slightly.
Effectively this means that 100J/s centred around 15um is transformed into 100J/s centred around 4.3um.
I would say this improvement in the “quality” of the radiative energy is forbidden by the second law of thermodynamics.
Further although approach 3 seems to satisfy the Stephan Boltzmann equation there may be a conflict there if the temperature of the hotter object increases significantly.
For these reasons approach 2 seems to be the only correct solution.
As you said: this point has been discussed dozens of times on SoDs site.
And your error is always the same: approach 3 is not “forbidden by the 2d law”. Approach 2 is impossible: it would suppose that the hotter object magically “knows” that the radiation comes from a colder object.
The approach 3 is the correct one.
Ort
Perhaps you could expand your reasoning as to why approach 2 is wrong.
The approach 3 is the correct one.
Quite, it is a blackbody therefore it absorbs all incident radiation.
Effectively this means that 100J/s centred around 15um is transformed into 100J/s centred around 4.3um.
I would say this improvement in the “quality” of the radiative energy is forbidden by the second law of thermodynamics.
Only if the same number of photons of higher energy were emitted, however this does not happen fewer photons would be emitted to balance the additional incoming flux.
An example in my lab I used a Nd:YAG laser which emitted at 1066nm which I then passed through a crystal which doubled the frequency to give me 533nm output. Two 1066 quanta are combined by the crystal lattice which then emitted a single photon at 533, no thermodynamic laws broken.
Phil. Felton
So you are saying that 100J of radiative energy at say 15um is thermodynamically equivalent to 100J of radiative energy at 4.7um?
See Hockey Schtick post above.
Yes 100J is 100J, just fewer photons in the 4.7μm band.
Phil. Felton
So you are saying that 100J of radiative energy at say 15um is thermodynamically equivalent to 100J of radiative energy at 4.7um?
….”Yes 100J is 100J, just fewer photons in the 4.7μm band.”…..
Now you must feel that this is on shaky ground.
With other physical equivalents of the “crystal” you could input low quality radiation say from seawater290K(radiative equivalent 15um) and by suitable “crystals” transform it in stages into 4.7um radiation equivalent to 1000K with no losses when absorbed.
With such a device ships would have no need of fuel simply extract it from seawater.
I think this is a clear violation of the second law
I think method 2 is correct
Well what you think doesn’t matter. Frequency doubling (and tripling) crystals exist and don’t violate the second law as does two photon excitation microscopy.
@Phil…
Oops! You’ve touched entropy. Does the entropy of a crystal diminishes or it increases? Does the entropy of that crystal surrounding increases or it decreases? Does the entropy of other crystals behave homogenously?
Would that crystal preserve its structure as long as the universe exists? You’ve got a biiig problem, and you did it alone.
Phil. Felton
The point you bring up is very interesting.
If a crystal can double the frequency of radiation with no energy loss then I will have to revise my understanding of the second law.
I have been to several websites to get more background information.
I have so far been unsuccessful.
The more relevant ones seem to be behind pay walls.
If you could provide a link to the thermodynamics of frequency doubling crystals it would be a great help
I am ignorant in this area so please let me ask a couple questions.
Are these crystals in a passive system similar to a crystal used to display a spectrum? My thought is that if it is in a powered system there may be a pump effect whereas a passive system would have much less possibility for a pump effect to be happening.
Why would anyone consider that combining two photons of one frequency into one photon of another frequency with no change in net energy be a plus or minus to either side of the argument? It would apparently conserve mass and energy and the frequency change is proportional?
kuhnkat
As far as I know these crystals are only used in lasers.
The total power output will be less than the input.
So it might be using work to achieve what would not happen spontaneously a bit like a refrigerator.
However if someone can prove that a crystal can without any loses double the frequency of radiation then I will need a rethink on the second law.
Beats me! They’re a passive system, the crystal lattice absorbs two photons and is excited to emit a single more energetic photon (double frequency). This gives a good account:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second-harmonic_generation
Phil. Felton
It seems the radiation has to be of very high intensity like a laser.
Later on they talk about increasing the efficiency.
They dont specify whether this is energy efficiency however.
I will need to keep looking.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sum_frequency_generation
Thanks gentlemen.
I would assume a trade-off between frequency and amplitude.
BryaN,
You are safe. The picture with the article shows a residual wave in addition to the desired second harmonic. It looks like only part of the beam is doubled and they filter out the residual for the microscopy.
kuhnkat
Yes it looks like the a fraction of the fundamental went through and the desired output the second harmonic is then utilised.
Its strange that to make sense of this phenomena we have to use the language of wave physics.
Why should a particle phenomena like the photon have harmonics?
It lends support to Claes ideas.
I would like to see a further analysis of the thermodynamics of this system.
Bryan,
actually I do not see it as strange at all. If there weren’t serious issues with the whole wave versus particle bit it would not have taken so many great minds so long to come up with the current compromises. The fact they settled on quantum theory as the explanation in no way invalidates the experimental data on what appeared to be waves at work.
I think there is an issue with people thinking of a physical particle when quantum theory doesn’t really say there are physical particles. My limited reading seemed to indicate that electrons moved closer to waves than waves moved to electrons. They are both just convenient ways for us to think about a sets properties and how they interact.
One of the ways Climate Scientists obfuscate the physics is confusing energy and temperature. They are separate at the level that is being discussed in climate science.
Getting a particular frequency out of a CO2 molecule does not mean it is the temperature as assumed by planck radiation. The frequency is determind by the molecular bond and not black body emission. The temperature would be indicated by the number of photons emitted by the CO2 molecule at atmospheric temperatures. Apparently CO2 has do be at combustion chamber temps for planck radiation to become significant.
In the cases I am aware of, the crystal which will take two photons and add them to create one photon of twice the energy, are very carefully selected or designed materials for having that effect on a particular wavelength photon. They do not do this for other frequencies of radiation incident upon them. So, the case you describe is a very special case and, yes, no violation of physics occurs in that case. But water, rock, and dirt do not generally have this property.
Charles
The radiation from the laser does seem to have some unusual properties.
For instance it does not obey the inverse square law.
huh? It sure does obey inverse square law, if not energy conservation would be violated. Simply, it has very high directivity, the divergence angle of a typical laser beam is very low (often almost as low as his frequency allow). But within this very small solid angle, it sure obey inverse square law: in a perfectly transparent medium, the intensity of the laser will be much lower (and the surface illuminated much larger) 1 light year away, an even a few km away, the broadening is already noticeable…
Dr. Anderson,
‘But water, rock, and dirt do not generally have this property.’
The important distinction with respect to nonlinear optics is that the nonlinear optical process necessitates coherence in space and time between the mixing beams. From there one can get sum and difference frequency and harmonic generation. That’s why lasers are used in such situations.
But those are not the only kinds of nonlinear effects possible in a material. There are many more incoherent nonlinear processes in which the different photons acting upon a material are not coherent. Excited state absorption and spontaneous light scattering are two such situations which have fairly high cross-sections.
So while many rocks do not have the property of being crystals with specific bi-refringent properties, there are still many nonlinear optical processes that can occur, all which you neglect in the piece that has been featured in the comments here.
Ort,
How does one electron magically know the state of another electron in quantum mechanics???
Magic is apparently how our world works. It does what it does and we must figure out the rules and make up explanations that are palatable to our limited minds.
Thanks for that Bryan,
Physicist Charles Anderson also just posted an explanation on why “back-radiation” from colder objects does not heat warmer objects:
http://objectivistindividualist.blogspot.com/2011/01/blackbody-radiation-and-consensus.html
Excerpt:
“…If the Earth’s surface is at a certain temperature, then it too will have a black body-like emission spectrum. Now suppose that CO2 absorbs a particular wavelength of infrared radiation out of that spectrum and then re-emits that energy at that wavelength back to the Earth’s surface. Can that photon absorbed by the surface raise the temperature of the surface? No. The reason it cannot raise the temperature of the surface is because to do so, the radiative spectrum has to move to the left in the diagram above. The shorter wavelengths on the left correspond to higher frequencies and to higher energies. For the surface to become warmer due to the absorption of the photon from a greenhouse gas, higher energy vibrational states must become occupied in the Earth’s surface materials. A photon from a lower temperature emitter cannot warm the surface to a higher temperature because that lower energy photon cannot excite the necessary higher energy vibrational modes. That photon can slow down the cooling of surface at night, since its emission at night will cool the surface and the returned photon will be at a higher energy than the surface is by the time the photon returns. This is the equivalent of the process when we put hot coffee in a thermos, thereby slowing down its cooling rate. But, the returning photons from the reflective wall in the thermos never heat the coffee to a higher temperature than it was at when it was poured into the thermos.
Whether a photon is absorbed by a material or not is dependent upon the electronic and vibrational states in the material which can be excited and the energy of the photon. The fact that a photon is incident upon a material does not mean it will be absorbed. The greenhouse gas theorists recognize this when the material is nitrogen or oxygen molecules, but they assume the Earth’s surface can absorb whatever strikes it, at least if it is a low energy or longwave infrared photon. But, just as visible light passes through window glass without absorption, this is not necessarily the case. The light photon is not absorbed in glass because glass has a wide energy band gap in which there are no occupied or unoccupied electronic states. Still higher energy ultraviolet energy may excite available unoccupied electronic states, which in turn will de-excite in time. Until they do, they can warm the glass. But visible light just passes through. The same is the case with some of the low energy, longwave infrared radiation returned from greenhouse gas molecule de-excitations. The Earth’s surface will not accept them since the excitable vibrational states are already excited and vibrating assuming that its temperature has not dropped since the returned photon was emitted by the ground. There simply is no available energy state able to accept it.”
Hockey Schtick
Thanks for the link, he knows what he is talking about being a specialist in materials physics
Yeah but he’s made a few mistakes. Following his argument, by emitting photons the surface necessarily cooled the instant those photons left leaving energy states ready to absorb any returning photons.
In the equilibrium case of solar radiation flux upon the surface, the Earth’s surface temperature is constant and the emission of a photon does not cool the surface. Of course at night, with no incident solar radiation, the surface is constantly cooling as infrared photons are emitted. In that case, a photon absorbed by a water molecule or CO2 may result in emission of a photon from that molecule and the photon may be absorbed by the cooling Earth’s surface, thereby retarding the cooling. Where I said the emission of the photon from the Earth’s surface cooled it, I was talking specifically about the phenomena of cooling at night. I wanted to make sure the reader knew that I was not denying that the presence of infra-red absorbing molecules in our atmosphere can contribute to a retardation of surface cooling at night and to make it clear how it did this, when it could not do it in the case of the surface at a constant or increasing temperature.
Your support is clumsy: don’t you care that this theory is in contradiction with what Bryan said?
His theory and Bryans “approach 2” cannot be correct at the same time. Choose one side.
(anyway, they are both wrong)
Ort: no, it is in agreement with Bryan’s approach 2. And tell us exactly why you know “both are wrong”
Phil Felton: doesn’t matter – obviously the process continues to cycle, with no heating of the hotter object
Of course, here are the conceptual differences:
Brian: no backradiation (supposedly because the 2d law) with a theorical case of two blackbodies (so, total absorptivity).
Charles Anderson: backradiation, but absorptivity of the Earth surface = 0 for the longwave radiations (all the confuse 2d paragraph). That’s obviously false: you can check any textbooks for the absorptivity vs. wavelength for all the different type of opaque materials.
Ort: no, Bryan’s approach 1 is “no backradiation,” which he dismisses. Approach 2 is that there is “backradiation,” but the colder objects “backradiation” cannot heat the hotter object. This is exactly what materials physicist Charles Anderson explains in detail, and you fail to understand why the absorptivity is effectively 0 by a hotter temperature/frequency/entropy body from a colder body – did you even bother to go to his blog post instead of just reading the small excerpt?
I did and he’s wrong!
The explanation is false. A black body goes never to a state where it would not absorb all radiation reaching it. The absorption leads unavoidably to the transfer of the energy of the absorbed radiation to the heat content of the body. The body is also radiating at the same wavelength, but the rate of radiation is not changed by the absorption. Thus the incoming radiation influences the heat balance of the body.
The same applies very closely also to most surfaces of earth for infrared radiation, because they are almost black in the infrared region.
Pekka
……”but the rate of radiation is not changed by the absorption. Thus the incoming radiation influences the heat balance of the body.”…..
This seems to be self contradictory
Bryan,
I was not fully precise. There will be an effect through increased temperature of the body. I meant that there is no immediate effect related to the absorption. For a real surface even this is not quite true, but only a very good approximation, but for a black body it is true.
Pekka
With reference to the option2 and 3 in my post above.
To all realistic intents and purposes there is little practical difference between them.
The heat by calculated by SB equation goes from hotter to colder body.
Option 3 has the unfortunate implication of upgrading the quality of the radiation from the colder object which conflicts with the second law.
Also the possibility of an increase in temperature is a signature of Heat transfer from colder to hotter which Clausius said was forbidden.
Bryan,
I answered to your other message on this point. Your argument is in error.
There is a curious definitional issue here. A black body is often defined as a body that will absorb all wavelengths of radiation incident upon it. This is a case however in which we need badly to talk about real materials, such as those in the surface of the Earth.
I extensively use a technique called FTIR spectroscopy to identify and characterize materials in my laboratory. The technique commonly uses infrared radiation covering the range from 2.5 microns to 25 microns in wavelength. A material placed on a IR transparent window, such as diamond, is irradiated as the IR wavelength is varied and any absorption results in a scattering of the IR radiation so that much less is reflected back to the IR detector. If real materials absorbed all IR in this broad range of wavelengths, the technique would be pretty useless. The range of IR radiation wavelengths covers most of the spectrum of radiation from a material emitting IR at a temperature of 288K. Near IR spectroscopy covers the longer, low energy tail of the 288 K emitter and while absorption here tends to be greater, it is still much less than 100%. That makes near IR spectroscopy a useful technique also for studying many materials. Most of the Earth’s surface is covered with water and the biggest window for water in the range of IR radiation near that of a 288 K emitter is pretty well aligned with the peak of the emitter spectrum. So water does not absorb all incident IR. Plants certainly do not either. Indeed, we often perform FTIR on plant materials and food products extracted from them. Near IR spectroscopy is also used on plants and food products extensively. FTIR is used less frequently on minerals because they commonly are not very good absorbers.
Sorry. I do not actually do near IR spectroscopy. I should have remembered that it applies to the IR wavelengths in the tail of the solar spectrum, not in the tail of the spectrum of an emitter at 288K. Near IR is therefore irrelevant in this discussion.
Your ‘theory’ of non absorption by a surface of thermal radiation from colder emitters (you don’t say what happens to the incoming radiation), is clearly invalidated by the fact that microwave ovens work, (see Kai’s posts elsewhere). The usual frequency used is 2.45 GHz (wavelength 122mm), your surface at 300K doesn’t emit much radiation at that wavelength! So why does that get absorbed in an oven?
While you’re on here why don’t you explain that when you use your FTIR spectrometer you don’t have to do it in a vacuum because O2 and N2 don’t absorb IR, some of the ‘sceptics’ on here don’t believe that. Perhaps your practical experience will convince them?
The specific frequencies that 99% O2 and N2 absorb emit at are filtered out.
Such a device would be worse than useless if that was not the case.
PF;
Same answer as to most AGW silliness: it’s the H2O, st**id.
In that case, please explain me the approach 2 , and don’t forget Brian was talking about two black bodies.
Now, about Anderson: “why the absorptivity is effectively 0 by a hotter temperature/frequency/entropy body from a colder body “.
You fail to understand that the absorptivity of a surface, which is the proportion of radiation absorbed vs reflected, at a given wavelength, is a constant property of the material. No matter where 15um photons come from (from a cold body, a hot body, a distant body, a shaking body, an “active” body, a “passive” body), the ratio of absorbed 15 um photons is the same.
Another time, you can check easily textbooks for the absorptivity vs. wavelength for all the different type of opaque materials : the position of Anderson is untenable.
Ort |
So you quite happy that 100J of radiative energy at say 15um is upconverted to 100J of radiative energy at 4.7um, without any work being done?
Without an explanation, this question does not make sense for me. Details, please.
(sorry to have mispelled your name in my last comment)
Ort
If you look at one consequence of option 3 it means that
100J of radiative energy at centred at 15um is up converted to 100J of radiative energy centred at 4.7um, without any work being done?
This is contrary to the second law.
This is why option 2 is correct.
It satisfies the Stephan Boltzmann equation without violating the second law
It has nothing to do with the second law.
For the black body the wavelength of the incoming radiation makes no difference, when the amount of energy is the same. 100J heats by 100J. After the absorption it is in the heat of the body and for that the type of the incoming energy makes no difference, only its quantity in energy units.
As stated by really many writers the black body absorbs also any wavelength whatever its own temperature.
The second law has nothing to say about this. It tells that more radiation goes from the hotter body to the cooler than wise versa. It does not say anything about what happens when radiation hits a body.
“If you look at one consequence of option 3 it means that
100J of radiative energy at centred at 15um is up converted to 100J of radiative energy centred at 4.7um, without any work being done?”
You seem not to understand the Stefan Bolzmann law (radiation of the body occurs, even in a vacuum), and the laws of thermodynamics neither. In fact, your assertion itself is totally confused and erroneous, linking two independent phenomenons with apparently an implicit energy equality (is that what you call “2d law”?) which can not be applied to your body, which is not a closed system! You already had long, clear, detailed, repeated and explanations of this on SoDs site by different contributors, more patient than I am; so it seems I am losing my time.
Ort
“If you look at one consequence of option 3 it means that
100J of radiative energy at centred at 15um is up converted to 100J of radiative energy centred at 4.7um, without any work being done?”
Back to the previous question you included the quote but did not answer the implication.
Instead you ignored it and went into a irrelevant rant.
If the increase in quality of the radiation does not happen then options two and three are the same.
If it does happen the second law is violated.
There is no such thing like your imaginary direct process of “upconversion” by “work”, so, I repeat, your rhetorical question as formulated does not make sense.
Emission of thermal radiation is a function of temperature of the body (and if not a black body, a function of emissivity, a material property) and that’s that. Period.
If ever there is some incoming radiation, whatever its wavelength, it will be absorbed (black body). But no matter if there is or not some incoming radiation from other bodies, and what could be its spectrum, the status of the outside world has no effect on emission of thermal radiation.
Now, in all the possible configurations, if doing the sum of all the energy exchanges (including the radiating ones) between the black body and its environment, you find: E_in > E_out, then the temperature will increase (in function of the mass and of the heat capacity). If E_in<E_out, it will decrease; if E_in = E_out, no change. There is nothing "thermodynamically wrong", here.
With your choice of same energy values (the last case), you tried at the same time to imply an imaginary direct causal link between emission and absorption, by the means of "upconversion", your word. You are supposing that the emission of thermal radiation is due to photoexcitation: you have invented some physics. You are now free to repeat ad nauseam "2d law, 2d law!", but don’t expect another response from me.
Ort
If you read the original post it was the consequence of to the radiation of having the hotter object there as opposed to its absence as it passed through the defined area.
Absent ; 100J at BB spectrum centred around 15um.
Present;
Option 2 no effect on the temperature of the hot body other than to reduce the heat loss from the hot body.
Option 3.
To increase the temperature of the hot body.
The 100J Joules is upgraded to be centred around 4.3um.
This violates the second law as stated by Clausius.
Heat flows from a hot object to a cold object never the reverse.
The increase in the “quality” of the radiation reduces entropy =>against 2nd Law.
If the problem was solved using vectors, there would be a single vector pointing from hot to ciold
The case you cite is different. The incident radiation comes from a hotter source, not a colder source or one of an equal temperature.
When I measure the absorptivity of radiation in my lab, I use a light source with a filament or emitter which is hot compared to the material I am reflecting and absorbing radiation upon. LEDs are pretty cool compared to a tungsten filament, but they are still warmer than the room temperature object being examined for its absorption of light.
Note also that IR detectors image objects warming than themselves, not objects cooler than themselves.
Great explanation, IMHO!
This guy Anderson is a total crank when it comes to the greenhouse effect at least.
First, the whole idea that the ground cannot absorb low frequency light because of vibrational states is complete garbage. The density of states of low frequency motion in a solid (like the surface of the earth) is much higher than the density of high frequency motions. Moreover, the vibrational energies of water and CO2 are several hundred to thousands of wavenumbers. That corresponds to temperatures over 1000 K. You’re telling me that the ground can’t absorb photons corresponding to a temperature of 1000 K? Really?
On top of that fact, what percentage of the earth is hotter than 1000 K? Like the 0.00000001% that exposes lava lakes? So even if the structure of materials like the surface of the earth were such that there was a low density of low frequency motions, the energy from GHG emission could still be absorbed virtually everywhere on the face of the planet!
So this guy can even come up with a meaning, fake physical theory! And you take him at face value?!
Moreover, all this talk about how a colder body can’t transfer heat to a warmer body is only meaningful in the macroscopic limit. Unfortunately, that means when we’re talking about the collisions between molecules, which Anderson does at length, we are in the MICROSCOPIC limit and energy can transfer to a molecule upon a collision, even if that molecule is in a lower energy state. Temperature and heat are not defined for a single pair of molecules, therefore we are not violating the second law of thermodynamics as well! Make an important mental note of this fact.
There are also sooo many collisions happening, that it is very likely energy gets transferred from a kinetically excited O2 or N2 into a state of CO2 or water from which that molecule can decay radiatively. The chances of this processes happening increase as one increases in altitude because collisions become less frequent (density decreases) while the radiative decay rate stays relatively the same. In the stratosphere, the rate can even increase due to increases in temperature.
So all in all, one needs to be slightly more skeptical of these types of claims. To just believe it because it says what you want to hear is not very scientific. In fact, it may be the exact opposite from scientific. Then again, I’m beginning to expect that from some of you.
Does your rant actually refer to Anderson’s paper or to something else? What is all this stuff about 1000 K, e.g.? Where does he say that the “ground cannot absorb low frequency light because of vibrational states?” Maybe I missed something?
jae,
if you insist on making a comment, you ought to make sure you have read what the content necessary for such a comment.
From schtick’s comment taken directly from Anderson’s site,
‘The same is the case with some of the low energy, longwave infrared radiation returned from greenhouse gas molecule de-excitations. The Earth’s surface will not accept them since the excitable vibrational states are already excited and vibrating assuming that its temperature has not dropped since the returned photon was emitted by the ground. There simply is no available energy state able to accept it.’
He is saying that there are no ‘states’ that can absorb low frequency IR light because they are already in an excited state. If we ignore the factual inaccuracy of this statement to begin with (excited states still absorb IR light to get to further excited states) he is basically saying that there is an almost permanent vibrational population inversion in where there are more molecules in the surface of the earth that are excited rather than in their ground state. How else could he insist that, on average, ‘low’ frequency IR photons are not absorbed by the surface of the earth? If being in an excited state stops such a process, most molecules must be in such an excited state, right?
Wrong. That is about as nonsensical a statement as one can make. If what he is saying were true, we could make a laser of the earth. I’m not seeing the ‘earth-laser’ in the near future.
On top of that, it’s not as though each molecule only has one excited vibrational state. Each electronic manifold has many, many such states, each with its own selections rules for absorption of IR light or scattering of light. So even if the molecule is in an excited state, it can still absorb a photon of the appropriate energy to excite vibrational population to an even higher lying excited state.
Because we are discussing vibrational transitions on the electronic ground state manifold, we do not have to take into consideration the topology of the potential energy surface itself. That means almost all of the overtones (excited state transitions) are of about the same energy as the fundamental. That means that the energy emitted by the decay from the first excited state will be very close to the energy necessary to make the transition to the second excited state from the first.
That’s a great deal of quantum mechanics, but the point is that his premise is wrong to begin with, so whatever conclusions he makes with it are incorrect.
On top of THAT, since he is discussing temperature, we can ask what the energy in a photon that excites the asymmetric stretch of CO2 corresponds to. Using Einstein’s equation and making an equality with the thermal energy from the Boltzmann constant, we find that such a photon has the equivalent of over 1000 K. When we follow his logic (ground to warm to absorb ‘low’ frequency IR light) it falters on the fact that a negligible portion of the earth’s surface is over 1000 K. Therefore, using his false logic, the vast majority of the earth’s surface should still absorb IR light emitted by CO2 molecules because those photons correspond to a temperature that is much, much hotter than the vast majority of the earth’s surface.
So not only is this guy wrong on the front of the greenhouse effect, he is wrong about the optical properties of molecules and the optical properties of materials like the earth. I’m happy I came across him though. I wouldn’t want his firm doing any work for me. Who knows what he’d tell him.
Can you follow all of that, or should I break it down for you even further?
Anderson writes:
“The Earth’s surface will not accept them since the excitable vibrational states are already excited and vibrating assuming that its temperature has not dropped since the returned photon was emitted by the ground. There simply is no available energy state able to accept it.”
Which is baloney. He seems to be unaware that temperature is an average, for one thing.
“You’re telling me that the ground can’t absorb photons corresponding to a temperature of 1000 K? Really?”
He he your post just made me think of a perfect household example for challenging (imho killing, but let’s see what aswer propoents of the no absorption can come in):
How can my microwave very efficiently heat my food, when it emits (a lot of) photons at very low frequency (2.5 Ghz, 10 cm wavelength, centered around the emission peak of objects much much colder than my food !!!)
Right, in the context of the effective photon temperature, this definitely defeats Dr. Anderson’s theory. The photons have an effective temperature below 100 K (I think) while the food is at room temperature.
maxwell,
“The photons have an effective temperature below 100 K (I think) ”
Note that term “effective” you use. Please get someone to explain what the significance of it is in respect to the discussion.
MW cookers are tuned to excite water molecules. That’s why the handle of the coffee cup is barely warmed while the liquid contents are strongly heated. I haven’t tried it, but I assume it would be hard to MW-heat Melba toast!
MW ovens heat materials with a strong absorptivity at the frequency of the oven irrespectively of the fact that the wavelength is long and the frequency far below the range of IR where the body emits most efficiently. In this respect there is no difference compared to the situation where long wavelength IR heats a hot body, whose emission peak is at much shorter wavelengths.
For the heating to happen we need radiation at any wavelength where the absorptivity is high. For the heating power the total power flux of the radiation is the determining factor, the wavelength is of no significance as long as the absorptivity is high. The temperature of the body has little influence on the absorptivity.
PP;
your English comprehension skills have failed you. Obviously I was talking only about absorptivity, and made no suggestion that it varied with temperature. But many materials (ceramics and glass, fortunately) are almost transparent to the MW’s Magnetron’s output! I assume, of course, that H2O’s absorption is related to its fingerprint wavelength. Is that not so?
In any case, your point does appear to me to contradict CP’s assertions. My understanding is that the 2nd Law relates only to net energy transfers between bodies at different temperatures. However, the RATE of cooling of a hot body would be lower if another object of intermediate temperature were inserted near it, warmer than the background. If it were colder than background, it would block some “incoming” IR and speed the hot body’s cooling. IMO.
One thing I think we miss is that one of the bodies should be passive (with no self-heating) if we’re creating an analogy to CO2 in the atmosphere. Can radiation from a passive body return heat to a hot body and make it hotter? It can affect the hot body’s rate of cooling, but it cannot make it hotter.
Ken
Yes that’s another way of looking at it.
Certainly the atmosphere at night is passive in that respect.
Ken,
it has to do with the energy balance. At thermal equilibrium, we are defining that the energy leaving a body is equal, on average, to the energy coming in. It seems like a stretch for the earth’s surface, but let’s make the assumption for argument’s sake.
So the earth’s surface is at thermal equilibrium by absorbing visible light from the sun and emitting IR light back to a mostly transparent atmosphere. Now we begin to add molecules to the atmosphere that can absorb the IR light emitted by the surface of the earth and, upon radiative decay, emit IR light back toward the surface of the earth. We have now changed the energy balance of the earth’s surface by adding MORE energy in. In response to this energy increase, the earth’s surface increases in temperature so that it can emit MORE energy to come to a new energy balance. This new thermal equilibrium is at a higher temperature than the previous equilibrium.
Does that make sense?
Maxwell
You are a genius! WOW!
I have a night storage heater which has a dial to increase the energy input and therefore increase the heat output. When it gets really cold I turn the dial up to get more heat out, but this cost me more money in energy.
Now thanks to your brilliance I have just worked how I can save myself a small fortune. I don’t why it never occurred to me before but then thats why we have superstar-scientists like you, so we don’t have to think for ourselves right?
Thanks to your genius I have realised that all I have to do is open up the front panel and stuff some more bricks in it. Then I will have changed the energy balance by adding more energy in.
I owe you one Maxwell. Big time!
I think you’re confused as to the analogous relationship between your heater and the earth. In fact, I’m certain of it.
By adding CO2 to the atmosphere, we’re changing the energy balance OF THE SURFACE!
Those are two different systems. You’ve taken this distinct, squashed and mixed concepts in your example to create a incorrect assessment of the possible energy balances and imbalances at the earth’s surface.
Well done.
Okay, Maxwell, I’m listening. Let’s imagine 2 black balls floating in space. One has an internal heat source and a constant temperature…the other is passive and a long ways away. Now we move the passive ball closer and closer to the active ball. Closer…closer…closer, then so close they touch.
During this process, what does the temperature profile of the active ball look like? At any time, is its temperature measurably greater than it was when the passive ball was far away?
Ken, let me save you some time here. Even Dr. Spencer claims the passive ball will cause the heated ball to warm slightly.
I don’t agree, but, there you go.
Ken – before I answer, how will the correct answer affect your perceptions about the greenhouse effect?
Well, Fred, here’s what I see. Joe Sixpack reads the headlines and saw An Inconvenient Truth, so he believes in global warming and thinks the earth will experience greater and greater temperatures because of increased CO2 concentration in the atmosphere. He thinks the earth’s peak temperatures are increasing and more and more temperature records will be broken as we SUV-boogie ourselves into blackened crisps.
Now Fred, you and I know it takes a certain amount of energy to heat up the active ball to a certain temperature and, in order for the active ball’s temperature to increase…additional energy must come from somewhere. And, we know the passive ball will not add energy to the active ball.
So, Fred, hit me with your best shot. I’m particularly interested the instant just before the balls touch when they are infinitely close, but not touching, then the instant after they touch each other.
You didn’t answer my question. How will a correct answer to your own question affect your thinking about the greenhouse effect? If it can be shown that the active ball will warm, will that change your mind about the greenhouse effect? If not, why not?
I don’t want to waste my time, so I need a commitment from you before I take the trouble to give an explanation.
That depends on what you mean by “shown”, Fred. If all you have is a formula or a theory or a weblink, then I’m not going to be very influenced. If you have test data, taken in a vacuum, that shows a passive object measurably increasing the temperature of an actively-heated object purely via ‘backradiation’, then I will rethink my life’s mission to attack and kill the sky dragon.
Ken – think about it a bit more. It’s late, but we could probably continue tomorrow. I have not floated any black balls in space recently, so you’ll have to do without “test data”. It’s actually very easy to show via principles that we all agree on that the active ball will warm. I’m prepared to do that. My own dilemma will be the following: suppose Ken claims that he is not convinced, for whatever reason, but it is clear that other readers of this thread without a stake in the outcome will find the explanation convincing, and will judge Ken accordingly for his refusal. Should I go ahead?
Well, we’ll see. That might be enough for me to proceed, knowing that perhaps someone else’s “life mission” will be profoundly altered for the better.
Who knows?
Ken,
You say: “in order for the active ball’s temperature to increase…additional energy must come from somewhere.”
and “And, we know the passive ball will not add energy to the active ball.”
That is not true. There is no doubt about the fact that the passive ball will add energy to the active ball as long as the passive ball is not as cold as the empty space. It will add the more energy the closer it is until it is brought into contact. At that point conduction enters and it starts to cool the active warmer ball through conduction.
Pekka
……”That is not true. There is no doubt about the fact that the passive ball will add energy to the active ball as long as the passive ball is not as cold as the empty space. It will add the more energy the close”……
An object (at say 200K) can only raise the temperature of another object if the temperature of the other object is less than 200K
If the other objects temperature is > or = to 200K its temperature cannot be increased by the first object.
ok, one last time: The temperature of the hot object is not increased by the cold object, it is increased by whatever heating mechanism made it hot (internal heater, the sun which is a much hotter object, a maser, pick yuor choice).
What the cold object does is reduce the cooling efficiency of the even colder surrounding of the hot object. Reducing this cooling efficiency allow the heat source (remember, pick your heating mechanism of choice, but in case of earth, it is the sun) to heat the hot object some more, until equilibrium heat_in = heat_out is once again reached, only at a higher temperature.
Really, it is so simple that I think there is a (selective and deliberate?) blind spot that prevent some to consider the external heating, who think somehow that all the heat have to come from the cold object. Nobody sane has ever clamed that a cold object will radiatively heat a hot object if there is not third object or some kind of ohter heating mechanims in the hot object, not for any though experiment, and not for GH effect for the earth.
I actually think we’re making progress. I am an engineer, so naturally I think in terms of getting useful work done and what can be practically measured and verified. Also, as an engineer (and not an academic), I get to discount small effects that are irrelevant to the job I’m trying to do.
If my job assignment was add heat an already heated ball, would I use a passive ball to do it? My boss would fire me for spending any time on that plan. If the effect can’t be measured, then it is something of the theoretical realm and not the practical realm. I don’t care about the theoretical realm…in that world there are billions of influences and arcane aspects to consider. Getting bogged down in them would make me a bad engineer…a slow and expensive man to work with.
So, how effective, in theory, can a passive ball heater be compared to a heated ball? Radiation is a crummy way to couple heat energy, but we’re in space and that’s all we have. My heated ball is radiating in three dimension (actually, four I guess if you allow the passive ball to modulate the heated ball’s temperature). As the passive ball is far away, how much radiation is it intercepting? It’s also radiating in three (or four) dimensions, so how much can it return? Let’s call it none.
We move the ball closer. The passive ball gets slightly warmer. It radiates a bit more. Let’s skip ahead to where things get interesting.
The passive ball is as infinitely close to the heated ball as it can be without touching. The straight line coupling between the closest point on the heated ball and the passive ball is infinitely short. That point on the passive ball is as close to the temperature of corresponding point on the heated ball as it can be. Let’s say, at that point only, the temperatures are equal. So, at that point what is the delta-T? And, at that point, what is the radiation intensity?
Now move away from that point of maximum coupling. The temperatures diverge, right?
I didn’t mention the relative ball diameters, but I don’t care. Let’s call them equal. Visualize it. Visualize the cone of radiation from the heated ball radiating the surface of the passive ball. How much? Not much. Now visualize the return radiation from the passive ball. How much of that cone intersects the heated ball? Not much. So, how effective is the heating created by the passive ball? A tiny fraction of outgoing heat energy coupled by radiation gets returned. It’s so close to zero that you can’t measure it. So, in the case of two balls coupled as much they possible can be…zero. Then they touch and conduction massively overwhelms anything radiation can do. In this case we say the action of conduction is the opposite of the action of radiation…and I’m not sure I buy that, but I’ll think that through later.
You say radiation from the passive ball heats the active ball. I think I agree in theory. But I don’t care about theory. I care about the real world. Due to errors of measurement and noise, you can’t measure and quantify the temperature increase. Once you live in a world where you’ll believe in things you can’t measure…you’ll believe anything.
For example, you’ll believe back radiation from materials with low density, low temperature and low thermal mass (like atmospheric CO2) can heat things with high density, higher temperatures and larger thermal masses (like sea water).
A single passive ball, Ken, would not heat the active ball very much, as you state. However, a very large multitude of passive objects completely surrounding the active ball, equivalent to a…. well, an atmosphere, would cause significant heating.
That’s what your formulas and models tell you, Fred. You believe it. That’s fine.
However, even the slightest, tiniest error in evaluating insolation and its linkage to surface temperatures would swamp out all the influence (and more) you attribute to 390PPM of CO2.
As ye give, so shall ye receive.
The atmosphere is being heated back by the surface. If the surface is warmer, it’s warming the atmosphere more than it is getting back. Continue until equalized, at which point Fair Trade takes over and no change occurs.
Ken,
Think of the passive ball as a reflector of radiation – well it isn’t really, but the effect is the same as far as the active ball is concerned.
The active ball is being heated by the source, but at the same time radiating energy. The energy it radiates is energy lost.
But some of that radiation is reflected off the passive ball and is so returned to the active ball, which means that the active ball doesn’t lose as much energy as it would were it not for the presence of the passive ball.
As the temperature of the ball will increase while Eout is less than Ein, the active ball gets hotter.
Ken,
Assuming an infinite temperature detection precision, I’d say that that both balls gradually get warmer as they get closer. When they touch, we’d have to know the heat conduction properties of the materials from which the balls are made.
But before such a point, however, each ball is taking in energy (from conduction from the internal heat source and from radiation) and emitting energy via radiation. As they approach each, more of the energy emitted from each ball is being absorbed by the other. Therefore, we are changing the energy balance of each ball. In response to changing this balance, the balls increase in temperature so that they can create a new balance by emitting more energy back to space and each other.
That is the simplest explanation of what is happening that I know.
Does that makes sense to you?
Yes, I’m with you. You have not convinced me the temp difference in the active ball is measurable and I’m still a little puzzled about how energy is conserved in this system, but that’s okay.
I think you guys would have been okay…you could play with SBL and radiative balance and study back radiation and had great, quiet academic lives…but the activists wanted to change the world and found you to be useful academics. The tough times you guys have coming is collateral. That’s unfortunate. On the other hand, you had your chance to denounce An Inconvenient Truth and the worst of the exploiters like Schneider, Trenberth, Hansen and Mann…and you were silent.
Ken,
‘You have not convinced me the temp difference in the active ball is measurable…’
We’d have to know the amount of internally supplied energy and the distance between, etc., but I’m not convinced we would measure it either.
More dramatically, however,
‘…but the activists wanted to change the world and found you to be useful academics.’
What are you talking about? I’ve never talked to an ‘activist’…well, besides you. I think that’s a totally inappropriate thing to claim when 1) you don’t my name, my work or even my opinion about climate politics 2) I am being as level with you on the topic of discussion here. I am not accusing you of anything illicit or demanding that you act in accord to my particular political beliefs on specific issues.
Why do you insist on demanding the same of me?
You’re right, Maxwell. You’ve been polite and helpful and I do appreciate it. I’m a bit revved up right now and that’s not your fault. My editorial comments were uncalled for.
In fact, to go even further, I will publicly apologize and send a $100 donation to the charity of your choice when you show me where you’re on record criticizing the alarmism and activism of An Inconvenient Truth. Fair enough?
You should search both Class M, A Few Things Ill Considered, and Island of Doubt for maxwell’s comments.
You should then take the $100 and donate it to Doctors without Borders. You can send me the receipt via email when you’ve done so.
If you need prove of my connection with this username elsewhere, I have emails from Coby Beck at A Few Things Ill Considered that connect me to it.
I’m a bit busy today, but the quote below is good enough for me. I apologize to you Maxwell and I will send $100 to DwoB (and prove it).
Usually figures like JFK jr and Al Gore are cited as people to believe or whose opinions on scientific matters are of value. It’s a bit depressing to me to so transparently see the newsroom editor’s bias, but that’s the way it goes.
–Maxwell at A Few Things Ill Considered
Maxwell, contact me at ken@stairwaypress.com and I’ll send a copy of the receipt…it’s done.
That can be your random act of kindness for the day if you like.
Nice one, Ken. Good for you.
I have new found respect for this process.
Thanks Ken.
Ken – many of the people who are arguing with you are non scientists and are skeptics. By accepting the science behind the GHE you are not forced to accept the rest of it!
I would add that some are scientists (well, for what it’s worth, PhD and have quite a few papers published in reviewed scientific journals – not climatology though) and are skeptics too…
Indeed some of them are published PhD scientists who are extremely sceptical of claims that claim to overturn well established and tested science like CJ (who has still avoided a calculation based on his theory). Not to mention claims that N2 and O2 can absorb IR in contravention of all measurements!
The N2 and O2 are heated by collision, which is umpteen orders of magnitude more frequent and likely than radiative cooling of CO2.
Claes, I have read your chapters, your comments here, and your blog post. There’s no maybe about it: you’re a crackpot. Physics departments around the world ocassionally receive manuscripts claiming to overturn 100 years of physics by misusing classical equations. Unfortunately your work reeks of this and the many, many selected quotations (Abe Lincoln?) don’t help. This is neither silence nor ridicule, just straight talk.
Thermally excited gas molecules in the atmosphere will radiate, even at night. Some of it will be directed downwards. This is your so-called “backradiation.” It should not require any equations to convince you of this.
Temperature is a statistical phenomenon corresponding to the average kinetic energy of a collection of particles. As many people above have patiently tried to explain to you, there will always be some molecules in a body ready to absorb an incident photon of the right wavelength, even if that photon was emitted by a body with a lower temperature.
These are basic phyiscal princples. If you don’t understand them all the equations in the world won’t help you. It’s like buttoning a shirt; you’ve put the first button in the wrong hole.
“Thermally excited gas molecules in the atmosphere will radiate, even at night. Some of it will be directed downwards. This is your so-called “backradiation.” It should not require any equations to convince you of this.”
David,
like others before you on this thread you have confused downwelling radiation with “backradiation”.
These two are not interchangeable atmospheric parameters that you can flip between at will. They must be separately defined as follows.
Downwelling radiation contributes NO net energy increase because it is energy which is already present in the system.
Back radiation MUST be accompanied by a demonstrable and measurable net energy increase.
Any crackpot can understand that.
http://climategate.nl/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/CO2_and_climate_v3.pdf
Will, the document you linked to does not contain the word “downwelling,” so I’m afraid I found it of little use. Your comment raises other questions. Like, if something is measurable, is it not also demonstrable?
Some radiation leaving Earth’s surface will be absorbed by the atmosphere, and some of that will be emitted back towards the surface. This results in a smaller net heat loss than if the process did not occur. But it does.
David,
the link is to a paper which demonstrates that there is NO net increase in T since 1975 in the unadjusted Radiosonde data which is accurate to 0.1º C. Unlike the surface record which has an error margin of 1.3º C and is, provably, arbitrarily adjusted to fit the AGW narrative at will.
The smaller net loss argument MUST be accompanied by increasing temperature above and beyond the natural signal. It has not been.
Furthermore your smaller net loss argument is falsified by the fact that adding CO2 can only increase atmospheric transmission to space not decrees it. This is substantiated by the Radiosonde data from the paper in the link I gave you. And has been demonstrated experimentally by myself.
Here:
“AGW Debunked again.pdf”
You are welcome to produce your own experiments if you think your results will be different. But you will not.
Instead you will just wave your hands proclaiming this simple test to be invalid.
But it is not. This simple £3.50 experiment has stood unchallenged bar the hand waving for more than 14 months.
What plastic are the bottles made from? Is it transparent to 15μm IR?
If not you’re wasting everybody’s time.
Phil, do you mind if I just ignore you know?
Now rather.
That’s up to you but your experiment is not relevant to AGW unless it meets the requirement I stated. So if you wish to have any credibility you’d better answer the question. Otherwise we’ll have to conclude that either you don’t know the answer or are hiding the truth.
Will, the paper you linked would be much improved if it included citations for statements like: “There is no radiative heat transfer from SST to atmosphere.” A paper prepared for publication would include such references. Anyway that statement is false. I stopped reading at that point.
Regarding your experiment, on the contrary, I applaud it, and the effort. I have some criticisms however. The main one is that the 1 deg. C effect is probably smaller than the error of a fishtank thermometer. I’d like to know other things, like was there the same volume of water in each bottle and what was the tempurature of the water.
So you are telling a Professor in Applied Mathematics that he is a crackpot.
Well well.
Not a very sivilized way of discussing mathematics and physics, is it?
Yes I am, because he’s wrong and won’t listen to reason. Besides, he said he was maybe a crackpot first. We just disagree about the maybe.
It doesnt make you look good attacking the person, instead of discussing the matters at hand.
Ah but I am discussing the matters at hand Kenneth. His statements and the concepts behind them. Have you really not seen that? Johnson has a lot of ideas that have no foundation, such as statistical thermodynamics doesn’t explain reality and physics can’t be explained with words. And when you call him on it, he deflects. That’s a crackpot.
Claes is trying to explain to you what he think is correct too. When you don’t agree, he does not call you a crackpot.
When he deflects, he is trying to be polite. My guess.
No, he’s not trying to explain. And he’s not being polite. “At least I use Maxwell’s equations.” Like I don’t? And he can call me a crackpot all he wants but it won’t stick, because I’m not the one going around saying statistical physics is bunk based on ignorance plus a misinterpretation of something Einstein said a century ago. But please, ignore all that and keep focusing my blunt language.
He’s attempting to overturn the science behind radiational heat transfer which demonstrably works in practical situations. The onus is on him to show that his formulation correctly explains observations without invoking radiation from the cooler body. So far he has avoided doing so.
Well crackpot or not, I at least base my statements on Maxwell’s equations.
Without equations anything is possible to say, but physics obeys equations,
not wishful commands in words.
Claes,
Equations are meaningful only when they are applied correctly. Anybody can write equations and make claims (and on these issues very many have indeed done that claiming almost anything imaginable), but without proper connection to the physical situation this is meaningless. Explanations that you have presented in your texts are almost always obscure, sometimes simply contradictory. With good will and some favorable interpretation some of them can be found to be correct, but in many cases this is not possible. Therefore your use of equations does not prove anything.
I use Navier-Stokes/Euler for thermodynamics and a wave equation for
radiation. What is wrong with these equations? Have you something better
in mind?
But you don’t base it on Maxwell’s equations. You say that the electric field is \ddot u , the acceleration of an oscillating charge.
But J C Maxwell said that the electric field is determined by
Div E = Q .
Maxwell’s equations don’t appear at all in your chapter.
The 1d wave equation I use is a model for Maxwell, which captures a good deal of the essence. Planck used this model in his derivation of his law,
but “in despair” resorted to statistics.
You really need the Maxwell-Bloch equations, which we’re available when Planck was around. You have to account for sources the EM radiation. The wave equation on its own won’t do the trick because we know we have sources in the atmosphere, as confirmed by over a hundred years of lab experiments.
The fact that you are not considering sources is likely why the solution you find is ‘unstable’.
Have you calculated the macroscopic polarization of the atmosphere under steady state conditions? If not, I’d say you don’t know what you’re doing.
…in fact, I may say it in either case.
Claes, that is nonsense. Equations are shorthand for words. I’ve explained two concepts concisely. If my words cannot be contradicted by observation or experiment, then no further words–or equations–are required.
So again, there’s no “or not” about it.
@David N…
Yes, “equations are shorthand for words”, except when words are in disagreement with science, I mean, real science.
Equations are still shorthand for words, even when those equations are in disagreement with science like Johnson’s are.
If you have a specific objection to the science I’ve explained I’d love to hear it.
I’ve tried to organize the data, so here it goes:
Crossing time-whole column of mixed air (r = 14 Km, wv = 0.04) = 0.0097 s
Crossing time dry atmosphere (r = 14 Km) = 0.0095 s
Mean Free Path-whole mixed air (r = 14 Km, wv = 0.04) = 20.78 m
Crossing time-water vapor at 0.04 (r = 14 Km) = 0.0245 s
Mean Free Path -water vapor at 0.04 (r = 14 Km) = 8.05 m
Crossing time-whole column of carbon dioxide (r = 14 Km) = 0.0042 s (4 milliseconds)
Mean Free Path-whole column of carbon dioxide (r = 14 Km) 46.77 m
Total aborptivity of the whole mixture of air (r = 14 Km, wv = 0.04) = 0.01
Total emissivity of the whole mixture of air (r = 14 Km, wv = 0.04) = 0.0096
Total absorptivity of dry air (r = 14 Km, wv = 0.04) = 0.01 (rounded up from 0.0099)
Total emissivity of dry air (r = 14 Km, wv = 0.04) = 0.0094
Total absorptivity of water vapor at 0.04 = 0.024
Total emissivity of water vapor at 0.04 = 0.0237
Total absorptivity of carbon dioxide at 0.0004, whole column = 0.0039
Total emissivity of carbon dioxide at 0.0004, whole column = 0.0039
Overlap water vapor/carbon dioxide, absorptivity = 0.024
Overlap water vapor/carbon dioxide, emissivity = 0.0235
These data is the base of both thermodynamics and Radiative Heat Transfer. However, it seems the advocates of the “downwelling” radiation heating up the surface and of the pretty-exaggerated “backradiation” don’t want to take them into account.
Thank you very much Nasif.
The emissivity and absorptivity of air at near-surface pressures is very high (close to unity) in the relevant wavelengths. Those are the wavelengths at which surface IR is absorbed and emitted by greenhouse gases – in particular, CO2 and H2O. Emissivity/absorptivity values outside of those wavelengths are irrelevant. To put it another way, the atmosphere is very far from being a black body in general (e.g., compared with a Planck distribution), but behaves like a black body in those parts of the spectrum where it is optically thick. This accounts for its strong greenhouse effects.
Fred, for having a near 1 emissivity, the air pressure would be at least twice the real pressure and its temperature should be about 5000 R. Attributing unreal exaggerated physical characteristics to air is the “error” of AGW idea. Almost all books on heat transfer and radiative heat transfer show the numbers I’m including here.
You know the purpose of the those air bubbles in packing bags is, and my post shows why.
That’s not correct. The relevant emissivity is at specified wavelengths. For example, the atmosphere is optically dense at 15 um, such that almost all IR emitted from the surface is absorbed (and emitted isotropically) within a short distance above the surface (probably a few tens of meters or less). If the atmosphere had high absorptivities/emissivities at all wavelengths, the Earth would melt. The values at the specific wavelengths are what account for the strong upwelling and downwelling radiation within the atmosphere itself.
These values are incorporated into the radiative transfer codes used to compute the effects of CO2 and H2O on the vertical temperature profile of the atmosphere. The computed results match observational data quite well.
Here is a relevant reference –
Spectral Emissivities
Fred… The reference you give is for saturated water vapor. Sorry… the calculations from your article are no related with a real atmosphere.
Of course they are, and the article refers to an emissivity of unity at the absorption maximum for CO2. I believe you should revise the descriptions on your website to conform to real world emissivities that are relevant to greenhouse effects. Emissivities described without reference to wavelength are essentially meaningless in this regard. It is certainly acceptable to mention them, but after that, you should then cite the emissivities in the IR wavelengths of relevance to the greenhouse gas absorption spectra. These are very high.
No, they are not… Begining from the fact the formulas they applied are not the adecquate formulas.
The formulas I applied for my calculations are the same formulas derived from experimantation by many physicists.
I suggest you, Fred, to visit the references I give in my website cause their authors support what I say in my article. No where, in this world, I mean the real world, we have a 0.04 atmospheric water vapor with an emissivity of 0.7, neither a blackbody CO2. The numbers I provide are real, coming from experimentation, they are not the outcome of idealized systems.
Nasif,
it is common knowledge that reflectivity, emissivity and absorptivity are all frequency dependent parameters of any gas, liquid or solid. Given that these parameters are fundamentally based on quantum mechanics and the structures of each gas, liquid or solid is different, these parameters HAVE to depend on frequency. That’s why the index of refraction of a material, from which ALL optical properties of a material can be derived, depends on frequency.
You really don’t know what the hell you’re talking about do you?
maxwell…
I do know exactly what I’m talking on. You’re who doesn’t know that we live in a real world. Wavelengths and frequencies were taken into account in the experiments.
Just answer a single question:
Is CO2 a blackbody?
Nasif,
you have to be more specific.
Is a single CO2 molecule a blackbody?
No, there aren’t enough degrees of freedom.
Is a collection of CO2 molecules at a finite temperature a blackbody?
Not exactly because such a collection would not absorb at all frequencies, but it would be much closer to a blackbody.
Furthermore, the sun is a collection of ionized nuclei floating under a sea of electrons, interacting in such a complex manner we are basically mystified at what the sun does most of the time…but the output of that complex collection of atoms, nuclei, electrons and plasmas puts out a distribution of energy that looks a lot like a blackbody spectrum.
There are gradations in questions and understand that you have to neglect in order to get the result you want. I’d say that’s not science.
“These values are incorporated into the radiative transfer codes used to compute the effects of CO2 and H2O on the vertical temperature profile of the atmosphere. The computed results match observational data quite well.”
Then why has there been no warming for the last 15 years? Where is the “match?” Something must be “overshadowing” these effects (or they don’t exist). What?
What are you talking about?
Help me out. What does “no warming” look like?
JCH
blockquote>What does “no warming” look like?
I will help you out.
“No warming” for the last 13 years looks like the following!
http://bit.ly/i4dw4r
Why get bogged down in the greenhouse effect theory. It is like the debate on how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.
Why not instead look at the data?
Here is the global mean temperature anomaly (GMTA) and CO2 emission data.
Year GMTA (deg C)
1998 0.529
1999 0.304
2000 0.278
2001 0.407
2002 0.454
2003 0.467
2004 0.444
2005 0.474
2006 0.425
2007 0.397
2008 0.329
2009 0.437
2010 0.468
From the above data, average global mean temperature for the period since 1998, for 13 years, was flat at 0.4 deg C with zero trend for the period.
Year CO2 Emissions (G tons)
1998 6.6
1999 6.6
2000 6.7
2001 6.9
2002 7.0
2003 7.3
2004 7.7
2005 8.0
2006 8.2
2007 8.3
http://bit.ly/gIkojx
From the above data, total CO2 emission for the period from 1998 to 2007 was 73.3 G tons.
According to the observation, the effect of emission of 73.3 G tons of CO2 into the atmosphere in the global mean temperature anomaly was Zero.
Conclusion: Human emission of CO2 does not cause global warming.
Girma
Can I ask, why 13 years?
(ie, Why start in 1998?)
Do these results hold for longer spans of time?
What are the error bars on your figures?
The confidence level of your conclusion?
And, hey, 73.3 Gtons of something were dispersed arbitrarily into the air without limit, control or consent…
Why does this not disturb you in and of itself?
Bart R
Thank you so much.
I assume that you concede that the data does not support “catastrophic man made global warming?”
First, let the scare mongering stop and then we will start taking about “limit, control or consent…”
Girma
I assume that you concede that the data does not support “catastrophic man made global warming?”
First, let the scare mongering stop and then we will start taking about “limit, control or consent…”
a) Where did I mention catastrophic or scary anything? Is this some explosion of the ‘disturb’ question to unintended proportions?
b) This accusation of scaremongering you toss about so defamatorily and so easily when simply questioned about your statistical methods and opinion of the scale of the numbers you provide, how is it meant to be productive?
c) Concede based on your arguments and presentation? Yours are some of the weakest and most transparently prejudiced claims I’ve seen on either side of the debate, frankly; while I’m going to go out on a limb and avere that I remain skeptical of many claims on both sides and find some claims on each side well worth studying, your claims in particular do not excite in me cause for concession. More.. the urge to return to my old teaching mode and attempt to address the errors in an energetic and interested scholar because they are so grating.
You have elected a troublingly brief and complicated dataset to rest your ‘proof’ on.
I am seeking the traditional guidance from you of an audience for an analyst.
There is over a century of data you have excluded from your analysis. Please explain why.
Your initial point is suspect due to extrinsic conditions many have observed about it before when used elsewhere by others, for example its known oceanic cyclic effects. Please explain how you meet these objections.
Your dataset has, relative to its range, a large error bar; how do you handle this?
Many others have done analyses on the same data. Please walk me through two or three such analyses from each side of the debate, other than your own, comparing your techniques and conclusions to theirs, so I may put your claims into context and judge your ability to critique on the subject.
Or at least answer even one objection or criticism from any honest student of mathematics about why you so abuse statistics to subjugate so obviously to your preconceived opinions?
> Why start in 1998?
Because by taking that year Girma can claiming that the trend is slowing down since that specific year. And since the acceleration of warming has stopped, warming has stopped.
In case you believe my interpretation is wrong, see for yourself:
http://rhinohide.wordpress.com/2011/01/17/lines-sines-and-curve-fitting-9-girma
Here: http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/02/15/global-warming-insignificant-years-admits-uks-climate-scientist/#
Here:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2011/01/dec-2010-uah-global-temperature-update-0-18-deg-c/
Is the trend you show statistically significant?
@maxwell…
No, there is no gradations… and the answer is only “one”, it is yes or it is “not”… Whatever the level you chose; I repeat, is the CO2 a blackbody, yes or not?
From your answer, I assume you’re saying it’s not; consequently, physicists and I are right on our numbers, you and those authors are wrong.
Fred,
You have to demonstrate the argument is wrong through your own calculations. Blah, blah, blah doesn’t work here. Thanks…
Lucia has proposed an experiment
http://rankexploits.com/musings/2011/cjs-new-radiative-physics-what-would-it-predict/
In support of alternative perspectives, and Claes Johnson, I have posted a technical note explaining why we should be sceptical of the Stefan-Boltzmann equation. http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2011/02/a-note-on-the-stefan-boltzman-equation/
Oh god, when will it stop?
When you accept yours is pseudoscience… fabricated science.
My science is such psuedoscience that the operation of all of the electronics you use on a daily basis is based upon it. What of what you use on a daily basis is based on your formalism? Or Johnson’s?
The answer continue to stare you blindly in the face, yet you continue to shut your eyes muttering the same garbage over and over again.
Maxwell, maxwell… my science is found in scientific literature everywhere. Yours is based only in the internet.
N N
One of the first computer programs I wrote as a student relied on data from a table in a textbook.
It was a total failure. Try as I might, I could not make the program work.
No matter what I did, the computer’s arithmetic logic came to a different conclusion than this table, which had been used for many years and reproduced in scientific literature over and over again, so must be right.
I mean, who would trust logic over a published authority?
Well, it will not stop untill the warmers, lukewarmers, almost warmers, etc. can find some EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE for an “atmospheric greenhouse effect.” That means at the very least a CORRELATION between GHGs and temperature. There is NO SCIENCE HERE! No falsifiable hypothesis. No data, only models. NOTHING! Radiation cartoons and GCM’s are not empirical evidence. Nor are endless IR spectra. Nor are temperature measurements (which are going the wrong way–so sorry to report this to the true believers). Nor are endless arguments among physicists, as is occuring here. We need clear EMPIRICAL evidence of an increased warming due to CO2. It has not been forthcoming, and probably will not in the future. We cannot even explain the RWP, Cold Dark Ages, MWP, LIA, let alone the Modern Warm Period (if there is really one after considering all the disgusting “adjustments” made by NASA and CRU!)
Back to the drawing boards, you warmistas! The king has no clothes on!
How about Tearth >> Tmoon.
JAE
Please assist me in addressing your request by providing examples of the empirical evidence and standards you used to accept or reject (validate) this evidence for “..the RWP, Cold Dark Ages, MWP, LIA,..”
As your screed stands now, it either uses a new definition of the word ‘clear,’ or is self-falsifying.
Bart: First, you don’t even need data; you can just read the history books. But if you need data, you can look here for the MWP: http://co2science.org/subject/m/subject_m.php
Here for the LIA:
http://co2science.org/subject/l/subject_l.php
and so on (see the subject index here: http://co2science.org/
jae
It seems you do use a new definition of the word ‘clear’.
If you don’t need data, then it’s certainly not going to qualify as evidence to a scientist. I can think of no case where a history text qualifies as empirical evidence, except possibly if one is testing the paper for the concentration of dioxin compounds or the ink for inclusions of mercury.
If you would accept history texts, but reject arbitrarily Dr. Seuss and other works of similar merit and veracity, one must conclude you have a double standard.
Further.. not to malign co2science.org too much, but the same argument applies. The interpreters of the reports compiled there have a known bias, their interpretations carry this bias, their data selection carries this bias, so one must be more, not less, skeptical of information caught in the halo of prejudice.
When looking at the proxy candidates proposed by the various reports collated by these biased interpreters, one finds none within one sigma of that of the present temperature record, and most appear to be of the same CI or lower of commonly proposed evidence for the opposite of the interpreters’ claims.
In the case of multiple conflicting poor reliability datasets, and a readily available group of better reliability datasets, what reasonable person would do as you have urged and reject the better reliability data to embrace the worst ones?
You make an argument absurd and self-falsifying within one step.
Your post is a stream of consciousness like meander through several aspects of thermodynamics, an incorrect assessment of solid state physics and engineering tidbits…but there is nothing in it all that raised my eyebrows with respect to the Stefan-Boltzmann law.
I mean, you state that it’s not applicable in all situations, which I admit, is a shocker. But everything else is basically innuendo.
Most entertaining was the statement,
‘Heat transfer by radiation is really only applicable to a vacuum.’
Apparently you’ve never sat by a fire or a space heater. You’re really missing out.
I’m just glad you filed that under news and opinion, and not science.
Nevertheless, it is pure (clear) science… perhaps your science magazines are not science cause your read them in the toilette?
Good one Nasif! He’ll be here all week, folks.
Hey, hey, hey,
Let’s raise the bar a little, shall we.
Jen: thanks for that link. Maybe, hopefully, it will cause some of the know-it-alls out there to review the facts. Maybe not, since there are so many that are so committed to their “facts” that they cannot objectively look at alternative “facts.” Until we have some kind of clear evidence of a CAGW problem, we should not let a bunch of crazed environmentalists ruin our world. If those folks did not smoke so much pot, I would trust them more :-)
JAE,
‘Maybe, hopefully, it will cause some of the know-it-alls out there to review the facts.
Why don’t you give us an overview of the ‘facts’? I would be very eager to hear what they are if they are not what I have learned over the course of a decade doing physical science research.
JAE:
“……we should not let a bunch of crazed environmentalists ruin our world.”
There’s plenty enough to be skeptical about without having to denounce the basic science of the greenhouse effect. I feel that you are very much in the minority of the denizens (who are predominantly skeptical after all). In itself, that’s nothing to worry about but it might give you some pause for thought and a more careful consideration of what is being said.
We should also be skeptical of gravity. After all, that flying bird is clear evidence that it can’t be true.
http://ourchangingclimate.wordpress.com/2010/01/06/a-quick-n-dirty-guide-to-falsifying-agw/
DEBATING ABOUT HOW MANY ANGELS CAN DANCE ON A HEAD OF A PIN
Instead of the above, let us look at the data.
Total human emission of CO2 for the period from 1910 to 1940 was 30.21 G ton.
Total human emission of CO2 for the period from 1998 to 2010 was 73.32 G ton.
http://bit.ly/gIkojx
When human emission of CO2 was 30.21 G ton, the global warming rate for the period from 1910 to 1940 was 0.15 deg per decade.
http://bit.ly/9kJczm
When human emission of CO2 was 73.32 G ton, the global warming rate for the period from 1998 to 2010 was zero.
http://bit.ly/i4dw4r
According to the data, human emission of CO2 does not have any effect on the global mean temperature.
It is pure waste of time to debate about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. Instead let us heed the observed data and reject the theory of man-made global warming.
Girma Orssengo
Plot the graph from 1996 to 2010 and you get a completely different answer don’t you, but you already know that don’t you.
When you calculate the slope (trend in our case) of a profile, the start and end points must be between successive local maximum and minimum.
As shown in the following data, about year 2000, was a local maximum.
http://bit.ly/c0Jvh0
So year 2000 is the start point for the calculation of trend for the current cooling phase.
Also, for your future trend calculations, here are the start and end points:
Years 1880, 1910, 1940, 1970 & 2000
And hopefully 2030!
sez who?
When you calculate the slope (trend in our case) of a profile, the start and end points must be between successive local maximum and minimum.
Perhaps the best evidence for global warming is the extraordinary lengths to which skeptics have to go in redefining science.
The reason the temperature has those peaks and troughs is because of the ocean oscillations. This is spelled out with a closed form formula for the violet curve in this graph, which closely tracks the actual temperature.
The terms in the formula for the violet curve are based on the observed behavior of the ocean oscillations along with the Arrhenius formula for temperature as a function of CO2, and the Hofmann formula for CO2 as a function of time.
Fitting trend lines the way you’re doing it is simply playing with meaningless straight lines that make no attempt whatsoever to understand what causes the temperature to behave the way it does.
And hopefully 2030!
Your naively drawn trend lines may well say that, but a more careful analysis suggests that 2030 should turn out to be around 0.4 °C hotter than 2010.
Vaughan Pratt
Science is based on validated on theory. Your theory say “2030 should turn out to be around 0.4 °C hotter than 2010”. (0.2 deg C warming per decade)
I, a vehement and proud man-made global warming denier, say “2030 should turn out to be around 0.3 °C COLDER than 2010”.
http://bit.ly/cO94in
How about this: If your projections are closer to the observation, we accept man-made global warming. If the skeptics projections of slight cooling is closer to the observation, we reject man-made global warming.
What is wrong in advocating the accepting or rejection of a theory only after comparing projections with observations?
What is wrong in advocating the accepting or rejection of a theory only after comparing projections with observations?
Nothing whatsoever. You fully expect the temperature to go down over the next 20 years. I fully expect it to go up over that period. If in 20 years time the temperature has gone down by 0.3 °C with no other evident cause than simply the failure of the global warming theory, then I would join you in rejecting the theory of global warming.
An example of an “evident cause” would be an asteroid or giant meteor or megavolcano throwing up so much dust or ash as to blot out the Sun long enough to greatly lower the temperature relative to what science projected. If that happened then it would be unfair to reject the theory of global warming on that ground.
Vaughan Pratt
If you are given the following global mean temperature pattern, what would be your projection for the next 20 years?
http://bit.ly/c0Jvh0
If you are given the following global mean temperature pattern, what would be your projection for the next 20 years?
I don’t base projections on data alone, and I don’t base them on theory alone either. Until the data and the theory support each other, at least one of them must be wrong. Until you’ve figured out which of the theory and the data is to blame for the discrepancy, you can’t trust either and therefore projections from either are meaningless.
In the case of the red curve you ask about, what’s the theory behind compressing, detrending, and offsetting? Without knowing that it’s impossible to predict what the next 20 years of it would look like. It’s like asking what’s the next number in the sequence 3,5,7. If you said 9 I’d say “wrong, the next odd prime is 11.” But if you said 11 I’d say “wrong, the next odd number is 9.”
You can’t make reliable projections from raw data without an underlying theory. Correlations may give some idea, but they’re trumped by theories of what’s causing what and that are consistent with those correlations, like the competing odd-prime and odd-number theories of the data 3,5,7.
In the case of the HADCRUT3 data, there exists a theory that is in good accord with the data. I therefore don’t have to trust either one of them by themselves. The black curve labeled Residue accomplishes two things. Because it did not stray far from zero over the last 160 years, it tells me that theory (the violet curve) is in good accord with the data (the red curve, smoothed to remove short-term events that are irrelevant to long-term global warming). But because it does fluctuate by up to 0.05 °C with rare excursions beyond that, it also tells me not to place too much trust in the violet curve in placing bets on the future since it may off by 0.05 °C and I’d lose that particular bet.
Long term however, as long as the black curve continues to behave as it’s done for 160 years, I would end up ahead if I used the violet curve as a betting guide.
And it is at least plausible that the black curve will stay roughly within those limits for at least the next 20 years.
It’s certainly more plausible than any of the many straight lines you seem to think count as a model. None of the physical phenomena contributing to long-term global temperature are well modeled by straight lines, so there is no point trying to make straight lines fit somehow to the data. The ocean oscillations are reasonably well modeled as sinusoids (that’s why they call them oscillations) while the CO2 contribution is a “log of raised exponential” shape as per the theories of respectively Arrhenius and Hofmann.
Your “trend-line” theory of climate is a Procrustean bed.
Detrending is done to clearly see the oscillation component of the global mean temperature. The linear warming f 0.6 deg C per century removed by the detrending can be added latter to the oscillation component. As a result, the detrending does not remove anything from the global mean temperature.
Compressing removes short-term noises from the data.
Offsetting is just a translation and does change the data.
Again the following global mean temperature pattern was valid for the last 130 years, and it is reasonable to assume the pattern will be valid for the next 20 years. This means that we will have global cooling until 2030.
http://bit.ly/c0Jvh0
Vaughan, by the way this issue has been discussed in PIVATE by the team:
1) “Be awkward if we went through a early 1940s type swing!”
http://bit.ly/9p2e5m
2) “I think we have been too readily explaining the slow changes over past decade as a result of variability–that explanation is wearing thin.”
http://bit.ly/aMJ6OQ
3) “The scientific community would come down on me in no uncertain terms if I said the world had cooled from 1998. OK it has but it is only 7 years of data and it isn’t statistically significant.” [This statement was made 5-years ago and the global warming rate still is zero]
http://bit.ly/6qYf9a
4) “The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.”
http://bit.ly/7jJE0X
No one doubts the existence of global warming or global cooling. Both have been occurring for billions of years. What many doubt is the absurdity of catastrophic man-made global warming (still unproven) triggered by minuscule emissions of a life-giving atmospheric plant food.
In apolitical science, when a theory fails even once it is rejected.
Why not man-made global warming?
Tax cuts always pay for themselves?
Girma: Total human emission of CO2 for the period from 1910 to 1940 was 30.21 G ton. Total human emission of CO2 for the period from 1998 to 2010 was 73.32 G ton.
Anyone familiar with atmospheric CO2 can see at a glance that these numbers are way too low.
Your claimed 30.21 G ton of CO2 for 1910-1940 is actually 110.77 G ton.
And your claimed 73.32 G ton of CO2 for 1998-2010 is impossibly low, even just for 2010 alone it was 30 G ton! The correct figure for 1998-2010 is 356 G ton. You’re as far off as Ferenc Miskolczi when he got a figure for the kinetic energy of the atmosphere that was a factor of five too low.
When arguing against global warming you may find it safer to avoid arguments with numbers in them. You and numbers don’t seem to get along very well.
Your understanding of climate is also nonexistent. You appear to be unaware of both the 56-year Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation and the 75-year or so Pacific Decadal Oscillation, which have drifted into phase in the past century to create large swings in global temperature that pretty much completely masked the CO2 warming prior to 1980. Only after 1980 did CO2 reach a sufficiently high level to start sticking out like a sore thumb.
Vaughan,
I think the issue is that you are talking about CO2 weight and Girma is talking about Carbon weight and unwittingly wrote CO2. I freaked when I saw your 30GT figure and looked it up. I am used to the 8GT figure also but it is for C not CO2!!
When arguing against global warming you may find it safer to avoid arguments with numbers in them. You and numbers don’t seem to get along very well.
Apparantly this is ubiquitous
and 1 m2 of atmosphere weighs about 10000 kg (10 tonnes).
Apparantly this is ubiquitous: “and 1 m2 of atmosphere weighs about 10000 kg (10 tonnes).”
I’m not sure what’s troubling you here. Earth’s atmosphere has a mass of 5.148 * 10^{15} tonnes, and the area of the Earth is 0.510 * 10^{15} m2. Hence per square meter the atmosphere weighs about 10 tonnes. If you think this arithmetic is wrong then please supply the correct answer. This quantity, 10 tonnes/m2, is needed in computing how long it takes 0.53 kW/m2 to raise the temperature of the atmosphere by one degree.
Due to the 3dns problem the “state of art “GCM substitute the third full ns equation with the hydrostatic approximation.The trade off for this is idealized geometry ie equal meridians of longtitude and latitude and a surface area of 500 mk^2.
Hence your skeptical calculations must be incorrect.
Hence your skeptical calculations must be incorrect.
I didn’t understand all that, but in any event you still haven’t said what the correct answer is.
A pressure of 1 bar or 1000 hectopascals (= millibars) is exactly ten tonnes/m2. The actual atmospheric pressure at the surface of the Earth is generally reasonably close to 1 bar, and varies somewhat, making ten tonnes a reasonable figure for the mass of a square meter of atmosphere. I truly don’t understand what you’re complaining about; all we’re trying to do here is estimate about how long it will take 0.53 kW/m2 to raise the temperature of the atmosphere by one degree. I get a little over 5 hours. If you get something different then tell us what you get instead of just complaining about what you believe to be errors.
kuhnkat
Yes it is G tons of carbon (not CO2)
http://bit.ly/gIkojx
***********************************************************
*** Global CO2 Emissions from Fossil-Fuel Burning, ***
*** Cement Manufacture, and Gas Flaring: 1751-2007 ***
*** ***
*** June 8, 2010 ***
*** ***
*** Source: Tom Boden ***
*** Gregg Marland ***
*** Tom Boden ***
*** Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center ***
*** Oak Ridge National Laboratory ***
*** Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37831-6335 ***
***********************************************************
All emission estimates are expressed in million metric tons of carbon.
Restating 1998-2010 for carbon instead of CO2 reduces the 356 figure to 97 GtC. The number 73.32 GtC is for the period 1998-2007.
In any event, not taking ocean oscillations into account is guaranteed to give strange results. The combined amplitude of the two ocean oscillations during 1910-1940 is around 0.12 °C (so a total swing from trough to peak of 0.24 °C), which accounts for more than half the swing from 1910 to 1940.
Here’s a budget for each of the following two 30-year periods, based on the formulas and graphs given here.
….. 1910-1940 . 1970-2000.
AMO 0.24 °C . 0.15 °C
CO2 0.10 °C . 0.32 °C
AER 0.08 °C . 0 °C
TOT 0.42 °C . 0.47 °C
GtC . 30.21 .. 172.14
AMO denotes the temperature rise caused by the two ocean oscillations. CO2 denotes the temperature rise caused by GtC emission. AER denotes aerosol or other induced cooling or warming, typically with warming resulting when there are fewer volcanoes. TOT is the sum of these three temperature rises. GtC is the gigatonnes of carbon emitted during each of those 30-year periods.
The oscillations are drifting out of phase and therefore their sum is weakening.
GtC is increasing and therefore so is CO2-induced warming.
Aerosol/other cooling/warming seems to be rather random.
The upshot is that the total temperature rise for each period is somewhat similar, 0.42 °C vs. 0.47 °C.
Note that the GtC had to rise by nearly a factor of 6 to get the CO2-induced temperature rise to merely triple. That’s the Arrhenius logarithmic law at work.
Vaughan Pratt
Please help me in calculating the global warming rate for the period from 1910 to 1940 & for the period from 1970 to 2000? What are they? Can you please post them?
See the budget immediately above. The relevant formulas for ocean oscillations and CO2-induced warming are attached to the graph. The aerosols-and-other is everything not otherwise accounted for, which seems to have at least some correlation with volcanoes and perhaps aerosols produced during WW2 in blowing up entire cities.
So you don’t dare post the warming rates for the period from 1910 to 1940 & for the period from 1970 to 2000?
I thought you claimed you are good at numbers!
What are those two numbers?
Please no obfuscation.
This is the claim of the IPCC:
The current decadal global warming rate for the decade is less than 0.2 deg C per decade.
The current decadal global warming rate is even less than the 0.1 deg C per decade projection for the case if CO2 emission had been held constant at the 2000 level.
What is the current decadal global warming rate?
It is only 0.03 deg C per decade.
http://bit.ly/hE3vv1
The current decadal global warming rate is 1/6th of IPCC projection.
As a result, IPCC’s exaggeration factor is about 6!
Vaughan Pratt
Thank you for that.
That is close enough, but the actual values are 0.46 and 0.48 deg C.
http://bit.ly/i5ljFI
So you agree with the statement that the global warming from 1970 to 2000 is “similar” in magnitude and duration to that from 1910 to 1940.
As a result, the recent warming is not unprecedented or anomalous.
As this is what the data says, why the alarmism of man-made global warming, as similar magnitude and duration warming had happened before — naturally?
(Sorry about the delay here, I was out of the country for 2 weeks.)
@Girma As this is what the data says, why the alarmism of man-made global warming, as similar magnitude and duration warming had happened before — naturally?
I answered this here. The bottom line is that while the two numbers are almost the same, as you point out, they have very different causes. Whereas the first is mainly due to the upswing of a natural ocean oscillation, the second is mainly due to the exponentially increasing anthropogenic component of CO2.
The reason to be concerned about the latter and not the former is because oscillations average out to their center line whereas exponential growth keeps increasing. The oscillations have been going on for centuries, whereas exponentially growing CO2 is an entirely unprecedented phenomenon.
Anyone wanting to understand the laws of thermodynamics needs to visit this link:
http://www.uky.edu/~holler/CHE107/media/first_second_law.mp3
:)
Thank you, tallbloke! Very worthwhile link!
Go Claes!
So far I have not read anything in the comments that would force you to review your math.
I just finished reading a tome on quantum mechanics. (no I can’t do the math, popularization by a physicist) Based on my reading of his statements anyone trying to argue quantum mechanics better get out the Ouija Board!!
If Claes actually understands it well enough to use mathematics rather than statistics, few are going to approach it.
Well, I don’t understand Claes well enough to even comment, so I’m trying my best to shut up. I’m just a chemist. Color me dumb, if you will. But I have a strong hunch that there are a lot of know-it-all blowhards, here , and most especially at Lucia’s site, who also don’t understand him, but won’t admit it and are joining in the mob-mentality of bashing him, without ANY frigging facts! I will bet anyone a six-pack that the “opponents” are nothing but bare-assed progressives.
Is this what is causing that horrendous snowstorm back east? Everyone warming up their arm waving??
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Will | February 1, 2011 at 8:52 am |
Phil you are silly.
ALL substances above 0K emit IR. That is not controversial physics.
That certainly is controversial, gas molecules without a permanent dipole can not absorb or emit IR, basic physics of gases.
Your misleading statement has been repeated many times by the warmist’s but repetition cannot make it true.
It is a factual statement unlike your misrepresentation, as can be verified at any text on Molecular Spectroscopy (e.g. Harris & Bertolucci, Herzberg ).
Why are you here making such false statements and clouding the issue?
That would be you, I’ve had occasion to correct several misrepresentations by you in this thread.
Phil:
You fail to appreciate the distinction between correction and contradiction.
Are you familiar with temporary dipole moments ?
Phil,
that is a misapprehension I am under also. I was under impression that everything emitted IR also based on temperature. You are talking about GHG’g bond IR which is a different thing. Can you refer me to some physics text that will assure me that what you are saying is true??
My understanding is that larger molecules have more transitions so do have wider bandwidths for their planck energy than gas molecules. That does not completely remove the idea that gas atoms may emit also, only that their bandwidth will be limited.
Help??
kuhnkat | February 1, 2011 at 10:55 pm | Reply
Phil,
that is a misapprehension I am under also. I was under impression that everything emitted IR also based on temperature. You are talking about GHG’g bond IR which is a different thing. Can you refer me to some physics text that will assure me that what you are saying is true??
To absorb/emit in the IR a gas molecule needs a dipole, homonuclear diatomic molecules don’t possess a dipole and therefore can’t do so, N2 & O2 good examples and also monatomics like Ar. A linear, symmetrical triatomic like CO2 doesn’t have a permanent dipole but because it has a vibrational mode which bends the molecule it has a temporary dipole which does allow it to absorb/emit. Isotopologue molecules like N^14N^15 will show some very weak lines (~10^6 times weaker than CO2).
You can read about it in any text on Molecular Spectroscopy such as the ones I referred to above: Herzberg (the bible), Harris & Bertolucci, Barrow etc.
For an on-line version try http://www.astro.uwo.ca/~jlandstr/p467/lec5-mol_spect/lec5-mol_spect.pdf
they state “We conclude that a homonuclear molecule in the ground electronic state does not emit purely rotational or vibrational spectra by dipole radiation.”
The only way that si well developed and known to work includes back radiation.
I should work harder at promoting my theory based solely on those photons that escape from Earth to space. It neatly finesses the complexity of back radiation. The main reason it can do this is that we know what the temperature of the atmosphere is at all altitudes and therefore do not need to calculate how back radiation influences temperature; we just need to know it’s retained in the atmosphere as opposed to escaping to space.
In any event heating the atmosphere requires about 10 megajoules/m2 to raise the temperature of the atmosphere 1 °C, since the constant-pressure specific heat of air is 1.01 kilojoules/kg/deg and 1 m2 of atmosphere weighs about 10000 kg (10 tonnes). Even if we ignore the 0.531 kW/m2 flowing out of the atmosphere (333+169+30 W/m2), the 0.532 kW/m2 flowing into it (356+78+80+17 W/m2) will take 1.01*10000/.53 = 18800 seconds or over 5 hours to make a one-degree difference in a column that can easily vary by 70 °C from ground to tropopause. Taking into account the 0.531 kW/m2 flowing back out means that the changes are even slower. (Notice their difference of 1 W/m2 or 0.001 kW/m2 representing the non-equilibrium condition responsible for actual global warming.)
Temperature variation in the atmosphere due to lapse rates of 5-9 °C/km therefore completely dwarfs anything that GHG heating can do in the available time to change the temperature of the atmosphere. Global warming certainly heats the atmosphere, but it does it very very slowly, taking days or weeks to make any appreciable change.
This is a big part of the reason why one can completely ignore back radiation and work solely with the photons that escape to space, which ultimately is Earth’s only way of keeping cool. The photons that leave are gone within microseconds, those that don’t leave take days or weeks to have any appreciable impact at all on the temperature of the atmosphere, which therefore is more than adequately modeled by the adiabatic lapse rates alone without worrying about the impact of back radiation on temperature across the whole column of atmosphere.
Vaughan,
I was referring to the state where the basic physics has developed. By basic physics I mean things like quantum mechanics and theory of electromagnetic radiation. General relativity is also part of that although not needed here. Classical thermodynamics is a bit different, as it does not go into the actual physical processes but expresses laws that apply to macroscopic bodies. Thermodynamics is also different in the way that it can be derived from what I classified as basic physics, but not vice versa.
There is very much physics that describes macroscopic phenomena, but cannot be fully derived from basic physics, while physicists believe that it could be, if we were more capable in calculating the consequences of basic physics. The description of the atmosphere contains much that can be derived from basic physics, but also much that cannot. The subject of this chain is more or less in the first class.
Claes Johnson presents ideas and calculations that are clearly in the realm of basic physics. Part of what he presents is in agreement with well established and tested physics, part is clearly in contradiction. What makes his presentations a bit difficult to handle is that the second of them contains also parts, which might be correct or not, as they are presented with little justification, but they might indeed be related to an alternative way of describing valid physics. The idea of using classical electrodynamics (Maxwell’s equations) further than is usually done is not crazy. It might even work, but that would require much more research and the conclusions would certainly not be those presented in “Slaying a Greenhouse Dragon”.
If there is anything at all in this line of reasoning (it still needs to explain observed radiative fluxes), Johnson needs to submit this to a peer reviewed physics journal, and not publish in a politically motivated book that is full of crankology. His argument at present is incorrect and incomplete.
JC: ” a politically motivated book that is full of crankology.”
Wow-such insults!! Judy, please explain to all what my political motivations are? I can confirm several of the book’s authors, like me, hold explicitly democrat/socialist affiliations.
Also please tell us where the “crankology” is in the book? If the insults are as a result of your buddies doing so badly perhaps its now time for you to call in your A-Team – those “undergrad physics or atmospheric science majors at Georgia Tech” who you assured us at the outset would soon prove Claes a crackpot.
John, if you are only in this for the science, you are backing some very strange and lame horses. Apologies for being fooled regarding your political affiliation: I was fooled by your engagement with Canada Free Press – billed as an online conservative newspaper- and National Review.
Dr. Curry, do physics journals publish discourse like this? I thought they only published specific research results. This is more like a monograph, is it not?
Something like this could in principle be published in a physics journal as a theoretical development. But a more coherent argument is needed, cleaned up math, and it has to be correct and provide new insights. This seems to fail on all these fronts. I suspect that this would be published in a journal like E&E, which doesn’t even merit an impact rating by webofscience.
I ask because not being in a reviewed journal is a common defense of AGW. Much of the skeptical literature is analytical, not primary research.
Lots of different kinds of research get published, including critiques of other people’s papers. Getting published is a pretty low bar; of course getting published in a high impact journal has a high bar. E.g. I’m sure Johnson could get his paper published, just not in a physics journal or in any journal that is on the map in terms of impact factor
That high bar for the high impact journals appears to be quite variable.
I have made a comment to Judy’s claim that I am a “crank” if I don’t believe
in “downwelling IR-flux from the atmosphere” or “backradiation”, on my blog
http://claesjohnson.blogspot.com/2011/02/judy-curry-and-backradiation.html
While I try (emphasis on “try”) to avoid labeling people, I’d say that the following by you at your blog is pretty badly wrong. I’ll let Judge Judy decide whether that makes you something less than a Nobel-prize-winning scientist.
Is it correct to use SB in the form Q = sigma T^4? No, because this law gives the radiated energy from a blackbody into an environment of 0 K. But the Earth surface is not at 0 K, but even warmer than the atmospheric emitter. The translation Q = sigma T^4 is thus incorrect in the sense that it indicates a fictitious “downwelling IR flux from the atmosphere” obtained by an erronous translation.
This isn’t how Stefan’s law works. Radiation from any source does not decrease merely because what it is radiating into is radiating back to it even more strongly. It is completely independent of what it is radiating into.
I can’t think of anything to add to that.
Vaughan,
I hope I am not causing additional confusion by what follows.
The radiation can be looked at in the standard way that you and more all less everybody uses with visible light and IR, but almost nobody with low frequency radio waves. The radiation can, however, be analyzed as is done with the radio waves using Maxwell equations. In that approach the matter interacts with electromagnetic field and the field follows Maxwell’s equations. The gas is handled as media where the field propagates. The interaction with CO2 molecules influences the properties of this media and those modifications can be presented in the coefficients of Maxwell’s equations. This influence must represent correctly in accordance with quantum mechanics the vibrational properties of the molecules. In this approach the whole concept of photon may be superfluous. Building up this theory without violation with quantum mechanics may be difficult, but probably not impossible. There is even a change that, what Claes Johnson has done is a partially correct step in this direction. That is the reason for my way of presenting criticism and objections to what many others have written.
In this approach the back radiation is replaced by some properties of the media which lead to a similar change in net radiative flux. In this approach there is no back radiation but a reduction in “forward radiation”.
I am glad Pekka that you understand what I am saying. Many other show
zero absorbitivity.
Claes,
Perhaps I understand something, but that makes me to repeat, that the question is about an alternative formulation that must give the same results than other correct formulations. I have great trust in the conventional formulation. Therefore your analysis does not make me doubt the conventional results.
Including this kind of incomplete analysis in a politically motivated book attacking on correct science does not give value for your work. The other problem with your writings is that they contain so many sentences, which are either clearly in error or so obscure that nobody can tell, what you want to say.
Pekka, thank you for this summary, I concur.
I am not attacking correct science: I prove Planck’s law using a
deterministic wave-model. My wave model does not support any
idea of “backradiation”. What is incorrect with this?
Claes,
I believe I have stated in many of my messages, why I do not have much confidence in your results in spite of the fact that I accept the general approach.
But your model does not support heating by radiation that are at a lower freq than some cut-off frequency linked to the receiver T. This is a fundamental difference with classic theory.
How do you explain microwaves within your framework? They seem to very efficiently heat stuff at room temperature with very low frequency waves (2.4 GHz, 10 cm wavelength usually). If I get your theory right, such feat should not be possible because the cut-off at room T is much much higher than 2.4 GHz.
Or are you willing to invoque some coherence argument because the magnetron emit maser-like radiation instead of thermal stuff? Does not look too solid to me, and I am affraid you are getting dangerously close to experimental invalidation of your theory ;-)
kai,
Was this directed to me?
The general description about a potential new approach has no problems with that.
I cannot really answer on behalf of CJ, but I noticed that his statements about separating incoming and outgoing wavelengths were softened in formulas to the cutoff of the Planck distribution. This is one place were his text is worse than his formulas. There are many other examples and they make it impossible to judge, what he really thinks.
Sorry, I was adressed to C.J., I think as the author he is the most qualified to answer :-) But u are welcome to do it too, of course.
I speak about blackbody radiation, not forced EM heating, but I guess the principle is the same modulo the amplitude
of the incoming waves.
Could you elaborate on this? What do you theory predict? possible heating, or all the incoming low freq radiation can not be absorbed (i.e. it is either reflected, diffracted, or plainly reflected)?
If it is absorbed, I do not see how your theory significantly differ from classic theory, and all the fuss is about interpretation (still, I prefer classic interpretation, which offer a big advantage: the radiating body does not need to know the exterior temperature)
If it is not, why does microwave oven obviously work? Because there is a fundamental difference if the incoming waves are coherent single frequency? Then your theory has another disadvantage: it is less general, because it works only for thermalized radiation, and does not allow independent freq treatment or any kind of superposition….
No problem: it is included in my analysis. If the incoming
forcing is stronger than blackbody, the absorbing chicken will heat up until its blackbody radiation (assuming equilibration so that all freq have the same temp) balances
the incoming intensity.
Does your idea support the infrared emission by gases such as CO? if it does not, it is incorrect. There is a whole field of spectroscopy (chemists, mostly) that have demonstrated this empirically.
Pekka, my problem with this line of reasoning is that any theory of infrared radiation needs to explain what an IR spectrometer sees when pointed skyward in a cloudless atmosphere. This seems to have nothing to do with a reduction in “forward” radiation.
Judith,
That is not a problem in the alternative description. In this description electromagnetic field is present everywhere and its development follows Maxwells’s equations taking into account the influence of the media (gas with some CO2). When a measuring device is brought to such electromagnetic field it interacts with the field in full accordance with the empirical results observed.
The CO2 molecules influence the field and the field interacts with the detector. All this is familiar at longer wavelengths but it is true also for short wavelengths. The most practical way of performing the calculations varies, but the basic theory is the same.
Pekka, It seems to be a problem in Johnson’s description, he has not demonstrated that what HE has done can explain any observations, whereas the generally accepted theory explains the observations.
You have been very generous in describing a hypothetical good alternative description, which is a very idealistic (and IMO unsupported) view of what Johnson has actually done.
Judith,
I do not think that Johnson has done much of what I have described. I said only that there are some similarities and that the basic approach is not wrong. It could possibly be developed to provide many results in a rather simple way, but I doubt whether it would really add anything to the understanding of the atmosphere.
If further research along these lines is to produce interesting science it is more in understanding quantum mechanics and quantum filed theory than in understanding the atmosphere.
This is why I started my comment above by “I hope I am not causing additional confusion”.
For a theoretical physicist this line of discussion has some similarities with the argumentation between “orthodox” climate scientists and their skeptical critics. Criticism should not be condemned because it is on unfamiliar lines, but it can be discounted when found erroneous or lacking all justification.
I understand your point and it is a good one, but I suspect John O’Sullivan and Ken Coffmann do not understand the nuances of your position. But I also suspect that your willingness to consider this approach provides credibility to your statements in the eyes of O’Sullivan and Coffmann.
Judith,
The numerous possibilities of misunderstanding my position have led me to repeat many times that nothing in what I have written contradicts the conventional approach. It is only an alternative way of describing the same physics.
By back radiation I understand radiation that originates in the atmosphere and hits the earth surface (or some other surface facing the sky near the earth surface). The radiation affects the net energy balance of this surface in the same way in both descriptions. In the first description the net flux is the difference between the energies of all outgoing (emitted) and incoming (back radiation) photons. In the second description the same net energy is transferred to the electromagnetic field, which then carries it further.
Pekka,
I don’t really think those are two different approaches to this problem. Saying that one approaches uses photons while the other uses waves is just that, saying it.
Physically those two processes are indistinguishable. One can go through the process of counting each photon for fun or one can solve the Maxwell-Bloch equations to find the wave equation with sources. It’s still the same physics, however.
I think that’s the thing that is confusing here. It sounds like you’re saying there could be a physically distinct way of thinking about this problem that produces the same result (IR emission toward the surface by GHG’s), but supplies that result via a macroscopic vs. microscopic perspective, ie EM waves vs. photons. But our current physical understanding is that these two concepts are the same physical phenomena, just allowing us to interpret the results of different kinds of experiments differently.
But even if you went for the EM wave approach, you’d have to do quantum mechanics to calculate the elements of the density matrix to correctly calculate the macroscopic polarization of the source of the EM waves. So those two approaches are not independent in any sense. They just look different to the untrained eye who is willing to blather on and on about Maxwell’s equations.
If Dr. Johnson is proposing that there is some inherent physical difference because he’s solving Maxwell’s equations for macroscopic systems, he’s wrong. It’s still the same physical approach solving for the exact same physical quantities.
In my opinion, he is not even solving the right Maxwell’s equations because he will neither confirm nor deny whether he has derived the wave equation with or without sources of EM waves.
So I think to continue on this track that Dr. Johnson COULD be on to something important if it confirmed observations is hazardous, not only because he is fundamentally incorrect, but also because there would be nothing new about his deriving the macroscopic approach to the situation.
It was done 50 year ago in spectroscopy.
Maxwell,
By two different approaches I mean that the same fundamental equations are solved in very different ways. I have tried to repeat often enough that there is only one physical theory behind these two approaches, but the mathematical handling would be really very different.
The standard approach at the deepest level starts with perturbation theoretical methods of quantum electrodynamics and uses immediately Feynman diagrams to help in writing the required lowest order terms. This is known to be a very good way of doing quantitative calculations. The results can easily be expressed in terms of emission and absorption of photons originating at some positions and ending up at some other. It includes also transitions between vibrational states of CO2 etc.
The other approach has been used in laser physics where fields are relatively strong and coherence is an important factor as is stimulated emission, but not to my knowledge in situation corresponding to atmosphere. The extensive incoherence of separate transitions and almost full nonexistence of stimulated emission makes this approach rather useless for detailed analysis. My idea is that it might still be a potential alternative for handling atmospheric radiation. The approach would involve certain approximations not present in standard approach, but perhaps these approximations could be shown to be acceptable.
The mathematics is definitely different, and the approach is therefore not a minor modification of the standard method. Still the aim would be to solve the same basic equations with the expectation that the results are the same.
maxwell,
“Physically those two processes are indistinguishable.”
I wonder why those great scientists fought back and forth so long over the two apparently separate sets of physical attributes that have been ad hoc merged by quantum mechanics there bud.
Pekka,
thanks for the nuanced response.
As far as the two approaches go toward a meaningful end, I think you would agree with me that there is not a mathematically or physically distinguishable difference between the perturbative approach using quantum mechanics (either quantizing the field or treating it classically) when applied to atmospheric spectroscopy and the implications of spectroscopy.
There may be some high field limit in which, because of plasmas or other exotic forms of matter, there is some wave formalism that adequately describes what happens. But given that is a completely physically distinct situation, I think we would both agree, on the terms that Dr. Johnson is trying work, such a limit most likely does not matter.
kuhnkat,
I could waste a couple paragraphs explaining how you are mistaken in your understanding of the current standing of modern physics, but it would be just that, a waste.
Maxwell,
I am also sure your explanations would be a waste.
And the absence of CO2 in that analysis by Pekka speaks volumes as to where our book is coming from; the need for the IPCC’s politicization of a trace gas and to isolate CO2 in this process is superfluous, sinister and invalidated by Occam’s Razor. After a quarter of a century and $100 million spent trying to single out CO2 as a forcing agent we not only see no empirical evidence to substantiate the GHE we no longer see any correlation between temperatures and CO2 levels in the atmosphere (outside the period 1975-1998).
John O’Sullivan,
The potential approach that I have described is influenced by CO2 to the same extent and from the point of view of physics in exactly the same way as standard theory. It is only formulated differently in doing the calculations.
I believe that I was the first one to use the formulation “politically motivated attack on correct science” about your book in this chain. I have no reason to doubt the correctness of this formulation – or do you propose that it is published purely for the advancement of science?
Judith predicted that you will not be able to understand, what I have written. Evidently she was right in that.
If you have read what Claes has said here: http://claesjohnson.blogspot.com/2011/02/judy-curry-and-backradiation.html
You would know that he has stated quite clearly that quote:
” an IR camera (infrared radiometer) directed to the sky measures the frequency of incoming light and computes by Wien’s displacement law the temperature T of the emitter, and then by Stefan-Boltzmann’s law Q = sigma T^4 associates a “downwelling IR-flux from the atmosphere” of size Q.”
Perhaps addressing this statement would be a good place to start Judith.
This statement is absolutely incorrect, it if is referring to gases in the atmosphere. Gases emitting IR from the atmosphere are not black bodies (they emit in spectral bands), and hence the integral form of the Planck function (e.g. the Stefan Boltzmann) law is not relevant.
Do you see why I despair of critiquing this stuff? It is a hydra monster, you clarify ten things, then you start over and have to clarify these things all over.
Judith,
Clarify? Is that what you think you are doing?
Sorry but I have not observed much clarity in your responses to me so far.
The above statement by you is a case in point in my view.
Thanks anyway.
Sorry but I have not observed much clarity in your responses to me so far.
When a communication channel breaks down because the receiver can’t keep up with the transmitter, the blame could in principle be shared: the receiver for being too slow and the transmitter too fast.
In practice one specifies a rate for the channel, and the fault then lies with whichever end is out of spec: the receiver for being too slow for the channel or the transmitter for being too fast for it.
In this case Judith is both the transmitter and (as blog host) the specifier of the channel rate. So if you can’t keep up and she’s not willing to lower the rate just for you, I would suggest hanging out on blogs that are more your speed.
This statement is absolutely incorrect, it if is referring to gases in the atmosphere. Gases emitting IR from the atmosphere are not black bodies (they emit in spectral bands), and hence the integral form of the Planck function (e.g. the Stefan Boltzmann) law is not relevant.
A more precise statement might be that Stefan’s law is relevant only to the extent that the spectral bands are distributed reasonably uniformly across the bulk of Planck’s function at that temperature. The integral of Planck’s function is still Stefan’s law when you punch holes uniformly across the whole curve. It’s only when the spectral bands die away or stop abruptly, both being common behaviors, that Stefan’s law breaks down in any serious way.
Using Stefan-Boltzman to compute the amount of energy being emitted from CO2 is incorrect?
To rescue SB you have to use an emissivity/absorptivity is a strongly frequency dependent, essentially shoving the spectroscopy into that package.
Not really sure what you just told me. The previous comments made it seem like the issue was the narrow or very non-contiguous bandwidth of GHG’s and other non-planck emmisions?
How would you rescue it?
Why does everyone seem to use it to compute their favorite thought experiment energy transfer?
Although I’m way outside my league in terms of background in theorical physics, I’ll have a shot on this: if I’ve understood correctly, what has been written above about the alternative way of calculating the radiative energy in the form of radiowaves and Maxwell’s equations, this calculation is done to analyze the propagation of radiation and hence energy into certain direction; the source of radiation would be the surface of the earth, and the medium the athmosphere.
What you see from the spectrometer pointed skyward is the another direction; the source is the atmosphere.
Anander,
Maxwell’s equation describe electromagnetic field, which fills all space, but may vary strongly from place to place. When the wavelength is very short the equations lead to the result that the source (the emitting molecule) and the sink (the detector) must essentially have a free line-of-sight connection. Very short waves turn very weakly around corners, but this is a property of the solutions of Maxwell’s equations.
On the other hand we do not observe individual CO2 molecules. According to the Copenhagen interpretation what is not observed is not determined. Thus there is no deed to handle the atmosphere as a collection of molecules with well defined positions but it can be handled as a field of molecules, which interacts with the EM field. This is the approach of quantum field theory.
The standard description of what happens corresponds to the lowest degree perturbation theory described by the simplest possible Feynman diagrams that have the required interacting components.
Perhaps I stop here.
Thanks Pekka,
In your opinion – is it correct to say, that this approach (i.e. modeling the radiative transfer as fields and ultimately translating it into flux in/flux out) should and would lead, if correctly applied, to same results as the more standard way of doing it with fluxes (S-B)?
And if, when using this alternative way to model the radiative transfer, one finds out that there is either none or very little downwelling ‘backradiation’ one has probably just made some error along the way rather than a scientific breakthrough?
I admit I didn’t read the book either, and possibly wouldn’t understand (at least all of it anyway), but for me dismissing the effect of above zero-K gas above us is just insane — of course it matters. What is written here I get a feeling that is at least to some extent the central message out there.
IMHO we can at least calculate a reasonable average ballpark figure for the strenght of the backradiation given the composition and distribution of different gases and their relative temperatures. The main source for my sceptism (and probably for many others, too) is how this translates into changes in global climate as the change (just the change in dw radiation) itself is anyway quite small.
Anander,
You made the correct interpretation of what I mean.
The standard description of atmospheric physics is valid and there is no need to modify it. If two alternative descriptions are presented for the same physical situation then either they agree or at least one is in error. In this case the standard description is based on very solid knowledge and is with great certainty valid. If a new little studied alternative gets different results it is almost certainly in error. If the presentation is in addition incoherent and vague, the new results cannot be taken seriously even if there are some good ideas in the first steps of the new approach.
All that I wrote above applies to that part of climate physics, where the basic equations can be applied in a straightforward way. The validity of the rest must be argued differently and taking advantage also of additional empirical observations.
Backradiation exists but isn’t warming the surface. Isn’t this the crux of the entire argument?
The surface is warmer with the back radiation than without it, that is the whole crux of the greenhouse argument.
Judith may I just quote you in the interests of accuracy?
Quote:
“First, i have no idea what people mean when they say “back radiation”.
http://judithcurry.com/2011/01/31/slaying-a-greenhouse-dragon/#comment-36834
No, you may only include my quote in the context of the entire statement. If someone says backradiation does not exist, then I have no idea what they mean since some of the infrared emission from CO2 and water vapor in the atmosphere does travel back in the direction of the Earth’s surface.
Can you specify exactly how much of the re-emitted IR actually reaches the ground and how the probability of that changes with altitude and with regard to the curvature of the Earths surface. And how that reduction in probability by increased altitude of the re-absoption at the surface is factored in to the “greenhouse effect” hypothesis?
Thank you.
That’s a great question. I stepped outside just now and measured the backradiation from directly above reaching my deck at 210 W/m2. About 60 W/m2 of that would like be due to water vapor (it’s a dry sunny day) and 150 W/m2 to other GHGs, in particular CO2.
On cloudy days when it’s about to rain it’s more like 350 W/m2 (and that’s in winter at 37° N, you can expect a lot more at the equator). At least 250 W/m2 of that if not 300 would be from the clouds and associated water vapor, with only 50-100 W/m2 coming from other GHGs besides H2O.
The reason there’s less from the CO2 is that the clouds are blocking more than half the downradiation from the CO2.
The bottom line basically is that trying to figure out how much back-radiation reaches the surface is really complicated.
And completely unnecessary since backradiation is an unnecessary distraction when trying to figure out how much any given increase in CO2 can warm the Earth. Backradiation is nothing more than an indication of the general temperature of the sky above you. That temperature varies hugely with altitude, cloud cover, etc. Here in Palo Alto in winter I’ve seen it change from 10 °C to −40 °C in a mere 12 hours.
But given that the atmosphere gets colder with altitude, at a rate between 5 and 9 °C per km depending on how wet or dry the air is, even the huge fluctuations measured on the ground still don’t give the full picture of the thermal complexity of the atmosphere because you can’t measure lapse rate just from the ground. Trying to figure out the quantity and distribution of backradiation is tremendously complicated and a needless headache.
It is much easier instead to work with Earth’s goal of constantly shedding 239 W/m2 from the top of the atmosphere, which is the amount of insolation it is absorbing. Increasing atmospheric CO2 acts to shut off progressively more CO2 absorption lines in the atmospheric window. At 288 K, the middle 50% of that window is from 468 to 993 cm⁻¹, and at 390 ppmv about 600 CO2 absorption lines in that region are closed. Each additional 2% increase in CO2 closes about 3 more lines. CO2 is currently increasing at about 0.5% a year, so every 16 months sees another line closed. By 2060 that rate will be down to 8 months a line. CO2 has 25,000 lines in that region so there is no danger of running out of lines to close.
Closing does not happen abruptly but quite gradually with increasing CO2. I like to define a line as closed when it is blocking the escape route to space of more than half the radiation at that wavelength from the Earth’s surface. More commonly people use 1/e rather than 1/2 as the criterion but it’s somewhat arbitrary exactly where to draw that boundary; using either 1/2 or 1/e, about 3 lines close with each 2% increase in CO2.
Vaughan,
so what???
CO2 absorbs, collides transferring energy depending on local imbalance, either loses or emits or depending on excitation state.
Are you saying that closing lines prevents CO2 from emitting after gaining collisional energy and that H2O and other GHG’s can’t emit either?
Are you saying that closing lines prevents CO2 from emitting after gaining collisional energy and that H2O and other GHG’s can’t emit either?
Actually it’s the opposite. A line is open when it is too weak to interact strongly with radiation at that wavelength, both by absorption and emission; it’s as though there were no CO2 at that wavelength. When a line closes, CO2 then both absorbs and emits at that wavelength.
Other GHGs that don’t have a line at that wavelength don’t get involved with that CO2 line. From the point of view of radiation at that wavelength it’s as though those other GHGs weren’t there at all.
The open CO2 lines are those that are not strong enough at the current CO2 level to block at least half the photons from going straight from the surface to space. Most of the open lines let almost all of their photons through to space. They close like a very slowly closing water tap: as they get near the closing point the flow slows and pretty much completely stops after a while. The choice of half as the dividing line between open and closed is arbitrary; climate scientists prefer 1/e rather than 1/2 as the dividing line. Unity optical thickness of any medium through which radiation passes is standardly defined as when 1/e of the photons are getting through that medium. Ordinarily it is defined separately at each wavelength: a medium may have optical thickness 1 at one wavelength while having 0.1 at another and 10 at yet another.
I see, so the energy ends up in the local area and convects up to where it will radiate to space like the energy from the normally closed lines.
I keep wondering if we will ever see that hot spot with all those closed lines.
I see, so the energy ends up in the local area and convects up to where it will radiate to space like the energy from the normally closed lines.
Sort of. Radiation, convection, and conduction are all happening at all points, and the huge variability of clouds and water vapor, and the diurnal heating and cooling of clouds by the Sun, all make it unmanageably complicated to say what “the energy” is at any instant, or to say where exactly it’s going: it’s going off in all directions by all possible means. And even though radiation moves at the speed of light, the high thermal mass of the atmosphere in combination with the very low rate at which global warming shifts the atmosphere’s overall thermal equilibrium gives convection and conduction more than enough time to participate along with radiation in gradually adjusting the overall general temperature of the atmosphere.
The advantage of limiting the analysis of global warming to the 239 W/m2 of Outgoing Longwave Radiation (OLR) Earth must send to space to maintain equilibrium with the incoming 239 W/m2 of insolation is that that part is considerably simpler than the way heat moves around between the atmosphere and the surface. In fact we really only need to divide that OLR up according to the two places from which it was launched.
(a) The surface, via the atmospheric window (the part of the spectrum not blocked by some line of some GHG). Knowing which lines are closed (and for greater precision, by how much they’re closed) would make that part simple to calculate, were it not for clouds, which being essentially opaque to all relevant thermal radiation from Earth’s surface shut down the whole atmospheric window. But that’s fairly easily dealt with by determining what percentage of time the window is closed, for which there is quite enough data to make a good estimate.
(b) The atmosphere, via closed lines of GHGs which being closed both absorb and emit. The more of a particular GHG there is in the atmosphere, the higher the origin of those photons that make it to space because of the additional GHG molecules that now block the exit to space from lower molecules. However the higher the origin the colder the emitting molecule, and hence the lower the rate at which photons at any given wavelength are emitted from a molecule.
The photons that don’t make it to space are simply ignored as being part of what keeps the atmosphere warm, which as I said involves very slow processes which are therefore best analyzed from the point of view of an atmosphere that is basically in equilibrium albeit with large fluctuations.
So to summarize, wavelengths that are open (i.e. part of the atmospheric window) allow the most photons with that wavelength to leave for space. As any given wavelength is gradually shut down by increasing the GHG responsible for it, the OLR at that wavelength shifts from Earth-originating to atmosphere-originating. But as the GHG continues to increase, instead of the atmosphere-to-space photons of that wavelength increasing (as even some who should know better have claimed here), they decrease because they have to come from progressively higher and hence colder molecules, which radiate fewer photons of that wavelength (and of all other wavelengths but here we’re focusing on a single wavelength).
As a caveat, this de-emphasis of back radiation in explaining the greenhouse effect is a personal preference of mine and not the generally accepted approach which is to make back radiation the heart of the explanation of the greenhouse effect. Some day I’ll figure out how to explain my version more succinctly and clearly. A graph or two of how these processes depend on the level of the GHG in question would probably help, as would weaning the experts off the standard explanation if they ever come to find it more attractive than the back radiation approach.
The back radiation or the alternative formulation the same physics are describing a real effect that increases the temperature of the surface. Making this effect stronger by adding CO2 to the atmosphere rises the temperature further. This an unavoidable direct consequence of higher CO2 concentration. Further changes – the feedbacks – cannot be fully determined from basic physics. The problems are too complicated for that.
Warming is a relative term. You get more heat from infrared radiation emitted by the atmosphere to the surface if you add more greenhouse gases.
The Earth’s surface (usually) emits more infrared radiation from the atmosphere than it receives. Exceptions occur in the polar regions when you have a temperature inversion and cloud that is warmer than the earth’s surface (the topic of radiative transfer in the polar regions is the topic of my Ph.D. thesis and several decades of subsequent research). Purely from infrared radiative transfer considerations, the net infrared radiation balance at the earth’s surface is cooling (again, exception when you have a cloud that is warmer than the surface). The net infrared radiation balance is less negative if you add more greenhouse gases.
Again, the Georgia Tech undergrads understand this. It is pretty simple. This has been demonstrated empirically an endless number of times (see especially the data at http://www.arm.gov). Infrared radiative transfer models have been developed that reproduce these observations under relative warm vs cool atmospheric temperatures, and high versus low amounts of water vapor.
Is an alternative explanation of the basic underlying physics that explains these observations possible? Sure. Has Claes Johnson accomplished this? No. Even if he did, he would need to explain these same observations; the radiative flux and the surface received from the atmosphere by infrared emission from gases such as H2O and CO2 that is observed isn’t going away by some manipulations of Maxwell’s equations.
It seems that while Johnson can do mathematics, he does not understand anything about gases (included spectroscopy and basic kinetic theory).
Judith: Here’s my question. In the summer on the Great Plains, the humid warm air from the Gulf plays “tag” with the cool dry Artic air. One day the air is dry, one day it is humid as heck. Now, when the soil is dry as toast (no evaporation going on), it is absolutely no hotter on a clear humid day than it is on a clear dry day. With all the backradiation from the water vapor, it should be hotter on the humid day. Why isn’t it? Now, puleeeze, don’t ignore the daytime and start talking about nighttime, like everyone else does.
It depends on the wind speed, the details of the atmospheric temperature and humidity profiles. You have to consider both the solar radiation and the infrared radiation. With this kind of information, you can interpret what is going on with the surface temperatures. This is simple.
Judith:
You say: “This is simple.” ??
Your response makes absolutely no sense.
THAT is armwaving, Judith!
As I understand the greenhouse gas concept, ON AVERAGE it should be hotter on humid days in July on the farm near Sterling, Colorado than on days when it’s dry. That is not the case. Something appears to be wrong with the greenhouse gas hypothesis, since we are talking about changes in greenhouse gas concentration (water vapor) from about 0.4 % water vapor (5 gm-3) on dry days to 1.6 % (20 gm-3) on humid days.
This is what drives me nuts about climate science: it seems to be all based on completely unflasifiable hypotheses. Any empirical evidence that questions the “science” is automatically arm-waved away, just like you just did. There are always “other things” that keep one from validating any part of the grand scheme.
Judith, in fact he cannot even do mathematics. The equation he starts from (4) has exponentially growing solutions, exp(t/gamma), so blows up rapidly, and so is physically meaningless.
He then makes an integration by parts error, before eqn (5), transferring time derivatives of u in a space integral.
thanks, i hadn’t caught that. i didn’t dig in that closely, I just assumed that the math at least was correct. Too much to assume, it seems.
PaulM: You are off track. I am very familiar with the math I present and have written many articles and books on this stuff.
Your objections doesn’t make any sense. How many math articles have you written?
Claes,
Is that an answer?
If you’ve written so many articles, and are very familiar with the equations, of course then you can easily come up with a counter-argument, don’t you?
Thank you Vaughan. This is issue of the Stefan Boltzmann law is somehow a big deal in the denial of this physics. Georgia Tech undergrads can definitely refute this one.
Claes, i read what you wrote, and it makes no sense to me (nor did this section of your article). Tell me, does your theory explain the observation that if you point a radiometer upwards at a cloudless sky, that it will measure a radiation flux of say 200-400 W m-2 (depending on ambient atmospheric temperature, humidity, etc). Can you put the atmospheric profile of temperature and gases into your equations and calculate the flux that is observed? If not, and you continue to insist that your theory is correct, then you get to wear the crank label. You need to clearly address this issue. This is how theories are tested, with observations. There is an enormous amount of data at http://www.arm.gov against which to test any theory of infrared radiative transfer. So how does your theory pass this test of observations? It hasn’t been tested, right? And you somehow think your theory is better than the theory that actually explains observations. Sorry, nobody is buying this. I suspect that even John O’Sullivan and Ken Coffman understand that you have to test a theory with observations. While this can be very difficult to do on the scale of the entire planet, it is very easy to test infrared radiative transfer against observations in a single column.
Judith,
please define the distinction between,
A) “back-radiation”
and
B) “downwelling-radiation.”
Thank you.
I’ve described this previously. First, i have no idea what people mean when they say “back radiation”. The emission from molecules in the atmosphere is isotropic (goes in all directions), with some of this radiation going in the direction of the earth’s surface. This is what actually occurs; what you call it is up to you.
Thank you Judith.
So when you point your radiometer skyward what you are measuring is the energy present in the atmosphere which keeps it in its gaseous state.
This energy is therefore energy which is already in the system. What you have failed to show is that this energy is being added back to the sum total as a result of a composition change in the ratio of CO2.
That would require that you can show a clear historical correlation between CO2 and temperature. There simply is no such relationship as you well know. Therefore there is no “greenhouse effect” signal from CO2. Let alone an AGW signal.
As a climatologist I would expect you to acknowledge this point as a serious problem in the ‘greenhouse effect” hypothesis. I would also expect you to wonder if there maybe some doubt in the basic physics on which this hypothesis is based.
I woud also expect you to question why in the last thirty odd years of practically unlimited public funding, the entire weight of scientific genius as failed to devise a simple real world experiment which can demonstrate the warming effect of a change in air composition by increasing the ration of CO2. And why this theory still clings to a 150 year old set of experiments by one man which have never since been re-eximend to analyse the possible flaws.
Your unquestioning faith in the “greenhouse effect” hypothesis of CO2 is breathtakingly worrying to hose of us who can see that you have failed to acknowledge any of these points.
The “greenhouse effect” hypothesis requires that a substance with highly transmissive properties like CO2 ultimately behaves as an insulator restricting the net energy loss to space.
Judith it would be fantastic and truly astounding if that were the case. But it isn’t.
When you understand and finally acknowledge all the negative feedbacks such as I have listed in : http://www.spinonthat.com/CO2_files/CO2tdino.pdf which more than compensate for any possible positive transmission warming effects you might realise just how dangerous and far of the mark, the “greenhouse effect” hypothesis really is.
I tried looking over your paper but I have a general rule about papers that begin with a Hitler quote. Sorry.
CO2 admits short wavelengths and absorbs long wavelengths. That’s what makes it a greenhouse gas. Even if CO2 is not responsible for recent climate changes it still contributes to the total greenhouse effect. Or are you refuting the entire greenhouse effect?
“I tried looking over your paper but I have a general rule about papers that begin with a Hitler quote. Sorry.’
That is the best excuse for a short attention span I have ever heard!
“Or are you refuting the entire greenhouse effect?”
As a sub-surface dweller, I do refer to surface warming as a “greenhouse effect”, for the simple reason that it is a fallacious concept that could be used for nefarious purposes, such as that which occurred with the so called “science” of eugenics.
Dr. Curry,
it might improve the conversation if we tightened up this description. The so-called back radiation is a wave or probability front expanding around the emission point. There is a good reason to use this explanation rather than the assumption that there is an actual particle that leaves the emission point with a specific vector.
One of these days I may even be able to explain this good reason to another person.
Judy: Ask your students to explain to you that an IR-meter measures frequency (this is why it is called and InfraRed-meter), and that the connection to “downwelling radiation from the atmosphere” is ad hoc
by applying SB in the form Q = sigma T^4. If you claim it is not ad hoc
then prove to me that the formula applies. Or ask your students.
Actually, an IR-meter measures intensity at one or more frequency bands in the infrared portion of the EM spectrum by filtering out or otherwise being insensitive to frequencies outside the desired measurement range.
Heck, you can point an IR spectrometer upwards and observe the spectrum of the radiation from the atmosphere, so all this back and forth, is, as they say sausage. THEN you can point the IR spectrometer downwards and you can ACTUALLY MEASURE the amount, if any, of reflected IR from the downwelling radiation. HINT: Almost all of it is absorbed because, if nothing else, the absorbtivity/emissivity is close to unity for most materials in the region of the IR being talked about.
Claes, your ideas simply fail the reality test.
“HINT: Almost all of it is absorbed because, if nothing else, the absorbtivity/emissivity is close to unity for most materials in the region of the IR being talked about.”
That sounds a lot like you just claimed to be able to measure something that you cannot prove existed in the first place.
Good stuff!
Don’t be silly, one can, and many have measured frequency dependent absorptivities/emissivities for a huge variety of materials. This example from the MODIS database is appropriate in the US today
Eli,
could you provide us with a source of information on the absorptivity of material ordered by frequency or wavelength??
Modis UCSB emissivity database
JC: “I suspect that even John O’Sullivan and Ken Coffman understand that you have to test a theory with observations.”
Yes, even a’ dumbass’ like me knows that! So why, after 25 years and $100 million spent can you and other ‘ clever climatologists’ not give us one experiment in the atmosphere to prove your faux theory?
Heh, I provided some observations above somewhere that seem to me to contradict the concept that backradiation adds to surface heating, and all I got was some hand-waving that didn’t even speak to my observations.
That is what is so slippery about climate science: nothing appears to be falsifiable, and if you bring up some observations that don’t fit the hypotheses, you are just told that there are “other variables” that make your observations nonsense or that you are just dumb (which cold be the case, of course). Now, we are even getting stupid statements about the snowstorms being caused by global warming (although mainly by idiots like Gore and the news media. I don’t think any reputable climate science has chimed in on this. Yet. However, tellingly, the famous climate scientists are sure not going out of their way to dispell this crap, either).
Will | February 2, 2011 at 10:17 am |
The specific frequencies that 99% O2 and N2 absorb emit at are filtered out.
Such a device would be worse than useless if that was not the case.
They aren’t filtered out because they don’t exist, if you persist in this in the face of documented evidence you aren’t a sceptic you’re in denial!
See here: http://www.siliconfareast.com/FTIR.htm
“Unlike SEM inspection or EDX analysis, FTIR spectroscopy does not require a vacuum, since neither oxygen nor nitrogen absorb infrared rays. “
Phil:
Are you absolutely 100% sure that O2 and N2 do not absorb or emit any IR what so ever?
Will,
highest order IR absorption selections rules are based on the presence of a permanent electric dipole or an electric induced dipole (in the case of the asymmetric stretch of CO2) in a molecule.
Both N2 and O2 lack a permanent or induced dipole upon the excitation of the single, totally symmetric stretch possible. Therefore, due symmetry based selection rules, the absorption of IR light by N2 and O2 is negligible. O2 has a small, but non-zero magnetic dipole because there is an abundance of the paramagnetic form of O2, but the absorption cross-section for that transition is exceedingly small and can be ignored for most practical purposes.
Maxwell
CO2 only has a temporary dipole moment. A temporary dipole moment is induced in O2 and N2 by ionisation which is occurring at varying degrees throughout the entire atmosphere.
Ionisation is most prolific in the Diurnal Atmospheric Bulge which covers an area of 25% of the Earths atmospheric surface under the solar point and bulges upwards to an altitude of 600 km.
Some people refer to the Diurnal Atmospheric Bulge as the Thermosphere. But it is not a sphere it is a bulge with a circumference equal to 25% of the surface of the atmosphere and bulges up to an altitude of 600 km. The ionisation is so intense that the bulge is actually elongated towards both poles due to the magnetic forces involved, (the Diurnal Bulge or Thermosphere, as you may know it better, disappears below the Mesosphere at 100 km on the dark side of the Earth).
That is a lot of ionisation. Lots of temporary dipoles.
Thanks for the lesson in dipole moments.
Will,
ummm, according to sources, the ionization potential for N is over 14 eV. That corresponds to a photon with a wavelength of less than 100 nm.
That’s well into the vacuum ultraviolet region of the EM spectrum, bordering on the extreme UV region. The solar spectrum counts off pretty effectively at less than 5 eV.
The ionization potential for N2 is actually HIGHER than atomic nitrogen because the presence of the other nitrogen atom reduces the kinetic energy of the electrons relative to the molecule’s scattering states.
Now, should we believe some speculation about the behavior of the earth in the past that has to be inferred from indirect observations, or do we direct observations of solar output and ionization of molecules in highly controlled experiments?
I’m assuming you’ll choose whichever outcomes supports you’re already held position, showing everyone here that you’re pretty disinterested in science.
Thanks for playing though!
The ionization potential for N2 is actually HIGHER than atomic nitrogen because the presence of the other nitrogen atom reduces the kinetic energy of the electrons relative to the molecule’s scattering states.
Hence in the ionosphere you see N+ not N2+.
Phil……? ? ? ! !
What?! Asked and answered many times with citations, the real question is why you continue to propagate crap like this: “The specific frequencies that 99% O2 and N2 absorb emit at are filtered out.” Which is false and since no instrument manufacture would say such a thing is a lie, if not by you then from where you got it from. Now you have been given citations proving it to be false I suggest you inform that source that they are incorrect and discontinue posting such misinformation.
At atmospheric temperatures, pressures, and concentrations, the IR absorption/emission by O2 and N2 are so negligible that they do not need to be incorporated into radiative transfer calculations.
In other circumstances (e.g., the planet Venus), very high concentrations can lead to some IR absorption/emission. Much of this is continuum absorption, reflecting the fact that although N2, for example, does not itself exhibit a dipole, a collision of two N2 molecules can create a temporary dipole allowing absorption. In the Earth’s atmosphere, this phenomenon is too infrequent to matter, and so for practical purposes, only the greenhouse gases such as CO2, H2O, ozone, etc., are active in IR wavelengths.
Fred:
See my answer to Maxwell above.
Cheers.
Nowhere there does it say that N2 and O2 have dipoles, they do not! We are not talking about the ionosphere.
Phil:
See Fred’s post above in relation to mine.
And try and calm down a little, its just a discussion after all.
Phil, my understanding (if I am correct) is that the demonisation of CO2 as the main driver of climate is long and deep, spanning decades and probably more. Therefore siting data from large corporations and and institutions has no baring on my line of enquiry. If it did, I wouldn’t get very far before I became as confused as most people seem to be.
I think I have made my point clear enough with regard to ionisation and dipole. If you have missed something, please read it again.
Arm waving can’t change anything.
So stop doing it! I’ve cited textbooks as well as commercial sources, why you would think that a manufacturer of a spectrometer would clam that there is no background IR to be subtracted from N2 & O2 if it were not so. Despite the fact that they tell you to background CO2 (water is not usually a problem because you dry the purge air as the optics are often hygroscopic).
I dislike people propagated lies about the science as you have been doing, if you stop doing so you’ll have no problems from me. N2 and O2 do not absorb IR, end of story.
“N2 and O2 do not absorb IR, end of story.”
http://www.coe.ou.edu/sserg/web/Results/Spectrum/o2.pdf
http://www.coe.ou.edu/sserg/web/Results/Spectrum/n2.pdf
I accept your apology for calling me a liar Phil:
Now can I go back to ignoring you?
Lets see the absorption spectra.
Will, in the first plot, the scale in molecular extinction units shows the intensity of absorption at levels between 10^-35 and 10^-40. The absorption of CO2 in the same region is about 1. So for practical purposes, O2 doesn’t absorb IR light. It’s almost 40 orders of magnitude smaller than CO2 to an IR photon.
The second isn’t even an absorption plot you moron. It’s a scattering spectrum, which is centered at 2300 cm^-1, showing both the Stokes and Anti-Stokes wings of the Raman spectrum.
If you’re going to insist on presenting data, at least know what the hell you’re talking about before doing so.
Maxwell… You’re absolutely wrong. CO2 cannot have an absorptivity of 1 at any wavelength, not even at the band where you say it absorbs 100% of the energy emitted by the surface.
Hottel, Leckner, Modest, and more than 100 scientists and engineers have demonstrated, observationally and experimentally, that the carbon dioxide has a ridiculous absorptivity and a similarily ridiculous emissivity at the band where you say it is a blackbody.
Nasif,
I didn’t write absorptivity. I wrote absorption. There is a nuanced difference in the context discussion I’ll let you figure out on your own.
You call me a moron but you have just helped me make my point. That is the reason for these plots.
Radiative transfer has an insignificant effect on atmospheric temperature as I have said many times above. As you point out CO2 maybe many orders of magnitude more absorptive than O2 or N2, yet this has no significant or definable effect on global temperature. Remember there is no definitive CO2 induced GW signal above normal variation, let alone an AGW CO2 signal. There is zero historical evidence showing CO2 driving global average T
If radiative transfer by CO2 was such significant factor in determining global average T, do you not think that several orders of magnitude warming effect would be quite a simple thing to demonstrate experimentally ?
Yet I have demonstrated with experiment that even with almost pure CO2 this is not the case.
“AGW RIP “
There are many alternative views to the “greenhouse effect” hypothesis.
Here is one that I particularly like and find fits in with my own thoughts on specific heat capacities that are actually supported by my experiments.
http://ruby.fgcu.edu/courses/twimberley/EnviroPhilo/FunctionOfMass.pdf
In my book: http://www.spinonthat.com/CO2_files/CO2tdino.pdf which has been available as a free download since October 09, I discuss the fact that we are subsurface dwellers and that it is misleading to refer to surface warming or cooling as a greenhouse effect.
See this post above to understand my perspective a little better.
http://judithcurry.com/2011/01/31/slaying-a-greenhouse-dragon/#comment-36871
Try to understand that I do not want to discus serious issues with name callers. You simply expose the weakness of your own position when you resort to such tactics.
@Will…
As I have said before, Phil uses to twist science based only on HIS “reliable” internet sources; you know what I mean; Phil’s is pure pseudoscience. Some posts above, he said that Te and Thb, in S-B equation , were heat. Now he’s saying that N2 and O2 are thermodynamically innert.
I’ll put it down to your lack of reading comprehension regarding the S-B terms. Regarding the absorption of CO2 , the Q-branch at ~667cm^-1 is ~1 in a 10cm pathlength cell at a volume fraction of 0.004.
For N2 the Q-branch at ~2330cm-1 in the same cell at a volume fraction of 1 is ~1.5×10^-5.
The concept that N2 and O2 do not absorb in the IR due to the lack of a dipole is shared by all physical scientists, and will be found in any text on molecular spectroscopy (e.g. Herzberg (the bible), Barrow etc.)
Nasif,
Thank you, I know what Phil is all about and have watched him contradict himself up an down this thread depending on which poor sod he is trolling at any given moment. Yawn!
Phil, I think most of us are comfortable with the CO2 contribution to O2 and N2 temperatures being via collision (and vice versa).
Good, of course as illustrated by Will’s post there are others who just don’t get it.
Eli is going to get a bit technical here, but Will is playing with a few extra cards, and we should nail this down. The interaction of molecules with electromagnetic radiation is described by a power series in the electric and magnetic fields. The strongest and first element is the electric dipole interaction, then many orders weaker (about 10^-5), the magnetic dipole interactions, then the still weaker (~10^-8) electric quadrupole, etc.
The energy of a photon that is absorbed or emitted is determined by the difference in energy between quantum states. If there is the possibility of an electric dipole (ED) transition it will dominate and the others can be ignored because they will be much weaker but not all transitions between all levels are allowed for ED transitions. For example, if in a vibrational transition the dipole moment of the molecule does not change, the transition is not allowed. This means that for homonuclear diatomic, ED transitions are forbidden.
O2, for example, has two spin unpaired electrons, e.g. a magnetic moment, and the interaction of the electron spin with the magnetic part of the electromagnetic field leads to a very weak absorption/emission which can only be measured with great difficulty, and plays no part in atmospheric physics. N2 has no unpaired electrons in the ground state, and can only interact by the still weaker electric quadrupole interaction.
CO2 has three different vibrations. The first the symmetric stretch
O[—C—]O
has zero dipole moment in all vibrational states, so there is no transitional dipole moment and it neither absorbs or emits.
The second, the asymmetric stretch starts from this position
O—C—O and moves to this one
O-C—–O . The ED does change and this transition is allowed by the ED selection rule (it is ~1900 cm-1)
The other vibration is the bend which starts from
O—C—O and changes to
C
/ \
O O
and is also ED allowed.
Now Eli, being a very sympathetic Rabett, would be overjoyed if Will stopped blathering, but he would also be surprised=:>
Fred,
Ok, let’s look at the temperature-equilibrated in the high altitude case, since I would describe it differently..
We bring in a thin layer of CO2 that contains a similar amount of CO2 compared to the whole atmosphere in a thin layer next to the top of the atmosphere.
The layer is initially already equilibrated with the adjacent atmospheric layers with respect to temperature, therefore in LTE (local thermodynamic equilibrium).
If there is no sun on the night side the radiative imbalance equals minus OLR (outgoing longwave radiation). OLR measured per unit square.
The surface and the layer cool simultaneously. The so-called “backradiation” decreases simultaneously. “Backradiation” in this case does not warm anything. It will lead to a decrease in surface cooling with respect to a reference system.
If there is sun on the day side the radiative imbalance equals Solarconstant/2 * (1- Albedo) – OLR . This is positive because of the sun. Surface and the layer heat simultaneously. The so-called “backradiation” increases simultaneously. Of course the so-called “back radiation” exists as downwelling longwave radiation, but it is not a cause for surface warming. It will lead to a decrease of surface cooling and therefore a higher temperature in the stationary state.
However, the sun is the cause or surface warming.
“Back radiation” is an effect of the interaction of the sun with greenhouse gases that describes the heat transfer from incoming solar energy via the surface to the atmosphere. One can also choose to describe the greenhouse effect without it, just looking at incoming solar heating and outgoing longwave cooling.
I’d like to add that the integrated radiative balance that you get in the 1-D energy balance models is not the physical reality, but only a way of energy book keeping. The physical reality is the instantaneous radiative balance on the day side and the night side and a rotating earth.
Best regards
Günter
I think we agree that the sun is the energy source responsible for surface and atmospheric warming.
Tbat’s the most important point. I’m still not sure what other point you are making regarding a single layer filled with CO2. Regardless of altitude, it will equilibrate at a temperature at which emissions (a function of temperature) are equal to absorption (a function of CO2 concentration), and that temperature would not be very different regardless of altitude, neglecting small changes in absorptivity and emissivity as a function of pressure. If only radiative processes are operating (which of course would not be the case in the real world), and assuming the CO2 in the layer is the only greenhouse gas in the atmosphere, the temperature would essentially be the surface temperature divided by the fourth root of 2.
In each case, the absorbed energy would be emitted equally upward and downward, and so the downwelling radiation would be similar regardless of altitude.
@Fred…
Correction: You forgot four possible trajectories for the energy emitted by the atmosphere. Regarding your last claim, you forgot photons streams and radiation pressure. The Second Law includes them in its contextual meanings.
I don’t believe I forgot anything, but with all due respect, you use words in a way that does not appear to apply to any real world phenomena. I don’t believe it’s unfair to state that no-one else appears to understand what you are trying to say either, despite their great familiarity with the relevant science. In any case, if you want to redo my calculations, I’ll be interested to see the results.
Do you mind if I ask you a question? On your site, you list yourself as a University Professor. What University does this refer to? Where is it located? Who are students? What courses do you teach?
Bingo! Fred is now eager to shift to the ad hom argumentative form. I sense a deeper sense of failure to win the debate focusing on the facts.
John – I think if you wade through this entire thread to see the various exchanges of comments between Nasif and others, you would understand our frustration at communicating with someone who appears to be speaking a different language, scientifically speaking, from the rest of us. It also raises the question as to whether his interpretation of the meaning of University Professor differs from the ordinary one, but I hope his answer will clarify that issue. I’m not sure it’s an ad hominem attack on someone to ask him to tell us at what University he is a professor.
Regarding the greenhouse effects of CO2 as a function of altitude, I certainly remain open to any scientific explanation he has to offer, provided that I can understand it. My calculations were simply derived from the need to maintain a steady state, such that absorbed and emitted radiative flux from CO2 remain equal.
John – Does this mean you’re not going to invite me to write a chapter for your next book?
Do you mind if I ask you a question? On your site, you list yourself as a University Professor. What University does this refer to? Where is it located? Who are students? What courses do you teach?
Fred, I think this might be Nasif’s CV. It says he was appointed a “University professor” in 1974 at the Universidad Regiomontana, a university in Monterrey, Nuevo Leon, in the northeast of México having 5,000 students and three schools, Humanities, Engineering-and-Architecture, and Economics-and-Administration, and offering Master’s degrees in a wide range of subjects.
Professor Nahle held that appointment for 12 years. A year after that appointment began he founded the Biology Cabinet on the side, which he has owned and operated throughout the subsequent 35 years, during the last 24 of which he does not claim to have held any academic appointment.
His CV does however claim “recognition from” the autonomous universities of Aguascalientes (September 21, 2006) and of Nuevo Leon (May 25, 2007).
Andy Warhol famously said “In the future, everyone will be world-famous for 15 minutes.” Ironically Warhol himself got vastly more than 15 minutes of fame for that bon mot. As did Nasif Nahle, who got a full 24 hours for his May 25 recognition from UA de Nuevo Leon.
This 24-hour recognition was in turn leveraged into a full professorship for Nahle at this site so as not to mislead the site’s readers into believing that Nahle was anything less than a world authority on climate science. This site quotes Nahle as follows.
“Professor Nasif Nahle of the UA de Nuevo Leon has done the ‘mean free travel’ calculations on the IR escape rate. Outgoing IR energy is delayed by at most 22 milliseconds. That is the total extent of ‘global warming’. All of the Planets CO2, the 97% from natural and the 3% from man delay temperature change by an immeasurably small amount of time. And this ‘delayed’ heat transfer is NOT radiated back to Earth. It is leaving a ‘hot’ Earth at the speed of light for a ‘cool’ outer space and is only delayed momentarily.
So if you now claim that the delay might be as much as 24 milliseconds, you are contradicting a noted authority. I would say more than 24 years, so I too am contradicting this authority, and moreover by a factor equal to the number of centimeters light travels in one second.
All this puts one in mind of Frank Baum’s H. M. Woggle-Bug, T.E.. In the case of global warming denial the microscope responsible for Woggle-bug’s H.M. (highly magnified) prefix is the climate denial machine’s urgent need for authorities equipped with the requisite superpowers to do battle with the evil Washington empire’s entrenched control over the hapless citizens of this proud nation of independent battlers for freedom from authoritarian control.
If you claim that this isn’t how that all went down, you have my full attention, at least until my plane leaves in 24 hours for India, after which I’ll be posting somewhat less often here for a couple of weeks since I have some talks to prepare. Very stupid of me to so volunteer.
Vaughan has now tag-teamed with Fred to switch from the issue at hand to attacking the man’s teaching credentials. Indeed, desperation has finally brought the ad hom into play.
attacking the man’s teaching credentials
Huh? Fred asked what Nahle’s academic credentials were, I simply repeated what Nahle himself writes about himself in answer to Fred’s question. I don’t see how that could be an attack on Nahle’s academic credentials, but if it was then Nahle has attacked himself in his CV.
It seems to me the desperation is on your side: you are desperate to interpret every statement about someone as an ad hominem attack even when it was not an attack on his credentials but merely what Nahle writes about himself.
What I have attacked is the statements made by Nahle, such as his 22 millisecond stuff, which is hardly the compelling argument it’s been made out to be.
Or are you so desperate to find ad hominem attacks in everything that even attacks on statements are ad hom attacks?
Interesting, Vaughan. Appointed a “University Professor” at age 23. Didn’t get his degrees until several years later. I don’t actually enjoy making fun of people just for sport, but there are reasons for informing readers of information relevant to the credibility of commentators. However, as far as I’m concerned, the “Professorship” is less important than the credibility of the comments themselves, which can easily be judged by anyone reading these exchanges.
Fred,
you wrote:
“I don’t believe there is any way to warm the surface without back radiation. In its absence, radiative imbalances in the atmosphere would change atmospheric temperature but not surface temperature (except for the minimal effects of conduction). “
I think this statement is not the correct perception of the role of the so-called “back radiation”. But I might have misinterpreted you, reading it a third time.
We agree that the sun is the only energy source. The so called “back radiation” in radiative transfer theory is the integral over all light rays in the longwave regime that reach the surface. It is an integral over angles. It is one parameter within the surface energy budget, but not the only one. Of course it cannot be omitted, but it should also not be used isolated as the physical cause for surface warming within the earth system according to my opinion. The physical cause for surface warming in the real world is the sun, as I showed in my example.
Best regards
Günter
This may seem OT, but it’s really not as we’ve been discussing downwelling radiation in regards to the general greenhouse effect, and I’d like to get some professionals to comment about the increased water vapor we’ve observed worldwide over the past few decades. This has been a long-standing prediction of AGW theory, along with increased night time temps. We know that in general the temperature is determined by dew point and cannot fall lower than that. We saw 37 new high night time temps set last summer in just the U.S. And here’s a story about more records being set in Australia during their current summer:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/02/03/3128628.htm?section=justin
So, my question is: Aren’t these higher night time temps pretty much due to downwelling radiation caused by greater water vapor levels, and if they are showing a trend of increasing world-wide, at least some proof the world has been warming, regardless of the cause, but at least quite consistent with the effects expected by the primary and secondary greenhouse effects related to the 40% increase in atmospheric CO2 since the 1700’s?
A second question might be: How would C. Johnson explain these higher night time temps?
Answer to the second question,
the same way we explain higher night time temps measured on bodies with no atmosphere. Materials absorb energy and release it at differing rates.
Dr. C,
Although I have no scientific credentials whatever, my last accomplishment in that area being the Junior Trig Prize in High School in the last year of the Eisenhower administration, I felt I had to comment because when I read this thoughtful article, at the end I found “666 Responses to Slaying a greenhouse dragon” and I regard myself as a Christian — though not a fundamentalist as that term is generally understood in Academia — so I did not want to risk any evil influences on this excellent blog. The number had to be raised to at least 667.
I did not have a favorable impression of any of the Johnson papers I read, and likewise when I looked at the table of contents of Dragon I got the impression that it could easily have been a book underwritten by Joe Romm’s organization to discredit climate skepticism. Over the last few years I’ve read everything I could find on the subject, and this seemed to be almost a directory of the fringe (with exceptions, such as Dr. Ball).
Yes, yes, yes, CO2 is a greenhouse gas, which reradiates absorbed IR, particularly in the 15 micron band, half up and half down. Water vapor also reradiates in the same band, more weakly — but it is around two orders of magnitude more common in the surface atmosphere. So does O2, even more weakly but three orders of magnitude more common.
The real question is not whether the greenhouse effect exists, but rather how much net influence it has in a hideously complex and chaotic climate system, the overall effect of which is to transport unimaginably huge quantities of heat and moisture from point A to point B.
The “consensus” types are fond of citing Arrhenius. Well, back in 8th Grade Science, between contests to see who could get the girl with the long ponytail to stand next to the vandeGraaf generator, we learned about the greenhouse effect: yep, it raised temperatures around 30 deg C, but it actually should have raised them by around 60 deg C according to calculations. “Settled science.” So although the greenhouse effect is quite real, it would appear that other processes (feedbacks?) reduce the effect by about half. Interestingly, if one takes the “consensus” figure of 1.2 deg C sensitivity for CO2 doubling and applies 50% negative feedback to it, one gets a sensitivity around half a degree, which is in the same general range as the conclusions of such distinguished researchers as Lindzen and Spencer.
So that’s reason 1 for my skepticism. Reason 2 is that basic physics tells us that at the pressure of a standard surface atmosphere, CO2 relaxation by bonking into other molecules is several orders of magnitude more probable than by emission of yet another errant photon. This means its “activation” by IR absorption is almost instantly thermalized, which will cause it to participate in convection, which will lift it eventually to the convective boundary layer where lower pressure will make pinging a photon into outer space much easier. But if convection, rather than radiation, is the dominant mode of heat transfer in the lower atmosphere, where storms, precipitation, and suchlike horribles are generated, how could CO2 changes affect the weather? After all, hundred-year events are so-called because, although they are rare, they do occur — CO2 concentration be damned. Witness the ’67 Chicago blizzard or the mid-70s floods in Australia and Pakistan.
Reason 3 is that in spite of careful reading of such sources as your Ch. 13 [IIRC] and ScienceofDoom, it is still unclear to me how changes in incident IR can have a measurable effect on ocean temperatures, 70% of the surface area of the planet and close to 100% of its thermal capacity. IR apparently penetrates no more than a few microns into water; the next several millimeters are cooled by evaporation; and the next hundred meters or so are effected principally by incident visible and UV, with the relative UV content determining how deep the effect penetrates. Sure, the top bit is sloshing around constantly with wind and waves, but a few microns?? In a mixing layer hundreds of meters deep???
And reason 4 is that in the many peer-reviewed climate papers I’ve read over the last few years, the overwhelming majority were like the excellent and interesting paper of yours I read from a link here a month or so ago, dealing with the relation between sea surface temperature, atmospheric pressure, and tropical cyclone wind force [IIRC]. It struck me (again, a layman) as an interesting and useful piece of research, doubtless to be cited as fundamental in future storm studies. (Not to mention the impressive and expensive full-color graphs. Do de name Arlo Guthrie ring a bell?) But as to IPCC-style climate alarmism, it simply offered a neat one-paragraph professional curtsy to CO2 and climate change — enough to satisfy the “climate change” section of the grant application, but no more. This is fine and understandable in the current political climate, but it amounts to a demonstration that when we hear the claim that billions and billions of scientists agree with the CO2-driven catastrophic global warming theory, it’s time to hold on to our wallets.
Craig – You have clearly thought about this issue and so you deserve a response. Perhaps not a long one here, however, because the thread is devoted to something else, and more importantly, because all the points you mention have been discussed in detail elsewhere. Briefly, however, the most likely value of climate sensitivity is estimated to be about 3 C for doubled CO2. This takes into account convective heat transport – without convection, the value would be much higher.
Regarding ocean heat storage, downwelling IR contributes substantially more than solar irradiation. Essentially all IR reaching the ocean surface is absorbed within the “skin layer”, and the heat is distributed throughout the entire mixed layer (down to as much as 200 meters) by turbulence and convective mixing, so that solar and infrared contributions are homogenized.
It may be unfair to ask you to wade through previous threads, but if you are willing, you will find these phenomena addressed extensively.
Apologies, I mistakenly left my response as an independent comment. It’s below at http://judithcurry.com/2011/01/31/slaying-a-greenhouse-dragon/#comment-37104
For now I’ll take Craig’s side on this over Fred’s. Fred can redeem himself by defining the problematic notion of “climate sensitivity.” Go for it, Fred. The previous threads you cite as having addressed “these phenomena” extensively don’t seem to have addressed that particular notion. Given the central role this concept plays in the conventional wisdom about global warming, this strikes me as an egregious oversight.
“As I understand the greenhouse gas concept, ON AVERAGE it should be hotter on humid days in July on the farm near Sterling, Colorado than on days when it’s dry. …” – jae
jae, I almost asked this when you first made the comment up above. Can you link to something that confirms your interpretation of the greenhouse concept?
Glad to see we’re safely above 700 now…
Thanks, Fred, but I have read (or, in certain cases of extreme exhaustion, at least skimmed) all of the relevant threads on this blog since its inception. The 1.2 deg C figure I cited was, I thought, even the IPCC’s basic CO2 sensitivity figure, theoretical, in the absence of feedbacks. If I’m mistaken, please provide a page reference in AR4. Otherwise I stand by all of my assertions above.
The term “skin layer” is used both to refer to the microns-thick IR absorbing layer and the millimeters-thick layer cooled by evaporation; in which sense are you using the term? This is the same ambiguity I find in nearly all attempts to describe the IR effect in the ocean — even Dr. C’s, otherwise a model of explicitness and clarity. If you mean the mm layer, it’s possible but the layer is by all accounts cooler; if you mean the micron layer, the difference in scale and near-certainty of evaporation makes it simply unbelievable, no matter how strong the wind or high the waves (I’m an avid amateur sailor). Not to mention that given the relative heat capacities of the atmosphere and the ocean, the idea that any atmospheric phenomenon could have a perceptible effect on ocean temperatures is implausible, to say the least — the “mixing layer” of the ocean alone — defined as you do — having two orders of magnitude more capacity than the entire planetary atmosphere.
I regard the publication of Dragon at this point in time as particularly unfortunate, since the always-improbable and faintly ridiculous CO2-driven AGW theory has managed over the last two decades to get taxpayers worldwide to spend more than $100 billion researching itself, only to have all actual relevant measurements produced by this research provide counterevidence. There is no need for silly fringe attempts to “debunk” it. But you are quite right; if this is not off-topic, it is at least pushing the very edge.
Thanks in any case for your kind reply.
Estimated climate sensitivity with feedbacks is about 3 C per doubling. Without feedbacks, it’s 1.2 C. The IR downwelling radiation contributes considerably more to ocean heating than solar radiation. Both are mixed into the mixed layer, and each contributes proportionately to evaporation, which is why the temperature of the skin layer as measured by satellite is slightly cooler than the water immediately below. If the IR contributed disproportionately, it would be hotter, and that would be observed in the satellite data.
This NASA file shows the shallow upward thermal gradient from convection, but also that the skin layer is cooler than at 10 um and only slightly warmer than at 1 meter – Ocean Temperature . For IR absorption to be disproportionately dissipated into evaporation rather than heating would require a far greater difference between the surface and the 1 meter depth, given the relationship between temperature and evaporation rate. In essence, solar and downwelling IR are combined so that they contribute in proportion to heating and evaporation.
Try this URL – Ocean Temperature
Fred, the link has definitions.
That’s very helpful. The rather shallow thermal upward temperature gradient (until the very top layer with a depth of only a few molecules) makes clear that mixing of IR and solar radiation must occur. Otherwise, the solar radiation, which is considerably less than the downward IR, would result in ocean temperatures at 10 meters or below that are extremely cold relative to the surface.
Craig,
While Fred and I certainly agree on all essential points, I do not think that he answered precisely the points where you expressed problems, but I think they have simple answers.
First the reduction from 60 C greenhouse effect to 33 C. This is almost completely due to one single effect and this is convection of heat from the surface to upper atmosphere. When the temperature gradient is very large, the lower layers expand thermally so much compared to the upper ones that strong mixing by vertical motion of air is induced and continues until a stable limit is obtained. This limit is the adiabatic lapse rate. Increased transfer of energy from the surface to the upper atmosphere from where the radiation escapes easily to the space weakens the greenhouse effect. This feedback is included in the calculation of the value 1.2 C for “non-feedback sensitivity”. Thus it is not really non-feedback, but limited feedback value. This means that it should be compared with 33 C, not with the 60 C effect.
The second point on oceans is answered by the fact, that IR actually cools the oceans as the emission from the surface is stronger than absorption. The absorbed radiation weakens the cooling and weakening the cooling means that more of the solar heating is left in the ocean and the ocean warms.
The second point on oceans is answered by the fact, that IR actually cools the oceans as the emission from the surface is stronger than absorption. The absorbed radiation weakens the cooling and weakening the cooling means that more of the solar heating is left in the ocean and the ocean warms.
Pekka, would you mind rephrasing that? Your first sentence seems to say the oceans are being cooled, while your second seems to say they are being warmed. What’s missing here is a third sentence that says which of your first two sentences wins.
Vaughan,
I tried to say that there is a balance between incoming and outgoing radiative energy fluxes (in addition evaporation is also important). Short wave solar radiation is adding to the heat content of the ocean, LW IR is a net negative flux, i.e. its net effect is to the cooling direction. The strength of this outward net energy flux is the difference between emission from the skin layer of the ocean and absorption of IR coming from the atmosphere, which is less than the emission.
Thus the net effect IR is cooling the immediate surface (skin) as is also evaporation. The heating that maintains the temperature of the skin comes from ocean below from layers that are heated by the SW and would warm much more unless they would transfer heat to the skin, which loses energy mainly by IR and evaporation.
Changing any of the main factors: incoming SW, outgoing IR, incoming IR and outgoing through evaporation causes either warming or cooling. The factor influenced directly by CO2 in the atmosphere is incoming IR, which is increased by the increase of CO2. Thus one incoming component is increased and ocean warms due to this effect.
Still the radiative part of the skin remains on the losing side, but less than before. As the SW flux to a thicker layer of upper oceans receives the same flux as before, it makes also the skin warmer than before. Here I neglect possible changes to clouds and the consequences of that to both SW and IR fluxes, but that is an issue of further feedbacks and beyond the direct effects that appeared to puzzle Craig. Also the changes in the net flux to deep ocean are beyond my comments.
JCH:
“jae, I almost asked this when you first made the comment up above. Can you link to something that confirms your interpretation of the greenhouse concept?”
I’m not sure what you are asking. I am just relating personal memories/experiences here. Hell, I don’t even have the daily data that would prove my statement. However, I am quite sure the data would support my position. I base my statement on a lot of personal experience, and am glad to welcome some whippersnapper to prove me wrong with met data :-)
BUT, more seriously, if you look at the real data nationwide at :
http://rredc.nrel.gov/solar/old_data/nsrdb/redbook/sum2/state.html
you will see that humid areas in general (especially the tropics) are MUCH cooler than the dry areas in the summer. The common explanation, which is mostly correct, is that evaporation of water COOLS the humid areas. OK. BUT THEN, if that’s true, what in the hell are we worried about?
jae, it would seem to me you are trying to compare the wrong things: humid days in July with dry days in July.
That is why I was asking where you got the notion that is an appropriate comparison.
According to the greenhouse theory, on average, should it be hotter on humid days in July on the farm near Sterling, Colorado than on days when it’s dry?
Anybody?
More GHG’s more heating is what y’all have been telling us.
Let me make a suggestion to you and Fred and all the other debunkers. Get your stuff together and either stick with the IPCC AR4 WG1 line or give us another line and stick with it. This BS of continuing to ask us what we think simply makes me think I have wandered into a fortune tellers hut. Lay out what you know to be true and back it up with empirical evidence.
Otherwise you are wasting everyone’s time.
What? Have you all forgotten “It’s not the heat, it’s the humidity?”
Humans cool themselves by sweating. This only helps when it’s dry, allowing the sweat to evaporate quickly. With a latent heat of vaporization of 2.26 megajoules/kg/degree for water (540 calories per gram per degree back in the day), fast evaporation has a huge cooling effect.
For this reason very-hot-and-dry feels a whole lot cooler than mildly-hot-and-humid. If your heat indicator doesn’t take humidity into account you’re not going to accurately predict how humans will react to those conditions.
This has nothing to do with greenhouse gases.
I went back through this monstrosity to find jae’s original formulation.
Judith: Here’s my question. In the summer on the Great Plains, the humid warm air from the Gulf plays “tag” with the cool dry Artic air. One day the air is dry, one day it is humid as heck. Now, when the soil is dry as toast (no evaporation going on), it is absolutely no hotter on a clear humid day than it is on a clear dry day. With all the backradiation from the water vapor, it should be hotter on the humid day. Why isn’t it? Now, puleeeze, don’t ignore the daytime and start talking about nighttime, like everyone else does.
curryja | February 2, 2011 at 9:44 am | Reply
It depends on the wind speed, the details of the atmospheric temperature and humidity profiles. You have to consider both the solar radiation and the infrared radiation. With this kind of information, you can interpret what is going on with the surface temperatures. This is simple.
He’s not talking about how a human being perceives things. He is claiming the greenhouse theory is refuted by the actual temperature record between the two situations described in his question.
Interesting attempt by Jae to refute greenhouse theory with “situations.” Give us specific data (date, times, locations) and we can see what was going on in terms of the meteorology and radiation to explain the surface temperature. Numerical weather forecast models deal with this problem every day; what is going on in terms of the surface temperature is tied up with chaotic fluid dynamics, which is why this is difficult to forecast. But in terms of analyzing past conditions, well, like I said, it is simple using weather reanalysis products and a radiative transfer code. Give us a date, time, and location, and maybe someone would bother to take a look. Using an argument like this to refute greenhouse warming is, well, unconvincing to say the least, and it is not clear how to even respond to something like this.
Here is a link from Georgia Tech’s radiative transfer course, you can easily run a radiative transfer model with a GUI interface, play around with it.
http://irina.eas.gatech.edu/irina/EAS8803_Fall2009/Lec12.htm
Would it not be easier to just say the same pertinent conditions with a humid situation will result in a higher temperature than the same pertinent conditions without a humid situation?
yes, if all other things are equal. but jae seemed to be basing this on his personal observations at unknown locations and on unspecified days, which he thinks refutes the greenhouse effect.
Well, let jae prove out the various conditions and their effects on his special days! Getting to apples to apples might keep him off the internet. I mean, one can hope.
Hell, JCH gets it. Why don’t you?
No, JAE does not think he is refuting the GHE (although he still has doubts about it)! He is merely presenting a puzzle that the GHE hypothesis, AS PRESENTED BY THE LIKES OF KIEHL AND TRENBERTH, does not seem to explain. Please READ CAREFULLY what I said. I gave a place (Sterling, CO). I gave specified days (only clear days in July). Now, I just ask someone to take the AVERAGE temperatures on the humid days and compare them with the AVERAGE temperatures on the dry days and see if there is a difference–which there damn well SHOULD be if backradiation does anything during the day. (Or–if there is another explanation, lets hear it). My experience says there is no difference. I cannot find the daily data to prove that, however.
All the fluid dynamics, etc. should average out over time and should not affect the difference in which I am interested.
jae, your little experiment is just ridiculous. the surface temperature depends on the winds as much as on radiation.
I’ve always been interested in empirical evidence, which is why I ask such questions. Radiation cartoons and computer models are not empirical evidence of anything. Climate science suffers greatlly from the lack of such evidence. The GHE has yet to be demonstrated beyond theoretical considerations. Hell, it ain’t even warming, to the quiet chagrin of many in the ‘hood ! :-)
i get it, no calculations, no theories, just measurements. Nice, simple measurements of the environment that you “feel” as an inhabitant on the earth’s surface. measurements without interpretation in the context of theories or calculations don’t mean much.
Judith: Now you are being silly and simplistic. You need BOTH theory AND EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE to advance science. I’m an organic chemist and I can postulate all sorts of chemical reactions (theory). However, if I don’t prove they work with actual experiments, nobody will believe me. Of course chemistry is a much older more solid science…
This is exhausting. Did you read the thread on confidence in radiative transfer models? empirical evidence galore was provided, primarily from http://www.arm.gov. If you can somehow prove that all of these observations are incorrect, or that the model agreement with observations over a wide range of observations is accidental and that the theories upon which the models are based are incorrect, then you might have an argument against the conventional and well accepted understanding of infrared radiative transfer. CJ has failed to convince in spite of an argument that has at least some physical and mathematical sophistication. Your argument reflects a complete lack of understanding of the relevant physical processes. If Ken Coffman and others want to publish whatever crackpot theories they want in a hope of derailing the science and the polices associated with AGW, well they are certainly entitled to that. I am not going to waste my time or the time of other serious posters here on every incorrect idea that somebody happens to have; rather I will consider the more interesting ones for discussion at Climate Etc. CJ’s essay definitely qualifies as sufficiently interesting to serve as a basis for extended discussion. Your little experiment does not, IMO.
Judith:
“Your argument reflects a complete lack of understanding of the relevant physical processes.”
What ARGUMENT? I am presenting an experiment, a test of a hypothesis. Don’t you know the difference?
Its an ill posed experiment in terms of the question you are trying to answer. I am finished engaging with you on this topic.
BTW, I did read much of that thread, and I am certainly not refuting that there is all sorts of IR coming from the sky and up from the Earth. All those measurements of radiation, however, do not constitute empirical proof of the GHE. They show how the hypothesis MIGHT POSSIBLY work, not that it does work. The problem, as I have outlined above, is that some things don’t seem add up properly. So I still have questions. Sorry to be so (heretical?). You don’t need to keep answering me, if you are so exhausted!
Vaughn:
You don’t get it do you? I’m talking TEMPERATURE here, not FEELINGS! Of course, it FEELS hotter when it’s humid, but that has nothing to do with the temperature. Y’all keep telling me that you can thermal radiation striking the earth and from that estimate temperature. Well the backradiation of a nice clear humid July day certainly has to be higher than the “global average” given by Kiehl/Trenberth as 324 wm-2. Let’s say it is 400 wm-2. Now add that to the solar radiation, which is easily 900 wm-2 at noon. That gives a total of 1300 wm-2. I don’t have my calculator right here, but that is equivalent to about 116 C, using the SB equation with an emissivity of 1. Something’s wrong with this picture, even when you factor in convection.
Dangit. That third sentence shoud say: “Y’all keep telling me that you can ADD ALL THE thermal radiation…”
Do you want to know what the silliest thing ever said in this thread is? Well, some people are saying that a cold body can warm a warmer body. Do you want to know why the latter is the silliest thing ever said? Well, just think… Does the Earth, being colder than the Sun, keep the Sun warmer than itself? Does the energy emitted by the Sun depend on the temperature of the Earth or it is the opposite? The main point dismissed or eliminated by the advocates of this fabulous idea is that the Sun is a primary source of heat that needs not have colder bodies near to it for maintaining its quasi-stable temperature. Inner fusion process is the cause, not the Earth.
The atmosphere of the Earth IS NOT a primary source neither an accumulator of heat because there is not a mechanism into it which could produce heat. The Earth’s atmosphere is a 3D cold system which does not generate heat. Do you see how the global warming advocates twist the real world by means of blah, blah, blah? Do your hands heat up a heater or keep the heater warmer than your hands, or the heater possesses an inner generator of thermal energy? The thing is clear, no two ways here: The Sun, as the primary source of heat, warms up the Earth’s surface, and the surface, as it is warmer than the atmosphere, warms up the atmosphere and keeps the atmosphere warm. Would the Sun get colder if it had not planets orbiting around it? No, the Sun would get colder as the nuclear fusion materials diminish, with or without planets.
Do you want to know what the silliest thing ever said in this thread is?
Since the other questions posed on this thread haven’t turned up much of interest so far, Nasif’s question seems like a good one to pursue. For starters we need need to narrow down the main contenders for this award. Once they’ve emerged we can vote on them.
Nasif,
You are wrong about this.
The sad part is that the apocalyptic clap trap of CO2 caused doom is still claptrap, but this Dragon book is going to make things harder for skeptics.
To Pekka: I think forced microwave heating of a chicken is included in my analysis as high amplitude LW forcing which is absorbed and in equilibrium radiated from the chicken, ideally as blackbody radiation with the temperature
of the chicken determined so that heat in = heat out.
I have more and more trouble getting exactly what your theory predict, and if it is significantly different from the classic theory in any prediction (if the onmy difference is interpretation, I do not see probelm with your apporach…except that it seems a less fruitfull than quanta approach, which has much broader implication than EM thermal emission/absorption.).
Here you seems to indicate that there is nothing preventing a hot body to aborb low frequency radiation, provided it is of large enough amplitude. This seems to contradict your previous claim, except if you have some kind of amplitude dependence, which is only possible if you include non-linearity in your model….I failed to see any in your equations, and a damped classic oscillator is certainly linear…
I have reworked classic Boltzman to put it in an form more similar to your own, “eliminating” backradiation (elimination is only algebrical, it is only a reworking of formula that does not change anything in practice…but can help frame alternative interpretations).
You get, in your notation, R= 4 s T³ (T-T_out) (1-6….O(epsilon)), with epsilon = (T-T_out)/T . This is exactly your formula, provided that T and T out are not too different. If Temp difference is large, it does not agree anymore….but in your derivation, you mention that you get only an aproximation. So perfect equivalence of formulas, if not interpretation, is possible.
I would appreciate if you clarified this point: is you radiative model mathematically equivalent to S-B, the dispute being on interpretation? or is there quantitative difference in the net heat flux predicted??? This is another way to rephrase a question that has been asked before from an engineering point of view: what does your theory predict applied to a typical radiative heat exchange problem (combustion chamber, vacuum tube design, silicium waffer production process, or any simplified example with quantitative heat flux evaluation – pick your choice…)
If it is only on interpretation, I can see reconciliation along Pikka’s line, even if I have various reason to prefer the 2 way flow interpretation of classic S-B, mainly
– it does not require any radiating body to have “knowledge” about his environment. I always prefer physical theory having “dumb” entities, compared to “intelligent” entities. BTW it is one grief I have with classical QD, actors are too knowlegeable of their environment. I thus prefer the many-word interpretation compared to the Copenhague observer influence. You are dissatisfied with QD, so I do not know why, in this case, you prefer the “intelligent entities” interpretation…
-It is in line with my interpretation of conduction (I include this because somebody mentioned that there also is “backconduction” at the microscopic level. I wholeheartly agree :-) ) and fit nicely in a general framework of entropy increasing mechanisms. I view both conduction and radiation as statistical manifestation of local disorder. Radiation is emitted and absorbed all the time everywhere. Just by balance and statistical argument, energy will flow from region emitting more to region emitting less, and region with more concentrated energy (hotter) emit more. Idem for conduction, it is even the classic derivation of Fourier law in kinetic gas theory. Other regions have particles with higher velocities in average than colder region. But particles move in all direction randomly, so cross the separation between hot and cold region in both ways. As particle coming from cold region have a lower kinetic energy (on average) that the ones coming from a hot one, you have constant exchange of kinetic energy (heat) in both way, but the net effect is a heat flow from hot to cold. Hence front and back conduction, required by statistics to fall towards classic fourier law as net effect. It’s really simple, nicelly symmetric, assume perfectly dumb actors, and explain a phenomenological observation from more elementary and general phenomenons. Really, I do not see how this kind of interpretation can fail to make a physicist happy ;-)
I use a continuum wave model with a dissipative effect from finite precision computation (Maxwell + finite prec comp), and this is a more precise better physics model, than a simplistic particle model. A wave model for light is a more physical model than a particle model, Maxwell instead of Newton.
With Maxwell’s equations you can simulate many things, e.g. microwave heating of a chicken, while a particle model will have little to say. Certain
results from the wave model coincide with those form particle statistics,
like Planck’s law for one body radiation to empty space at 0 K, while
in other cases there are differences: no “backradiation” in the wave model.
This is where you are going wrong, it is not a choice between a wave model and a particle model, as both are wrong.
Your equations may show that the waves cancel at a point, but even in a wave model the waves continue past each other, as demonstrated by wave tank experiments, typically done in high school physics experiments.
If the back radiation is cancelled by blackbody radiation from earth’s surface, where does the energy go? Your model violates conservation of mass/energy.
Try using a model of radiation that can demonstrate both the wave and particle nature of light.
We use electron microscopes that demonstrate the wave nature of electrons.
Claes,
‘…and this is a more precise better physics model, than a simplistic particle model.’
Your statement is based only on personal preference, as others have tried to point out. You associated a ‘wave model’ with ‘better’ because of personal preference. The ultimate standards for a physical are the accuracy of matching observations and predicting new effects that are not predicted by other theories, yet can be tested against. Only by using those standards can one attribute the word ‘better’ to one physical model over another.
Every single person here has told you this facet of scientific inquiry, yet over and over and over again you are repeating the same mantra about wave versus particles. No one cares about waves versus particles. If your theory is, in fact, better, then prove it. Calculate the temperature of a planet’s surface without GHG’s in the atmosphere (which would be appropriate for testing against the moon’s temperature) and the effect of GHG’s on surface temperature, as for earth. Without these numbers and calculations, your theory is completely meaningless.
Claes,
My problem with your texts is that they contain so many errors in details. Really many sentences make erroneous claims, which you often correct in another sentence or in the formulas. When a text is so incoherent, it is impossible to say, what you rally want to tell. Publishing the the texts in this book gives them some meaning, whether you say it clearly or not, and that meaning is wrong.
I join with others in stating that you should finalize the analysis, write the text avoiding erroneous claims, which are often beside the point of your work, make the text satisfy requirements of a scientific paper and then publish it in a place appropriate for such a paper. Until you have done all that, what you present has little value. You have published so much that you must understand my point.
What is wrong? I really want to know so I can improve the analysis, which in its present form is rather a sketch than a treatise. I am listening!
Claes,
I was referring to the text, which contains so many unjustified claims. It is not possible to start listing them. I trust that you can figure out what I mean.
About the mathematical analysis I am not going to make any specific statements. Your presentation is not sufficiently clear or detailed for thorough understanding without much more effort than I am willing to spend. When something of this type is done, there are very many things that must be checked and described by the author. Checking all that cannot be left to the reader.
As I have also said, your texts are in a book that makes strong claims that I know perfectly well to be totally false. That is not a right place for seeking acceptance for a novel approach to well understood physics.
Adding to my previous message.
The changes of succeeding in formulating a novel approach are almost nil, unless the existing theory is well understood. Even if the new approach deviates mathematically at the first steps, it must take into account the physical phenomena explained successfully by the conventional approach. Without this knowledge one must be on par with Einstein to get valuable results, if even that is sufficient.
Thus for the present problem a very good physical understanding of quantum field theory is certainly required.
Why not add a very good understanding of string theory as the basis of quantum field theory as the basis of quantum mechanics as the the basis of continuum mechanics as the basis of climate science. Do you have this very good understanding?
To understand what kind of person I have the pleasrure to argue with, please answer if you consider “backradiation” in the sense of “downwelling heat energy from the atmosphere” to be a real or fictitious physical phenomenon?
Claes,
If you start to answer to valid arguments by that kind of irrelevances, I do not expect to get very far with you. For calculating how CO2 molecules interact with electromagnetic radiation, one needs a theory that includes all important physics. It has to include theory of electromagnetism and it has to include the theory of molecular quantized states (it has to include the fact that CO2 interacts at 15um wavelength and it has to include a way of describing the strength of this interaction).
String theory is not of any help in understanding these physical processes. Making such remarks even as a joke speaks against your understanding of physics.
OK Pekka: Give me then 3 examples of “unjustified claims” out of the many you claim I make in my article.
So that I can get some idea what your objections concern. Is it the analysis of the mathematical model? Is the physical interpretation of the math model? Is it the explanation in words of the math?
You’re not listening. Statistical mechanics is an important topic taught in every physics and applied physics department, most of which have no involvement in global warming research at all. You can’t get an advanced degree in physics without knowing at least some statistical mechanics. You can’t understand a lot of modern physics without it. Yet you reject it as “jibberish.” That’s not listening.
When people try to explain how a body can absorb radiation even if that radiation came from a body at a lower temperature, you put words in their mouths, accuse them of invention or wishful thinking, or puff yourself up claiming you’ve done what Planck himself couldn’t. You’ve done no such thing, and you’re not listening.
You are right, just like Planck I consider statistical mechanics to be a
“trick” without physical correspondence. I don’t insist that this “trick” should be called “jibberish” but I know that Einstein did not like it at all. A “trick” is a trick.
It’s a trick that explains much and always works. To whatever extent the scientists involved in creating and using this trick 100 years ago were uncertain or cautious or unhappy about it, it turns out those feelings were unfounded. So you can stop scouring the history books for quotes that fit your motives.
David N,
quantum mechanics is a smorgasbord of techniques tied together by a theory that doesn’t exclude anything. How could it not explain everything? Yet, people tell me it doesn’t explain wave cancellation??
Quantum theory is simply the best consensus we have at this time. Like every other theory our great, great grandchildren will look back on those amazing people who did so much with such limited knowledge while laughing at how quaint it was.
By the way, Einstein apparently died still unhappy with it as did other great scientists.
kuhnkat,
Quantum mechanics is a theory that has produced countless well tested results and not a single contradiction with observations in its expected range of validity. It is one of the strongest theories that ever have been developed.
Pekka,
” It is one of the strongest theories that ever have been developed.”
That may well be. It still doesn’t explain everything or convey omnipotence on those who utilize it.
No. It is not a theory of everything, but it is known to be an accurate theory of very many things and it is also in most cases easy to tell, whether it can be applied or not.
No present theory can do better than that and few as well.
So what. I don’t care that Einstein or Planck or Schroedinger didn’t like it. They’re wrong, as has been confirmed over and over again by experiment, and I’m tired of all the appeal to authority as if it was a valid argument. Century old opinions are not a valid reason to discount statistical mechanics. Experimental results are, and there have been none to date that would provide such a reason.
I see, you can get that piece of candy right now so nothing else matters.
Your inane retort doesn’t change the fact that you’re wrong about quantum mechanics.
Einstein did not ‘like’ it, but he could not disprove it and in fact spent much of his late career failing to do just that.
I am seriously thinking that what you and the Dragon book have managed to do is to hurt the skeptical critique against catastrophic global warming quite a bit.
Indeed, I agree and would say that I am quite dissapointed with your lasts answers. We seems to move in circles, and, imho, you are responsible for this lack of advances. You have proved that you dislike the corpuscule interpretation and prefer the wave interpretation of light. Guess what, me too: i work in acoustics, I deal with waves all day long, and never have to approach any quantization of those waves, I am way outside of phonons territory. But this preference has nothing to do with the fact that you challenge a well established theory, which means that you have to answer articulated critics. A preference for Maxwell and a dislike of QD is not an answer, it is a personal preference.
(1) As Pikka have said, if you have derived S-B law in an alternative way, fine, and we can discuss about interpretations and possible extension of this alternative derivation.
(2) If you approach leads to results that quantitatively differ from S-B, it is another kind of fight you are in. You will have to show how you differ, what different quantitative prediction you make, propose an experimental framework for testing both theories, even a thought experiment.
as far as I understand you different posts, you have not been clear even about that. On the contrary, you have avoided answering all post asking for a numerical application.
Moreover, I do not even know if you claim (1) or (2). It can be a failure of my part, but I think I am not alone there. This is a bare minimum to clarify, as the discussion will be very different in both cases.
As long as I do not have a clear answer from you, either “I claim (1)”, or “I claim (2)”, as unambiguous and short than that, I consider the conversation as void and will not further participate.
Again: I derive a Planck law from a wave model. That’s what I do.
I plan extensive computations with this model in real 3d geom et cet,
like 3d acoustics based on the wave equation. Why are you so upset
about this? I don’t do any particle stuff and neither do you, because it is inferior to wave models. Why get heated up by this?
I think what people are finding irritating about all this is that your “sketch”, which may be possibly the basis of something that evolves into something that is publishable, is very premature at this point, and certainly has nothing convincing to say about “backradiation” at this point. You chose to publish this “sketch” in a politically motivated book, lending some superficial “physics” credence to a book that is mostly a political rant about greenhouse warming, along side some elementary misconceptions about the planetary energy balance. It is possible that you didn’t know who else was writing chapters for this book, or what they would end up saying, but it is still very curious for an academic scientist to publish an incomplete mathematical sketch in a popular science book on a highly controversial topic.
That said, what you wrote is probably the only chapter in the book that is worth discussing.
I put up a new post on my blog concerning primitive particle models suggesting
“backradiation”, which in a less primitive wave model shows to be non-physical because of instability:
http://claesjohnson.blogspot.com/2011/02/backradiation-confusion-from-light-as.html
Here’s a practical question for you. You have heated air passing through a duct at a temperature of 1062 K, the wall temperature is 285 K. A thermocouple (e=0.9) is immersed in the flow at the centerline of the duct, this thermocouple measures 1000 K, when the same thermocouple is surrounded by a thin radiation shield (e=0.1) the thermocouple measures 1036 K. How does your ‘theory’ explain this?
In conventional heat transfer analysis the ‘backradiation’ from the duct wall and the shield is taken into account and yields consistent, accurate answers.
Phil,
I am not sure I understand what you are saying. The hot air not contacting the thermocouple irradiates the thermocouple also. Putting a radiation shield around it blocks that radiation from the hot air so the thermocouple should be cooler with the shield. Not having the knowledge I can’t comment on the magnitudes.
Are you saying that blocking the radiation from the hot air in the duct should not reduce the temp of the thermocouple that much??
The hot air does not radiate significantly, make it N2 if you like then it doesn’t radiate at all. What you’re looking at is a thermocouple being heated convectively by the flow, which is in radiation exchange with the cool wall, compared with a thermocouple being heated convectively by the flow, which is in radiation exchange with the shield (which is also being heated convectively by the flow and which is in radiation exchange with the wall). This is the type of problem that is solved routinely by undergrads and used successfully in labs all over the world. It was such an important issue that NASA when they were still NACA produced a monograph on the correct use of thermocouples in gas turbines including the use of radiation shields.
Phil,
you just went from an empirical situation that would have shown by measurement and calculations a certain answer that agreed or didn’t agree with the numbers you gave to an arm wave.
If you have this duct and have made the measurements, by all means show us how the formulas prove there is backradiation. This is exactly the kind of empirical test I am asking for.
Uhh, did you also include friction from gas movement?
You should look at the material I’ve posted, these calculations are done routinely by MEs using the current paradigm and calculations and measurements agree. The status quo is the result of such empirical testing.
Calculations involve balancing the convective heat transfer from the gas to the sensor with conductive losses (usually made negligible by good probe design), and the radiative loss from the probe (which can not be done without considering radiation from the surroundings).
In the case of a radiation shield in a gt exhaust it will often glow red hot and its temperature can be measured using a radiation pyrometer, there can be no doubt whatsoever that it is radiating! Even though the probe is hotter than the shield the presence of the shield causes the thermocouple temperature to increase. There is no need to discuss AGW to refute CJ’s claim, just resort to routine engineering/physics in well defined situations. I have continually asked CJ to undertake such calculations and he won’t respond at all. He’s happier undertaking philosophical musings about what dead physicists thought than addressing substantive criticism.
Phil,
please give me a link. I only saw a generic statement with little information needed to actually compute what you are asking with any accuracy. I freely admit I couldn’t do the computations your students can, but, I would be interested in the details of the physical setup.
By the way, I know few people who claim there is no IR radiation. It is only the details after that point that seem confused, to me anyway. It should be obvious I’ve read a few papers and think I am an expert. I have NOT read much of anything from the fields that you and many others have spent your lives working in. It would be very helpful to us sceptics and deniers if you actually made available to us copies of this work that you see all the time that convinces you. It is not that I doubt the work, I have literally never seen 99.99% of the work out there and never will.
I do doubt everything I run across in the Climate Field because of the polarization, varying agendas, and simply poor work.
It’s frustrating and I doubt if any minds have changed, but this back and forth dialog is very interesting and helpful in terms of framing the debate and providing information. The questions about funding climate research and public policy are not going to be made by those of us with some scientific knowledge and understanding, but by the normal people who are asked to foot the bills. This exchange has definitely influenced what I have to say to people who know nothing about climate science…and I have not seen anything so far that compels me to print any errata. In my opinion, Claes and the other Slayer authors have opinions which deserve to be heard…they make their cases and illustrate their points–exactly as it should be in a society where the freedom of speech is a constitutional right. We have no power to make anyone believe anything, and clearly there are educated people who disagree. Excellent.
We’ll see what the public makes of it all.
There are some issues here.
The first is that on the level of specific projects, funding decisions ARE going to be made by those with significant scientific knowledge, both program officers and internal and external reviewers. On the level of funding the agencies that make the decisions, that will be made by small groups of legislators who lack scientific knowledge but are policy makers, and are subject to lobbying by constituents and industry. These are very different things obviously. What you have in blogs such as this is an concerted effort to discredit those who have studied a scientific issue by those whose concerns are political. That is not to say that political influence cannot determine funding directions and there are institutes of the NIH that prove that.
Into this comes the CJs of the world, who basically are clueless but think they know it all. His claims, mathematical and physical have been taken apart. He has no idea of what has and can be measured wrt IR emission and absorption. His “theory” is mathematical drivel. The few who actually looked at the paper quickly recognized the “here occurs a miracle” nature of his “proofs” but that is to be expected because the assumptions are themselves miraculous and non physical. It makes no sense, it yields wrong answers, it ignores centuries of measurement and calculation of heat transfer (see Phil’s post above, but he can raise a furor here and elseblogwhere which he can try and leverage into funding or fame. Where, oh Dr. Curry, are the skeptics?
The world is changing, Josh, and the profligate government spending of yesterday is coming to an end. Tough decisions on spending are coming and we must prioritize with brutal pragmatism. I have looked at your evidence and speaking for myself only, I am not only unconvinced, but I think you’re wasting our money. I know you have formulas, models and a consensus of peer-reviewed climate scientists. You think you’re right. I think I’m right. The battle, in these tough times, is for the mind of the public. You have government grants and a sympathetic media. I have a book and a few dollars in the bank, Good luck out there on the battlefield.
Maybe, but there is political debate, and there is science, or at least, I hope I don’t live in a time when such saying would gather only sarcasm.
I am far from idealistic, regarding any human behavior. Cynical is certainly a better qualifiant, realist for those who like me, mishantrope for those who don’t.
I am also extremely skeptical regardind cAGW as related by various activist organisation and western governments, and consider many of the considered policies as insults to individual liberty or transparent scams for public money…or both.
I am also quite skeptical regarding “mainstream” climate science, as presented by the IPCC. Overconfidence, lack of validation when working with such large numerical models. Telling those models are from first principles and N-S equations while it is untractable to solve those with any kind of computers without approximations that are in fact the main part of your models. Mixing of science and advocacy. Club mentality. Opacity. Lack of raw data. Partiality about AGW consequences.
And I will never vote Green. They lost my sympathy quite a long time ago, since they went from preserving endangered ecosystems and species to luddism, gaiaism, agraire communism, frugalism and social engineering, but mostly to a pagan form of post-christian religion, complete with the guilt and imminent apocalypse…
So, all in all, i quite dislike most climate alarmism ;-p
Still, it is not an excuse to use any mean to gain “the public heart”. And certainly not bad science. cAGW has sometimes used sloppy science, some activist-scientist may have fallen for public stardom, grant whorying, fraud by omision maybe. The field in general is not a prime example of science at its best, for sure, even if I am sure that most scientists in it do an honest job, a passionate job (maybe too passionate when they are also activist on the side). But not bad science to the point of throwing fundamental physics out of the window…
So are u ready to use bad science to attack fundamental principle of physics that have been used in many other context that cAGW, to win “the public heart”. I hope not.
I will certainly not, the end does not justify the means, especially as science is a human feat I especially appreciate. Not even if some alarmists think so.
Eli, many of the biggest critics that have shown up here are overall skeptics or lukewarmers. CJ’s work did not go over well at all with the well educated (in a physics sense) skeptics that showed up here.
By the way, of all the chapters in the book Slaying the Greenhouse Dragon, this one on computational black body was the only one I judged even worth reviewing here (at least I think it stimulated some interesting discussion and I at least learned a few things from maxwell, pekka, and a few others). The rest of the book is half political rant, and the other half is simplistic but erroneous analyses of the earth’s energy budget (Siddons, Anderson).
“The rest of the book is half political rant, and the other half is simplistic but erroneous analyses of the earth’s energy budget (Siddons, Anderson).”
You are a scientist and should be above this kind of arm-waving. Support your statements!
if you don’t have a copy of the book, read the table of contents, including the titles of the articles and the names of the authors. do a google search of the authors, you will see what they have to say. I have read the book, you have my opinion of it. Do you understand what an opinion is?
You opened the Overton window to the cranks. Shocking that they accepted your invitation. Bart has a brilliant observation by Richard Alley up in a post:
——————————-
You have now had a discussion or a debate here between people who are giving you the blue one and people giving you the green one. This is certainly not both sides. If you want both sides, we would have to have somebody in here screaming a conniption fit on the red end, because you are hearing a very optimistic side
——————————
This is indeed Fantasia.
I’ve received a number of emails from silent spectators. an example:
“Hi Judith, thanks for chasing this up. Even if the content of the book is nonsense it will be used by us sceptics to support our opinion unless it has been properly refuted (rather than simply rejected) with “it’s nonsense”. After 14 years this remains the case for Zbiniew Jaworowski’s arguments against the validity of the palaeo-climate reconstructions od atmospheric composition from air “trapped” in ice. Claims have been made that his arguments have been refuted but they have not, only rejected without good reason being offered. I continue to research that topic because there has been no refutation and so far have had nothing but claims from “experts” like Richard Alley that empirical evidence supports the counter-argument (but that’s another story).”
There are some skeptical arguments out there need addressing. Somebody’s got to do it. And if you are going to settle this, you have to actually try to refute this stuff in terms that the skeptics understand and accept. You can ignore it or reject it or laugh at it or appeal to your own authority. Tell me, how has that strategy been working for you lately?
I’m trying a crowd sourcing approach to refuting such things: on this thread, we saw some really brilliant input from about a half dozen commenters that outstrips what I could have done personally even if I had decided to take it on.
Judy – This comment you cite brings to mind Trenberth’s admonition to ignore the skeptics (“deniers” in his lexicon), in contrast to your determination to engage with them. This thread suggests that there may be merit in both approaches, and that the critical question entails the judgment of when to stop engaging and start ignoring. I’ve noticed your growing exasperation with repeated insistence by some on clearly untenable positions – I won’t name names – and I sensed that you understood the limits of engagement.
My own sense of the entire thread is that your perspective on basic principles of greenhouse gas radiative effects, mine, and that of all the knowledgeable participants will come across as clearly the valid one when viewed by objective readers with a modicum of background in science. I think we all tend to believe that if someone argues with us, we lose unless we respond, but that’s not the case here. The evidence and logic speak for themselves, and we should let that happen. Readers who prefer to reject this perspective will do so, and we have to accept that.
But we don’t have to buy the book.
Fred, the skeptical arguments for the most part are becoming more nuanced (sky dragon arguments excepted). There are some interesting issues out there on important topics that are ambiguous, and it is to the benefit of everyone to discuss these. Whether or not the greenhouse effect exists isn’t one of these; but I think this discussion has been beneficial for the knowledgable participants.
All you need to know about Zbiniew Jaworowski” whose nonsense has been refuted mutliple times both on blogs and in the literature. See especially “The Golden Horseshoe Award” and Hans Oeschger’s letter in ESR.
If you read polish, you find even more but, know what, the denial never stops coming. In short, you are being played. Pay attention
Eli:
“where are the skeptics?”
We’ re here Eli, but not many of us dispute the Greenhouse effect or radiative transfer theory so we’re keeping quiet. Ken, JAE and a small number of others are beyond redemption!!
Oh Eli,
it is so impressive to see so urbane and imminent a personage with such a ballanced, clear view of the world and all its evils.
i could ask you where the true scientists are since most of them appear to be over their heads in the feed trough.
This kind of verbiage whether classy or boorish simply is not going to solve the issue is it. It WILL continue to antagonize people. As those who ultimately will vote are not experts, and even if your version of the science is correct they will not understand it, you lose.
Where are the skeptics????
Hopefully realizing that the Lukewarmers have prepared a reception hall for them. A place where…
1. They can accept the core physics of AGW, and not be anti science
2. They can object to the “science is settled” nonsense.
3. They can accept a role for natural variation
4. they can suggest expanded studies into the role the sun plays
5. they can object to shoddy methods in Paleo
6. they can criticize people for suggesting that mails be deleted.
7. they can make a balanced assessment of the potential damages/benefits of warming
8. they can suggest solutions other than C02 control
The only requirement to join is this: accept the physics which says a world with more C02 is, all other things being equal, a warmer world.
Its a big tent.
There is even room enough for you and others who believe that AGW is an impending disaster to actually state what policies they believe government should implement in regards to climate change. Maybe you just think it should be funded forever since you don’t seem to like policy questions
I’m not convinced that it will be an impending disaster. I do, however, recognize that should we have substantial warming, som people and places will suffer. How one handles that depends on the specific case. I think global solutions are likely to happen. If you feel the need to believe that C02 will cool the planet, just because you dont like the policies some people proffer, I’d suggest that your voice on policy will be better heard if you just accept the basic science
I do accept the physics which says a world with more C02 is, all other things being equal, a warmer world.
But I also know that, in the real world, all other things are hardly ever equal.
No question about the right to freedom of speech, and your right to publish what you want, and for the public to believe what they want. IMO, you have not done the reputation of your publishing company any favors by publishing this book. I don’t think you have done the AGW skeptical movement any favors and I suspect this book will push many skeptics into the “lukewarmer” camp. Lukewarmers are defined as people that accept the basic physics of the greenhouse effect, but doubt the high sensitivity, catastrophic impacts, and the need for drastic energy policies.
Today I received an email from an author that you have invited to submit something for your second book. I view this person to be very credible and to have something interesting to say on this subject. I told this person to read Slaying the Sky Dragon (which this person has not yet read) before deciding. I suspect that credible people will not want to publish anything with you in the future. Your choice in terms of what you want to publish of course, and if you can make $$ publishing this kind of stuff, go for it. But I suspect you will have a much smaller audience for your next book, and credible authors will not sign up.
And once again, Judith, I completely disagree with you. Who ever this person is, I’m happy to send them a free copy for review. As publisher, I don’t have to agree with what’s printed…I should only be concerned about whether it sells or not. However, to the extent an electrical engineer can understand the material, I agree with 90% of it and I think it’s a useful weapon against the hysteria and nonsense of the CO2-causes-measurable-global-warming cabal. I could be wrong and I could be facing a sad future of failure and despair. But, I’ll take my chances and we shall see.
I think that depends on the next winther.
In a free society, everyone has the right to believe what they want, have any opinion they want and express that opinion, however ridiculous. These authors have just as much right as anyone else who can self-publish a book, which apparently is just about anyone who has a couple hundred bucks. This book is self-published, which doesn’t bode well for its validity, since no legitimate publisher, scientific or science fiction, felt confident enough to publish it for real.
Besides that, for something to qualify as science, it has to be subject to expert review by scientific peers. Self-publishing a book that is read and commented on by blog denizens does not qualify. It may be absolutely valid but until it passes the acid test of scientific peer review, it is only just opinion.
There is just no way around it. Only the gullible are fooled by this.
Can I offer a correction of the record, Shewonk?
The Stairway Press and Saint Matthew’s Publishing versions of Slaying the Sky Dragon are not self-published.
There are clear, verifiable and objective differences between vanity, self-publishing presses (like Publish America) and small, indy publishing companies (like Stairway Press). Anyone who wants to challenge me on this had better be prepared to lawyer-up and I’m dead serious about that.
Anyone who wants to challenge me on this had better be prepared to lawyer-up and I’m dead serious about that.
If you claim that Stairway Press is an indie press and not a vanity or self-publishing venture, who am I to argue?
My mistake arose because I saw that you published your own novels and so I thought Stairway Press was really a self-publishing venture where maybe you helped friends or like-minded individuals get their books published, but I must have been mistaken.
May I ask how many books your publishing house has turned down this year? I searched Publisher’s Marketplace, of which I am a member, and couldn’t find any announcements of book deals your press has made so I wasn’t sure how to categorize your enterprise.
Why have you ventured into publishing non-fiction and ‘science’ when I see that your list includes mostly science fiction and action adventure?
Also, I note, only as a point of interest, that St. Matthew’s Press, the UK publisher of Slaying, this book on its list:
Of course everyone has a right to believe anything they want, however, for a book claiming to be about science and authors who want to be taken seriously by mainstream science, I find it strange that the only publisher it could attract was one that appears to be focused on religious texts.
Shewonk,
thank you for helping to perpetuate the myth that there are only ad homs and arm waving in this thread to attack the book.
Whether right or wrong, a more respectful approach to dissecting the claims in the book will teach us a lot more than casting rude aspersions.
So far, this year (2011), I turned down about 10 books, made offers on two and signed a contract for one. I readily admit my interests are scattered and I should focus, but I like speculative fiction, literary cross-genre fiction, science, technology, thrillers and libertarian topics. I’ll be sad when I have to turn down a well-written book because it doesn’t fit into a Stairway Press box.
I am a member of the Independent Book Publishers Association and the only reason I am not listed in Bowkers publisher directory is because I have not published 20 titles yet. I’m not sure I’ll make it this year, but certainly I’ll make it in 2012. I meet all the other requirements…like up-front payments to authors, authors pay nothing for any services, etc. I forget what else they asked about. At book #20, I’m in. That doesn’t mean I’ll publish anything I can get my hands on. Actually, I’m a real pain in the ass…fussy and particular. You know, my way or the highway?
Ken Coffman
Well done, and best wishes on your publishing ventures. It’s a hard business, I hear, and keeping your standards must sometimes be challenging.
Though your last two lines.. I think redundant, given what so far has been posted. ;)
Oh, also, I noted this on your Stairway Press website:
“Stairway Press publishes and markets literary books from various genre’s…”
You might want to correct the grammatical error for it doesn’t really inspire confidence that “The main thing we focus on is writing quality–we represent the finest writers we can find…writers who might otherwise be overlooked in the world of the written word.”
Good catch, shewonk, I’ll fix that. Thanks.
The Slayers book is #4 right now in Amazon’s ranking of Geophysics Bestsellers, behind Earth System (Kump/Kasting/Crane), Basic Methods of Structural Geology (Marshak/Mitra) and Exercises in Structural Geology (Hamblin/Hower) and is #1 in hot new releases in Geophysics. You can scoff and discount this if you like, go ahead. I prefer to be insulted than ignored.
Just proves that old adage:
“…a foole and his money is soone parted.” Dr. John Bridges, 1587.
Claes Johnson
Sofar the most interesting post on this thread that has already reached 700 was for me:
Go Claes!
So far I have not read anything in the comments that would force you to review your math.
Instead I have indeed seen dozens of “crackpots” , “cranks” and other adhoms flying around. I have no respect for arrogant self proclaimed scientists whose arguments are dominated by knee jerk reactions and I would like to dissociate myself strongly from them.
Claes you have established a quantitative theory and the least everybody must do is to stay respectful.
People may be wrong and everybody is wrong one day or other but that doesn’t authorize insults and disparaging comments.
But as you asked to be judged on your equations, this is EXACTLY what I will do and I will be the first to do it.
In a second part I will have also a brief look on some of your interpretations.
Your theory lives and dies with one equation – equation (4) :
(∂^2 u)⁄∂t ²- (∂^2 u)⁄∂x ²- γ (∂^³ u)⁄∂t ³=f
You say about this equation that
a)It is in the spirit of Planck’s reference 10
b) It is a wave equation
To a) .
Reference 10 is just a short readers digest of general talks of Planck to Americans in 1910.
The real meat is in reference : “Vorlesungen über die Theorie der Wärmestrahlung” Leipzig 1906. http://www.archive.org/details/uberdietheoewarm00planrich.
I will come to this (brilliant!) reference later because you misinterpret Planck’s opinions which appear clearly in it.
In the Vorlesungen Planck proves the following differential equation:
K.f + L.(d^2 f)⁄dt ² – 2/(3. c³) (d^³ f)⁄dt ³= Ez.
Like Pekka rightly suspects, Planck uses only Maxwell’s equations and statistical thermodynamics.
Of course, QM didn’t exist in 1906 what didn’t prevent Planck to achieve one of the deepest physical insights of the 20th century :)
In this equation Planck expresses the dynamics of a vibrating electrical dipole in an electromagnetical field.
K and L are constants, f is the dipolar momentum and Ez is the z component of the electrical field at origin.
As one sees, Planck’s equation has not much to do with the equation (4) with the exception of being also a third order differential equation.
Which brings us to the biggest problem – the dimensional consistency .
The correct Planck’s equation contains 2 constants K and L which have a physical dimension and play an important role in his derivations.
Your Equation (4) doesn’t contain such constants and is dimensionaly inconsistent. Further what may u(x,t) possibly mean? Dipolar momentum like in the Planck’s equation or something else?
To b)
Equation (4) partly reminds the equation of a wave propagating in a string which is :
(∂^2 u)⁄∂t ²- V².(∂^2 u)⁄∂x ² = 0 where u is the vertical displacement of a point on a string and V is a characteristic velocity (constant or depending on u).
This equation is also dimensionaly consistent while in your equation the term V² is missing.
This comment also leads to the questions how can (4) be derived , what does u(x,t) mean and where are the physical constants warranting the dimensional consistency?
Now you add several things.
You say that the vibrating charges radiate an intensity
γ.(d²u/dt²)².
Planck says that the e.m energy emitted by the dipole in an interval dt is 2/(3. c³) . (d²f/dt²)².
Those expressions being similar, it suggests that u is f, so a dipolar momentum even if energy and intensity are not the same concepts.
You also say that the charges absorb energy from the forcing f of intensity f².
Planck says that the e.m energy absorbed by the dipole in a time dt is Ez.df/dt.
Here the similarity is less obvious but as your definition of the “forcing” is vague, if one suppose that your f is Planck’s component of electrical field Ez and that your “intensity” is an integral, one sees that there comes a factor proportional to f².
These remarks seem to soggest that by analogy, u(x,t) should indeed be the Planck’s dipolar momentum of a vibrating dipole.
So now one sees that your equation (4) is a strange, dimensionaly inconsistent mixture of Planck’s vibrating dipole at origin and a wave propagating on a string.
If one sets that u is independent of x, equation (4) is almost Planck’s equation with the term K.f missing.
If one sets that we have a vibrating string then u is the displacement and can’t be the dipolar momentum.
The conclusion is that equation 4 besides being dimensionaly inconsistent can NOT be derived from Planck’s (correct !) equation and actually contradicts it. If you want to set your theory on solid feet, you must rigorously derive a correct equation (4) from the Maxwell’s equations like Planck did it. It is unclear what added value there would be to consider a “string of charges” instead of what Planck did already 100 years ago with a single oscillator that he then generalized to N oscillators.
One detail more – farther in the development you say :
“assuming (d^3 u_ν)/dt^3 can be replaced by – ν².(d u_ν)/dt”
But this is an adhoc unjustified assumption.
If you assume that, you can spare yourself most of the developpement because (d^3 u_ν)/dt^3 = – ν².(d u_ν)/dt can be easily directly integrated .
So with this assumption alone, you have all u_ν and therefore the solution
u(x,t) directly without needing to do any calculations!
This equation cannot be assumed without justification.
A few words to the interpretations.
You say :
The Rayleigh-Jeans Law leads to an ‘‘ultraviolet catastrophe’’ because
without some form of high-frequency limitation, the total raditation will
be unbounded. Classical wave mechanics thus appears to lead to an absurdity, which has to be resolved in one way or the other. In an ‘‘act of
despair’’ Planck escaped the catastrophy by cutting the Gordian Knot simply replacing classical wave mechanics with a new statistical mechanics
where high frequencies were assumed to be rare;
This is part of the legend spread in the general public but it could not be farther of the truth. What did Planck really say in http://www.archive.org/details/uberdietheoewarm00planrich ?
Ich bin daher der Meinung, daß die besprochene Schwierigkeit
nur durch eine unberechtigte Anwendung des Satzes von
der Gleichmäßigkeit der EnergieVerteilung auf alle unabhängigen
Zustandsvariabeln hervorgerufen ist. In der Tat ist für die
Gültigkeit dieses Satzes die Voraussetzung wesentlich, daß die
Zustandsverteilung unter allen bei gegebener Gesamtenergie von
vornherein möglichen Systemen eine ergodische ist, oder kurz
ausgedrückt, daß die Wahrscheinlichkeit dafür, daß der Zustand
des Systems in einem bestimmten kleinen „Elementargebiet”
(§ 150) liegt, einfach proportional ist der Größe dieses Gebiets,
wenn dasselbe auch noch so klein genommen wird. Diese
Voraussetzung ist aber bei der stationären Energiestrahlung
y nicht erfüllt; denn die Elementargebiete dürfen nicht beliebig
klein genommen werden, sondern ihre Größe ist eine endliche,
durch den Wert des elementaren Wirkungsquantums h bestimmte.
Nur wenn man das Wirkungselement h unendlich klein annehmen
dürfte, würde man zu dem Gesetz der gleichmäßigen Energieverteilung
gelangen. In der Tat geht für unendlich kleines h, wie man aus der Formel (233) ersieht, die allgemeine Energieverteilung in die spezielle hier abgeleitete (269) über, und es gelten dann überhaupt alle Beziehungen des § 154, entsprechend dem Rayleighschen Strahlungsgesetz.” (page 178).
This is absolutely brilliant and probably the cleanest explanation of the “ultraviolet catastrophy” cause ever.
Planck is saying here that the UV catatrophy can only happen because one assumes energy equipartition which is only valid for ergodic systems. However the condition for ergodicity is that the probability of a state is proportional to the phase space volmume however small this volume may be. And Planck rightly remarks that this volume can NOT be infinitely small because the smallest size is defined by the Planck’s constant h.
His last sentence is surprisingly modern knowing that he wrote it in 1906, 15 years before the birth of QM “Indeed it is only if the constant h was infinitely small that the radiation laws would take the general form of the Rayleigh law”.
Today we would say the same thing “The classical physics is obtained as a mathematical limit of quantum mechanics when the Planck’s constant goes to 0”.
So it appears clearly, to the contrary of what you wrote, that Planck not only didn’t despair but he perfectly understood that the finite size of h (what is the fundamental basis of quantum mechanics) was the right explanation of the black body radiation. He also perfectlyunderstood that the relation that he derived (dE=a.ν with a constant) which became later the famous E=h.ν, another part of QM, was a necessary consequence of Maxwell equations and of 2nd principle of thermodynamics.
Btw Judith I strongly doubt that you have a single student who would have the knowledge and the experience to “debunk” theories of radiation based on Planck’s and Maxwell approach.
They might contest “dubious” interpretations but they couldn’t do the correct derivations and arguments.
Indeed the probability that you teach to a future Nobel of Planck’s size is rather low :)
Actually I am sure that even a majority of teachers wouldn’t be able to correctly understand radiative theories based on Maxwell&Thermodynamics only. Yet, as Planck has shown, QM is not necessary to develop a correct radiation theory on a macroscopic level. It just needs a very good physicist.
Of course as these 2 descriptions are dual and as we know since Planck that the basis of QM is already contained in the “classical” physics , they must come both to the same conclusions verified by observational evidence in the domain where they both apply.
Tomas, thank you for your analysis, I look forward to part II. No, our undergrads obviously cannot dig into this problem at the level that you have, but they are sufficiently knowledgeable about basic spectroscopy and empirical observations of radiative fluxes. So CJ’s arguments can be refuted in two ways. Your way is more likely to resonate with CJ.
One other point regarding why this discussion has been polarized beyond the equations presented by CJ. CJ’s chapters occur in the context of a politically motivated book that has very little actual science in it.
Tomas, I have already pointed out here and on his blog some of the mathematical errors. As you say, his equations are full of dimensional inconsistencies. The units of gamma seem to change several times.
More seriously, (4) has an obvious instability since it supports exponentially growing solutions exp(t/gamma).
Between (4) and (5) Claes makes an elementary integration-by-parts mistake, switching time derivatives within an x integral, so the energy equation (5) is completely wrong.
As before, PaulM’s objections don’t make any sense at all. I have written 100
math articles and 10 math books. How many have you written Paul?
Tomas Milanovic
Interesting post and fair comment.
I look forward to Claes reply.
I couldn’t agree more with your opening remark;
……….”I have no respect for arrogant self proclaimed scientists whose arguments are dominated by knee jerk reactions and I would like to dissociate myself strongly from them.”…….
Just by chance a prime example of what you were referring to posted posted just ahead of you.
I have found the whole post most interesting and learned something new.
That particle like photons have associated with them second and third harmonics – how wave like.
Thomas, as an admitted crank, I’d like to thank you for your patient and reasoned treatment of this.
I’d like to correct a misconception in your otherwise brilliant analysis: An ad hominem fallacious argument is not simply an insult. No one is saying Claes is wrong because of who or what he is. We took his words and equations (you were not the first) seriously and found them both highly, if not fatally flawed, and made cogent crticisms. He does not respond in like manner. No matter what, quantum mechanics remains a deceit, Planck despaired, Einstein hated, etc. No matter what, energy can not travel in opposite directions, matter “knows” the source temperature of incoming radiation, etc. To whatever extent the term crackpot can be used objectively Claes has met the criteria by his responses here.
It will be interesting to see his response to your devastating comment. If he admits to the bulk of it I will happily withdraw and apologize for any insult.
There is a interesting article about Planck at Physics World. Reading it requires registration, but it is free
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/print/373
The article tells, how Planck was for a long time opposed to the statistical approach of Boltzmann, but later developed his theory on on the basis of Boltzmann’s kinetic theory of gases. Another important starting point was Wien’s law, which had been shown to agree with experiments, but which lacked proper derivation. As Tomas explained, Planck introduced ideal oscillators. This idea can now be related to discrete states in quantum mechanic, but at that time they had no well specified physical interpretation. After some juggling this approach gave, however, results that were in good agreement with experiments.
According to this article the ultraviolet catastrophe was not considered a problem at that time as neither Planck nor others accepted the equipartition theorem as fundamental. The article tells, that the issue was really rised by Paul Ehrenfest in 1911.
The concept of quantization was introduced later, when Planck was not satisfied with the basics of his earlier derivation. Although the concept and the constant were now introduced the theory was in Planck’s own later words “a purely formal assumption”. The fact that quantization of energy was hidden in the concept of an oscillator, Planck did not say anything about that, not then (1900) nor in the 1906 lectures. Einstein introduced the idea in his analysis of photoelectric effect in 1905. This is perhaps the most important step towards quantum mechanics. At least it is behind the concept of photons, be it radiation, back radiation or whatever.
Dear Tomas:
Thanks for looking at the differential equation I study! Your are the first of commentators to take this brave step!
My basic model consists of the wave equation with a radiation term as minus
third-order time derivative multiplied by a small coefficient gamma. It is common in mathematics to write differential equations in “normalized form” assuming certain dimensional constants are set to 1 so that they are not visible. This in order to not clutter the analysis by in the context inessential constants. I think you can accept that.
My model is a continuum version of Planck’s model, so if you accept his equation you should accept mine. The physical interpretation is a vibrating
string of charges which under forcing radiate. It is a mathematical model stripped to bare essentials such as wave equation with a dissipative radiation term. I believe the model captures some physics of interest, but a full model
will consist of 3d Maxwell with a radiation term. To criticize the model for
being too simple or dimensionally incorrect misses the point.
It is completely clear that Planck did not like his “trick” but since it gave him such fame, of course he gradually got used to it and kept his dubiosities for himself.
Claes,
To certain extent it is possible to drop units saying that a dimensional constant is chosen to be one, but only to certain extent. Doing it without proper care means changing the theory as only few constants are one at the same time. You have definitely done that more often than acceptable in some places. I have not checked, whether it matters for further results as you include in your papers irrelevant side tracks and some of these errors may have been in these side tracks. Even, if this is the case, you show lack of care of issues important for getting correct results.
You asked for specific complaints. The carelessness about dimensions and units is a fault, so are the misleading quotes from great scientists, so are your blunt statements about quantum mechanics, so are ………
There is an important misconception about quantum mechanics which has become immensely popular, but made the inventor of quantum mechanics Schrodinger turn away from his creation in disgust. Why? Because Schrodinger’s equations are continuum differential equations with wave functions distributed in space as solutions and not delta functions representing particles. Thus quantum mechanics has nothing to do with particles, according to Schrodinger and myself as one of his humble followers.
I have followed up on Schrodinger’s idea of the wave function not as a statistical particle distribution but as “presence function” in the upcoming book Many-Minds Relativity and Quantum Mechanics available under “books” on my home page.
Claes,
You should not connect in the way you do the two aspects of quantum mechanics:
– QM is an extremely successful tool for calculating quantitative results, which are in agreement with experiments. This is for many physicists enough. The are not worried about things that do not affect their ability to make correct predictions. This is an essential message to everybody: If your theory disagrees in its predictions with QM it is almost certainly wrong.
– The second aspect is philosophical. Interpreting QM has turned out to be difficult for humans who live in a world, where quantum effects are not observed directly everyday, but are hidden behind mathematical analysis. As people see classical mechanics type things and macroscopic phenomena all mental concepts are based on them. Interpreting QM and performing measurements on microscopic systems requires some rules of interpretation. The easiest set of rules is presented by Copenhagen interpretation. It introduces the delta functions as useful abstractions. It makes the last step of the calculations easier than alternative choices.
These problems of interpretation led Schrödinger to introduce his cat and Einstein to present his lack of satisfaction with the situation. This does not mean that either one of them would have doubted the quantitative results of QM. They wished to find a solution which gives all the results of QM, but interpreted in a different way.
When you present your theories you should also accept that the earlier results are correct as did all those physicists, whom you try to use as evidence for the opposite. You cannot change the results of basic physics, not as starting point for climate science nor elsewhere without ending in disagreement with empirical evidence. Therefore this theory has no place in a book on climate science.
Pekka: I am not the judge of quantum mechanics. I consider a classical continuum wave mechanics model because I consider it to be able to capture relevant physics. If you can get meaningful results using quantum mechanics, it is OK with me. I don’t say that it is impossible neither do I say it works fine. I say nothing about this approach, and I let it speak for itself.
You did not answer if you believed that “backradiation” is physical reality.
I think that it is the task of scientists believing it is, to give evidence.
I see no “backradiation” in my model, but a model is a model and maybe
the model missed to incorporate the “physics of backradiation”. Maybe you can help me to include this phenomenon in my model?
I do not consider statistics as physics because Nature does not play with ensembles, as far as I can understand. But I am not claiming that it is impossible to model Nature by statistics, if you are a skilful statistical physicist. It is just outside my realm of thought.
You say that to model radiation you need quantum mechanics. Maybe, maybe not. You probably argue that the model fluid mechanics you need quantum mechanics because a fluid consists of molecules of some sort.
But there is a lot fluid simulatio being done starting from the Navier-Stokes equations as a macroscopic model. I doubt that you can compute
interesting aspects of fluid flow using Schrodinger’s equation, but maybe you think it is possible?
Claes,
The discussion of radiation in the atmosphere requires quantum mechanics, because it is in an totally essential way affected by discrete molecular states and their transitions. Without a proper description of the vibrational states of H2O and CO2 the analysis is of no value. The proper analysis need not be in every respect the standard way these states and transitions are handled usually, but a correct description of some type is absolutely necessary. For that I do not know any alternative to quantum mechanics, but I do see different ways of including QM correctly.
This is not based on empty philosophy or formalism, this is based on numbers and empirical results.
Claes
You say
My model is a continuum version of Planck’s model, so if you accept his equation you should accept mine. The physical interpretation is a vibrating
string of charges which under forcing radiate.
Unfortunately this is precisely what it is not.
1) It is dimensionaly inconsistent . You are right that one could choose a unit system where some (not all !) constants are 1. It is impossible for the Planck’s equation. This is bad.
2) If your equation is a continuum “version” of Planck’s equation, you will agree that for a string of length 0 (or a single oscillator what is the same thing) it simply MUST reduce to Planck’s equation. It doesn’t.
(4) gives for a single oscillator :
(d^2 u)⁄dt ² – γ (d^³ u)⁄dt ³= f
Planck says :
K.f + L.(d^2 f)⁄dt ² – 2/(3. c³) (d^³ f)⁄dt ³= Ez.
These are clearly 2 completely different equations. This is worse. Please note that neither K nor L can be chosen as 1.
3) Planck’s oscillators are necessarily DISCRETE because Planck was a physicist.
He knew that this something that vibrates must have a dipolar momentum and therefore is a (discrete) molecule. Btw this was a brilliant insight because the quantum mechanics (version 2011 !) “explains” the molecule – radiation interaction as an interaction between a photon and an electrical dipole. You only need to rewrite with some fancy kets, operators and psis.
Follows that there can NOT be a continuous “version” of Planck because a “continuum” of oscillators is unphysical. This is the worst.
Besides as I have already noted you make an unacceptable assumption.
“assuming (d^3 u_ν)/dt^3 can be replaced by – ν².(d u_ν)/dt”
You do realise that with this assumption the theory (any theory) is solved without development, don’t you?
This differential equation can be easily solved and you obtain ALL u_ν directly.
But as the solution of equation (4) depends only on the u_ν , you have directly the solution u(x,t).
It’s like if somebody said “I have a solution but don’t know what is the equation to solve”
This “assumption” must be proven as being equivalent to (4). You didn’t do that.
It is completely clear that Planck did not like his “trick” but since it gave him such fame, of course he gradually got used to it and kept his dubiosities for himself.
Sorry but that is a total, complete misinterpretation. Yet I have gone to the extremity to copy EXACTLY what Planck did say. You probably didn’t read it.
The h constant being non 0 , E=h.ν , the BB radiation laws are not “tricks” .
On the contrary in this reference http://www.archive.org/details/uberdietheoewarm00planrich Planck PROVES all of the above. There are no sentiments involved and certainly no “like” or “dislike” – just hardcore science of very high level.
How high level it was shows that all of his results still stand in 2011 and will probably stand for a long time if not forever.
You should not speculate about what Planck kept for himself because by definition he kept it only for himself.
But if you want to know what he really said and wrote then read the link and it becomes fast obvious that it is far from the misguided legend about”tricks”and “dubiosities”.
Come on Tomas: Planck’s equation is (after non-dimensionalization) my equation (10) which is the frequency version of my equation (4). How can you argue about this?
To penetrate into the mind of since long dead physicist is not easy. I wished
Planck was alive so that we could ask him about his inner thoughts. But now
we can only speculate: I have mine citations and you have yours, and so what is the truth? Was the young Planck more clever/stupid than the old? Who knows?
Instead of wondering what Planck thought how about applying your method to the simple practical problem posed above regarding a thermocouple in a hot gas flow. It’s a simple undergraduate problem so it shouldn’t pose too much of a problem.
what test his ideas?
Yeah, what a concept!
So Steve, did you test all that military hardware with thought experiments or did you actually use early versions of that hardware with instrumentation to find out what was actually happening in case someone “forgot” something in that thought experiment??
I’m sure those aircraft you fly in were all designed and tested with thought experiments, right??
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
So Steve, did you test all that military hardware with thought experiments or did you actually use early versions of that hardware with instrumentation to find out what was actually happening in case someone “forgot” something in that thought experiment??
1. We started out with thought experiments
2. Then we built models. Some of them ‘effects models’
some of them High fidelity models.
3. then came a variety of tests
4. Some things could NEVER be tested, only modelled.
5. Somethings were never tested or modelled but they
happened IRL and people died.
The “thought” experiments were used to weed out bad ideas.
In any case, Johnsons ideas can be tested. Phil has shown a way. Lucia has defined an experiment. I would think that skeptics could rally the few dollars required to test the ideas. When you see he is wrong you will latch onto another bad idea and still not comprehend that the best arguments lie within the existing science..
Tomas,
This goes outside the discussion with Claes, but is a comment on what Planck presents in his 1906 book.
He starts the Third Part, which describes the analysis of an linear oscillator noting that according to Kirchhoff’s law the radiation inside a cavity is independent of the materials in the cavity. Then he argues that therefore he can choose the easiest physical system to analyze as basis of his theory. This is a good approach for finding the result, but an unsatisfactory approach for understanding the physics behind the theory. As far as I understand this observation is close to his own letter of 1930 that I mentioned in my earlier message.
At this point Planck’s theory was in some sense a phenomenological model. Its basics was not understood, but it was capable of producing the right result. Only later development of quantum mechanics completed the process by explaining why Planck got the right results.
A true crackpot is impervious and indefatigable. This thread is a perfect case study of one; he has those traits in spades. The best efforts of people who actually know what they are talking about are useless against CJ; he simply does not hear them. He Can Not Be Wrong. That is all he needs to know.
It is most wondrous how crackpots always attract acolytes–again, as we see here–willing to believe they’ve found a champion to demolish the mendacious ivory towers of science and ready to defend him against the evil establishment. I don’t know whence comes this passionate attraction to way-outliers, but I know UFOlogists, IDers, book sellers, etc. who depend on it for a living are happy it exists.
@hunter…
You say I’m wrong, by blah, blah, blah… Demonstrate that I and more than 100 scientists through the last 150 years are wrong; however, no more blah, blah, blah; YOU MUST demonstrate the experimental and observational data is wrong by scientific arguments.
Here the formula goes:
ECO2 = 1-[(a-1 * 1-PE / a + b – (1 + PE)) * e [-c (Log10 (paL) m / paL)^2]] * (ECO2)0 (Modest. 2003. Pp. 339-346)
Now tell us: what’s wrong on it?
The formula in my previous post is for calculating the TOTAL emissivity of CO2.
total emissivity of a gas isn’t a concept that makes sense, or is at best ambiguous
@Curryja…
Gosh! Total emissivity is the angular stone of radiative heat transfer and climate thermodynamics. Ignoring it, every thing and all you could argue on this issue is dead word.
total emissivity for gas is an ambiguous concept at best. a gas should not be treated as a grey body.
And the total emissivity of CO2 is 0.002; no more.
The figure 0.002 was obtained from REAL data on the conditions of the current atmosphere. It is the result of OBSERVATIONS and EXPERIMENTATION made by many scientists.
@Curryja… Just meditate on this… How do you know the amount of energy the CO2 is absorbing from the surface if you do not know what the total absorptivity of CO2 is? And… By what means you could know the CO2 is emitting that insubstancial “backradiation”, if you do not know the total emissivity of CO2?
@Curryjah… Why we should not treat a gas like a graybody (gray system) when it clearly is a graybody (gray system)?
I know a gas is not a “body”; however, it can occupy a volume, it exerts a Pp, it has internal energy, etc., therefore, it is a thermodynamic system and it can be treated as a graybody system. Is the CO2 absorbing the whole amount of energy, at ALL frequencies and ALL amplitudes and ALL spectral bands?
@Curryjah… Consequently, if you are convinced that TOTAL emissivity is an ambiguous concept, all the derivations about radiative heat transfer, “backradiation”, greenhouse effect, etc., are ambiguous; why? because the latter concepts are based on what you say is an ambiguous concept.
If the total emissivity of CO2 is ambiguous, why it is introduced in the formula to know the intensity of the energy hemispherically radiated by the CO2 in the surroundings of a system?
I = [b]ECO2[/b] (σ) (T)^4 / π
(Pitts, Donald and Sissom, Leighton. Heat Transfer. 1998)
Correction, I do not know how to bold characters. [b] and [/b] do not form part of the formula:
I = ECO2
Claes
Come on Tomas: Planck’s equation is (after non-dimensionalization) my equation (10) which is the frequency version of my equation (4). How can you argue about this?
Because your (4) doesn’t reduce to Planck’s equation .
(4) gives for a single oscillator :
(d^2 u)⁄dt ² – γ (d^³ u)⁄dt ³= f
Planck says :
K.f + L.(d^2 f)⁄dt ² – 2/(3. c³) (d^³ f)⁄dt ³= Ez.
These are clearly 2 completely different equations.
Claes you were right to reproach to people that they were unwilling to engage your theory with mathematics.
But now that I am doing exactly what you wanted, don’t do what you reproach to others.
You need to show (with equations , not handwaving) that :
– units can be chosen so that (4) can be dimensionaly consistent Sofar it is not.
– (4) reduces to Planck for a string of length 0. It doesn’t.
– a “continuum” of oscillators make physical sense
– Even in a purely mathematical sense, how is(4) derived. Specifically where comes (∂^2 u)⁄∂x ² from and why is there not a V² (velocity) coefficient.
– What is u(x,t) in (4) ? It is unusual that the most fundamental variable of a theory is defined nowhere in the paper! I only guessed by analogy to Planck but still don’t know for sure what is u.
– Where does (d^3 u_ν)/dt^3 = – ν².(d u_ν)/dt come from ? I consider this equation as completely illegal . I am 99,9% sure that it cannot be derived from (4) . Perhaps you can prove it and show that 0,1% is not 0. Just do it.
That is plenty of open and purely mathematical questions. Just answer them with equations.
Pekka
It is true that Planck didn’t speculate about the exact mechanism at the molecular level. He says several times that many questions were still open.
But he also says that these unknown “details” will be irrelevant for the results unless they invalidate Maxwell and the 2nd law. He didn’t believe that probable and rightly so.
However there was nothing open in the question whether the h constant could be 0 or not . His analysis of the “UV catastrophy” that I quoted shows that he understood perfectly what the problem was and how it was solved by a non zero h. We couldn’t do better today.
I completely disagree with the statement
At this point Planck’s theory was in some sense a phenomenological model. Its basics was not understood, but it was capable of producing the right result.
The basics (Maxwell’s equations, statistical thermodynamics, 2nd law, ergodicity) were perfectly understood at least by Planck. And nothing more is necessary to derive his results.
QM adds nothing and substracts nothing to Planck’s results. Actually Planck expected (in 1906) that a new theory would explain why h is non 0 and where it comes from. QM didn’t meet even this expectation.
Sure QM gives a fully new formalism and a new paradigm for microscopic processes. But for anything macroscopic like BB etc QM gives just the same result as Maxwell, Blotzman & Co.
“QM adds nothing and substracts nothing to Planck’s results”
Zero point energy
You charge your Prius on ZPE bunnie?
Eli drives a diesel Rabett
Returning to the point, Einsteins calculation of the specific heat of solids pretty depends on limiting the possible energies of a oscillator along the Planck line and historically was one of the things that clinched the case. CJ just has no idea.
Is that biodiesel bunnie??
always raising the intellectual level of debate.
Tomas,
I have no doubt on Planck’s capability to understand how his results were related to his hypotheses. His understanding on the UV catastrophe was certainly perfect from this point of view. The same applies to his derivation of Plancks’s law. What his derivation was lacking was other justification for these assumptions. They were made, because they were necessary. It is the line of defining mathematics as “theory of tautologies”, as some mathematicians have themselves joked (I heard the description from a friend, who is professor of mathematics).
That is: Planck made the brilliant observations that the right results are obtained, when these assumptions are made, but he lacked a coherent wider theory, where these assumptions have natural settings. Scientific discoveries are often done in this manner. First as rules that are relatively simple, but without proper understanding of the role of these rules in a more general theory, and then as an inducement for the development of such a theory.
To give more significance for the previous message.
Planck succeeded in deriving the law for a black body, i.e. for an idealization that is sometimes close to a real body, sometimes very far from it. What is really needed is the law for real bodies including gaseous bodies like the atmosphere. This theory of real world is missing without quantum mechanics, but that is the theory we ultimately want to have, not only the idealization.
The “theory” of Claes Johnson is neither of any value in understanding the atmosphere until it includes a correct description of the interaction of H2O and CO2 with the electromagnetic field (in addition of being first correct in its basics without these interactions).
Tomas, your questions make little sense. The wave equation in the form I write it is the standard mat model for wave propagation and the Fourier analysis I present use standard techniques. The radiation term is Planck’s. It is a simple
model but much more physical than a cavity filled with some form of resonators
obeying ad hoc laws of statistics. I don’t see that you acknowledge these facts.
I wonder, Dr. Curry, considering the Claes Johnsons, Ken Coffmans, Nasif Nahles, etc. extant in your comments, if you aren’t feeling a bit like Don Quixote in your quest to establish a baseline of sanity in the climate debate?
I contend that your effort is futile. The two sides in the actual science debate, represented by, let us say, Gavin on one side and Pekka on the other, do not need it. They get the basic science. The faux other side, represented by people like Anthony Watts and yes, Steve McIntyre, don’t care.. They will handwave away whatever science they don’t like in service of entirely non-scientific agendas. You are wasting your time attempting to reach common ground with them; they are best ignored.
In my view, the audience most amenable to reasoned arguments does not consist of the participants in the exchanges, but the bystanders. I think this thread has done well in demonstrating to such an audience the abundance of evidence, both theoretical and observational, underlying basic greenhouse principles. I’ve suggested above that at a certain point, continued debate with an intransigent adversary yields diminishing returns. At that point, it would make sense simply to invite readers to review the exchanges so as to make their own judgments. In my experience, that often works out well. Conversely, striving always to have the last word tends to be futile.
Ah, yes: arguing “for the lurkers”. I wonder, how many of these wavering, reticent ghosts actually exist?
i have an idea for a thread that will try to tease out the lurkers to comment on the slaying thread, will put it up late tomorrow.
I don’t hope Dr. Curry will fail, I contend she is doomed to fail. She is attempting intellectual rapprochement with people who are intellectually dishonest.
As to Claes, he is a crank; a crackpot. He has nothing worthwhile to offer to climate science.
Adam R and Josh Halpern
Why do you hope Judith’s endeavor fails?
This thread has been open respectful dialog in the main with lots of interesting science discussed.
Claes has gone out on a limb.
He has tried to revisit the abandonment of classical electromagnetic theory and restore determanism instead of probabilities.
Will he succeed?
I hope so!- and not for Climate Science reasons.
Tomas Milanovic and Pekka have raised serious questions that he must address.
Had he steered clear of Climate Science he would not be getting the vicious flak from some others that have no interest in dialog.
Adam R appears late with a message of despair.
Josh Halpern(Eli) has his own reasons for not wanting to engage with sceptics.
After his disastrous attempt to challenge the Gerhard Gerlich and Ralf D. Tscheuschner paper he probably thinks it wise to avoid further dialog.
Eli will grant you that Claes is nuttier than Ralf and Gerhard, but not much.
Of course there are: those espoused by people representing themselves as science skeptics who are, in reality, political axe grinders.
What a strange statement. There are no “false other sides.” There may be WRONG other sides. But more than that there are MANY other sides. I doubt that any two people think exactly on most subjects. If there were no “other sides” we could not have a real discussion, not even about football!
You sound like a very famous socialist who is fond of talking about “false choices.” There are good choices, bad choices, poor choices, but there are no “false” choices.
@ Adam… What I’m saying is real science, or advanced science, if you prefer it. I have shown formulas derived from observations of the real world, and you can confront them against serious scientific literature, at any moment you wish, because it can be learned from any academic physics book on heat transfer of any level. You will find that the data I have presented here is in agreement with real science, not inventions from biased climate models.
Dr. Curry’s assertions on the futility of the data on total emissivity are inoperative because total emissivity is the basis of the whole physics issue on radiative heat transfer. GH idea is based absolutely on radiative heat transfer and, consequently, its basis must be also the emissive capability of gases, as well as their total absorptivity capability.
If we reject total emissivity, we are rejecting also any possibility of knowing what is actually happening in our world, on energy budget, or any other energy-related matters. Simplest it cannot be.
Claes is proposing a very complete model which includes thermodynamics. The latter, it seems, is not a comfortable topic for the AGW idea; not because the AGW proponents do not know a thing about thermodynamics; it has been systematically “erased” from their schemes because it contradicts many of their assertions. Science does not work this way.
As corollary, in the formula ΔT = α (ln ([CO2] ∞ / [CO2]st)), how would you deduce the value of α, if the total emissivity is dismissed? It would be impossible, Adam.
I tend to agree. Crackpots will always remain impervious to rational argument. That is after all their what defines their reason to be. But the topic being addressed is sufficiently important that their nonsense needs to be debunked. What better place to do that than on this blog where the crackpots in question are given the opportunity to speak their piece – for whatever it’s worth.
I found the exchange rather amusing at times, if not entertaining. I think it was good and proper to nail to the wall all those for being moronic and clueless. As a bystander to this discourse, I must say the I picked up some useful points of fact and perspective that I would not have otherwise come across.
As you can see, practically anything, no matter how ridiculous or erroneous, can get published somewhere. Unfortunately, this is not the last of crackpots. I am sure there will be more to come.
@A Lacis… Well, you are saying that Einstein, with his induced emission, Hottel, Leckner, Modest, Pitts and Van Ness, among many others, with their total emissivity, are or were crackpots.
Does anyone have access to one of the Eppley Infrared Radiometer installations (or anything like it)? I’d like to wave an IR lamp putting out something like 300W/M^2 over it and see what it does.
Thanks.
Call a weather exposure testing laboratory, like this one:
http://www.crtlabs.com/weathering-exposure-testing.html
They probably have the equipment and would even do the waving for you.
Here’s an experiment that could validate or invalidate some of Johnson’s claims. The contents of a stainless steel thermos should lose heat at a rate proportional to T^4 – Text^4. But if Johnson’s eq. (21) is to be believed, it will instead lose heat proportional to T^3(T – Text).
Let’s say water at 90 C is placed in the thermos at room temperature (20 C) and the temperature is measured again after an hour. The experiment is repeated but this time the thermos is immersed, except for the cap, in an ice bath (0 C). The water should lose heat approximately 18% faster and the final temperatures should differ by a little less than 18%.
If Claes is right about eq. (21) then the water will lose heat approximately 29% faster.
We don’t allow for no stinkin’ experiments here, you empiricist heretic! :-)
This is the sort of thing that radiative heat transfer calculations deal with (see Phil Felton’s comments above). In short, MEs do this stuff daily and successfully using the tools provided by everyday physics. CJ and publisher are simply trying to bluster their way through
You are missing my point. I just want to emphasize that real physics does not
play with differences of two way flows of energy but only with one way flow
of net energy. Why? Because there is no accountant in physics keeping track
of gross two way flow of energy and computing the difference. Two bodies
of equal temp do not exchange any entry at all. There is no two way flow of
energy canceling to zero. Why? Because cancellation of big numbers is unstable and unstable processes do not persist over time.
Claes, I took your equation, and created an experiment that will prove or disprove it. Thermoses either work like the “standard literature” says or they work like Claes Johnson says. I say let’s find out once and for all. You say I’m missing the point and give me more false assertions. Eq. (21) is just for emphasis? How are we supposed to know which of your equations are science, and which are just for emphasis?
Nonsense, as in chemical equilibria there is flow both ways which can be measured. There is indeed an ‘accountant’ it’s the temperature! You really should stick to math, your knowledge of physics is abysmal! As for “cancellation of big numbers is unstable” do you think that chemical equilibrium is only possible if the forward and backward reactions are slow? What a joke!
What the hell are the changes in radiative flux?
This is what NASA/GISS say of the International Satellite Cloud Climatology Project (ISCCP-FD) data.
The “slow increase of global upwelling LW flux at TOA from the 1980’s to the 1990’s, which is found mostly in lower latitudes, is confirmed by the ERBS records.”
“The overall slow decrease of upwelling SW flux from the mid-1980’s until the end of the 1990’s and subsequent increase from 2000 onwards appear to be caused, primarily, by changes in global cloud cover (although there is a small increase of cloud optical thickness after 2000) and is confirmed by the ERBS measurements.”
The SW trend in particular is confirmation of observed cloud changes in the Pacific multi-decadal pattern – see references below.
The 1st graph linked to is from the NASA/GISS International Satellite Cloud Climatology Project (ISCCP-FD). Put simply, it is a graph of the changes in the proportion of sunlight being reflected back into space. It shows changes in reflected shortwave radiative flux leaving the planet at the top of the atmosphere. It is not known with any precision what the absolute value is – hence the nominal zero point. However, the changes are relevant and these are monitored by satellite with much greater accuracy. The graph shows a decreasing trend in reflected sunlight from 1984 to the late 1990’s. It was primarily caused by changes in global cloud cover and is confirmed by Earth Radiation Budget Satellite (ERBS) measurements. The change in this graph is about 6W/m2 between 1984 and the late 1990’s. This is an enormous change – it is 4 times the cyclical change in incoming solar energy and 10 times the worst case scenario for greenhouse gas warming. There was significantly less energy being reflected back into space in the late 1990’s than in 1984 – and this played a dominant role in global energy dynamics and, therefore, in global warming in the period.
Energy is everything in climate change. All planetary warming or cooling occurs because there is a difference between incoming and outgoing energy, an energy imbalance. The imbalance results in changes to the amount of energy stored, mostly as heat in the atmosphere and oceans, in Earth’s climate system. If more energy enters the atmosphere from the Sun than is radiated as heat or reflected as light back out into space – the planet warms. Conversely, if less energy enters the atmosphere than leaves – the planet cools.
http://isccp.giss.nasa.gov/zFD/an9090_SWup_toa.gif – ISCCP-FD (2007 analysis) Global Mean Reflected Visible Light
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change attest that they are 90% certain that anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions caused most of global warming in the past 50 years. In the past 50 years – global warming only occurred in the period between 1977 to 1998. Before that there was a period of no warming from the mid 1940’s to 1976. Since then, there has been no warming – although that, of course, has been the subject of much statistical tomfoolery.
The question arises of why the unanticipated change in cloud and one explanation emerges from Pacific Ocean variability. There are uncountable numbers of scientific papers on Pacific variability – and mounds of physical evidence over one hundred years. The coral and tree ring proxy record for this is a minimum of 400 years long. One sediment record stretches back 11,000 years – and shows a major El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) driven climate shift 5,000 years ago that resulted in the drying of the Sahel. An important mode of Pacific Ocean variability occurs over periods of 20 to 40 years. There is a warm El Niño dominated mode over 20 to 40 years – a period of large and frequent El Niño accompanied by warm water in the north-eastern Pacific. It is followed by a cool La Niña dominated period – a period of large and frequent La Niña accompanied by cool water in the north-eastern Pacific. In the Pacific Ocean in the 20th century there was a cool La Niña dominated mode from the mid 1940’s to 1976, an El Niño dominated warm mode from 1977 to 1998 and a cool mode since. That the trajectory of global surface temperature changes is a mirror of the ocean states seems unlikely to be coincidental.
Observational evidence from Dessler (2010) and Zhu et al (2007) is for more cloud with lower sea surface temperature (La Niña) and less cloud with higher sea surface temperature (El Niño). Clement et al (2009) and Burgman et al (2008) presented observational evidence for decadal changes in cloud cover, again negatively correlated with sea surface temperature in the Pacific. The trend in shortwave radiative flux confirms the observations of changes in cloud cover in the Pacific. The evidence suggests a significant role for Pacific Ocean variability in global climate variability.
http://isccp.giss.nasa.gov/zFD/an9090_LWup_toa.gif
http://isccp.giss.nasa.gov/zFD/an9090_LWup_toa.gif – ISCCP-FD (2007 analysis) Global Mean Heat Flux
To look at the other side of the outgoing energy picture – the second graph linked to is of changes in longwave radiative flux leaving the planet. Put simply, it shows the change in the amount of heat being radiated into space from the planet. The NASA/GISS graph of the longwave radiative flux shows an overall increase in heat radiated to space between 1984 and 2002 – significant planetary cooling in the bandwidth in which greenhouse gases operate.
Of course, the net result was planetary warming but it all occurred from a decrease in reflected visible light – primarily from less clouds. If the only obvious source of global warming in the satellite record between 1984 to the late 1990’s occurred as a result of Pacific Ocean changes (and associated cloud changes) – and as we don’t know with any confidence what drives Pacific Ocean variability – there is an obvious need to go back to basics in climate science. Indeed, the evidence that all global warming in the satellite era is from less cloud cover is alone challenge enough to demand a complete rethink.
The current cool mode of the Pacific decadal pattern is leading to larger and more frequent La Niña – and to cold water rising in the north-eastern Pacific in the cool mode of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO). This must result in more low level marine cloud cover and the planet must cool over a decade or three more. The current super La Niña is certainly cooling the planet in a very significant way. With a record negative Southern Oscillation Index – this one seems like it might persist through this year at least and intensify again in the boreal spring.
While natural variations in climate are evidently playing a larger part in climate change than many have thought – it is of little relevance to anthropogenic climate risk. Climate, as the Royal Society attested recently, is an example of a chaotic system (complex and dynamical) in theoretical physics. In these systems, small changes accumulate until they precipitate a shift that is out of all proportion to the initial impetus. Thus a mathematically certain climate risk exists in the accumulation of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and it could be very significant and very abrupt indeed. The best source of general information on this is still a 2002 US National Academy of Sciences report: Abrupt climate change: inevitable surprises.
The scientific proof that climate is a complex and dynamic system – and that this has effects in the modern era – is relatively new. I date it from a 2007 study by Professor Anastasios Tsonis and colleagues: ‘A new dynamical mechanism for major climate shifts’. A numerical network model was constructed for the study from 4 observed ocean and climate indices – the El Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO), the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO), the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO) and the Pacific Northwest Anomaly (PNA) – thus capturing most of the major modes of climate variability in the period 1900–2000. This network synchronized around 1909, the mid 1940’s and 1976/77 – after which the climate state shifted. A later study (Swanson and Tsonis 2009) found a similar shift in 1998/2001. They found that where a ‘synchronous state was followed by a steady increase in the coupling strength between the indices, the synchronous state was destroyed, after which a new climate state emerged. These shifts are associated with significant changes in global temperature trend and in ENSO variability.’ Amongst the implications of these studies is that these indices of climate are not independent but interact in a chaotically shifting climate. There are tremendous energies cascading through powerful systems.
I don’t know what the hell is wrong with this picture. There was one period of warming in the last 50 years – between 1977 and 1998. On the one hand we have NASA/GISS who say that for most of that time it was clouds causing all of the observable warming – and this is supported by observational evidence. One the other hand we have a cooling in the infrared band – which speaks for itself.
Who then cares about greenhouse gases? Well – fundamentally climate is chaotic – and these systems are sensitive to initial conditions.
But is it really germane to rehash 101 carbon physics – including bloody satellite based IR spectral analysis – without the slightest mention of what the ISCCP-FD or ERBS measurements say ? Oh – by the way – the planet cooled quite spectacularly in the IR band in both ISCCP and ERBS data. Why is this? We don’t care – we will just ignore it?
And Fred – before you take me on another peripatetic ramble – tell someone who cares.
Burgman, R. J., Clement, A. C., Mitas, C. M. , Chen, J. and Esslinger, K. (2008), Evidence for atmospheric variability over the Pacific on decadal timescales GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 35, L01704, doi:10.1029/2007GL031830, 2008
Clement, A., Burgman, R. and Norris J (2009), Observational and Model Evidence for Positive Low-Level Cloud Feedback Science 325 (5939), 460. [DOI: 10.1126/science.1171255]
Dessler, A. E. (2010), A Determination of the Cloud Feedback from Climate Variations over the Past Decade, Science: 330 (6010), 1523-1527. [DOI:10.1126/science.1192546]
Swanson, K. L., and A. A. Tsonis (2009), Has the climate recently shifted?, Geophys. Res. Lett., 36, L06711, doi:10.1029/2008GL037022.
Tsonis, A., Swanson, K. and Kravtsov S. (2007), A new dynamical mechanism for major climate shifts, Geophys. Res. Lett., 34, L13705, doi:10.1029/2007GL030288.
Zhu, P., Hack, J., Keilh, J and Zhu, P, Bretherton, C. 2007, Climate sensitivity of tropical and subtropical marine low cloud amount to ENSO and global warming due to doubled CO2 – JGR, VOL.112, 2007
I don’t know what the hell is wrong with this picture. There was one period of warming in the last 50 years – between 1977 and 1998. On the one hand we have NASA/GISS who say that for most of that time it was clouds causing all of the observable warming – and this is supported by observational evidence. One the other hand we have a cooling in the infrared band – which speaks for itself.
Who then cares about greenhouse gases? Well – fundamentally climate is chaotic – and these systems are sensitive to initial conditions.
But is it really germane to rehash 101 carbon physics – including bloody satellite based IR spectral analysis – without the slightest mention of what the ISCCP-FD or ERBS measurements say ? Oh – by the way – the planet cooled quite spectacularly in the IR band in both ISCCP and ERBS data. Why is this? We don’t care – we will just ignore it?
And Fred – before you take me on another peripatetic ramble – tell someone who cares.
Weather is an initial value problem, climate a boundary value problem.
I think instead repeating slogans (as is your wont I believe) – you should get up to speed with the new climate consensus. As the Royal Society said in their recent summary – climate is an example of a chaotic system…
Utter nonsense.
So how much does cloud albedo have to change to cancel out the 3.7 W/m2 from CO2 doubling? This can be calculated. The earth’s albedo would have to increase by 1 point (e.g. 0.30 to 0.31) which is about 3% of its value. Since cloud cover accounts for about half of the .30 (I think), that would have to increase by about 6%. What would a 6% increase in cloud cover look like? It is more than the size of North America, so it would be very noticeable, even spread over the globe. I would expect that such changes in cloud cover are unprecedented in the recent climate in either direction. Should we rely on such a change in the right direction to occur and cancel or offset CO2 doubling? I don’t think so. It is just as likely to enhance it.
Actually that albedo change could be over an even larger area and also be hardly noticeable as it would be very faint.
The ISCCP-FD site is here. Look at the sw changes between 1984 and the late 1990’s. 6W/m2 in change in a decade and a half enourmous change. 4W/m2 cooling in the infrared – the planet cooled spectacularly in the infrared. Look at the damn data. There is an albedo graph there as well.
Look at some of the cloud changes at Ole Humlum’s site – http://www.climate4you.com/ Very large change and it has been noticed.
All the warming was in the SW as a result of cloud changes and there was significant cooling in the LW. And it was largely a result cloud reduction over a warm ocean in the warm Pacific multi-decadal mode. As a result the 3.7 W/m2 is total bullshit. Forget it – it is not relevant. The planet is cooling for a decade or three more as a result of the current cool Pacific mode.
The planet cooled spectacularly in the infrared. Forget everything you think you know about climate and start from scratch – especially chaos theory because that is the new climate consensus.
They have got it wrong on 2 counts – not enough regard to intrinsic variability and wrong and muddle headed view of chaotic variability.
Robert Ellison
That is an excellent post.
Thank you.
Robert Ellison
Robert, to your list for climate shifts years of about 1910,1940, 1970 & 2000, please include 1880 as shown in the following chart:
http://bit.ly/bUZsBe
Thank you – I believe you are right and even if there isn’t the ocean data to confirm we do have the temperature trends.
Cheers
Robert
That was a great analysis, Robert, and really compelling for a non expert lurker such as myself. Thank you very much for speaking so clearly. You will be interested in Judith’s latest post on Nonlinearities, Feedbacks and Critical Thresholds. The paper discussed there highlights a shift in thinking towards many of your ideas. Thanks again for taking the time to post your comment. Rob
Umm, having now read your remarks on the new thread, perhaps you are less than impressed. LOL, sorry if I misunderstood your position.
As I have said many times, I’m just a dumb chemist that likes to discuss this stuff, just for the hell of it. NOTICE: Judith (and others) are free to completely ignore this. :-). In fact, Judith can even delete it since is is her blog.
It seems to me that one of the primary problems with these discussions is that there are many folks here that think blackbodies actually exist. As I understand things, they are just a figment in a physicist’s immagination. REAL things have mass and they “soak in” energy when exposed to radiation–until an equilibrium exists–which never quite happens in the real world, since the Sun goes up and down. All materials store heat when irradiated by a hotter body (sun) and lose it when the radiation ceases (night). There’s a time lag that nobody seems to discuss. No BB radiation at any time, except maybe for an instant when a body is cooling as the sun is setting and the incident sunlight radiation happens to equal the outward irradiation from the previously heated body.
Now enter, stage right, WATER, the real magic of this planet. It is an especially important actor, since the visible radiation from the Sun penetrates to quite some depth and ALL of the energy from the visible portion of the spectrum of that radiation is absorbed by the water. What is so neat about water (and thus Earth) is that it can only emit from the SURFACE, meaning that only a portion of that energy received during the daytime is emitted back at night. Thus, the water is nothing like a blackbody, since it doesn’t emit what it absorbs instantly. It thus STORES vast amounts of energy. I can even prove that with my swimming pool!
Through the eons a rough heat storage equilibrium has been established, which makes the Earth habitable. I don’t think we need a GHE to explain this habitable temperature. But I’m sure I will just be called another crackpot, which is OK with me.
And there are some chapters in “Slaying the Dragon” that prove this concept to anyone who is willing to think out of the PC box. (Siddons stuff, e.g., Judith).
As has been pointed out to you repeatedly, you can buy a very good (> 99%) black body which is used to calibrate all sorts of instrumentation
Hey bunnie,
Here is what they say about the calibration accuracy:
“Given that the usual minimum ratio of calibration source uncertainty to that of the item under calibration is 1:4, then a two nines source, assuming no temperature gradient errors, would be used to calibrate an instrument with a typical uncertainty specification that was >±4% in radiance. If the instrument was an 8 to 14 micron waveband calibrated at about 500 °C, the typical temperature bias due to calibration would be about +14 °C, since the unit reads lower than true and is adjusted, usually to the “true” from the cavity reference contact sensor (thermocouple).”
??
I guess I need more handholding. What does that mean in simpleton?
damn crackpot
a blackbody is simply something that emits in all bandwidths – unlike blue or green oceans for instance.
Energy is everything in climate change. All planetary warming or cooling occurs because there is a difference between incoming and outgoing energy, an energy imbalance. The imbalance results in changes to the amount of energy stored, mostly as heat in the atmosphere and oceans, in Earth’s climate system. If more energy enters the atmosphere from the Sun than is radiated as heat or reflected as light back out into space – the planet warms. Conversely, if less energy enters the atmosphere than leaves – the planet cools.
The energy imbalance changes all the time – as explained here – http://www.earthandocean.robertellison.com.au/
I think one of the rules on this blog is civility, “Chief” damn crackpot :-)
I think I’m saying the same thing you are. A rock doesn’t behave like a blackbody until it reaches a uniform temperature and the incoming radiation is constant. Imbalance rules.
> JC
> tease out the lurkers
May I suggest separating comments by hand into two groups, one for Climate and the other for Etc.,using your own criteria to sort them and move them?
I think you’d find much worthwhile discussion on the Climate side.
The Etc. side would go on as it has been doing.
The ‘lurkers’ would be able to choose between them.
Another elitist snob? Havaarrrd? or Georgia Tech??
Or just the ability to understand that 1+1 actually *does* equal 2, for commonly-accepted values for the symbolic representations I’ve typed above?
I’m trying a dual thread for the next greenhouse topic (will post later today), one for the science and the other ancillary comments (i will try to make the comment thread sufficiently interesting to motivate people over there).
might I suggest separating the comments into 2 strands – everything by Hank in one?
It seems to me time to take a moment and applaud the bold defense of aesthetics in science of many participants in this topic on all sides.
The life of the love of mathematical clarity and the beauty of equations, striving to understand in a world free of unphysical concepts, the deep and passionate yearning for a truth connecting all observable things and all intangible ones, the quest for a new and brighter Wunderjahr, move me.
It’s like watching Jersey Shore for Physics.
It’s true I walked away from the life of higher contemplation a quarter century ago to contribute what I could to the world of the 45% who learned nothing from their time in post-secondary education, and my math skills are a bit stale in differential equations as a result, but even I can see there is a long way to go in this Reality Television Science that is really the new academic paradigm of serious Physics.
To publish unchecked equations in a pop culture pastiche and hope for the blogosphere to furnish free word-of-mouth advertising and stir up wider interest through controvery, and also collaboratively check your math for you, is that the plan?
If it is, I approve.
Physicists (researchers of all types) need more money, and deserve more money and better, more cost-effective and timely ways to collaborate, for the valuable work they do, and the tools of social networking can only improve the field once the bugs are worked out of this particular method.
So, in the spirit of approving support, I urge the capable and skilful among the readers to review again what has been said and specifically address the points they find most challenging and scandalous and petty with so much truth and little tact as they can while retaining respect.
When you stand on the shoulders of giants, you’re going to kick some of them in the teeth, and some of them are going to bite you.
As I have said: The trouble is that living physicists say nothing, just like the dead
Fourier, Arrhenius, Tyndall and Planck put forward as the spokesmen for “backradiation” and its corollary of CO2 alarmism. What else can a serious
still living matematician do than to present his equation to the blogosphere
and ask for someone to take a look at it and see if it tells something? From the shoulders of giants I thought I could see something, but maybe I was wrong?
There was nothing new to be understood from this equation, only “backradiation” from since long forgotten science of particle statistics.
Sir
Thank you for your thoughtful reply, though I would have vastly preferred instead more fulsome and complete answers and expansions, with equations and specifics, to the points raised about equation (4), etc., by Tomas Milanovic (http://judithcurry.com/2011/01/31/slaying-a-greenhouse-dragon/#comment-37226) or PaulM or Phil, or Pekka, guided by the very kind words of Judith Curry.
Otherwise, while you may achieve a more profitable (http://www.dilbert.com/2011-02-03/) state, you do not achieve one with global net benefits.
The problem with refusing to stand on the shoulders of giants is that otherwise there is the peril of being ground under their heels.
Your approach does not satisfy, if the objections above are not addressed, against the measure of Über die von der molekularkinetischen Theorie der Wärme geforderte Bewegung von in ruhenden Flüssigkeiten suspendierten Teilchen most certainly, which is more beautiful by far, for all its statistics, than anything I have seen published lately with a Dragon on the cover. (Though I hear good things about Girl with the Dragon Tattoo.)
As one the lurkers with a non-climate-science related Phd and interest for the philosphy of science I must say I am very disturbed by the arrogance of most of the commenters on this thread towards CJ’s theory. Genuine sciene is skepticism towards the infallibility of our current understanding not just the understanding of “the others”. Regardless of the merits of CJ’s theory – which I have no ability to evaluate – all of you should be able to treat CJ and his theory with due academic constrain. The arrogance displayed by the scientist involved in the so called Climategate seems to be shared by many many more “climate scientists” flies in the face of a number of basic values of science and I had hoped that Judy’s blog would be able to change that. Having read Judy’s opening comment and this thread, I realize that I had been far too optimistic.
Pethefin, my comments were colored by the context in which these papers appeared: the book Slaying the Greenhouse Dragon, which is 50% political rant. Why would someone publish a treatise that is designed to overthrow most of modern physics in such a book? My comments were also colored by spending 3 decades working with atmospheric radiative transfer, including observations, models, and theory. All of this says that there is overwhelming evidence for the existence of infrared radiative emission by CO2 and H20, some of which travels back in the direction of the earth’s surface, and so warms the surface (relative to the situation if there was no CO2 or H20 in the atmosphere). There are many things to be skeptical about, IMO this isn’t one of them. If a scientist has a serious skeptical argument, to be take seriously it should be aired in the peer reviewed journals, not published in a politically motivated book.
How can a simple wave equation and a little bit of Fourier analysis
“overthrow most of modern physics”? Have you lost all sense of proportions? I know very well this tactic of inflating a correct argument
so that it becomes ridiculous and can be dismissed as such. Another cheap “trick”.
50% “political rant”? Maybe, but if the remaining 50% is science, isn’t that quite good? I am not responsible for politicizing climate science, I analyze
some math equations and don’t do any politics. Even 1 + 1 = 2 and can be turned into politics.
Your publishing your mathematical treatise in a politically motivated book is a statement in itself. If you deny the existence of downwelling infrared radiative flux from CO2 (I still haven’t gotten a straight answer from you on this, in spite of asking the question multiple times), and claim that your mathematical analysis is correct, which is in contradiction to these observations, then the observations need to be incorrect and much of 20th century physics needs to be correct. These are the implications of your mathematical sketch, and publishing it in the dragon book, like it or not.
There is no downwelling flux of 324 W/m2 and no upwelling flux of
390 W/m2 as in the KT energy budget.
ok, is your problem with the averaging? the number of significant figures? Do you think the downwelling flux is zero? Do you think the upwelling flux is zero? Do you agree that there is radiant energy transfer that can be measured in W m-2, and the numbers should look something like the numbers of KT?
Claes,
What do you mean by correct argument?
Your text that has turned out to be full of errors?
On one point I agree. It does not overthrow most of modern physics as it does not appear to present anything valid. If you disagree, you should at least explain, how the first part of your analysis is not so full of elementary errors as it appears to be based on what you have written.
Judy you say 50 percent of ‘Slaying the Sky Dragon’ is a political rant. Please cite precisely where in the book is political ranting. If you cannot give us examples then it is you who is ‘politically ranting’ for a discredited brand of environmentalism.
For what it’s worth, the arrogance of Claes Johnson also shows.
Arrogance is part of what makes a scientist, like it or not.
Philosophy of science should not be conflated with tone trolling.
Willard, I am equally disappointed at CJ’s willingness to answer his critics but I find you calling my request for academic civility as tone trolling quite juvinile. It shows that you have not got a faintest idea of what I was talking about. Arrogance is not the key to a better scientific understanding of a fenomenon. Arrogance is rather a trait of dogmatism which often leads to scientific dead end.
Judy, you said in your opening remarks that you had Monckton and Costella on your side. I have not seen them in the debate. Have they left you and shifted side? Since they say nothing it is difficult to tell.
I’ve read a lot of Monckton’s claims (and hes right on some occations but also wrong in many), and I’ve never seen him deny the GH-effect. He is always talking about feedbacks and how much warming CO2 could cause. No climate scientist, non-skeptical or skeptical about man made global warming, really denies the very GH-effect itself, at least that I know of.
Also, how do you debunk the mearured DLR? I’ve been asking this question from many greenhouse-‘skeptics’ but yet I havent heard anything else than straw men (equiment are being cooled (when they are not), the photons are not transferring heat (which they do, thermo I!!).
I have to admit that I am not very familiar with your model and calculations, but if it is the same 2nd-law and maxwell’s demon -fallacy as heard many times before, I think I will skip it.
Overall, this has been an educative thread, even for non-greenhouse-‘skeptics’.
From his latest personal emails on this matter Monckton has shifted from describing Johnson as a “crackpot” to now admitting he is “clever” – and Monckton now admits he is “not qualified” to participate in this debate.
John, I suggest that you ask Lord M to make this shift from “crackpot” to “clever” public. It is a most essential contribution to the debate.
I don’t think Lord M is a crackpot either, but instead clever.
Judy, you also said in your opening remarks that your students would be able
to debunk my math. I haven’t seen anything of that. Have you not engaged your
students?
Claes,
Concerning mathematics, you could start by answering to this repeated question by PaulM
http://judithcurry.com/2011/01/31/slaying-a-greenhouse-dragon/#comment-36872
http://judithcurry.com/2011/01/31/slaying-a-greenhouse-dragon/#comment-37230
I have answered PaulM.
Claes,
You did not.
You wrote two messages referring to authority, whose value has come under suspicion on these pages.
I tell you again: The exponential instability and integration parts errors
claimed by PaulM is just plain wrong. I do not use authority, but to argue with someone using erronous elementary math is tedious and can go on for ever. Can’t you see yourself that what PaulM is saying does not make any sense? If you can’t see it, you have a problem in this discussion.
The first mathematical claim that you can add to any solution of the equation (4) the term
exp(t/γ)
is definitely true. You may perhaps have a argument to tell that it is not of significance, but you should now present that argument.
Show in detail the computation underlying your claim. I simply do not understand what you are writing.
Claes,
Unbelievable. You claim to know mathematics very well.
Check your eq (4) and what happens when you calculate the left hand side with that function. It is not a solution by itself, but adding it to any solutions gives a new solution.
Claes,
Besides this trivial mathematical point that you seem not to understand, the second error that PaulM mentioned is also really an elementary mathematical error. Check where you take derivative with respect to t and where with respect to x. The error is in the second term on the left hand side on the line above eq (5).
I start to wonder, how many elementary errors can this short paper contain.
And concerning physics I ask:
Do you expect that your approach gives different final results compared to standard physics approach? By that I do not mean, do some interpretation differ, but do the measurable results differ?
I don’t know waht you by standard physics approach? Radiative transfer equations, statistical mechanics? Of course different models will give partly different results, like in acoustics/visualization with wave models being more accurate than particle/ray models. Right?
You know, what I mean. Stop avoiding direct answers.
I do not know what you mean by “standard physics”. Tell me and I can answer.
Claes,
Standard physics is the physics thought at university physics department for physics students from physics textbooks and applied in the fashion present competent physicists do it.
It includes quantum mechanics to calculate the molecular vibrational states and their interaction with radiation and its handling of radiation is in accordance with quantum electrodynamics as developed by Richard Feynman and others.
Did you really not know that this is standard physics and that I could not mean anything else?
What are you thinking?
For Dr Curry to repeatedly claim she is “too busy” but her students could easily debunk Johnson and to not furnish the proof of that sadly does nothing to enhance her status as an honest broker here. It merely plays to those who (probably wrongly) call her a self-serving intellectual lightweight. To my mind her courage in hosting such a debate persuades me she has real integrity.
Claes Johnson
I do not think that Judith’s students can “debunk” your maths and she already more or less agreed with it in a comment above.
She then added that they could certainly criticize the conclusions that you draw from your maths and infer from there that your maths have probably some not nearer identified problems even if this is not the same thing like showing the actual mathematical problems.
Saying this : Have you not engaged your students? is just a cheap jab that doesn’t add much to the scientific content of the discussion. Actually it adds nothing.
However I have looked at the math roots of your theory and made a list of serious questions about your maths.
So please forget Judith’s students and deal with the problems I have indicated.
Note that I am saying nowhere that you will be unable to deal with them, I am only saying that you MUST deal with them.
It is very unhealthy to ignore open questions that are potentially killing a theory.
To avoid scrolling here are again the questions :
You need to show (with equations , not handwaving) that :
– units can be chosen so that (4) can be dimensionaly consistent Sofar it is not.
– (4) reduces to Planck for a string of length 0. It doesn’t.
– a “continuum” of oscillators makes physical sense
– Even in a purely mathematical sense, how is (4) derived. Specifically where does (∂^2 u)⁄∂x ² come from and why is there not a V² (velocity) coefficient.
– What is u(x,t) in (4) ? It is unusual that the most fundamental variable of a theory is defined nowhere in the paper! I only guessed by analogy to Planck but still don’t know for sure what is u.
– Where does (d^3 u_ν)/dt^3 = – ν².(d u_ν)/dt come from ? I consider this equation as completely illegal . I am 99,9% sure that it cannot be derived from (4) .
I have adressed your objections about dimensional inconsistency and the meaning of the terms: wave equation + radiation + dissipation. Your comment
on a string of length 0 does not sense. When you make a Fourier analysis the
vibrating string keeps its length and you study the problem in the frequency domain. This is a standard math technique. I basically use the same model as
Planck but replace statistics by deterministic finite precision computation.
I have used the same approach to model turbulent flow and have written a articles and books showing the new possibilities opened this way, including Computational Turbulent Incompressible Flow
and Computational Thermodynamics available on my home page under “books”.
Still no equations.
Questions still stand unanswered.
I submit that there does not exist a unit system in which equation (4) is dimensionaly consistent.
You disagree? Give me one.
What is the dimension of u(x,t)?
String of length 0 doesn’t make sense? Fair enough.
What is then the solution of (4) in the limit 0 when L->0, L length of the string. This question is perfectly well defined.
How do you get (d^3 u_ν)/dt^3 = – ν².(d u_ν)/dt?
I have been asking this question already 3 times. No answer.
Sorry but I started with a positive attitude and you begin to disappoint me. Still no maths after 900 posts.
Be very sure that I have no problems with matters like Fourrier analysis. The problems with (4) happen well before one comes to such trivialities like Fourrier.
Yes you are right, I have not seen any meaningful math in any of the 900
comments. What is needed now is that some physicists with knowledge
of math engage in the debate. As of now the debate is stalled. I see no way I can explain so that my present critics can understand what I am saying. I meet closed eyes and minds and dark silence from those who should say something, so what can I do? Any clue?
And we have seen several devastating mathematical errors in your paper.
I’m sorry, Claes, but that is pathetic handwaving. It was you that originally asked somebody to criticize your analysis in mathematical terms which Tomas had done very convincingly. Please explain why a mathematical critical analysis is no longer appropriate or address the specific mathematical concerns that have been raised.
In addition, I must say that your chapters do not seems to be written to facilitate mathematical analysis. For example, the citations and sarcastic remarks, while entertaining, makes following the math really difficult. You should consider separating the two, if you want to be considered seriously by scientists.
I also far prefer math exposed as clearly and simply as possible, especially for physics. Non-standard notation, exotic mathematical techniques, or excessive shortening of derivation (the checking left as an extensive exercise for the reader) may impress some, but it deter some more, and is suspect especially for disproving previously accepted results….without numerical applications to back you up!
You have to present your stuff in a way that makes easy for the reader to check himself and kill his doubts as fast as possible, certainly not in a way that is confusing and difficult to follow…
Of course maybe it is the fault of the reader if he is too stupid to understand. However, when everybody is too stupid, it means you may be a genious…or, more probably, wrong. If you are a genious, do you think you made your best to make your point as easy to follow as possible?
A perceptive and constructive comment.
Claes Johnson ” I have not seen any meaningful math in any of the 900 comments.”
Open your eyes. Tomas and a few other of your correspondents have provided “meaningful math” in their comments on your assertions.
Claes Johnson “I meet closed eyes and minds and dark silence from those who should say something, so what can I do? Any clue?”
You might consider the possibility that it is your eyes and mind that are closed to rebuttal of your mistaken assertions. If you can take that step, into the light of reason, you will likely understand that the “dark silence” of AGW skeptics who well understand the math and physics, being discussed, is due to their unwillingness to join you in the dark.
Do the Eq. 21 experiment I suggested yesterday. Or do you not want experimental validation of your theory?
Your ‘closed eyes and mind and dark silence’ when asked to apply your theory to well posed physics problems which are adequately solved by the very theory you are attempting to supplant speaks volumes. What can you do? You can apply your theory to such problems and show you get the right answer.
Tomas Milanovic
“It is very unhealthy to ignore open questions that are potentially killing a theory.”
I’m not sure if it would be possible to be more of a hypocrite than being a proponent of AGW while making such a statement.
The whole “greenhouse gas” theory has been built entirely on the practice of doing precisely that of which you are accusing Claes.
The sheer weight of data derived from physical reality, that have to be ignored in order to portray radiative transfer of CO2 as the determining forcing for atmospheric warming are presently staggering in number.
If it were even remotely possible to substantiate the so called “greenhouse effect” hypothesis of CO2, there are far more effective and straightforward strategies for mitigation than the current proposition of total global economic annihilation.
The fact that it’s proponents have had to resort to Special Pleading, rebranded as PNS, in order to negate the sheer weight of evidence and myriad of unanswered questions regarding the AGW meme, which in turn have been rebranded as collectively as “uncertainty”, is an indication of the level of conceit and double standards at work in climate science and in particular, it pains me to say, on display on this particular blog thread.
If such a level of hypocrisy were being applied to another subject such as superstring or QM, making such an hypocritical statement as this would see you laughed into early retirement.
But your hypocrisy is with regard to a subject, with implications for humanity, of the highest stakes possible. Millions of lives are actually in the balance and if you are wrong, many of the worlds poor folks will certainly be literally priced out of existence and will most definitely die of starvation. Such inevitability is already showing signs of being well underway.
Such hypocrisy therefore is no laughing matter. It is dangerous to genocidal proportions.
Until the “climate science community” begin to acknowledge that the “uncertainties” they are currently trying to play down with their Special Pleading PNS, arise from the very same but infinitely more numerous and and equally, if not more pertinent unanswered questions, they will not and cannot, be taken seriously.
Will “I’m not sure if it would be possible to be more of a hypocrite than being a proponent of AGW while making such a statement.”
Did you really mean to post this comment to Tomas? He has avoided the hyperbole and handwaving of AGW alarmists in his rebuttal’s of CJ’s assertions. He has focused on the “maths”. CJ’s responses have been pathetic. One may be skeptical of AGW without resorting to the tribalism of embracing even the most inane “skeptical” arguments.
I agree that attacking Tomas’ motives are way out of line. He is a theoretical physicist employed at a European University. Most of his comments at Climate Etc. have been about spatio-temporal chaos.
Claes
There have been posts from some with no intention of letting you explain yourself.
However the questions from Tomas Milanovic and Pekka Pirilä and PaulM have been straightforward.
Perhaps they have raised issues you would like time to think about so as to compose a comprehensive reply.
If so, say so , there is no need to prolong a misunderstanding.
I was not attacking his motives as you have implied Judith, I was merely pointing the hypocrisy his statement to Claes:
“It is very unhealthy to ignore open questions that are potentially killing a theory.”
I am of course highlighting the general hypocrisy being displayed throughout this thread by the “climate science” community in general, as is as plain as day from my comment.
Thomas has clearly displayed the same in his comment to Claes.
One of the most obvious clues that AGW proponents are not playing with straight deck is their insistence that there be one rule for them and another for everyone else.
If you find that pointing that out is unreasonable it will not come as much of a surprise.
My post should be considered word for word in its literal context, meaning that this comment is a swipe at the hypocrisy of all AGW proponents. With that in mind, can you credibly deny any of what I have said?
Hypocrisy. Insincerity by virtue of pretending to have qualities or beliefs that you do not really have.
http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=hypocrisy&sub=Search+WordNet&o2=&o0=1&o7=&o5=&o1=1&o6=&o4=&o3=&h=
Will’s use of “special pleading” merits due diligence.
Will’s use of “hypocrisy” functions as a mental attitude attribution.
Will, There is no hypocrisy in presenting a well reasoned mathematical argument – math isn’t for against AGW. There is no hypocrisy in presenting in a physics thought experiment which shows the results of Claes’ “no back radiation” theory directly violates classical EM’s superposition principle and results in physically nonsensical behavior of the radiation.
If you don’t take the discussion of the theory seriously then no one is going to take you seriously.
Well all you can do here is take me out of context to discredit a valid point.
I was referring to a particular hypocritical statement made by Tomas.
I was not attacking his motives as you have implied Judith, I was merely pointing the hypocrisy his statement to Claes:
“It is very unhealthy to ignore open questions that are potentially killing a theory.”
A level of hypocrisy which is typical among AGW proponents and is the very essence of PNS.
Will,
you’re making an assumption you cannot support. Surely there are valid questions to ask in regards to magnitude and and impact of AGW, which should be answered to better extent with uncertainties at the forefront, in my opinion at least.
But there are not the same types of questions at the fundamental level of global energy budget as there are at the fundamental core of Dr. Johnson’s work. He is basically saying that a blackbody at one moment can be a blackbody, but isn’t really a blackbody the very next moment. That’s a contradiction at the fundamental core of one most well-understood aspects of modern physics that has no parallel in the very muddled and hazy world of GCM predictions and attribution analysis of disasters.
So I think agree with some of your frustration given the situation in which some climate scientists seem to present half-truths, but that is very different from what Dr. Johnson is proposing and then on which he is failing to engage his critics.
I mean, have you not seen how he has systematically evaded EVERY SINGLE ATTEMPT to engage in any critique of his work, whether it be on the basis of physical understanding or explicit mathematical statements. It’s almost maddening, as I would presume the evasion of such hard questions from some climate scientists is to you.
And if there is a parallel between such behavior and the behavior of some climate scientists which I think both of us abhor, as the corollary of your comment would conclude, why should Dr. Johnson take up the same behavior in the context of critiques of his own work? Shouldn’t we expect a higher standard of behavior of ALL scientists engaging in this work?
Maxwell,
The points you make appear valid and reasonable until one considers them in the following context.
It makes not a jot of difference to the “greenhouse effect” hypothesis if Claes is right or if he is wrong. The “back-radiation” meme was never a valid confirmation for the claim that the CO2 ratio determines the temperature of the atmosphere in the first place.
If Claes cannot prove his math is valid it isn’t going to change the fact that AGW proponents are still faced with the exact same problem. It is simply a case of double standards and whole issue is moot.
A simple change in perspective is all that is required to nullify the argument altogether.
The atmosphere is a unified fluid substance in which we are all completely immersed. Therefore it must be considered thermodynamically and radiatively, as a single substance. That substance, or air, has a variable yet very stable long term equilibrium temperature. It would be ludicrous not to expect to be able to detect the IR energy responsible for maintaing the atmosphere in its gaseous state.
I repeat, it would be ludicrous NOT to expect to detect this energy. It proves nothing one way or another. What we MUST observe at the very least is a net increase in this energy which can be shown to be in agreement with valid measurements of CO2 increases.
This is precisely why I have repeatedly ask Judith and Claes or anyone else for that matter, to define between “back-radiation” and “downwelling-radiation”. To which Judith has been as easily evasive as Claes has been regarding his equations and quite possibly more so.
The “greenhouse effect” hypothesis is just that, a hypothesis.
Hence the Special Pleading PNS.
If you cannot distinguish between energy already present in the system and energy being added to it by so called “greenhouse gases”, which lets face it, if anyone could actually do that we wouldn’t be having this debate, then the “back-radiation” argument is yet another a straw-man.
Straw-man arguments being the only consistent theme in the demonisation of CO2.
Will,
I’m glad we can find common ground. I agree that in the case the Dr. Johnson is incorrect, which I believe him to be, there are still a great deal of questions that the standard approach to climate science cannot answer. I think this fact has brought the lot of us to this post and this blog.
I, unfortunately, cannot agree with your assessment that the atmosphere should only be treated a single system comprised of a compressible fluid. There are stratifications in the atmosphere based on charge, density, temperature and even chemistry that are very noticeable. For instance, ozone appears in the highest layers of the atmosphere because the flux of UV light is highest there. The photochemistry of O2 produces ozone, which has a chemical and physical effect on the highest layers of the atmosphere.
Now should we disregard this fact because I can’t ‘see’ the difference between this high layer and troposphere? I personally do not think so because such a perspective gives us more limited information on atmospheric dynamics. We know why there is a distinct cutoff in solar UV radiation reaching the surface of the earth and we now know there are other GHG’s that are rather abundant at higher altitudes.
I also think there is no physical distinction between ‘down-welling’ IR light and ‘backradiation’. Given a specific spectral band associated with the quantized vibrations of CO2, water, CH4, etc, it’s all of the same physical origin and the precise nomenclature we is insignificant in my opinion.
As per the greenhouse ‘hypothesis’, I think there is great confusion about what the dominant mechanism of energy transfer is. For likely the fault of simplistic renderings by organizations like NASA, people often believe that the downwelling IR light from GHG’s IS the greenhouse effect. This is in fact less than a half truth. Upon the absorption of an IR photon of the right energy and polarization, a GHG molecule in the lower portions of the atmosphere collides with a great many other molecules before the characteristic time of radiative decay of the vibrationally excited GHG molecule (emission in any direction). Some of these collisions involve only the transfer of linear momentum (elastic collisions) and other involve the transfer of both linear momentum and energy (inelastic collisions).
It is the inelastic collisions that play the dominant role in energy transfer from GHG molecules to the rest of the atmospheric system. Not downwelling IR radiation.
During an inelastic collision, vibrational energy from a GHG molecule is mostly transferred to the translational and rotational motion of molecules that cannot absorb nearly as much IR light (N2 and O2). Because energy is being transferred into the translational motion of these non-emitting molecules, the Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution of velocities (stat mech rears its ugly head yet again) much change, which necessitates a change in temperature.
This change in temperature is directly related to the excess energy introduced to the lower layers of the atmosphere from IR absorption by GHG molecules and is measurable via the AQUA satellite, which Dr. Roy Spencer keeps us abreast of on a monthly basis.
We can also indirectly measure increases in tropospheric energy due to increases in the greenhouse effect via stratospheric temperatures. As the greenhouse effect increases, less IR reaches the higher altitudes, reducing the energy available for redistribution, thus LOWERING the temperature, which we have seen to some extent.
The non-emitting molecules (N2 and O2) and also inelastically collide with the surface of the earth, supplying yet another way that energy gets transferred back to the earth, although I’m not sure how much of a role that process plays in the whole scheme of things.
So I think it’s fairly irrefutable that there is DIRECT EVIDENCE OF INCREASING ENERGY in the lower portions of the atmosphere, which is in good agreement theory based on molecular absorption and collision processes.
How this energy will redistribute itself or impact the lives of the people on this planet is a very hard question to answer, I agree. But knowing what to look for based on a well established physics, I think it’s pretty hard to claim that the greenhouse effect has not been falsified to a level that is satisfactory to most scientists.
Thank you for that treatise, Maxwell, that’s very helpful.
I’m surprised you point at 390PPM of CO2 inelastically coupling to and contributing to the temp of the 1,000,000PPM of N2, O2 and Argon…but isn’t this collision process bidirectional? You can say CO2 contributes to warming the rest of the atmosphere, but I wonder why you aren’t saying the atmospheric temperature is generally homogeneous and the temperature of the atmosphere warms or cools the rarefied CO2.
Ken,
Maxwell will certainly answer as well and probably not in contradiction with my comments, but here is my version.
The thermalization works both ways and that is exactly the point. The GHG’s act by coupling the radiative field to the gaseous matter. They help in transferring energy from one point in the atmosphere to another point. The CO2 molecules have everywhere a state of excitation that corresponds to the local temperature, because the coupling to the other molecules in the neighborhood is much stronger than the coupling to radiation. Therefore the CO2 molecules emit the more energy the higher the local temperature is.
Still also the coupling to radiation is strong enough for being significant for the energy balance of the atmosphere and also of the earth surface.
Ken,
it’s not unidirectional because we can measure the IR emission GHG molecules. Some GHG molecules are re-excited into those absorbing/emitting states and have the time to decay radiatively. It’s just that the number of such molecules is very small because the Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution is centered near 293 K and the vibrationally excited GHG molecules have an effective temperature of over 1000 K. Very few collision will give a CO2 molecule enough energy to excited to the necessary vibrational level to emit a down-welling photon. There are just a lot of molecules in the atmosphere so the phenomena happens enough for us to measure it.
But another important note I did not mention is that a ‘cold’ CO2 molecule colliding with a hot N2 molecule will transfer energy to the CO2 molecule, but not necessary to the CO2 molecule’s vibrational degrees of freedom. If the two molecules are simply transferring translational energy back and forth, then there is no radiative channel for energy dissipation.
I think that’s why condensation (for water) and convection become such important dissipation mechanisms in the climate system. Because so little energy can get dissipated via radiation once its been redistributed via the ‘bath’ of translationally excited molecules, other dissipation processes take over to get rid of that energy. In the process, we get weather.
‘You can say CO2 contributes to warming the rest of the atmosphere, but I wonder why you aren’t saying the atmospheric temperature is generally homogeneous and the temperature of the atmosphere warms or cools the rarefied CO2.’
What’s the difference? If we know that energy is conserved, then we know that warming N2 molecules necessarily cools the CO2 molecule. I don’t think framing it one way over the other conveys any ‘new’ physics or physical understanding. If we’re worried about warming as far as this argument goes, it’s important to see that warming can occur via such a process, which is why I framed it that way.
Moreover, as pointed out by many scientists, we are talking about a 1% increase in the greenhouse effect due to ‘excess’ CO2 molecules in the atmosphere. This number is somewhat confirmed by Trenberth’s analysis of incoming and outgoing radiation fluxes at the top of the atmosphere with satellite data. There is a great deal of noise in that signal, so it’s hard to get a concrete number, but it’s close to 1%.
It’s not a big effect to say the least. But it is real.
Maxwell,
The 15 um or 667 cm^-1 radiation of CO2 is actually close to the maximum of the Planck’s distribution at the temperature of the lower troposphere (at 1000 K it is far below the peak of the distribution of wavenumber or energy). The occupation of this level is neither very low being around 3% or so. Still a great majority of CO2 molecules is in the vibrational ground state.
Pekka,
Using the equation,
hv=kT
where h is Planck’s constant, v is the frequency of the photon absorbed, k is Boltzmann’s constant and T is what I call the ‘effective’ temperature, for a 15 um photon (20 THz) I get
T=959 K
That is the ‘effective’ temperature of the energy transmitted to a single CO2 molecule via a 15 um photon. When that energy is redistributed among many, many molecules, as happens in the atmosphere, I agree it corresponds to a distribution at a much lower temperature. I was trying to make a point in terms of how the energy is flowing out an excited CO2 molecule immediately after absorption.
Sorry for any confusion.
Ken,
I think we may be at an impasse, but I would like to point out that I at no point said we could not measure the energy due to a 1% change in the greenhouse effect. We can measure it indirectly based on spectral measurements, although I’m not sure we are currently measuring in all the right spectral regions.
But even if we walk away from this disagreeing as whether or not a small increase in the greenhouse effect is ‘real’, I hope that you can recognize that I am trying very hard to meet you and Dr. Johnson somewhere in the middle. You have been gracious enough to continue a constructive conversation while Dr. Johnson has now time and time again cowered away from every attempt to engage him critically.
I don’t know Dr. Johnson personally so I cannot with right mind say if this behavior says anything about who he is as a person, but his behavior has not made it any easier for me to take his work seriously.
I don’t know what these facts should mean to you in the context of this topic, but I felt it necessary to let you know directly nonetheless.
Points of detail
It’s not so small, about 6%of the CO2 are in the first excited vibrational level of the bending mode @ 300 K. about .8% have two quanta of excitation.
It takes about 1000 collisions to transfer the energy from a CO2 molecule to the bath (a few microseconds @ atm pressure).
Eli does not want to fisk the rest of your post at this time, there is both right and wrong.
Maxwell,
You are referring to hv=kT. I was referring to the maximum point of the energy distribution of radiation according to Planck’s law, which tells that 20 THz (15 um) is very close to the most important frequency of radiation at 288 K when the multiplicative power-factors in the formula are taken into account. Both approaches express a connection between temperature and radiation, but neither is a proper temperature of the radiation.
The right way of using the word temperature on something for which it is not well defined is not worth discussing more. The reason that I brought this up is the observation that 15 um is about as well located for energy transfer at 288 K as any wavelength can be and not hampered by a too high excitation energy of the state.
Because the CO2 absorbs IR radiation which it then passes on to the N2 and O2 in the air via collisions, the N2 and O2 can then pass some of this back via subsequent collisions. They are unable to absorb IR on their own behalf, so they are dependent on CO2 for heating (and H2O in certain parts of the atmosphere).
So we agree. N2 and O2 have a temperature and at 99% of that temperature (give or take) is caused by conduction…then moved around by convection.
If CO2 is at 1000K, then that confirms my theory of LCDS (Little Carbon Dioxide Suns). Cool.
We go back and forth, don’t we?
KLC: There is no CO2-caused warming.
Max: There is CO2-caused warming, but it’s small and we can’t measure it.
KLC: I don’t believe in the infinite number of things that can’t be measured. There is no CO2-caused warming.
Max: Yes there is.
Ken,
CO2 is not at 1000K, but at the same temperature than N2 and O2. Radiative effects are as important as convection in determining the temperature of the atmosphere and earth surface.
CO2 is at the same temperature as O2 and N2 because it is forced into equilibrium by the 99% bulk of the atmosphere. CO2 has a lower specific heat capacity so 0.0385% simply cannot force 99% into equilibrium. Obviously it the other way around.
As I said on my first post on this thread it would like taking a pee in the ocean and claiming you just increased the ocean temperature, when in reality your pee was chilled by the ocean.
Statistically it would be valid to say that your pee has warmed the ocean. Just as it also statistically valid to say the tail wags the dog.
Good, I’m glad my Little Carbon Dioxide Suns (LCDS) theory is still nonsense…I was worried about that.
Maxwell,
I am well aware in’s and out’s of the “greenhouse effect” hypothesis. Never the less it is has been proven false by many perfectly reasonable observations, not least of all by the historical CO2 levels of over 7000 ppm.
Increasing radiative transfer does not increase warming. By all accounts it will actually decrease it. When you increase the absorptivity/emissivity of an insulating substance such as air, you will naturally decrease its insulating properties while increasing it’s over all radiative properties.
We don’t need to argue about that, you can simply reproduce this experiment in front of impartial witnesses and prove me wrong.
“AGW Debunked again.pdf”
Quite frankly the theory has failed to predict reality. Regardless of your apparent conviction to the contrary, there is no evidence for CO2 determining the atmospheric temperature. NONE whatsoever. As I have already pointed out, if there were we would not be having this conversation.
150 years and unlimited dipping into the public purse and the best you have is Special Pleading rebranded as PNS.
I’ll tell you what Maxwell. I take it that you have seen my experiments above which I use to substantiated every point I have made on this thread.
Well I have another experiment in mind which I need a little help to perform. The results of which will clear up this debate once and for all in a matter of days. Not 150 years of ambiguity, just e few days is all that is required. But I need a little help from some academic institutions and we can settle this over the next few months or even weeks.
I hereby challenge all AGW proponents to this ultimate test. The experiment will prove definitively whether or not the atmosphere is significantly heated by CO2 or if it is not.
Anyone who wishes to get involved and help settle this argument once and for all, in the interest of the future welfare of this planet, please click my name and go to my website where you will find my email address.
I look forward to any and all assistance in this challenge from all sides of the debate.
Regards
Will
Will,
you need a control experiment. I’d say first you could put the same combination of air in both bottles, put the bottles in the exact same place and see if they read the same temperature.
Without that control experiment, anything could have been different. Maybe one of the bottles was even in the sun while the other was shaded by a tree. I don’t know because I wasn’t there and you do very little in your report to explain how the determining factor in the experiment was the appearance or lack of appearance of CO2.
Click on my name Maxwell and you will see variations of this experiment with control bottles.
Alternatively try it yourself. The idea is not to criticise my versions because as you say, I may have cheated.
The point is to try your own.
14 months on and so far still no takers.
Will,
what’s the spatial distribution of IR flux intensity given off by your heater?
Also, have you tried the experiment with a completely evacuated bottle? If so, how did it react?
I’ve found that most water bottles in the state are made of polyethylene terephthalate (PET). This polymer absorbs extensively in the IR.
How do you know that the heating you’re seeing is not due to the absorption of IR by the bottle itself?
Watch the experiments, read my notes and above all remember what I said about criticising the experiment without conducting your own.
“The idea is not to criticise my versions because as you say, I may have cheated.”
(I can let you have that in all caps if you missed it!)
An experiment cannot be disproven with weasel words. Your criticisms are meaningless and invalid.
150 years on, billions in squandered taxes and yet not one scientist can demonstrate the warming effect being attributed to CO2.
For less than $5.00/£3.50 I have repeated shown in various tests that CO2 is forced into equilibrium by 99% O2 and N2
Will,
‘The idea is not to criticise my versions because as you say, I may have cheated.’
I never said you cheated. You’re putting words in my mouth.
I’m just wondering what you have thought about in doing these measurements. These wonderings are in most constructive vein I can muster at the moment. Especially given the fact that your notes confuse the fact that the bottles are transparent in visible with their being transparent in the IR.
Why should I try to do more when you take such a combative tone and put words in my mouth? You’re obviously not interested in doing good science because you can’t accept criticism.
Good luck.
So I take that as a no then?!
Don’t worry maxwell, you and every other AGW Chicken Little with access to the internet!
There are several potential problems with the described experiments, but a main one is that the experiments appear to have been badly designed. For an accurate assessment of the extent to which a CO2-rich atmosphere warms, one would need for the measuring device (a thermometer) to be completely surrounded by the CO2, and for the light shining on the container to be the same for all angles – i.e., the room must have uniform illumination and temperature at all locations in the vicinity of the container. If radiation comes from a non-uniform source, CO2 will redistribute it from its original path into a more isotropic form, reducing the rate at which energy proceeds from the source to a measuring device in its path.
It would also be important to eliminate liquid water from the experiment, because even minute differences in the characteristics of water from different sources will complicate interpretation.
An experiment that would best duplicate atmospheric greenhouse effects would entail including within the device, near the thermometer or part of it, a solid element capable of warming via absorption of visible light and radiating in the IR in response. In that case, you might not even need a uniform source.
Maxwell,
you mention the cooling strat. In the last approximately 16 years it hasn’t. The data Fred linked for us only showed an actual cooling trend from about the 50’s-70’s when the earth wasn’t warming. During the 80’s and the 90’s there were 2 step decreases around large volcanic eruptions and flat or slightly rising between. I believe the jury is still out on the cooling strat hypothesis.
kuhnkat,
I said that the greenhouse effect, all other processes held constant, should cool due to less IR flux incident on that layer.
I did not say that this is the only observation we’ve made. I concur with the assessment of many contributors here that there is a very complex interplay between the different process that work to dissipate energy that enters the climate systems back to outer space as long wavelength radiation. I personally don’t know how to explain all of it.
I was simply trying to show that there are several predictions that the greenhouse effect makes. Some of them have come through the noise for part of the time we’ve measured climate. I don’t know what that means in the grand scheme of this issue.
Maxwell – Stratospheric temperature responds to both ozone and CO2 concentrations, rising with increases in ozone and falling with increases in CO2. In earlier years, ozone depletion (from CFCs) combined with rising CO2 were associated with falling temperatures. More recently, as ozone repletion began consequent to the Montreal protocol, temperatures have stabilized, but have not increased as expected from the ozone change alone. It is presumed that the failure to rise reflects continuing CO2 increases, although longer intervals as well as measurements at different altitudes will be needed to resolve this completely.
My main reason for commenting here is to point out that CO2 does not reduce stratospheric temperatures by reducing IR flux into the stratosphere. In fact, at equilibrium, when IR fluxes into the stratosphere from below have risen to equal or exceed previous levels, higher CO2 will still be associated with lower stratospheric temperatures. The actual explanation involves the fact that much stratospheric warming entails UV absorption by ozone. Because CO2 absorbs very little in the UV, stratospheric absorptivity is primarily a function of ozone concentration, and is changed little by rising CO2. On the other hand, at stratospheric temperatures, emission of radiation to space is almost entirely in the IR. CO2 has a high emissivity in this part of the spectrum. As a consequence, rises in stratospheric CO2 increase emissivity (which is IR-dominated), more than absorptivity (which is dominated by UV). The result is a cooling. It can be thought of as an ability of CO2 to provide an “escape valve” for ozone-absorbed heat.
Check out RSS MSU their Strat data shows a decline of -0.306K/decade for the Lower stratosphere it’s the upper strat where you’d expect cooling.
Phil,
the RSS strat data shows two step functions concurrent with volcanoes. The rest is flat to rising. Do you have links to any other data that might give us a better idea of what is happening up there?
Would you help me draft a statement we all agree with?
A key element of the CO2-caused global warming theory is the fact that infrared radiometers (like the ones made by Eppley) detect hundreds of watts per square meter of radiation when pointed into the passive sky.
Is there anything inaccurate, misleading or questionable about that statement? Thanks for your help.
good idea, lets work from the bottom up and find some common ground
Agreed-this is sensible and at least provides a tangible outcome from so much back and forth frothing.
Ken
…..”A key element of the CO2-caused global warming theory is the fact that infrared radiometers (like the ones made by Eppley) detect hundreds of watts per square meter of radiation when pointed into the passive sky.”…..
Yes this question interests me.
Lets say the instrument is properly calibrated against a black body.
The user points it to the clear night sky.
It reads say 200W/m2
However the night sky will produce band radiation from variable CO2 and H2O at an unknown temperature.
The instrument being probably warmer than the night sky emits more radiation than it receives.
How confident can we be about the accuracy of the reading?
Bryan,
the instrument is constructed in a way that allows the user to calibrate against the radiation the instrument gives off. It also is fitted with a black coating that is tested to be insensitive to frequency, meaning that there is not a difference in the detector’s absortivity in the range of 3.5 to 50 um.
You can check out all the specs here if you would like more information.
More importantly, if you are reading a given intensity of IR light, you can use this instrument to calculate the temperature of the emitting ‘body’.
Ken,
I think it would also help if we could identify the instrument response function of a typical infrared radiometer. That is to say, find how the instrument’s response to IR light varies with frequency so that we know the sensitivity of such an instrument to the portions of the IR spectrum theoretically associated with CO2, water, etc.
I think being specific as possible will allow us to find specific aspects of such an analysis on which we can agree and which we may disagree, albeit in an agreeable manner.
The best way you could help me, Maxwell, would be to suggest a clarifying revision of my statement. I don’t want to put in a specific manufacturer or model number, but I could add that I’m talking about a thermopile (pyrgeometer) style of instrument compared to an optical sensor type of instrument? I’m curious about the lower cost contactless IR thermometers too, but I’ll study them later.
I find statements like this very interesting…
A thermopile signal is related to the NET radiation at its receiver. This leads to the fact that the outgoing radiation must be assessed to calculate the incoming radiation, which is the desired result of the measurement.
–Solar Infrared Radiation Station Handbook ARM TR-025
Ken,
I’d say something along the lines of,
‘Any modification to our already established physical understanding of absorption, emission and scattering of light by atmospheric material has to include the evidence gathered via both laboratory and field measurements in support of down-welling infrared (IR) light. This down-welling IR is an indirect measure the energy transfer between gas molecules with non-zero IR absorption cross-sections (CO2, water vapor, CH4, etc.) and the abundance of non-IR absorbing homonuclear diatomic molecules in the atmosphere (N2 and O2) and a radiative process of energy dissipation in the atmosphere back to outer space. This energy transfer process is also known as thermalization. It is this thermalization that accounts for the vast majority of the energy involved in what we call the greenhouse effect.
The greenhouse effect leads to a great multitude of weather and climate related phenomena and turns on other energy dissipation processes including convection and conduction. These other dissipation processes also make it very difficult to firmly grasp the impact of an increased greenhouse effect due to gas emissions from human civilization.’
I think that is the most rigorous statement I can make with my own personal knowledge and am open to critique and revision.
Thank you, Maxwell. We’re trying to say the same thing to each other, but there are differences in what I say and what you say. I think that’s interesting. For example, would you object to a parenthetical thought added to your last sentence?
These other dissipation processes also make it very difficult to firmly grasp the impact (or to grasp if any impact even exists) of an increased greenhouse effect due to gas emissions from human civilization.
Bryan,
sorry it looks like that link doesn’t work. I’ll try it again. You can find the specs here.
I think that should be right, but we’ll see if it works.
Not sure if it would make a difference, but, this would appear to measure a hemisphere. Do they have units that can measure a small cone to allow excluding clouds or other possible emission sources?
Since the surface emits 15um, any reflection or direct radiation from objects would tend to contaminate the measurement. It would seem that we would need to place this unit so that its horizon would be clear to get a clean measurement?
Thanks maxwell
” instrument is constructed in a way that allows the user to calibrate against the radiation the instrument gives off. ”
presumably the instrument radiation is near blackbody or perhaps not ?
…..”It also is fitted with a black coating that is tested to be insensitive to frequency, meaning that there is not a difference in the detector’s absortivity in the range of 3.5 to 50 um.”….
I take this to mean that e=1 for all wavelengths 3.5 to 50um since its black.
It would be interesting to find out how the variable band type downward radiation is reconciled with the upward continuous radiation to produce its final reading.
Bryan,
‘It would be interesting to find out how the variable band type downward radiation is reconciled with the upward continuous radiation to produce its final reading.’
I think this instrument works to treat all of the frequencies across the range 3.5 to 50 um exactly the same. This is an instrument that will only measure the total flux of IR intensity. It cannot distinguish between bands because it has the same absorption properties across that entire region. So one would not be able to spectrally resolve different bands that would be attributable to different molecules, which means that differences in intensity across this spectral region don’t matter.
You would need a spectrometer to measure these differences. A spectrometer would use a diffraction grating to dispersion the spectral components of the downwelling IR light into different frequency components that can either be simultaneously via a CCD or photodiode array of some kind, like mercury cadmium teluride, or by scanning the different spectral components or a single photodiode or photomulitplier tube (PMT), although I don’t know if PMT’s are sensitive in this spectral region.
I also don’t know if you can get a sub-THz commercial spectrometer you could test on your own, but I know NASA and NOAA use several instruments to spectrally measure IR light from different bands. I’m not sure which missions, however.
Maxwell thanks for the reply
When I read through the specs of instrument below I find that the thermopile voltage is scaled against a formula involving several contributions from surfaces using Stephan – Boltzmann equation.
there is a danger of circular thinking here.
http://www.pmodwrc.ch/pmod.php?topic=irc
As you know pyrgeometers are used to measure longwave terrestrial radiation.
Regular pyrgeometer calibration against an internationally recognized standard is required in order to measure the longwave radiation consistently at different sites around the globe.
At present, there is no internationally recognized standard to calibrate pyrgeometers.
However a group of users have got together to establish at least a common standard until such a recognition is granted.
http://www.arm.gov/publications/proceedings/conf18/poster/P00028.pdf
It has to used under very controlled clear sky conditions.
Its almost as if a “standard sky” is required.
The newer instruments should give more accurate results but only time will tell.
This instrument has had a troubled past and past readings are liable to include unacceptable uncertanties.
http://www.arm.gov/publications/proceedings/conf04/extended_abs/ellingson2_rg.pdf
There is what appears to be the use of a fixed value of emissivity.
Look at the problems encountered using this instrument.
http://www.pyrometer.com/Tech/emissivity.html
For these reasons I am cautious about reaching conclusions based on this instrument.
I would be much more confident of spectroscopic instruments as they involve much less in the way of built in assumptions.
Bryan,
‘I would be much more confident of spectroscopic instruments as they involve much less in the way of built in assumptions.’
That’s one of the reason’s I’m a spectroscopist.
For those perhaps still interested about, what I was having in mind, when I presented my first comments in this chain.
One part of the conjecture is that the electromagnetic field can be described by Maxwell’s equations for a field interacting with a media, which is formed by the atmospheric mixture of gas. This media is described as a field consisting of several types of matter. One part is matter that can interact with the electromagnetic field with transitions that corresponds to the IR absorption/emission spectrum of real atmosphere. In addition of the fields that present H2O, CO2 and other matter with IR transitions, the media contains also matter that does not interact with the electromagnetic field, but interacts with the electromagnetically active part through collisions in a way that leads to the pressure broadening of the lines.
Some other factors should also be considered, but this is the main idea. This means that the formulation goes beyond the description of black body radiation by describing also the interaction with GHG’s in full agreement with standard theory. The alternative formulation is certainly not needed as it is expected to produce the same results within limits of computational accuracy. Could it be in some way useful in practice is questionable.
Can this formulation really be completed to the point, where calculations are possible? I am not sure, but I consider it likely. Why to think about such an alternative? To me it is interesting to compare different ideas and I believe also that thinking on this kind of lines may help in understanding something more about quantum mechanics, if not about atmosphere.
This idea has some relationship with what Claes Johnson proposed, but by now it is obvious that there are also great differences. What he has described in his text and equations is at the moment not correct, which does not exclude the possibility that he may eventually correct the errors and present a correct description of some physics.
Pekka – I understood you the first time, but this is a much clearer statement.
How would this alternative description of of physics describe the ocean skin layer?
JHC,
I have not thought much about that, but both the surface of water and many solid surfaces interact strongly with EM waves at IR frequences. This leads to a very fast decline of the field inside water. At the boundary between water and air appropriate continuity conditions must be obeyed. The CHG’s in the atmosphere influence influence the EM field in the way that corresponds to the downwelling radiation, whose strong absorption is described by the properties given to water in the calculation. Conversely a thin skin of water acts as a source term in the field equations, which leads to the outgoing part of the energy flux carried by the field.
The downwelling and outgoing parts combine to form the field, but the physics involves incoherence effects, which may ultimately bring the calculation closer to the standard approach. In normal description there is no coherence between different photons and the alternative description must be consistent with the physics implied by this fact. Coherence is typical for lasers, but practically absent in what happens in the atmosphere for IR.
Pekka,
I have to agree with the bunny. If Claes is assuming that a warmer blackbody acts like a ‘high pass filter’, he is ultimately doomed.
Starting with unphysical assumptions will not end will a physically relevant theory. I know. I’ve tried.
Maxwell,
I agree that he makes completely unphysical statements. Sometimes his formulas are as bad, but in this case the formula was not necessarily wrong, as he was referring to the Planck’s law as the form of the cutoff.
Anyway, I would not bet in favor of his success in correcting the work.
Not likely, because the assumptions are not physical, and the understanding of the physics under discussion is, to be extremely kind, incomplete and wrong
“The atmosphere is a unified fluid substance in which we are all completely immersed. Therefore it must be considered thermodynamically and radiatively, as a single substance.”
Dr. Curry, please. Separate the science from the etc. somehow.
Hank, this thread is an experiment to see if scientists (professional and otherwise) and the people that publish them who don’t think the greenhouse effect is “real” can be convinced by scientific arguments made by serious physicists. Towards the end of the thread, seems like some light is emerging from the heat.
I’d encourage you to sum it up. Perhaps use one of those “polling” tools and see if you have an audience able to “put to rest any skeptical debate about the basic physics of gaseous infrared radiative transfer.”
I realize you’re trying to draw people into a conversation with you and climate scientists. You need to sort out those ready to talk about the science, at some point, to begin such a conversation. Else you get endless restatements from incredulity.
“Will poking this angry beast cause it to lash out?”
http://www.news.cornell.edu/Chronicle/98/8.6.98/Broecker.html
I am preparing two new greenhouse posts for this eve (one science, one etc). hoping this will help.
Perhaps helpful in that:
Taking The Politics Out Of Climate ScienceWhy ‘conservative’ doesn’t have to mean ‘climate change denier.’ (more)
It might be useful for this conversation to see a related question and responses posted at Realclimate:
87.Thanks for all the very helpful comments regarding my questions on so-called “back radiation” as well as night time temps. It seems there is a bit of confusion about this over at J. Curry’s blog, and the related question arose regarding whether you could measure the source of LW radiation at night– that is, can you tell whether or not LW is coming from CO2, versus water vapor, etc? Also, it would be interesting to see a chart that shows the increase in global night time temps specifically over the past few decades, and even see this broken out for different latitudes.
[Response: I respectfully disagree with my esteemed colleague Gavin regarding the term “back-radiation.” I have spent a lot of the past few years dealing with radiative transfer, and this term is a pretty common shorthand for the infrared radiation radiated from the atmosphere to the ground, though I can see the confusion about the term “back,” since it’s not in any sense the “same” radiation coming back — in fact that whole issue doesn’t make much sense since you can’t really tell one photon from another anyway. Nonetheless, the term has been used for quite a while without creating any confusion, at least among people who understand the rudiments of radiative transfer. I use it myself in Principles of Planetary Climate, and until Judy Curry got involved with the term on her blog, it never occurred to me that somebody could get themselves so confused and tied into knots over such a simple unambiguous concept. The confusion over there has nothing to do with the term itself, but a lot to do with Judy’s not having any conception about how little she knows about radiative transfer subjects that were well worked out nearly a hundred years ago. As for your specific questions, in a dry cold atmosphere like high latitude winter, most of the downward radiation into the surface comes from CO2 under clear sky conditions, and there’s not a lot of it. If there are low clouds, most of the back-radiation comes from clouds; as clouds are made higher, you get less and less back-radiation from them. At surface temperatures above 270K or so, the back radiation from water vapor becomes significant, and by the time you get to 300K, if the boundary layer is reasonably saturated as it is over the ocean, almost all of the back radiation comes from water vapor, even in clear sky conditions. That does NOT mean that CO2 has no effect on surface temperature in that case — that’s the “surface budget” fallacy discussed in The Warming Papers, in Chapter 6 of Principles of Planetary Climate, and in my article on Plass here on RealClimate. -raypierre]
[Response: To answer another bit of your question, you can easily tell what is emitting the back radiation by just looking at the spectra of downwelling radiation. This is done using FTIR instruments all the time; at some point I am planning to put together an FTIR back radiation data set as a supplemental data set for my book; or maybe put it in the second edition. There aren’t any long term FTIR monitor records, so far as I know and in any event this wouldn’t tell you whether or not CO2 causes a night-time warming trend, because increasing CO2 can increase the back-radiation by indirect means — through processes that increase the low level air temperature, allowing clouds and water vapor to radiate into the ground at a higher temperature. –raypierre]
“The confusion over there has nothing to do with the term itself, but a lot to do with Judy’s not having any conception about how little she knows about radiative transfer subjects that were well worked out nearly a hundred years ago. As for your specific questions, in a dry cold atmosphere like high latitude winter. . .”
Well that was entertaining. I have published far more papers on radiative transfer than has Pierrehumbert, who has published very little on this subject (for whatever that is worth). I used to be regarded as the world’s expert on radiative transfer in the Arctic (i haven’t worked on that topic much in the past decade tho). In fact, I received the AMS Houghton Award for my work on Arctic radiation. I don’t usually play this kind of “expert” card, but RC can be really irritating (consider me irritated, no longer entertained).
Judy – I’m an admirer of Raypierre, but I can’t explain his comments in any way other than by speculating that he was speaking without having actually ascertained the facts – maybe because he’s annoyed by your willingness to provide a forum for the opinions of skeptics. If so, he isn’t the only one, but that doesn’t excuse it. I’ve submitted a comment on RC expressing my opinion (it hasn’t posted yet). I hope he’ll reconsider.
I just posted this at RC:
Re # 87
Ray, since you and your readers seem interested in radiative transfer in the wintertime high latitudes, you might want to read some of my papers on the subject (note this was the subject of my Ph.D. thesis):
Curry, J.A., 1983: On the formation of continental Polar air. J. Atmos. Sci., 40, 2278-2292. http://curry.eas.gatech.edu/currydoc/Curry_JAS40.pdf
Herman, G.F. and J.A. Curry, 1984: Observational and theoretical studies of solar radiation in Arctic stratus clouds. J. Clim. Appl. Met., 23, 5-24.
Curry, J.A. and G.F. Herman, 1985: Relationships between large-scale heat and moisture budgets and the occurrence of Arcticstratus clouds. Mon. Wea. Rev., 113, 1441-1457.
http://curry.eas.gatech.edu/currydoc/Curry_MWR113.pdf
Curry, J.A., 1986: Interactions among turbulence, radiation and microphysics in Arctic stratus clouds. J. Atmos. Sci., 43, 90-106.
http://curry.eas.gatech.edu/currydoc/Curry_JAS43.pdf
Curry, J.A., 1987: The contribution of radiative cooling to the formation of cold-core anticyclones. J. Atmos. Sci., 44, 2575-2592.
http://curry.eas.gatech.edu/currydoc/Curry_JAS44.pdf
Curry, J.A. and E.E. Ebert, 1990: Sensitivity of the thickness of Arctic sea ice to the optical properties of clouds. Ann. Glac., 14, 43-46.
Curry, J.A. and E.E. Ebert, 1992: Annual cycle of radiative fluxes over the Arctic ocean: Sensitivity to cloud optical properties. J. Climate, 5, 1267-1280. http://curry.eas.gatech.edu/currydoc/Curry_JC5.pdf
Curry, J.A., J. Schramm and E.E. Ebert, 1993: Impact of clouds on the surface radiation budget of the Arctic Ocean. Meteor. and Atmos. Phys, 57, 197-217.
Curry, J.A., D. Randall, and W.B. Rossow, and J.L. Schramm, 1996: Overview of arctic cloud and radiation characteristics. J. Clim., 9, 1731-1764.
http://curry.eas.gatech.edu/currydoc/Curry_JC9.pdf
Pinto, J.O., J.A. Curry, and C.W. Fairall, 1997: Radiative characteristics of the Arctic atmosphere during spring as inferred from ground-based measurements. J. Geophys. Res., 102, 6941-6952.
http://curry.eas.gatech.edu/currydoc/Pinto_JGR102b.pdf
Pinto, J.O., J.A. Curry, and A.H. Lynch, 1999: Modeling clouds and radiation for the November 1997 period of SHEBA using a column climate model. J. Geophys. Res., 104, 6661-6678.
http://curry.eas.gatech.edu/currydoc/Pinto_JGR104.pdf
Curry, J.A., P. Hobbs, M. King, D. Randall, P. Minnis, et al.. 2000: FIRE Arctic Clouds Experiment. Bull. Amer. Meteorol. Soc., 81, 5-30.
http://curry.eas.gatech.edu/currydoc/Curry_BAMS81.pdf
Benner, T , J.A. Curry, and J.O. Pinto, 2001: Radiative transfer in the summertime Arctic. J. Geophys. Res., 106, 15173-15184.
http://curry.eas.gatech.edu/currydoc/Benner_JGR106.pdf
When I make a public statement about what a scientist does or does not know, I make a point of actually reading what that scientist has to say on the subject, rather than what other people say about that scientist on blogs.
Judith Curry
Dr. Curry, please note that in my original post at RC, I never specified that it was you who was confused about the topic (as I am hardly in any position to judge) but rather there was some confusion “at J. Curry’s blog”, related to this, as in the rather lengthy discussion in this thread.
As it turned out, I think rather detailed response from Gavin, Raypierre, and yourself served immense benefit as it shows that even on this basic topic there is some disagreement among scientists, and even among those who might be considered leaning toward the “warmist” side of things.
In short, my post over there was only to spark conversation (and hopefully some real understanding, especially among those who may not be Ph.D’s), and in no way was a sign of disrespect for you, your background, nor for what you’re doing here.
R. Gates, what you did was fine, and i appreciate your thoughtful comments here and at RC.. I object to the reply made by raypierre about my not knowing what I am talking about with regards to radiative transfer in wintertime high latitudes, a topic on which I am arguably the world expert. The disrespect was shown to me by raypierre certainly not by you (note, my message was addressed to ray).
Ken Coffman says above:
“Would you help me draft a statement we all agree with?
A key element of the CO2-caused global warming theory is the fact that infrared radiometers (like the ones made by Eppley) detect hundreds of watts per square meter of radiation when pointed into the passive sky.
Is there anything inaccurate, misleading or questionable about that statement? Thanks for your help.”
You don’t even need the radiometer. You can go to Modtran to get the numbers. Here’s where I get confused:
If you set Modtran on:— Midlattitude Summer, T=30 C, sensor height at 0, looking up, clear sky, hold relative humidity at scale of 0.5, default values on CO2, methane, O3—you will calculate a downradiation of 498.004 Wm-2 (gotta love those three decimal places!). OK, so far. That’s fairly close to the SB prediction for a blackbody at 30 C. But now, it seems to me that you have to then ADD any direct radiation from the sun to this radiation number to get the total radiation at time t. At noon on a clear day in the mid-lattitude, the direct solar radiation will be somewhere around 1,000 Wm-2 at noon. So now we have a total radiation figure of 1,498.004 Wm-2. If you use the SB equation to determine what temperature that corresponds to, you get 130.165 C (assume emissivity/abs = 1.0)!
Now, that is very hot, and I don’t believe it happens. You can construct an extremely well-insulated greenhouse that uses materials that are transparent to all incoming radiation (like Woods did), and I doubt that you can get over 100 C.
Either my thought process is completely wrong, or there is something wrong with the idea of simply adding incoming radiation to derive a surface temperature. Can anyone help me with my dilemma?
OMG – where to start. The Sun is very hot and emits infrared as well. So it all falls over tight there. Then you have to geometric adjustment to incoming radiation to find the actual incidental radiation at the surface. Then you have to account for outgoing radiation.
The instruments aren’t terribly good at absolute values – but better at relative changes.
You’re better off thinking in terms of energy equilibria at top of atmosphere. Energy in less energy out = the change in global heat content.
This can be expressed as:
Ein/s – Eout/s = d(GHC)/dt
It is the global heat content – oceans and atmosphere – that determines temperature.
You might be interested in the energy paper here – A global climate change equation that provides a simpler way of understanding the energy dynamics of global warming or cooling –
http://www.earthandocean.robertellison.com.au/
You should have a look at a global energy budget as well – I did see the KT version somewhere here I think.
?? “The Sun is very hot and emits infrared as well. So it all falls over tight there.” ??
Sorry, “Chief,” you make no sense to me. If you will note, radiation is added in KT to come up with the magic 390 Wm-2. Can you slow down and explain in more detail?
Look where MODTRAN cuts off (frequency) and where the sun cuts on.
Sorry, no comphrend, el rodento.
Eli, of course is a lagomorph of the family leporidae, a much superior beast to the willingly dense and deceiving, however, as you well know, since you have been told multiple times, there is very little overlap between a 6000K blackbody curve which is similar to the sun’s emission and the blackbody emission at 300 K which is similar to the Earth’s emission.
We could now do the dance about relative intensities, but to save you the trouble, yes, the 6000K curve is a lot higher, but when you take day and night into account (factor of two), add in the fact that the earth only receives a small fraction of the total radiation from the sun, and correct for the angle at which the sun strikes the Earth’s surface as a fuction of latitude, why, gee, the amount of radiation received from the sun per unit area of the Earth’s surface is about the same as that radiated.
“Eli, of course is a lagomorph of the family leporidae, a much superior beast to the willingly dense and deceiving, however, as you well know, since you have been told multiple times, there is very little overlap between a 6000K blackbody curve which is similar to the sun’s emission and the blackbody emission at 300 K which is similar to the Earth’s emission. ”
Oh, I don’t know. The lagomorphs’ craniums are quite small, and as far as I can tell their main purpose in life is to breed rapidly and serve as delicacies for most of the carnivors of the world.
I don’t see how overlap has anything to do with the issue. I can add radiation, correcto?
Because, as discussed about Herztberg’s idiocy, no overlap means that the albedo, absorptivity and emissivity are totally different for sunlight striking the surface and the thermal emission from the atmosphere and surface.
So let us see
You are either purposely obtuse, or very dense, and Eli, is of course, very patient.
How abot 116c??
http://landshape.org/enm/simple-multi-layer-greenhouse/
Not the best but who has the money to do a NASA quality experiment??
Yeah, kuhnkat, I remember that experiment. But that is entirely consistent with the Australian desert, where almost the solar constant is realized in the clear air, I think. I don’t think the “chief” has shed any light on this problem (pun intended); do you?
jae,
You should compare the number that you obtain with the experimental setting of a from below well insulated black surface perpendicular to the direction of sun and also protected so that it is not cooled by convection. Under those conditions the surface gets very hot. Unless you do the experiment correctly the surface is cooled by radiation from the backside, conduction and convection, perhaps even evaporation.
I agree. I stated that great care had to be taken to insulate well. But do you agree that such a test makes sense?
JAE,
Doing the experiment makes sense, if you want to know, what happens for such a surface, and if you do not trust the calculations. To me it does not seem useful. I have no doubt in the theory and making the experimental setting so well understood that the result would give precise information on the process and its individual components appears demanding.
An easy substitute for getting some feeling of what happens is given by a black car roof in direct sunlight in Arizona summer.
Yes you did get confused, you managed to set the surface temperature at 50ºC (look at the graph). When the offset is 0 K the surface temp is 20ºC, so to achieve the situation you wish you should use an offset of 10ºC.
Damn. Guilty as charged. But 120 C is still very hot.
I seem to remember the earlier ones got higher than that but still had a maximum even with plenty of h2o in there. It was cool the graph where the water evaporated and the temp dropped until he replenished it!!
Well, here’s another experiment. Take a toaster oven, and set the door open, with just the lower elements on (‘Bake’). Let them reach a steady temperature, and record it. Then turn the dial to ‘Grill’, so both top and bottom come on.
Now the bottom elements will be receiving some IR from the top elements, perhaps 12cm away or so. Do they heat up? How soon do they begin to heat up, if they do? Do the top elements have to reach a matching temperature before their IR is “accepted” by the bottom ones?
I assume that the air circulating through the oven chamber would reach a reasonably steady state before turning to ‘Grill’, and wouldn’t change much (flow, incoming air temperature as it impinges on the bottom elements). Perhaps such confounding effects can’t entirely be tracked or controlled, but it should be possible to detect additional heating of the bottom ‘Bake’ elements if it occurs.
Of course, it would be possible to do better versions of this in a lab than in a kitchen! But the test seems sound to me in either case.
Staying with the kitchen radiators theme, if one could put a pair of surface elements side by side at right angles, their relative temps could be controlled and measured more precisely! But I doubt my landlord would appreciate that particular modification to the apt. range …
;)
@ John O’sullivan..
Must be pretty exciting eh John to be stayin’ up late and taking part in a real grown up blog. Especially as the debate revolves around your “book” which is, as M. Curry states a political rant. And I’m assuming she means political in the broadest sense as in not based on evidence but opinion and really has nothing to do with your democratic/socialist proclivities.
Well….
I could of course be totally wrong here, but I will take that chance…
My gut- feeling is that we are probably seeing history being made at this very moment and on this very blog….
Did it take a free- thinking mathematician to get the physics into moving in the direction where as to be able to line up with real experiences made in real life?!!! (Not in the models though, mind you, but who cares!)
If there are going to be any remarks regarding my hunch — bystanders here will be able to draw their own valuable conclusions from the tone/pitch of such comments.
Claes has a monstrous task ahead to fill in all the gaps in his theory, but I would still like to wish him good luck!!
kuhnkat | February 5, 2011 at 7:39 pm |
Phil,
the RSS strat data shows two step functions concurrent with volcanoes. The rest is flat to rising. Do you have links to any other data that might give us a better idea of what is happening up there?
You could try this as a start:
http://www.agu.org/journals/ABS/2009/2008JD010421.shtml
Phil,
here is a link to the pdf, http://www.arl.noaa.gov/documents/JournalPDFs/RandelEtal.JGR2009.pdf.
It has an extended data set but I think is the same one Fred gave me earlier. Doesn’t appear to show any significant differences. Does show the earlier period from the 50’s to the 70’s that shows a drop during a period when the lower temps were dropping also. In other words, to me it doesn’t support the view of the models.
What should I be looking at?
Try section 4, e.g. Fig 18.
Phil,
OK. I looked and read. Figure 18 still shows basically the same as RSS/MSU but for a larger magnitude due to being the higher elevation.
They don’t appear to really address the fact that all the cooling happened coincident with the 2 volcanoes whereas the cooling in the early period from the 50’s through the 70’s appeared to be a general trend???
As they correctly point out: “The signature of the El Chichon and Pinatubo volcanic eruptions are seen as transient warming in the middle stratosphere channels (25, 26x and 26), with reduced magnitude (1 K) compared to the lower stratosphere (Figure 17).” There is no cooling “coincident with the 2 volcanoes” it is a warming!
So Phil, if there was just a warming why did the temperature drop at the peak of the warming? Oh yeah, the warming was caused by the insolation being absorbed by the aerosols in the stra. Underneath there was lower insolation changing the amount of energy being absorbed by the oceans and ground, the amount of evaporation…
The aerosols eventually cleared and things went back to normal EXCEPT there was a step temp change afterwards. I know these guys are really smart, but, I don’t see anyone giving us a micro explanation of what happened so that there was that large step DOWN to a relatively FLAT temp which we did not seen in the earlier periods.
You and they appear to be making assmptions, unless you would like to flesh out the details not included in the paper?
Claes Johnson
Seeing your absence on this thread dedicated to your mathematics , at least from my part, I regret that I will never know what u(x,t) actually means.
Yet I would give my kingdom not for a horse but for just a line telling me exactly how u(x,t) is defined and what are its units.
Because I have now an idea where does the equation (4) come from and how it was “derived”.
And I only need an exact definition of u(x,t) to prove in few lines that the equation (4) . I again deeply regret that you did not wish to engage with the detailed questions concerning the mathematics . I am sure that many would even appreciate if you threw in few equations beside qualitative arguments.
Will
You accused me of hypocrisy.
You wrote :
“It is very unhealthy to ignore open questions that are potentially killing a theory.”
I am of course highlighting the general hypocrisy being displayed throughout this thread by the “climate science” community in general, as is as plain as day from my comment.
Thomas has clearly displayed the same in his comment to Claes.
One of the most obvious clues that AGW proponents are not playing with straight deck is their insistence that there be one rule for them and another for everyone else.
This comment would have a kind of validity and I understand what you say IF and only IF I was a (C)AGW proponent.
I am not. As I have written on several threads here, I am even more confortable with being called “denier” than “skeptic”. After all every scientist is or should be a sceptic.
I engaged C.Johnson mathematics from the purely mathematical point of view and if you read my posts you should have noticed that I have used nowhere any “AGW” like argument.
However even if I find sympathetic the general aim of the book, what can I do when I see bad maths (actually the physics are worse than the maths but anyway…)?
One option is to say nothing. This is not a realistic option for a scientist. If I understood nothing about maths and was not interested in dynamical problems, I would not participate on this blog. Rather tautological, isn’t it?
Second option is to write equations that explain what I see wrong and why. I never expressed any doubts about Claes ability to answer my questions and refute my arguments. If I had any, I kept them for myself out of respect. It was not always easy because I know with a mathematical certitude that some points are absolutely wrong , e.g can be proven as false. This is what I did.
There is no third option.
Judith
Just for the sake of completude.
I am not employed by a European University now. I didn’t feel well in Academia for different reasons and didn’t want to do a carrier there. So while I collaborate on occasion with people who are employed by Academia, I exert my scientific skills in a frame of a private company.
Not that it is very important but I wouldn’t want some misunderstandings – climate questions are slippery ground in Europe.
u(x,t) may represent the displacement of a chain of charges at point x at time t, with d2u/dt2 the electrical field strength generated by the acceleration of u
and d3u/dt3 a force from the variation of the field. Normalized form is used
with dimensional constants set to 1.
Thomas,
My direct interprepitation of u(x,t) without knowing what equation 4 is: u is dependent on the values of x and t or similar to y= u(x,t)= ax + bt + c. Where a, b, and c are constants. Pardon me if you are not looking for a simple direct answer. Of course, CJ’s below answer may provide u with a better explanation what he meant.
Claes Johnson
Thanks.
Now that I know what u(x,t) is, I can falsify the Equation (4).
We will start with a single charged particle situated at origin and oscillating along the Oz axis.
We are interested in its dynamic so we will write like Planck the energy conservation. This is :
d(kinetic energy)/dt + d(potential energy)/dt + Radiated power = Absorbed power
The charge is considered being a harmonic oscillator so we have easily the first 2 terms.
d(kinetic energy)/dt = m.d²u/dt².du/dt
d(potential energy)/dt = m.4.π.ν0².u.du/dt
Where u(t) is the displacement of the charge along Oz, m is the mass of the particle and ν0 is the natural frequency of the oscillator.
With some approximations we obtain for the Radiated power = – m.τ.d³u/dt³.du/dt where τ =µ0.e²/6.π.c with all constants having the usual meanings and dimensions. τ is a time (seconds). This is the least trivial part but we just derive it with Maxwell’s equations like Planck did 100 years ago.
Absorbed power is simply Fapplied.du/dt where Fapplied is some external force acting on the particle.
Substituting in the energy conservation we obtain the differential equation (1) which I have already posted in a slightly different form long time ago. Of course we observe that this equation has nothing to do with your Equation (4).
d²u/dt² + 4.π.ν0².u – τ.d³u/dt³ = Fapplied/m (1)
Now you tell us that “u(x,t) may represent the displacement of a chain of charges”. So we will take that seriously and ask how can such a chain or string of charges behave. Well if it is really a string (e.g a continuous medium) then we know that any perturbation will propagate along the string according to the wave equation.
(∂^2 u)⁄∂t ²- (V² . ∂^2 u)⁄∂x ²=0 (2)
where V is the wave velocity depending on the mass , length and tension of the string. Note that it is necessary to define the mass, tension and the length of the string (may be infinite) because else the velocity of the wave propagation is undefined. Actaually without these parameters one would not even had a string.
Now comes the hardest part.
The variable in (2) is u(x,t) and represents the displacement in the z direction of a point on the string of coordinate x.
The variable in (1) is u(t) and represents the displacement in the z direction of a a particle of coordinate 0 which may be written u(0,t).
But equation (1) is of course valid independently of where the particle is.
So I may replace u(0,t) by u(x,t) and the differentiation by a partial derivative with regard to t.
One last observation and we are there. As we have a string obeying to the wave equation, the points of the string P(x) and P(x+dx) interact only mechanically. Most importantly they don’t interact electromagnetically because else the Equation (2) which describes a propagation of a material wave on a string would not be valid. Under this assumption the variables u(x,t) both in (1) and (2) are identical and the Equations (1) and (2) are independent.
Follows :
(∂^2 u)⁄∂t ²= V² . ∂^2 u ⁄∂x ² from (2) and by substituting into (1)
V² . ∂^2 u ⁄ ∂x ² + 4.π.ν0².u – τ.∂³u/∂t³ = Fapplied/m (3)
Under the specified assumptions (continuous string of charges, conservation of energy) the equation (3) describes the displacement of a point situated on a charged string at coordinate x. It is also important to note that this equation is dimensionally consistent.
Your equation (4) is :
(∂^2 u)⁄∂t ²- (∂^2 u)⁄∂x ²- γ (∂^³ u)⁄∂t ³=f (4)
Beyond being clearly dimensionally inconsistent and observing that there doesn’t exist a unit system which would make the equation 4 dimensionally consistent, equation 4 is different from the correctly derived Equation (3). Therefore either
a) equation (4) is wrong or
b) the system described by equation (4) is NOT a string of charges.
According to your own declaration the option b) is wrong, therefore the option a) is true. Equation (4) doesn’t describe a continuous string of oscillating charges.
Another faster and more qualitative way to demonstrate that (4) is wrong is to observe that as γ (∂^³ u)⁄∂t ³ is supposed to be the radiated power of a piece of the string at P(x) and f is supposed to be the absorbed power of the same piece, then (∂^2 u)⁄∂t ²- (∂^2 u)⁄∂x ² must be necessarily d(kinetic + potential energy)/dt at P(x) to conserve energy.
This is obviously NOT the case for a string , an oscillator or anything else from the physical world for that matter.
Last I must mention why equation (3) is unphysical and probably useless even if it was correctly derived.
I don’t need to be very respectful about (3) because I have derived it myself.
Well as already Planck has known, the oscillators in the real world are molecules and atoms.
They are discrete and “continuous” strings of charges don’t exist. That’s why the discrete real world oscillators exchange also electromagnetic radiation among them.
For that reason a string or a plane of discrete oscillating charges will never obey the INDEPENDENT wave equation what was the assumption leading to Equation (3).
Hence equation (3) doesn’t describe anything that we can find in the real world and cannot be an approximation of it either.
Tomas, thank you once again for your thorough and illuminating analysis.
Well Tomas, you are angry and you want to kill, applauded by Judy, but you shoot in many directions except in the direction of the target.
I consider as a model a wave equation augmented with a dissipative third order time derivative with a small coefficient. It has features similar a wave equation with small viscous damping as a first order time derivative with a small coeff.
From this model I derive Rayleigh-Jeans Law with a cut-off of high frequencies, thus a Planck Law. You don’t like the equation but you like Planck’s Law. If the equation gives you Planck’s Law, how can you argue that it must be wrong? Just because it is written in non-dimensional normalized form?
To criticize the model is a senseless as criticizing the model of a harmonic oscillator (because a perfect harmonic oscillator cannot be found in physical reality) or the model of a damped vibrating string referred to above (because
there are no real strings behaving exactly like that).
It is possible to question the analysis of the model including the precise nature of the finite precision computation, the bandwidth of the forcing, the same temperature of all frequencies, et cet, but you don’t do anything of this.
Why not? Why criticize out in the blue, where there is nothing of relevance in the context?
What about the erroneous integration by parts in the next step. Have you found an explanation for that?
And a way to explain why your string does not move with an exponentially accelerating speed to some direction?
No Pekka, you are off track. Think of a vibrating string with a small viscous damping and ask yourself if you can find some exponentially exploding solutions?
Claes,
Your hand-waving is not enough. If your differential equation has exponentially growing solutions, you must have better explanation on what they are and why they are not a problem.
In every respect your paper lacks proper explanations on what the equations are about and why they would have any connection at all to physics.
And then erroneous the integration by parts. That ruins totally the derivation as given in the paper. Have you solved this issue.
There is no incorrect integrations by parts, only in your imagination.
The derivatives in the last term of left hand side are with respect to t and the integration over x. How do you get that to work in integration by parts.
Claes,
Do you still claim that this is only my imagination?
There is an integration in time understood, which gives the
radiation term as stated in the energy balance section. I will rewrite so that this is more correctly expressed. In the
Fourier section integration in time is performed.
Claes,
Fine. Now you admit that one essential factor was “understood” or forgotten in mathematics. Why do you react to criticism as “imagination”, when it is well based. This error was brought to your attention several times earlier, also at the same level of detail, but only now you answered – and in a totally unsatisfactory way.
What else have you forgotten?
In my opinion you have forgotten to give any argument that your model would have a connection to real physics.
Planck, whose work has same distant similarities with yours, did tell directly that he made a conjecture, which was not based on earlier physical knowledge (or in real agreement with later as we now know), that of analyzing, how a linear oscillator interacts with EM radiation in a cavity. He was doing that, because it was known, that the matter inside a cavity does not influence the outcome and he thought that this otherwise unrealistic hypothesis might fall within the range of validity of this law.
His conjecture was found valuable by the fact that it reproduced well the spectrum of black body radiation. Great result, that served as one starting point for further development of physics, but which was still an arbitrary assumption. The model of Planck was capable of producing one correct curve, nothing more. It does not show anything about other aspects of radiation. It does not say anything about, how CO2 interacts with radiation in the atmosphere.
Planck was a great physicist. He was careful in describing, what he did and he did not claim that his model would be a model of something else that the one effect, where it gave to the right result.
Your paper lacks all these positive qualities. You start without explaining your equations. You are extremely sloppy with dimensions, which has clearly led to several errors in your text. Errors means, that you have left dimensions out in places, where it cannot be done without distorting the results totally as Tomas has shown in more detail.
When these damaging errors are pointed out, you tell that it does not matter, but you cannot tell, why not. Of course you cannot tell, because these things do matter. A scientific paper, which is so sloppy is of no value. Your reactions have shown, that it is not only a question of sloppy presentation of much better work. It appears clear, that you do not have any better analysis at all, only sloppy ideas.
Even, if you could reproduce in a different form, what Planck did more than 100 years ago, you would not have anything to say about atmosphere, because you would still miss everything on the real interactions, and without that no results are even remotely possible.
Claes I am not angry at all .
I have just demonstrated how and why your (4) is incorrect because my (3) is correct.
You surely agree that if (3) is right, (4) can’t be and vice versa.
The dimensional inconsistency of (4) is just aggravating circumstance but didn’t play any role in the proof.
Please feel free to show me where I was wrong – I will not be angry if you do.
Pekka that is not a real problem.
If (4) was right then you may remove all unphysical solutions.
For instance if f is solution and f + a.exp(kt) with a constant is a solution too, then you deduce that a=0.
The problem is that (4) is not correct.
Actually considering that we have a vibrating string (it is irrelevant whether charged or not) then it must obey the wave equation.
So one only solves (∂^2 u)⁄∂t ²- V²(∂^2 u)⁄∂x ² = 0 assuming one knows V and then computes the the radiation part.
When Claes adds (∂^2 u)⁄∂t ²- (∂^2 u)⁄∂x ² he is just adding 0, of course assuming that the velocity is “normalised” to 1, you can remove these both terms from (4) and you get that radiated power = absorbed power.
You don’t absorb power, you absorb energy. Power cannot be aborbed.
Power cannot be aborbed.
Of course that it can, it is just a matter of vocabulary.
dE/dt = P (E energy, P power)
dEa/dt = Pa
dEabsorbed/dt = Pabsorbed
Clear anough ?
Thats loose! Rate of change of energy=power. How do you absorb rate of change of energy? Pardon me being frank and straight.
Tomas,
My real problem is the lack of well specified connection to physics. We know now much more than was known at the end of the 19th century. The paper was presented as something of relevance for understanding the EM field in the atmosphere and its role in energy balance.
It is the task of Claes to specify his assumptions and the connections to physics at a understandable level. You have been fighting this point as well. You have made significant steps in this way, but guessing, what he means is not your task. It is his task to present the theory in sufficient details and without errors and omissions, and to open it to criticism without the need of guessing, what the theory is supposed to mean.
I do not expect full discussion in a paper like this, but the order must be, that the theory is first described in full and only then can it be applied. It is also acceptable to present a sketch, but then it must be stated that it is only a sketch and that there is no proof that the sketch can be completed. That was my first idea, when looking at the paper, but this is not the way it has been published. The book on climate change is not a place for a totally unproven sketch of theory of radiation, even less, when it does not even try to answer the real issues (interaction with GHG’s).
Picking on the details is only a way of indicating, how lacking the paper is.
Pekka,
“The only thing more dangerous than ignorance is arrogance.” —Albert Einstein
Nice and appropriate.
Pekka,
…..”Actually the existence of earth makes the sun a very tiny bit hotter than it would be without earth. In that sense the IR radiation from earth does actually heat the sun. The second law does not forbid”……
Thats not correct. A very high energy photon from the Sun collide with a very low IR photon from the Earth, the low energy IR photon gets absorbed or deflected if not absorbed and the high energy photon may slightly changed its course. The low energy IR photon can never reach the Sun under the Sun’s heat flux.
Claes, Tomas demonstrated no anger at all. Quite the opposite in fact.
So he wanted to kill without being angry. That is even worse.
Just one amusing point more.
If there existed indeed a unit system where the Equation (4) would be consistent (unfortunately it doesn’t), then one would have for an oscillating string : (∂^2 u)⁄∂t ²- (∂^2 u)⁄∂x ² = 0 (wave equation with velocity “normalised” to 1).
Then (4) reduces just to Emitted power = Absorbed power , e.g
γ (∂^³ u)⁄∂t ³=f
This “version” of (4) is still dimensionally inconsistent but not totally wrong (it describes a string in radiative and thermodynamic equilibrium for every x) but it is trivial to solve.
To Pekka:
You write:
“The model of Planck was capable of producing one correct curve, nothing more. It does not show anything about other aspects of radiation. It does not say anything about, how CO2 interacts with radiation in the atmosphere.”
Yet Planck’s simple model is used as the basis of CO2 climate alarmism.
The model I suggest (wave equation + radiation term + finite precision comp) is richer than Planck’s and thus has the chance to better model physics. After all radiation is an electromagnetic wave phenomenon and should better be modeled as such.
I don’t claim that the simple analysis of the simple model I study necessarily tells something about real physics. But I think it contains a possibly important element of truth beyond statistics. It shows how a warm object
radiatively can heat a cold and that the reverse cannot happen, without statistics. That “backradiation” is fiction. Isn’t that worth something?
Computations with different versions of the model are under way.
Claes,
Planck’s law is only one detail of the theories that describe the radiative energy transfer. It is used, where it is valid. It is not used based on Plank’s derivation, but because it is both empirically confirmed and a natural part of the present extensive understanding of physics.
The last chapter of your message is not a novel physical result. It is known to everybody that, when we are looking at a value 3 that has been observed in one model by calculating 5-2 = 3, it is equally correct to say that the value is 3 and that there are two values 5 and 2 and that we need to calculate their difference. It is possible to restrict own talking to saying 3, but that is not a proof that those people would be in some way wrong, who prefer to mention also 5 and 2.
The radiative heat transfer can be calculated in practice only (or at least by far most easily) by calculating the two directions and calculating their difference. There is no doubt that this gives correct results. It has been verified empirically millions of times, when practical observation are included, not only science. As this is the best way of getting the correct numbers, it is also useful to give some names to the two parts. Looking from the point of view of one body, one part is absorption and the other emission. The emission part can be calculated from the temperature and emissivity of the body, but calculating the absorption, we must know the absorptivity of the body and determine the strength of the incoming radiation for all wavelengths. Thus we must determine something and a name for this ‘something’ is useful. The word ‘back-radiation’ is used by many. Some dislike the name, but that is not essential. The strength of this radiation is needed anyway. You cannot talk or prove it away as it is a part of reality.
As I commented in my early messages, I can envision a possibility of an alternative correct way of doing the calculations based on an alternative approach to field theory where photons are not introduced in the same way. This is a possibility, not proven to succeed. Your model has some similarities with this, but is not a ready solution. At the present you do not have any real theory, just some incoherent calculations. Although the signs are not positive, I cannot exclude the possibility, that you will be able to improve on your present work so much that it starts to have value. The present paper cannot tell at all, what results that theory would be capable of producing, or in other words, for which problems it would offer an useful way of doing calculations and gaining physical understanding. If you feel confident in being able to do that, please do – and publish it then in a journal of the appropriate field of physics.
OK Pekka,
So climate models don’t rely on Planck’s law/derivation, but on something “empirically confirmed” which you claim to be “a natural part of the present extensive understanding of physics”.
Not very convincing, is it? What is “understanding” without theory?
It seems you believe that it is not impossible that the wave model may give results of interest. Maybe you are right. Computations will tell.
Claes,
I propose that you take a look at the physics curriculum at KTH or whichever university you prefer.
Pekka
We have all noticed that Thomas asked some difficult questions of Claes.
One question I posed to you has as yet not had a direct answer.
Do you think that for example 100Joules of blackbody radiation centred around 15um is exactly thermodynamically equivalent to 100 Joules of blackbody radiation centred around 2um?
Your question must be answered by two comments
The effect that these two radiations have, when they hit a blackbody or any real material that absorbs both radiations with 100% absorptivity and thermalizes it, is exactly the same. Thus they are with great accuracy equivalent in most situations that include all normal cases where the hit solid or liquid material. In these cases the effect is precisely described by stating that the heat content of the body has increased by 100 J. No qualifications related to the type of heating are needed to describe the result fully.
They are not equivalent in all respects, because some materials absorb them differently. For atmospheric gas they are very different ans they are also different for many types of glass, as glass is not transparent for 15 um radiation absorbing it effectively, but may transmit 2 um radiation rather well (this depends on the type of glass).
a quick comment: different entropies
Judith,
There is a problem with your statement. The question was about radiation, not material emitting it or absorbing it or about a system, which includes such material. The radiation is in this consideration not in balance with anything else. There is not either any significant interaction between the photons. Thus the photons just exist until they become absorbed and this is not a matter of temperature, but depends on absorptivity, which is an almost temperature independent material property (as long as the structure of the material does not change).
This makes the concept of entropy meaningless. Such radiation does not have any temperature either. The radiative temperature is not temperature in the same sense of temperature in thermodynamics. The connection comes from the phase of emission and is largely lost after that.
Pekka, the entropy of radiation is described by Callies and Herbert (1988) and Stephens and O’Brien (1993). I also wrote a section on this in my thermodynamics book.
Judith,
The entropy flux related to radiative processes is another matter. Most arguments are about that, but concerning the question of Bryan, the difference is totally crucial. The question was formulated in such a way that one must think again, what it is about.
The essential difference is in the fact that he assumes some radiation of specified properties arriving from an unspecified source outside the physical system considered. This is an essential feature behind the logic of the question. If this is not taken into the correlation, the physical answer will change.
Perhaps it is not surprising that this question is causing confusion among participants of the discussion.
i missed the context of the overall discussion, i just responded to that particular point, so what i said may not be relevant, apologies if i distracted the discussion.
Actually Planck already computed the radiation entropy in his Vorlesungen that I linked.
The radiation entropy argument is even central to his development.
Judith and Pekka
Thanks for the replies.
The background to the question was the idea of the “quality” of the radiation and the second law.
We know of solar radiation arriving at the Earth surface and approximately equal energy quantity of longer wavelength radiation leaving the Earth surface.
We also know that the reverse process is impossible by the second law.
Particular thanks to Judith for the Stephens and O’Brien link.
My reading material for the weekend is assured.
Apologies to Tomas for using Anglicised version of his name.
Bryan,
There is no quality of radiation issue of the type you are implying. That is all misunderstanding of physics. The point is that a hot body emits more at every wavelength. That is enough for the second law according to the Kirchoff’s law, which tells the same thing in more detail. The fact that the relative difference grows with frequency of the radiation (or inverse wavelength) is an additional factor that allows sun to heat so strongly in spite of the long distance.
100 J is still 100 J independently of the wavelengths or the form of the spectrum.
Actually the existence of earth makes the sun a very tiny bit hotter than it would be without earth. In that sense the IR radiation from earth does actually heat the sun. The second law does not forbid that. It tells only that sun heats earth more than earth heats sun.
Pekka.
I think it strange that you seem to suggest that the “quality” of the radiation does not matter.
You must know that one Joule of a just high enough frequency will produce photo-emission in a certain material whereas 1000 Joules of frequency slightly lower does not.
Bryan,
I have stated the limitation: As long as it gets absorbed and thermalized.
At high enough frequencies non-thermal effects like the photoelectric effect start to appear.
And yes: X-rays cause cancer.
Pekka
…..”Actually the existence of earth makes the sun a very tiny bit hotter than it would be without earth. In that sense the IR radiation from earth does actually heat the sun. The second law does not forbid”……
This just does not make any sense.
A colder object can never make an object at a higher temperature increase its temperature.
Clausius tells us that heat flows from a higher temperature object to a lower temperature object never the reverse.
Never in the history of the universe has heat been observed to flow spontaneously from a lower temperature object to a higher temperature object
Bryan,
Perhaps it does not make sense for you – yet. If you will continue to be interested in these issues, it will sooner or later appear self-evident also for you. And not through brain-washing but through learning.
Clausius did not say anything about this. His statement as other correct formulations of the second law tell only that the net flow is from the hot to the cold. That does not forbid looking separately at both directions. Then it tells only that the flux from hot to cold is larger than from cold to hot.
The definition of heat in the old classical thermodynamics is based on the net flow. In that limited way of looking at physics that the classical thermodynamics presents there is no mention of other heat flow than the net flow, but that is a limitation of the formalism, not a statement about what really happens when we look at smaller details. The two flows are the first step towards smaller details and beyond classical thermodynamics, but in full agreement with it.
There is here really nothing in contradiction with the classical thermodynamics, but something that the classical thermodynamics didn’t talk about. There is also very much else in physics that goes beyond classical thermodynamics.
Pekka.
When we look at these issues I am absolutely certain that I am following the orthodox interpretation of classical thermodynamics.
I have carefully stayed within the framework outlined by Clausius, Einstein Feynman and Zemansky.
In other words the framework of Physics.
You have decided to reinterpret words like heat not in the thermodynamic sense but using a vernacular sense.
Now on this tread we have Claes who wants to revisit the quantisation of energy.
Claes does not pretend that he represents the orthodox view on these issues but presents his ideas as a better explanation of what we observe.
However Pekka you will need to be as honest as Claes and with your new interpretation argue that words like heat, work, thermal energy and EM radiation are obsolete and need to be replaced and give sound reasons for your interpretation.
Bryan,
I cannot see, how you have not understood my point that I have repeated so many times in different words and that is also the same that almost everybody working with radiative heat transfer has in physics and engineering.
You start, that you are following the following the orthodox interpretation of classical thermodynamics. I said in my previous comment, that classical thermodynamics is valid for what is making statements about, but:
– Classical thermodynamics it is not making statements about, how radiation transfers heat.
– It does not say that heat of the colder body could not cause IR radiation.
– It does not say that this radiation could not reach the surface of the hotter body.
– It does not say that this radiation could not be absorbed by the hotter body and add to the heat content of the hotter body.
The classical thermodynamics does not make any statements about these things. Therefore you cannot either dispute these things based on classical thermodynamics.
You must widen your view of physics beyond the narrow limits of the classical thermodynamics. Classical thermodynamics is a correct theory, but it is not a full theory. Concerning radiative heat transfer it tells only the net balance, but we all and also you are allowed to look at other things as well.
Using classical thermodynamics as an argument the way you do corresponds to the idea, that a company would tell only its profit, but it would be forbidden to ask, how this profit is formed from costs and income.
Being honest in attempts to learn more requires trying to first understand what science has learned up to this point. Then one has a starting point from which one can choose what to consider suspect and where to try to reach further. Jumping back 100 years and claiming that almost all physicists after that have been fooled and doing that without any argument that can be expressed in a logical and understandable form, is not what I consider the highest level of honesty to either oneself or to others, if these obscure thoughts are brought to public to confuse, what non-scientist will think on a politically controversial issue.
Pekka
I cannot make any sense out of using the phrase ;
…”the colder body heats the warmer body”…
For every wavelength incident there is a greater quantity leaving the surface.
What you describe as back radiation I call radiative insulation.
To say that the insulating jacket round a hot water tank “heats” up the hot water is a misuse of language.
It far more accurate to say that the jacket reduces the rate of heat loss from the hot water.
The other use of the word HEAT is in its ability to do WORK in the given situation.
This it completely fails to do.
Clausius was fully aware of radiative heat transfer and tests were made using lenses and mirrors to see if it differed from the other methods.
It did not.
The results were summed up in the expression;
Heat flows spontaneously from a hotter to a colder body, never the reverse.
I have a number of physics books at home and not one would agree with your interpretation.
Also the use of the word heat in that way gives an easy advantage to critics of the IPCC position.
G&T for example would say that such a view could not be taken seriously as it implied a direct contradiction of the second law.
Bryan,
In my comments to Claes I have stated, that there may be alternative ways of describing the same things. That is OK, but that gives you no right to say that the way others want to discuss the matter is wrong. It is just an alternative. It is the alternative used by almost everybody, who is working on these issues concretely.
It is used by them, because it helps them in doing their work correctly and producing practical results in engineering and in understanding atmosphere. Here “understanding atmosphere” refers to the practical uses of this understanding in meteorology, remote sensing etc. The Climate science is is not the originator of these concepts. It is only one adopter of them.
Pekka
The physics community as a whole believes clarity in the use of definitions is of the utmost importance.
For example:
The term atomic weight is being phased out slowly and being replaced by relative atomic mass, in most current usage. The history of this shift in nomenclature reaches back to the 1960s and has been the source of much debate in the scientific community.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_mass
Now in the case of the word HEAT there is a very big difference in the orthodox physics use of the word and perhaps how it is used occasionally by less careful expressions in say an engineering context.
Quite often we ignore the inexactitude and conclude ‘I know what he means’.
However in the contentious area of Climate Science where allegations of “fraud” are flung around on all sides I think precise meaning is best.
Guenter Hess was making the same point to you.
He would probably have the same physical interpretation as you but express his ideas using the definitions in the way I would.
I hope you agree that we have expressed our views at length on this topic and now is perhaps the time to reflect on the merits of each others point of view.
Brian,
I admired Pekka has read so much about radiation but on the other hand he does have a big problem of magnitude sense of energy. His 15um CO2 IR radiation photons can swim thru seas of the Sun’s photons and reach the Sun and heats the Sun without drowning (deflected/absorbed/push back)these 15um IR photons after immediate radiation from CO2. Amazing sense of understanding radiation energy magnitudes! You are wasting your valuable time by trying to make him understand.
Bryan,
Yes. The word “heat” is used in many different ways. It is used by everybody in normal discussions without great difficulties in understanding, what is being discussed. It is used by engineers and physicists, but they use it in two somewhat different ways. One of the ways is very close to the common everyday use. In this usage “heat” refers to a part of energy of material bodies. It is that part of energy that is not organized as motion of the whole body or as some other form that influences the body as whole or attributed to specified parts of the body. When it is not anything listed above, it is energy distributed to the small constituents of the body in a random manner. The properties of this distribution of energy are known only statistically through averages and pdf’s.
When thermodynamics was formulated, very little was known about the structure of material. Boltzmann formulated his statistical mechanics much later. At that time it was not possible to give the definition of heat that I introduce above. Clever scientists found a way of handling the equations related to heat in a roundabout way. It was defined only through its flow. This was done in a way that is completely in agreement with the normal present thinking, but it is not as complete as it leaves deliberately totally unspecified, what the heat really is. When we can now specify it better and when our present thinking leads to the same results than classical thermodynamics, there is no reason to stick with the old limited view.
I have noticed that there is now one new reason. That new reason is to confuse deliberately non-experts.
Pekka,
“Concerning radiative heat transfer it tells only the net balance, but we all and also you are allowed to look at other things as well.”
Why not just stop there. We really do not need to convince people that backradiation actually causes state changes in the molecules and atoms of the earth. We only need to decide how much radiation is coming from the earth. The net values over time will show us what is happening just as well as trying to convince people of something they refuse to accept.
If you are saying it is the only way to prove warming there is a problem. Classical Thermodynamics should be able to show larger and smaller fluxes well enough.
There have been a number of items changed over the years as better measurements were taken and more information gathered on how things interact. We still do not understand all the interactions.
If we cannot measure the fluxes well enough, it really doesn’t matter who is correct. There is no support for anyone’s position without accurate measurements because all we are left with are incomplete models.
kuhnkat:
You ask, why not stop there?
The practical argument for the choice of the way of looking at the physics is in the basis the approach gives for doing correct calculations.
The net heat transfer between two bodies can be calculated in practice only as difference of two terms, which have the same coefficients (a geometric factor and emissivities of the two bodies at every wavelength, the absorbtivities are equal to emissivities). In additions we need Planck’s law at both temperatures. The net heat transfer is the difference of these two values of Planck’s law. Thus the only practical correct calculation involves a difference of two terms.
The two terms of the only practical correct calculation can be interpreted as the radiation from the hotter body to the colder and the radiation from the colder body to the hotter. This interpretation is natural to most people. When all the above is true and proven countless times in engineering, why should we not talk about the two terms as radiation and back-radiation?
Concerning the greenhouse effect in the atmosphere, it is again not essential to discuss backradiation as long as the correct physics is described. This means that other views may be correct, but only if they give the same results.
This is of course not what the skeptics of the radiative transfer part think. They do not believe the validity of the present approach. They are wrong. I do not mean that the accuracy of the present calculations is perfect. It certainly is not, but the approach is correct. It has been proven very reliably in other connections.
Pekka,
“Looking from the point of view of one body, one part is absorption and the other emission. The emission part can be calculated from the temperature and emissivity of the body, but calculating the absorption, we must know the absorptivity of the body and determine the strength of the incoming radiation for all wavelengths”
So, what are the absortivity, emissitivity and the corresponding radiation strengths of CO2 at 15 um in the atmosphere?
Sam;
Just re-reading, and the preceding thread is kind of deeply nested so I’ll note it here: photons do not collide or push each other around. Lots flowing one way have no impact on a few heading the other way. Photons are not golf balls.
Brian,
You are talking about the paradox. When considering photons, it has particle properties as well as waves properties not just waves properties in the sunlights. It seem ridculous that when the AGW peudoscientists claimed Long Wave radiation, it came out with photons conclusions.
The model I suggest (wave equation + radiation term + finite precision comp) is richer than Planck’s and thus has the chance to better model physics. After all radiation is an electromagnetic wave phenomenon and should better be modeled as such.
Your statements show such a staggering ignorance of basic physics that I cannot understand how you can work as a mathematician on mathematical physics. I mean, most mathematicians I know have taken some physics courses during their education and they have some understanding of model building, but from the statements above you seem to be completely ignorant of this.
It is completely irrelevant how “rich” your model is if you cannot give any physical motivation for its form. As Pekka and Tomas have said numerous times, you do not even define what the “u(x, t)” in your equation is. Presumably it is the displacement of a charge from some equilibrium condition, but you never say this. What this has to do with Maxwell’s equations is also completely unspecified.
Maxwell’s equations after all tell you exactly how matter and radiation interact, you only say that \ddot u is somehow “proportional” to the electrical field. This is not what Maxwell’s equations say, is it? I mean, as a first approximation this might be acceptable in an undergraduate textbook, but you are not claiming that the electrical field E(x, t) \sim u(x, t), where u(x, t) is the coordinate of a charge? So outside of the osciallating charge density there would be no electrical field?
Also, Maxwell’s equations are in some sense microscopic in nature, at least there is a priori no dissipation term, so where does you\gamma \dddot u come from? What is the motivation? You do not need such a term to specify the interaction of an oscillating field of charges with a radiation field, all the terms for that are there in the Maxwell equations, so where does this come from?
Your “model” is no such thing, it is just some random equation which has no specified relationship to a physical phenomenon.
But let me get to something more specific, namely your way of introducing the “temperature” and the connection to what everybody else calls temperature. This refers to your eq. (11) and the following lines.
You introduce a “temperature” T_\nu of each “corresponding frequency” \nu, so there is a different “temperature” for each and every mode \nu. This then you set equal to a quantity T which you call “temperature”, but which is no such thing. Just because you give the variable the same name that everybody uses to denote a temperature does not make it one.
You can only define a temperature for a system with more than one mode or state that can be occupied. It does not make sense to define a temperature for a system with one single state.
Below eq. (11) you identify T_\nu = … with the average energy content of each mode. You can define what you want, of course, but this definition has nothing to do with a temperature, and that seems to be one of the main points where your argument falls down completely.
The temperature that everybody else talks about is related to the average energy in all modes, averaged over the actual occupation of the different modes in the system. It is the same for all modes. Your temperature carries an index “\nu”, and that should tip you off that it cannot be the same thing. You then boldly drop the index and set it equal to “T”, which you identify with the temperature.
This appears as an “if T_\nu = T” in your “Theorem 1”, and this “if” simply does not hold, so everything that follows has no foundation. The assumption is simply wrong.
What you do here is to assume that the energy in all modes of the system is exactly the same in a system in thermodynamic equilibrium, and this is simply nonsense and flies in the face of all experience.
With your identification, the ratio E_\nu/T_\nu = E_\nu/T is exactly the same for all modes, i.e. you claim that the same energy resides in each vibrational mode in the system in thermodynamic equilibrium.
This leads immediately to a UV catastrophe for your system, since in all higher vibrational modes you have the same energy as in the lowest mode. This is again obviously not so in nature, and the resulting distribution for the occupation of the states looks nothing like the one observed.
At this point you simply (stealthily, and I am not sure that you understand what you do here) introduce a specific distribution for the energy over the modes of the system. This distribution does not have anything to do with any physical distribution (as the classical Boltzmann distribution, that you should be using for your classical calculation, or a Bose-Einstein distribution for photons), and is completely ad hoc and unjustified. Your results then in turn depend on this implicit choice, and this invalidates them completely.
I am really stupefied by the fact that you feel qualified to take on thermodynamics and statistical mechanics, which have really very well supported theoretical foundations, without apparently understanding such a concept as “temperature”. That you do not understand it is obvious from your assumptions in the derivation of your result.
Apparently you completely reject statistical mechanics. Fine. But then you first need to invent your own definition of temperature (and that is not done by simply defining something to be called “T”), and make it consistent with something in the real world.
What do you think a thermometer measures? Are you aware that it is actually possible to measure the velocity distribution of atoms in a gas? And that this has been done and actually agrees with a certain distribution? And that the temperature is connected to certain averages of the kinetic energy of the atoms (and not the energy of any single mode)? What do you think your Fig. 2 shows? Do you know that you can measure the frequency distribution of the radiated intensities from a blackbody?
I second Pekka’s recommendation to take a look at the physics curriculum at your institution.
You could really be the butt of the old joke about the mathematician lacking a can opener: “Can, I define you to be open.”
You just say: “I define this to be “T””, and then claim that your results invalidate everything in thermodynamics, if T is temperature. Duh. What a joke.
From the present loction, I can answer only here.
Temperature and entropy can be properly defined only for a system in equlibrium through internal interactions. That is true for radiation interacting continuously with matter, but the setting of Bryan’s question, which is familiar from earlier discussions, does not allow for that. It does not refer to a complete process, but to part of a process without internal interactions, that would maintin equilibrium. Therfore the temperature and entropy cannot be defined.
To Tomas:
I have made the integration by parts in time in Section 3.2 explicit in an update
of Computational Blackbody Radiation available on my home page
http://www.csc.kth.se/~cgjoh/blackbodyslayer.pdf
… which changed the equation numbers, unfortunately, so what I said above relates to eq. (12) ff. in the new numbering scheme, no longer eq. (11).
Would you care to address what the “T” in your article has to do with temperature, and why you make the identification below eq. (12) between the energy of one oscillating mode and a “temperature” T_\nu of that mode?
I am really curious to hear what you think a temperature is.
Okay, despite my better judgement I read on, and it just gets worse.
So you introduce some arbitrary cutoff function below eq. (17) of unspecified from. However, you assume there is some fixed cutoff frequency \nu_{cut}, of that you are sure, and ”
the cut-off will have little effect on frequencies smaller than \nu_cut. In the analysis we assume this to be the case,
You really think this is justified and better than Planck’s idea? Of course you are solving the UV catastrophe problem by just defining there to be a cutoff. Whoohooo! On what basis, I ask? This is again not how things work in the real world.
Also, you assume \sqrt{E} = T where E is total internal energy of the oscillators, because (again) you claim E_\nu = T for all modes \nu “assuming equilibrium in temperature”. No no no! This is not what happens in equilibrium (otherwise all modes would be occupied equally and the occupation function would be flat)!
The relations between energy of the system and temperature bear no relationship to those in the real world.
What do you think that temperature is?
Claes
I would like to tie in on Shining Raven post because it is strongly correlated to the problem that I have with your equation (4).
The question of physical interpretation of the maths one does is indeed central, it is unescapable when one wants to finish with some physical/measurable and preferably new result.
The problem with Equation 4 that I had at the first glance was that I had to ask myself: “What can this equation physically represent?”.
This is not good.
In contrast when I read the Planck’s Vorlesungen, I know at every line what he is talking about and how equation N follows from equation N-1.
There is no “WTF?” moment where one doesn’t know what variables mean or where a – sign comes from.
To be specifical.
equation 4 might describe an oscillating continuous string.
The most general such equation is :
(∂^2 u)⁄∂t ²- (V² . ∂^2 u)⁄∂x ² – damping = forcing
Your equation obviously belongs to this category.
This is a well known and well studied problem. Generally the forcing is set to 0 and one specifies the damping. This latter is empirical because there is no exact general form valid for all waves and strings.
But once it is done, it is a common exercice at universities and is quite easily solved for given initial and boundary conditions by simply separating the variables.
Seen from this point of view, you have chosen an exotic damping proportional to the third time derivative of u.
This doesn’t correspond to any known real world damping and I don’t think that somebody has solved this equation.
It reminded me an exercice in mechanics during my studies where we were asked to derive the dynamics of a system governed by a central force in 1/r^3.
It was exotic and not easy what was the purpose. However as such a force doesn’t exist in the nature, the “model” had nothing to do with with how real planets behave.
Conclusion: your equation describes a continuous string with an exotic tension and linear density (because your velocity is set at 1) and an exotic damping.
And this is not meant to be sarcastic, your equation REALLY describes that.
But this Equation (4) also reminds Planck’s equation which describes the dynamics of a single oscilating electrical dipole situated at origin and radiating electromagnetic waves.
Here the similitude is much more superficial because while it is CERTAIN that the equation describes a vibrating string with an exotic damping, it has terms that are not in Planck’s equation and misses terms that are.
However suddenly you make something strange and not explained – you assimilate the exotic damping term of a material string to a non exotic term of Planck’s vibrating dipole – e.g you say that damping = radiated energy!
This immediately banishes the reader to the outer hells because now he doesn’t know anymore if you want to describe oscilating damped strings or oscilating radiating dipoles.
Saying that the string is constituted of oscilating charges doesn’t help because it seems clear that the equation of the dynamics of a material continuous string with damping cannot be formally the same as the equation of the dynamics of a discrete set of oscillating and radiating dipoles.
Unless a miracle happens.
In the post above I was exploring whether a miracle can happen.
It can’t.
Now could your Equation 4 describe a continuous charged string oscillating in vacuum? As such not because of the dimension problem.
But if the dimension problem was fixed, it might very well do that indeed.
There would be the problem with how compares the damping due to the fixed points at 0 and L and due to the em emission that would have to be handled but … I begin to think aloud here :)
I am not sure if it works but it might.
But even if it does that, at least as an approximation, what could this clearly defined physical reality (charged continuous finite material string in vacuum) have possibly to do with black bodies, temperatures and thermodynamics?
The reader has not the answer on this question and the rather undocumented way you handle the definitions and the derivations after equation 4, muddies the waters even more.
Claes
I have never mentionned any integration by parts problem.
I stay stuck with your equation (4) and with this strange unjustified assumption that f”’=v²f’.
What follows (4) is just standard mathematics with some less standard assumptions.
But if I have a PED – be it (4) or something else , I know more than enough of maths to derive the solutions myself. This is the easy part.
The hard part is to have a good equation and to know what it represents.
The assumption f”’=v²f’ is not strange, but most natural in a spectral decomposition in x, followed by a Fourier representation in terms of linear combinations of exp(+- i omega t) with omega close to nu, reflecting traveling waves of the form exp(i nu x )exp(+- i omega t), and thus two time derivates corresponding to multiplication by – nu^2. Standard Fourier analysis.
And the model (4) is a continuous in space version of Planck’s model. Nothing strange at all. Of course the interpretation of the model is important, and for basic mathematical models such as a damped wave equation, there is a wealth of interpretations, even richer than the wealth of interpretations of a (damped) harmonic oscillator. Right?
The assumption f”’=v²f’ is not strange, but most natural in a spectral decomposition in x,
It is not in x it is in t that you used it (I used ‘ in place of . and omitted the – sign. It should be f”’=- v²f’ . At least that’s what you wrote)
You do realise that this assumption gives you immediately the solution
u(x,t), don’t you?
You can immediately integrate that and get fv= Avcos(vt) + Bvsin(vt) + Cv
and u(x,t) = Sigma over v (Avcos(vt) + Bvsin(vt) + Cv/v²).exp(ikx)
And voilà, I have the solutions of (4) in 1 line instead of your 3 pages.
This assumption is unjustified and arbitrary.
And the model (4) is a continuous in space version of Planck’s model.
Please stop that. It has been abundantly shown that (4) describes an oscillation of an exotic string (wave velocity 1) with an exotic damping (3rd derivative instead of first) in vacuum.
Planck’s model deals with oscillating dipoles. It has nothing to do with oscillating continuous strings. It can’t be interpreted as oscillating strings, it can’t be approximated by oscilating strings.
In short it has nothing to do with oscillating strings.
The demonstration is above so it serves nothing to repeat that it is something that it is not.
If you start at (4) you don’t find the Planck’s equation by making the string length going to 0.
And you can’t add terms with x to Planck’s equation to get (4).
You can’t get from 1 to the other in either direction.
This should be by far sufficient to show that (4) and Planck’s model have nothing in common.
Well Tomas, it appears that you don’t understand what I say and I cannot make sense of what you say, and thus we have a communication problem for which I see no solution for the moment. Time will tell what is air and what is solid.
Hi Claes,
Of course the interpretation of the model is important, and for basic mathematical models such as a damped wave equation, there is a wealth of interpretations, even richer than the wealth of interpretations of a (damped) harmonic oscillator. Right?
Not right. This seems to me to be the basic problem. Regarding models, you have it completely backwards. Writing down an equation is not a “model”, and you don’t start by writing down an equation and then looking for things to apply it to.
It is of course true that many physical phenomena have very similar mathematical descriptions. So indeed, the same mathematical equation might describe the physics of different systems. But it makes no sense to say that you start from a mathematical model and then “give it an interpretation” afterwords. And it is completely without relevance how “rich” your mathematical model is if it does not model anything in the real world.
So your approach to this seems to be completely backwards. You first need to figure out the physical phenomenon you want to describe, and then put it into mathematical equations. Not write down a mathematical equation and then figure out what to do with it.
This seems to be why you cannot understand what the physicists say and vice versa. But really: You don’t know how this works and how a physicist approaches this? I find this completely unbelievable.
And you still need to justify what your T has to do with temperature.
Heat energy is also referred to as “internal energy” as opposed to radiated energy or “external energy”, and forcing.
In the model the internal energy = sum of kinetic and potential energies of the vibrating medium = T = measure of heat energy.
Nothing strange at all. But it seems that everything has to be explained and motivated in detail.
Claes,
“… it seems that everything has to be explained… in detail”. Yes, it will definitely help. After all, your noble purpose of the paper is trying to help clarifying radiation misconceptions. If any reader cannot grasp your idea/concept, explain in layman terms since there are levels of understanding among those who call themselves “experts”. It reminds me of Einsteins’ sentence about enemy, arrogance and ignorance.
I am not arrogant, but I meet a lot people in the debate who are both ignorant and arrogant, the worst combination. I am ready to explain
anything I have done in detail, to anyone who is interested, but I am not so eager to do it to those who just want to throw gravel into the machinery. Did you accept my explanation?
Yes, I do accept your explanation which may not acceptable to others who may have different levels of understanding of your equations and your paper. I know you are not so eager to explain to them (with frustration leading to anger and hostile attitudes) but it helps them to understand your concept if you will explain in your next revision of the paper with foot notes and layman terms about your concepts and equations. Your noble purpose of the paper I believe is to help clarifying radiation misconceptions rather winning an argument which wastes time and energy.
And yet you ignore all requests to apply your approach to practical problems.
Phil,
“… but I am not so eager to do it to those who just want to throw gravel into the machinery.”
Patience pays.
Claes,
‘I am ready to explain
anything I have done in detail, to anyone who is interested…’
I have put forward several different physical reasons why your argument doesn’t work and asked you to simply define specifically which form of Maxwell’s equations you use in your derivation.
You have evaded every attempt to engage with me on this topic other than to hand wave and put forth a poorly thought out analogy.
Now you want to claim you’ll explain things in detail?
You’re such a hypocrite in this regard that your words are meaningless at this point. You’re so infatuated with your ‘theory’ that anyone who challenges it must not understand physics. An obvious miscalculation on your part. Alas, not much more should be expected from someone who confuses the computational challenges a PC faces with those of physical reality.
If you think your calculations debunk the measured DLR-flux then… what can one say? You’ve been told so many times that your calculations don’t have a meaning in the physical and *empirical* reality, why it is so hard to understand?
And AFAIK, math is not science, but a tool for science. You’re climbing in to a tree with your feet going up first.
juakola,
Your point and many others’ points are presumably taken by Claes and he is “not eager” to responses yet. Are you done with the rest of Claes’ paper? If not. I suggest you continue in a more productive way rather drilling at equation 4 and wasting your time and the readers’.
Hi Claes,
thanks for the response. Yes, indeed, the internal energy as the sum of the (average) sum of kinetic and potential energy is indeed connected to the temperature.
What you seem to miss is that this cannot (in a system in thermodynamic equilibrium) be specified for each individual mode, as you do. Temperature is a property of the system of interacting modes (or at least of modes interacting with an external energy reservoir), not of the individual modes.
Temperature is connected to the ensemble average of the energies, taken over the actual energy distribution over the modes.
Really, take a look at a physics textbook. You will see that e.g. for an ideal gas you have that = 3/2 T , where is the average over the energy distribution over all momentum modes in the gas.
What you are writing down in contrast is to claim that e.g. E = 3/2 T_p for each and every momentum mode p with E = p^2 / (2 m). As a consequence, you have a different T for all momentum modes – you system is not in equilibrium. You then boldly set T_p = T and claim this has something to do with a system in thermodynamic equilibrium.
Can you see that the internal energy of a single mode is something different from the average internal energy of the system of modes interacting with a heat bath? And that therefore your “T” is something different from temperature? Or does your dislike for statistical mechanics make it impossible for you to understand this?
So yes, your ideas a pretty strange, and you do have to explain things in detail, because what you do does not conform to the usual notion of temperature used in physics.
Shining
……..”E = 3/2 T_p”……
Should this not be;
E =3kT/2
where k = Boltzmann’s constant
Yes, you are correct, this is what I meant:
E = (3/2) * k_B * T
I was so bold as to measure T in units of energy ( in which k_B = 1).
I assume that all frequencies (or colors) have the same temperature equal to the common temperature T. I leave out the mechanism establishing this form of equilibration. If the incoming spectrum is
equilibrated, then the radiated spectrum below cut-off will also
be equilibrated. Is this strange?
Yes, because what you do does not lead to the energy distribution of an equilibrated system in the real world.
Again, you do not assume that all modes have the same temperature, you assume they all have the same energy content. And that has nothing to do with temperature as commonly understood.
What is the difference? Usually, temperature is a property of the system, in your case you define it for a single mode. Temperature is related to the average energy content, not the individual content of one mode.
In equations: In an equilibrated system we have some distribution over the probabilities to find e.g. a gas molecule with a particular momentum (and energy) that depends on the energy of the mode, p(E, T), and on the temperature of the system. So the temperature appears as a parameter in this distribution.
The average energy of a mode in the system is then
= int_0^\infty d E E p(E, T)
possibly modulo some phase space factor, but let’s not make it too complicated. So
For an ideal gas you find e.g. = (2/3) k_B T
where k_B is Boltzmann’s constant.
So the temperature is a characteristic of the equilibrium distribution of energy over the modes in the system, and it is related to the average over the distribution. It satisfies an integral equation.
What you are doing is not assuming that all modes have the same temperature, you write down an equation that says that they all have the same energy. Obviously that is not at all the same. You miss the integral.
I guess you can find some kind of distribution p(E, T) that gives you the same energy content in all modes (a completely flat distribution), but that has nothing to do with the situation in an actual system in the real world.
Yes, I assume that all colors have the same “internal energy”
as a sum of “internal kinetic and potential energies” as opposed to “external energy” in the form of radiation and forcing.
Of course, it is possible to assume some other distribution than a flat iso-energy distribution. We are here considering light waves and not gas molecules bumping around according to some known or unknown statistics. The flat distribution
gives you a Rayleigh-Jeans Law, and thus may reflect reality.
Or do you see that it cannot?
Hi Claes,
thanks for your reply, we are getting somewhere…
The assumption that you make is not reflected in the real world, as I said. As you state, the quantity that you consider is the internal energy of each mode. A priori this has no connection to temperature at all, and you are not establishing any connection.
I mean, you can actually measure the energy distribution of gas molecules in a gas in equilibrium, or of the modes in a hohlraum resonator, and it is simply a fact that the distribution is not flat.
How do you get a temperature without considering a distribution of modes with different energies? You can’t!
And your “flat” distribution immediately leads to a UV catastrophe, since there are modes with arbitrary high energies which all have to be occupied.
You get around this problem by arbitrarily introducing a maximal cutoff frequency, but this has no justification in physics or from the observed energy spectrum in real-world systems.
I understand that you do not like statistical mechanics, but you really should take a look at how one introduces temperature as as concept there. I do not see how you can talk about the “temperature” of a system with a flat energy distribution.
So I submit that your system is neither in thermal equilibrium nor has a temperature as the term is commonly understood in physics.
Because of this you cannot draw any conclusions from it about the thermodynamic equilibrium of the radiation field.
We are not talking about gas molecules but about colors,
about waves of different frequencies, which has nothing to do with statistics, as far as I can understand at least. Cut-off of high frequencies is what you see in real physics and I give a “theoretical explanation” in terms of finite precision computation. What is so wrong about this approach? After all, statistics is just a cover up of ignorance, right?
Claes and Tomas,
To be honest with you all, I don’t know what you are talking about. If equation 4 is the problem to all (including other responses) in understanding, then Claes, you have the obligation to make it clear to others, using layman terms if necessary, though I generally do not appreciate hostile attitudes towards academic/technical discussions.
I second the motion. Some here have been displaying attitudes that are not conducive to a happy and productive dialectic.
Thank you.
I hope those who have commented equation 4 will continue with happy and productive dialectic with the rest of Claes paper if they have not done so.
Well I wouldn’t go that far – but I’m sure you’re welcome
Appreciated.
To those who are interested, Dr. Johnson patiently answered some questions here:
http://www.slayingtheskydragon.com/latest-news/104-professor-claes-johnson-dissects-the-failed-greenhouse-gas-theory
Enjoy!
Clas:
You repeteadly refer to this “finite precision computation” as the solution to the ultraviolet catastrophy, among others. I am well aware of the intrepretation of that term within your field of numerical modelling with computers, but what is the physical intrepretation of this term? I.e. what mechanism in actual real life is responsible for this “finite precision computation”?
Good question! I think of physics as a form of “analog computation” in the sense that the parts of a physical system interact by reacting to input from
other parts. Outgoing radiation from a system of resonators representing a
“blackbody” requires that the resonators are sufficiently “coordinated” to
be able to generate a “wave”, like the coordination required in a stadium audience generating a “Mexcian wave” by raising hands at the right moment.
The coordination requires a certain “precision” in the expression of the wave
so that larger energy is needed to express shorter wave length. If the energy is not large enough, then the signal will be muddled which will prevent radiation, thus causing “cut-off” of high frequencies as in Planck’s version
of Rayleigh-Jeans radiation law. Of course the exact nature of the “finite precision” in analog physics remains to be identified, but in analog form it has shown to be functional in computational simulation of turbulence, see books on my home page.
Ok. So we have an analog computer with a finite precision. But then you should be able to derive a value for this finite precision from our measurements of black body radiators. I.e. what is the smallest number possible to represent in nature?
The precision depends on the temperature but is related to the “grid size” of the atomic lattice acting as the vibrating resonating radiating system.
Did a mistake with the forum structure. Please find my reply to this below, posted 3.43 PM.
”
The precision depends on the temperature but is related to the “grid size” of the atomic lattice acting as the vibrating resonating radiating system.
”
Pretty much independant of it.
Hal,
“Pretty much independant of it.”
“The measurements don’t show this effect.”
Correct me if I am wrong these comments did not contribute anything to the discussion. Please elaborate your comments, thanks.
Ok. It is dependent on the temperature. But if it is also dependent on the “grid size”, shouldn’t materials with different size of atoms/molecules/crystal lattice structures then have different shapes of the high frequency cut-off? Can you refer me to any measurements that shows this effect?
And it still makes it fully possible to calculate this precision from the measurements. Do you have any example of how small the precision is for a given material and temperature?
The measurements don’t show this effect.
There have been many slings and arrows directed at the dragon slayers…I wonder if the eminent critics would care to comment on a pair of quotes from prominent Warmists? Which quote back-radiates more waves of longwave stupidity?
Distributed uniformly over the mass of the planet the absorbed energy would raise the Earth’s temperature to nearly 800,000K after a billion years, if Earth had no way of getting rid of it.
—Raymond T. Pierrehumbert
People think about geothermal energy—when they think about it at all—in terms of the hot water bubbling up in some places, but two kilometers or so down in most places there are these incredibly hot rocks, ‘cause the interior of the earth is extremely hot, several million degrees, and the crust of the earth is hot…
—Albert Arnold Gore
Ken,
I don’t really see how either quote rises nearly to the level of the nonsense in “Slayers…”
(1) So, Al Gore screwed up by a few orders of magnitude on the temperature in the earth’s interior. How is that relevant to anything exactly?
(2) What is wrong with Ray’s quote? It is a clear counter-factual statement that he made to a physicist audience (in Physics Today) to illustrate the order-of-magnitude of the energy that the earth receives from the sun. There is no claim that the earth actually gets this hot because it does radiate energy back into space. However, if it didn’t (and, going with the counter-factual nature of this) if the specific heat did not significantly change and the planet’s materials stayed together over such a gargantuan temperature range, that is how hot it would get. It gives one an idea of how much energy the earth is receiving from the sun over the eons, that is all.
By contrast, Slayers is spreading incorrect science in order to make people believe that the atmospheric greenhouse effect violates basic laws of physics. These claims are completely and utterly incorrect and at least some of the authors ought to be smart enough to know that they are incorrect.
For those interested…here is a transcript of Dragon Slayer Joe Olson being interviewed on Dennis Miller’s radio program…
http://kencoffman.blogspot.com/2011/03/dennis-miller-interviews-dragon-slayer.html
It baffles me why good people waste time debating someone who poses as an authority with academic and professional credentials that turn out to be fake.
Mr. John O’Sullivan claims to be a highly successful litigator in NY State and a member of the American Bar Association. He is neither. He holds no law license in NY (or anywhere that I’ve been able to find). And he is NOT a member of the American Bar Association. To become a member of the ABA, one has to hold a license to practice law in the United States.
http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=64434874&authType=name&authToken=0rq9&locale=en_US&pvs=pp&trk=ppro_viewmore
Mr. O’Sullivan also claims to be the author of more than 150 major articles in publications such as Forbes Magazine and National Review. He is not. When recently challenged in a LinkedIn discussion to cite any of the articles he claims to have published in those magazines, he cited two links to National Review articles written by John O’Sullivan. An investigation showed the author of those articles is not this impostor and fraud, but the magazine’s renowned Editor-at-Large named John O’Sullivan.
When he’s not attacking and trying to vilify scientists, he’s busy posting hate-filled rants against the judges, who ruled against his wife’s sexual harassment suit on newspaper web sites and countless blogs. In many of those posts, like this one, he demonstrates his despicable prejudice by calling one of the NY State judges “lesbian” “scum” and a “puppet” of former Governor Patterson: http://www.courthouseforum.com/forums/thread.php?id=1049351
Very interesting, Andrew. I would love to hear what Mr O’ Sullivan has to say about these accusations. Also, I have read your own bio and this seems a little way off from your usual patch. How did you arrive here?
Askolnick,
the link you post does not show him claiming to be an attorney. Sloppy wording may make YOU think that as he claims to be a legal consultant, legal advocate and to be “litigating cases”.
You may be correct about the articles and his claim to be a member of the ABA. What can you offer other than you word that you have actually done this research??
Sadly, this type of resume inflation is bcoming very common and I support you rooting it out even amongst deniers I otherwise support.
Kuhnkat, I provided links to the evidence for all my statements about O’Sullivan’s bogus credentials in previous posts and I’m not going to post them again — because they’re only going to be ignored again. Once again I’m reminded how futile it can be to lead some horses to water.
Rob, I’ve been a science journalist for 30+ years and one of my favorite beats includes investigating the claims of pseudoscientists, quacks, and charlatans. Several weeks ago, John O’Sullivan, claiming to be a highly accomplished science journalist, launched a discussion on LinkedIn’s Science and Technology Writers Group, in which he claimed science journalists are destroying their profession by refusing to tell the truth about the criminal conspiracy of climate scientists and their fraudulent claims.
Naturally, he ran into some stiff criticism from science writers when they discovered that he had virtually no understanding of how science is conducted and how research is peer-reviewed and published. I took a close look at his academic and professional credentials listed in his LinkedIn profile and noticed huge chunks of missing information. There’s no mention of any law school, yet he claims in his many online profiles and CVs to be a “highly successful litigant in NY and federal court” and a “member of the American Bar Association.” I checked and found that he has no license to practice law in NY and that he’s not a member of the ABA.
What I did find were records of his wife’s failed sexual harassment suits in NY and federal court plus many dozens of hate-filled diatribes on newspaper web sites and Internet Blogs, where he claimed to be a litigator for Barbara Bracci (his second wife), a former NY Dept. of Corrections officer, who he claims was “brutally raped,” her neck broken, and left for dead by her boss. The actual court documents involve a dramatically different, far more mundane sexual harassment claim, which the courts dismissed as not supported by facts. (See the links above for all the gory and not-so-gory details.)
Mr. O’Sullivan also claims to be a highly successful journalist with “more than 150 major articles” published around the world, including in Forbes and National Review. When we searched and didn’t find any, he posted two links to National Review articles authored by John O’Sullivan. I was finally able to show the author of those articles was John O’Sullivan, the well-known Editor-at-Large at the National Review, not the Johnny-Come-Fraudster, who popped up to denounce science journalism.
So, in essence, what Mr. O’Sullivan has accomplished by his scurrilous attacks and fraudulent claims on our LinkedIn Science and Technology Writers Group was to paint his face right in the middle of my investigative journalism radar screen.
Askolnick,
“in which he claimed science journalists are destroying their profession by refusing to tell the truth about the criminal conspiracy of climate scientists and their fraudulent claims.”
He’s got you dead to rights there. The peer review bit even YOU didn’t understand until the Climategate e-mails came out. Or did you know they were gate keeping?
You may be correct about the articles and his claim to be a member of the ABA. What can you offer other than you word that you have actually done this research??
Sadly, this type of resume inflation is bcoming very common and I support you rooting it out even amongst deniers I otherwise support.
Interesting, Mr. Skolnick. O’Sullivan not being a real lawyer would explain a lot! When I posted comments over at his “Slaying the Sky Dragon” website, he claimed to be involved in the defense in Michael Mann’s lawsuit against Tim Ball and he alternately asked me if I wanted to appear in the trial as an adversarial witness or threatened to subpoena me to appear. The whole thing seemed rather bizarre since my connection to anything involving such a lawsuit is ridiculously tangential and I told him that I doubted the judge would allow him to turn the trial into the sort of circus he seems to want to turn it into. Now that I know he is a poser, I am even more sure that the judge would not allow such a thing.
You have no idea just how interesting, Joel. I continue to search for evidence to determine if there’s any truth to Mr. O’Sullivan claims about being a lawyer “with a decade of highly successful litigation” experience in “NY State and Federal 2nd District courts.” The only claim I’ve been able to confirm as true is his employment as a “legal consultant” for Pearlman Lindhelm, the law firm that’s defending Tim Ball.
Mr. O’Sullivan continues to refuse to provide information about his education that can be easily checked. My suspicion is that he is NOT licensed to practice law, possibly anywhere, and that he never earned a law degree (why else is any law school absent from his online profiles and CVs?) I checked with New York State and he is NOT licensed to practice law there — where he claims to have a “decade of highly successful litigation” experience.
I can also say with certainty that he is falsely claiming to be a member of the American Bar Association. I checked with the ABA membership office and he is not a member. The office says he joined recently as an “associate member” — which is open to any person who supports the work of the ABA. Whereas, ABA members HAVE TO BE an attorney licensed to practice in the U.S. And the ABA associate membership application Mr. O’Sullivan signed clearly states that he is joining as an associate and that associates are not members of the ABA.
Joel, despite Mr. O’Sullivan’s grandiose claims, he has no more power to subpoena you in the British Columbia court than do I or either of my Labrador retrievers, despite their incredibly excellent education and many titles. If he were licensed to practice law in BC, Canada, I’m sure he would have told us. And told us. And not just in his many online profiles, CVs, and blog posts. I’m sure he would have rented the biggest billboard in Times Square.
Here is email I sent Mr. O’Sullivan, which provides additional reasons for doubting his claims of being a lawyer and having a law degree. It would be a simple matter for Mr. O’Sullivan to provide the name of the law school he attended, the degree he earned, and the year of graduation. We could then check it and, if he’s telling the truth, move on to talk about climate science.
Mr. O’Sullivan,
There is good reason for my continuing to ask you for evidence that you earned a law degree — or even attended a law school. You’ve shown little understanding of even basic legal proceedings. Take for example your “decade of highly successful litigtation in New York and federal courts,” which apparently ended when the court dismissed your and your wife’s claim in O’Sullivan v. State of New York, # 2009-039-142, Claim No. 116991, Motion No. M-76911 on Sept. 30, 2009.
It is doubtful that a student who attended even half-a-year- of law school would have gotten his claim thrown out for filing an unsworn and unverified claim. And then foolishly trying to trick the court with copy of a notice of motion “to amend [the] claim . . . to correct the omission of Verification of Claim,” does NOT bear a file stamp by the Clerk of the Court of Claims.
It is hilarious to think an attorney with “a decade of highly successful litigation” experience in NY State and federal courts would not know what every 1st-year law student knows — that a claim which is unverified and unsworn has a serious jurisdictional defect that makes it null. Like, “Duh!”
From the court decision dismissing O’SULLIVAN v. STATE OF NEW YORK, # 2009-039-142, Claim No. 116991, Motion No. M-76911 — in which you and your wife are both listed as Claimants:
The claim must also be dismissed because it is not verified. Court of Claims Act § 11 (b) provides, in relevant part, that “[t]he claim and notice of intention to file a claim shall be verified in the same manner as a complaint in an action in the supreme court.” The Court of Appeals has interpreted the provisions of Section 11 (b) as ” ‘substantive conditions on the State’s waiver of sovereign immunity’ ” (Kolnacki v State of New York, 8 NY3d 277, 280-281 [2007], quoting Lepkowski v State of New York, 1 NY3d 201, 207 [2003]), and concluded that “[t]he failure to satisfy any of the conditions is a jurisdictional defect” (id. at 281). “Where a pleading is served without a sufficient verification in a case where the adverse party is entitled to a verified pleading, he [or she] may treat it as a nullity, provided he [or she] gives notice with due diligence to the attorney of the adverse party that he [or she] elects so to do” (CPLR 3022). ” ‘[D]ue diligence’ as used in [CPLR 3022] has been interpreted to mean notice given immediately . . . or at least within 24 hours of the receipt of a defective pleading” (Air New York, Inc. v Alphonse Hotel Corp., 86 AD2d 932 [1982], quoting Matter of O’Neil v Kasler, 53 AD2d 310 [1976]).
In support of defendant’s motion, AAG Rizzo attaches a copy of the claim received by his office on June 15, 2009 which is unverified and unsworn. Assistant Attorney General Michael Rizzo states that “[f]ollowing service of the claim and also on June 15, 2009, the Office of the Attorney General sent a letter to claimant advising that it was treating the claim as a nullity because it was unverified.” Attached to counsel’s supporting affirmation is a copy of a letter sent to claimants and dated June 15, 2009. The letter informs claimants that defendant “is electing to treat the enclosed document received on today’s date as a nullity and is hereby rejecting and returning it to you for the following reasons . . . it is unverified.” The Court finds that defendant’s notice sent the same day as receipt of the defective claim constitutes due diligence.
In opposition to the motion, claimants offer a copy of a notice of motion “to amend [the] claim . . . to correct the omission of Verification of Claim.” However, the copy provided does not contain a file stamp by the Clerk of the Court of Claims, nor does the Court’s record contain any such filing. Moreover, there is no proof before the Court that claimants subsequently served defendant with a properly verified claim.
Thus, the Court must conclude that it is without jurisdiction for the additional reason that the claim is not verified. Claimant’s requests for relief are denied as unnecessary in light of the Court’s decision to dismiss the claim.
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that M-76911 is granted and the claim is dismissed.
September 30, 2009
Albany, New York
James H. Ferreira
Judge of the Court of Claims
With regards,
Andrew Skolnick
Hi Andrew (Skolnick – science journalist?), I was aware that Judith was involved in a review on one of her threads of one of the chapters in “Slaying ther Sky Dragon” and made some comments myself. I am currently exchanging E-mails with John O’Sullivan and the rest of “the Slayers” regarding them supporting open peer-review on the Iternet of “Slaying the Greenhouse Dragon” and came back to this thread after following up on Joel Shore’s critical comments on their own blog (http://slayingtheskydragon.com/en/blog/116-where-is-the-beef-of-the-2nd-law-of-radiation#comments).
Joel (are you Professor of Biology at Toronto U?) challenges the integrity of “the Slayers” science but you seem to be challenging the integrity of their Co-ordinator and Project Leader. If what you imply with your comments is correct then this reflects badly on “the Slayers” as a group but if on the other hand you are wrong it reflects very badly on you.
Can you make a short and clear statement about what you are saying here about John O’Sullivan.
Best regards, Pete Ridley.
Pete,
John O’Sullivan, co-author, team leader, “de facto CEO and legal counsel” of the Sky Dragon Slayers, has been promoting himself here and across the Internet with false claims of academic and professional credentials.
He falsely claims to be a highly successful lawyer and science writer with more than 150 major articles published around the world including in National Review and Forbes magazine.
His fellow climate warming denier and co-author Timothy Ball also has a habit of making false and misleading claims about his academic and professional credentials: ie. claiming to be the first Canadian to have earned a PhD in climatology and having been a professor at the University of Winnipeg for 32 years; his PhD was in geography and he was only a professor for 8 years. Mr. O’Sullivan, however, has the nerve to claim the work of others as his own!
For example, in a LinkedIn Science and Technology Writers Group discussion he started, Mr. O’Sullivan was challenged to identify some of his articles he claims to have published in National Review and Forbes. He provided links to two articles published in National Review that were written by John O’Sullivan — but they turned out to have been written by the magazine’s well-known editor-at-large — not this humbug!
He says he’s a member of the American Bar Association — which would mean he’s a lawyer licensed to practice in the U.S. He is not. According to the ABA membership office, O’Sullivan joined recently as as associate and is NOT an ABA member.
He claims more than a decade of “highly successful litigation” in NY State and Federal 2nd Circuit courts. Yet he is not licensed to practice law in NY — or in any other jurisdiction that I have been able to find. And he continues to refuse to answer where is supposedly licensed to practice law or where and when he earned a law degree. Although some of his resumes and online profiles lists a law degree, they do not name a law school and year of graduation.
You don’t have to take my word for any of this. Just see if you can persuade Mr. O’Sullivan to post links to the National Review and Forbes magazine articles he “authored” and to identify where he is licensed to practice law. Also ask him to cite the law suits he has “successfully litigated” for over a decade in NY State and Federal 2nd Circuit courts. But don’t hold your breath.
If there’s one thing that should be non-debatable, it is this: Scientists and science writers who misrepresent their credentials are just as likely to misrepresent their data.
I a lot of countries you would be setting yourself up for a liable case. I suggest you supply links to evidence that what you are claiming is true.
Here is John O’Sullivan’s write up on his web site:
http://www.slayingtheskydragon.com/en/meet-the-authors
I don’t see any of what you said there.
Askolnick,
“If there’s one thing that should be non-debatable, it is this: Scientists and science writers who misrepresent their credentials are just as likely to misrepresent their data.”
Except John O’Sullivan isn’t a scientist, or is that a claim I missed?
As a Legal Consultant he is doing what I expect attorneys to do even in court. Maybe he is more of an attorney than you give him credit for?
He’s got you dead to rights there. The peer review bit even YOU didn’t understand until the Climategate e-mails came out. Or did you know they were gate keeping?
You may be correct about the articles and his claim to be a member of the ABA. What can you offer other than you word that you have actually done this research??
Sadly, this type of resume inflation is bcoming very common and I support you rooting it out even amongst deniers I otherwise support.
Kuhnkat, please stop posting questions to me because I will no longer reply. It’s clear that you are incapable of understanding even simplest answers.
You quote my statement, “If there’s one thing that should be non-debatable, it is this: Scientists and science writers who misrepresent their credentials are just as likely to misrepresent their data.”
And then you idiotically say, “Except John O’Sullivan isn’t a scientist, or is that a claim I missed?”
O’Sullivan claims to be A SCIENCE WRITER you hopeless dolt. Can’t you even understand simple sentences?
I’m done talking to a wall. Don’t waste your bandwidth and the readers’ patience anymore with your utterly oblivious questions. You’ve become an utter nuisance.
Askolnick
You say Tim Ball makes false and misleading claims and are clearly trying to link him in with John Sullivan.
This web site purports to show a copy of Tim Balls phd. If correct it appears to show he is a Professor of Climatology by virtue of his specialised thesis on historic Canadian temperatures through the medium of the Hudson Bay Co.
http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/cover020707.htm
This link purports to be his cv-if correct it is highly impressive
http://drtimball.com/_files/dr-tim-ball-CV.pdf
This is the wiki entry for the University of London England-it is perfectly proper to call it by this name-it is not being vague or deceitful as detractors suggest;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_London
I have used the Hudson Bay records myself for research-they are excellent and demonstrate periods of warming in the Arctic that it is no longer fashionable to talk about, these records are included in my article here (description is from my web site);
Article: The Great Arctic warming in the 19th Century. Author: Tony Brown
This long article -with many links- examines the little known period 1815-60 when the Arctic ice melted and the Royal Society mounted an expedition to investigate the causes.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/20/historic-variation-in-arctic-ice/#more-8688
If you can demonstrate that the phd is false AND that his impressive cv is false you have a story, although I wouldn’t say that Tim Ball is a big player these days. As regards John Sullivan I know nothing about his background and will leave it to others to unearth the facts-you may be right, if so your investigation is worthwhile. Unless you can demonstrate however that Tim Ball is making substantial false claims, I would suggest it is better not to try to slur his name by linking him with others.
tonyb
Andrew Skolnick is an inveterate liar who has deliberately misrepresented my words, not only on this blog but on others. Above he makes numerous claims and cites “quotes” from me that are blatantly faked. He has been vociferous in his attacks against Tim Ball and me ever since he learned I am paid to act as a legal consultant working for Tim’s libel lawyers, Pearlman Lindholm, Vancouver.
I have challenged Skolnick to provide evidence where I have claimed to be currently licensed as an attorney in the New York or federal courts and he has failed. I have made no such claims. I have also openly displayed my qualifications on the LinkedIn website which plainly show I studied and taught at universities in England, which he also misrepresents. He also cites one lawsuit that was filed by my wife in the NY Court of Claims and which is a matter still sub judice and uses that to try to smear me as an incompetent lawyer. He also claims I passed off as my own work articles that were written by another John O’Sullivan, which is a lie.
I have advised Mr. Skolnick that if he believes I have misrepresented my legal qualifications in any way then he should raise the matter with Pearlman Lindholm or the appropriate authorities. That he has failed to do this speaks volumes. I believe Skolnick (along with Joel Shore) are simply attack dogs put up by their Big Green paymasters to discredit Tim Ball and me because they know that Tim is going to defeat Dr Michael Mann in his lawsuit against Tim.
Tim has endured the same kind of smear tactics for years and I now understand what he has had to endure. If others choose to be duped and distracted by such a charade then more fool them. All I can say to creatures like Skolnick and Shore is put up or shut up!
John
Good to see you defending yourself. I have debated numerous times with Joel Shore on other blogs and have always found him fair and reasonable although our views on AGW are far apart.
What evidence do you have that he is an attack dog? He always seems his own person to me. I think-and hope-that you are wrog about Joel Shore.
As for the person who calls himself askolnick, I have no knowledge of him whatsoever so can’t judge him other than what I see on this forum.
tonyb
Tony,
If it is your experience that Joel Shore is a reasonable debater then that’s fair enough. My only experience of him was when we had a heated discussion about Claes Johnson’s sample chapter over on the Slaying the Sky Dragon book website. The discussion became increasingly hostile and there was no give or take between us. In the end it was decided to terminate the thread.
John O’Sullivan is definitely going to rue the day he dared me to report him to the authorities for claiming bogus academic and professional credentials.
Following my complaint to the Law Society of British Columbia, the American Bar Association, and other authorities, the leader of the Sky Dragon Slayer authors, has begun to delete some of the bogus professional credentials he’s claimed in his writings and online profiles and bios.
Tonight (11/9/2011), I received permission to publish the confidential summary sent to me by the Law Society of British Columbia, that shows Mr. O’Sullivan has been lying in his bios about working as a “legal consultant” for the Victoria law firm, Pearlman Lindholm and that he is an attorney representing fellow Slayer Tim Ball in the Supreme Court of British Columbia. I’ve uploaded the letter to my web site:
http://www.aaskolnick.com/global_deniers/BC_LawSociety_4-nov311_Skolnick.pdf
Mr. O’Sullivan has begun deleting some of the fraudulent claims from his bios. In addition, he says he was fired by Suite101.com, where he had contributed more than 60 articles over the past 2 years. Almost all of those articles have been deleted.
Over the next week, I will be uploading additional documentation to my web site that shows virtually none of the Sky Dragon Slayer leader’s academic and professional credentials are real.
Of course everybody should represent their credentials correctly, but in climate science credentials don’t mean anything when there are so many
Sirs in the Royal Society supporting CO2 alarmism. In science it should be the argument and not prestige which decides the truth, but it is often the other way around. Myself I have strong credentials in applied math and fluid mechanics but none in climate science as such. In any case I feel confident to speak about the topics I have expressed views. The Slayers consists of individuals who speak for themselves and not for a group.
Claes Johnson says, “Of course everybody should represent their credentials correctly, but in climate science credentials don’t mean anything when there are so many”
While that’s a bizarre claim to be coming from a scientist who wants his opinion to be taken seriously (science journal editors do NOT send papers on climatology to poets, bricklayers, or microbiologists for review; they send them to reviewers who have recognized credentials in climatology), it not only misses my main point, it glosses over it. So I’ll repeat it:
Scientists and science writers who misrepresent their credentials are just as likely to misrepresent their data.
Claes Johnson has associated himself with global warming deniers who falsely claim academic and professional credentials that they do not have. Indeed, the leader of the team he has joined is a humbug who passes off articles published in the National Review written by someone else as his own and falsely claims to be a member of the American Bar Association.
Tonyb,
You did not address what I stated about Timothy Ball. Instead, you took a swing at some straw man arguments I did not make.
I did not say his Ph.D. is false. I said his Ph.D. was in Geography not Climatology, as he claims. His university did not give doctorate degrees in Climatology back then. So he was NOT the first person in Canada to earn a Ph.D. in Climatology as he claims. And he was NOT a Professor at the University Winnipeg for 32 years as he claims. He was a professor for only 8 years!
About 5 years ago, Ball sued Professor of Environmental Science Dan Johnson at the University of Lethbridge and the Canadian newspaper Calgary Herald for defamation after they questioned the veracity of his claimed academic and professional credentials. Rather than rolling over and paying Ball to go away, the Calgary Herald defended its reporting. When the paper filed its defense documenting how Timothy Ball had lied about his credentials, Ball quickly dropped his SLAPP suit.
This is from the Calgary Herald’s court filing that preceded Ball’s sudden and rapid retreat:
Ball “was NOT the first individual to have a PhD in Climatology in Canada” [as he falsely claimed];
Ball “was NOT a professor at the University of Winnipeg for 28 years” [as he claimed].
Ball “was a Professor at the University of Winnipeg for approximately 8 years;”
Ball’s “total tenure at the University of Winnipeg, as an assistant professor, associate professor, and professor was approximately 14 years.”
[Contrary to his claims] Ball “has published few articles in academically recognized peer-reviewed scientific journals; and
[Contrary to his claims] Ball “has not conducted research regarding the relationship between climate and elements within the atmosphere.”
Ball “has never held a reputation in the scientific community as a noted climatologist and authority on global warming”
Ball “has never published any research in any peer-reviewed scientific journal which addressed the topic of human contributions to greenhouse emissions and global warming;”
Ball “has published no papers on climatology in academically recognized peer-reviewed scientific journals since his retirement as a professor in 1996;”
Ball’s “credentials and credibility as an expert on the issue of global warming have been repeatedly disparaged in the media; and”
Ball “is viewed as a paid promoter of the agenda of the oil and gas industry rather than a practicing scientist.”
These false claims by Ball, however, are minor compared with the whoppers in his colleague John O’Sullivan’s resumes.
You also say that I am “clearly trying to link him [Ball] in with John Sullivan.” I’m not the one linking the two; Mr. O’Sullivan is not only Ball’s team leader, he has been running fund raising efforts for Ball and is also claiming to be Ball’s “legal counselor” who is representing Ball in the defamation suit Prof. Michael Mann has filed against him in the Supreme Court of British Columbia three months ago.
I checked with the British Columbia Law Society’s Office of Unauthorized Practice and, needless to say, Mr. O’Sullivan is NOT licensed to practice law in British Columbia.
If you want links documenting these points, let me know. I’d be happy to post them.
Askolnik
In posting this information surely it is obvious that a reader will try to check the facts and ascertain the various points that have been previously made about someone like Tim Ball, hence my comment on his phd and credentials.
It is not a strawman as it is central to the background to the comments being made about him by you.
As regards the law suit, there appear to be several versions of the reasons for dropping it; The letter from Dave Middleton on this subject is as objective as possible for someone in his position;
http://debunkhouse.wordpress.com/2011/04/08/climate-science-the-legal-double-standard/
As I say, Tim Ball is not a big player these days, but appears to have an illustrious past if his cv is correct as regards his published papers, and who may or may not have withdrawn his law suit for the simple reason that he believed there had been a retraction that satisfied him. (see ‘clarification’ by Calgary Herald in the above link).
However, frankly I am not interested enough to get too excited about someone who appears rather peripheral to the climate debate these days (from the viewpoint of someone like me living in the UK)
John Sullivan is a much more interesting line of investigation as he is very current through his greenhouse dragon book. Consequently I’ll certainly read with interest anything you post about him if you can substantiate it-in particular your claim that he is trying to pass off the work of someone with the same name as his own seems extraordinary behaviour if true.
However, once again I certainly don’t think of Mr Sullivan as being central to climate science but perhaps he is viewed differently in other countries. Perhaps you can explain why you believe him to be so important?
tonyb
Pete Ridley says:
Nope…That’s a different Joel Shore. I’m a physicist.
Hi joel
Great to see you here. We miss you at WUWT akthough I’m not a frequent commenter there myself these days in any number.
tonyb
Joel, on July 1, Pete Ridley asked if you would make a ‘short and clear statement about what you are saying here about John Sullivan’. You’ve obviously read his comment, since you’ve responded to part of it. Will you accede to his request? Ball is in your court.
============
Hi Kim, you’ve misread my comment. That request was directed at Andrew Skolnick, not Joel Shore.
Pete
Thanks, Pete. Sorry, Joel, ball was out of bounds.
====================
Now that John Sullivan has clearly posted, his rebuttal, let’s see who the liars here are.
Venter
Agreed. John has rightly popped up here and rebutted the claims. The accuser needs to come up with more quantifiable evidence than he has-those made against Tim Ball seem overblown.
At present it sounds like the accuser has a political/idealogical axe to grind. Prove John wrong if you can-he does seem to be growing in importance as a fierce combatant of the AGW story and I can understand why some promoting the AGW scenario woud like to discredit him. To date you haven’t done this.
tonyb
Tonyb, calling Dave Middleton’s explanation why Timothy Ball dropped his defamation suit against Prof. Johnson and the Calgary Herald “as objective as possible” may be the most preposterous statement in this thread.
Middleton misrepresented everything and reversed the time line: Ball didn’t DROP his suit after the newspaper printed a “partial retraction” — he SUED the newspaper!
The Calgary Herald printed a clarification — which was NOT at all a retraction — in August 2006. Contrary to Middleton’s ridiculous claim, Ball filed his suit against the newspaper the following month!
Timothy Ball vs. The Calgary Herald et al.
Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta
Action No. 0601-10387
http://www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/TBall%20statement%20of%20claim.pdf
Furthermore, Ball’s suit against the Calgary Herald forced it to conduct an investigation of Ball’s claimed publications and other credentials. Three months later, the newspaper filed its findings in a defense statement to the court. It was after that blockbuster of an indictment of Ball’s dishonesty, that Ball dropped his suit.
Here is what the Calgary Herald presented to court on December 7, 2006 that persuaded Ball to drop his suit against the newspaper and Prof. Johnson rather than face further public embarrassment:
The Calgary Herald’s Statement of Defense, Dec. 7, 2006
http://www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/Calgary%20Herald%20Statement%20of%20Defence.pdf
“The defendants rely on the following particulars of the Plaintiff’s qualifications:
(a) The Plaintiff [Ball] was not the first individual to have a PhD in Climatology in Canada;
(b) The Plaintiff [Ball] obtained a PhD in Philosophy (Science) from the University of London in 1983;
(c) The Plaintiff’s [Ball’s]doctoral thesis involved a historical analysis of climate change in Central Canada from 1714-1850;
(d) The Plaintiff [Ball] was not a Professor at the University of Winnipeg for 28 years;
(e) The Plaintiff [Ball] was a Professor at the University of Winnepeg for approximately 8 years;
(f) The Plaintiff’s [Ball’s] total tenure at the University of Winnipeg as an Assistant Professor, Associate Professor and Professor was approximately 14 years;
(g) The Plaintiff [Ball’s] has published few articles in academically recognized peer-review scientific journals; and
(h) The Plaintiff [Ball] has not conducted research regarding the relationship between climate and elements within the atmosphere. …
50. The Defendants state that the Plaintiff never held a reputation in the scientific community as a noted climatologist and authority on global warming. The particulars of the Plaintiff’s reputation are as follows:
(a) The Plaintiff has never published any research in any peer-reviewed scientific journal which addressed the topic of human contributions to greenhouse gas emissions and global warming;
(b) The Plaintiff has published no papers in climatology in academically recognised peer-reviewed scientific journals since his retirement as Professor in 1996;
(c) The Plaintiff’s credentials and credibility as an expert on the issue of global warming has been repeatedly disparage in the media; and
(d) The plaintiff is viewed as a paid promoter of the agenda of the oil and gas industry rather than as a practicing scientist.”
The clarification published by the Calgary Herald in August 2006 was NOT a retraction of anything previously published. It simply reported the fact that TIMOTHY BALL CLAIMS to have “published 51 papers – 32 directly related to climate and atmosphere” without attempting to verify Ball’s claim.
The next month, Ball filed suit.
Three months later, the Calgary Herald submitted its defense to court showing how Ball has been lying about his scientific credentials. It was after that the Ball withdrew his suit and slunk away.
Back up what you said about John O’Sullivan.
Jim2, these trolls won’t do that. They are the dishonest liars here. Their attitude will be, as described by one poster in another thread, one of constantly shifting pout. They’re possibly paid hacks out to obfuscate, spread BS, dish out ad homs and generally try to throw mud hoping some will stick.
They are a dishonest bunch of bottom scraping vermin and I have nothing but contempt for such people.
Askolnick
I don’t know either of the two players personally. You obviously have a considerable bee in your bonnet about both of them so I will leave it to others here to decide whuch of us is likely to have been more objective in their analysis.
At present you are merely alienating those of us who you want to disseminate information to. ‘Lying’ and ‘slunk’ are not exactly neutral words.
To call my comment ‘presposterous’ in the context of the comments made by D Middleton-who I also don’t know-merely calls into further question your objectivity.
Why don’t you throttle back a gear and tell us in a more reasonable tone of voice whether the Calgary Herald or Tim Balls Cv is corrct as regards the number of papers the latter has published? Then provide some more solid information that John Sullivan is trying to pass off the work of another as his own as at present I can’t get past your anger.
Thank you.
tonyb
Now you are misrepresenting what I said and abusing me into the bargain!
I said “The letter from Dave Middleton on this subject is as objective as possible for someone in his position.”
in other words he too obviously has an axe to grind but appears to have a somewhat broader take on things.
as i say neither of the people you cite in the subject is of key interest
Mr. Skolnick,
I have discussed that particular case with Tim and he advises me that the only reason he did not proceed with it was because he did not have sufficient funds. People like you cherry-pick the facts and create outrageous mischaracterization that is not borne out by the evidence.
I’m my experience of seeking to discuss the scientific issues of AGW with you it is a fair assessment that for 98% of the time you avoid the science and pursue these ad hom attacks. Others can make up their own minds on this but all you seem to have done on this science thread so far is post defamatory innuendo and lies.
Askolnick,
Let’s see how your purported evidence stacks up:
Qualifications
A) he might not have known he wasn’t the first PHD, but, that imples he DOES have a climatology PHD. I’ll give that one half credit.
B) and C) don’t seem to have relevance other than he probably wasn’t practicing Climatology while holding those positions. 0 points.
D) Point
E) repeat of D except it proves he was a Professor at Winnipeg. Maybe resume inflation again? 0 points
F) repeat of D but gives him over half the claimed time at Winnipeg. 0 points.
G) few, many, very inexact, relative terms. 0 points.
H) climatology is not solely about climate and atmosphere. 0 points.
Reputation
A) greenhouse emissions are not the only area in climate science. 0 points
B) only shows he has no current publications. 0 points
C) media is not knowledgeable enough to give a reasonable estimation of climate science credentials. 0 points.
D) the fact the media and alarmists consider him a paid shill is not proof. Unfortunately the Climate Science propaganda machine has convinced many who do not know better that this is meaningful if true. 1/2 points
So, we have a total of 2 points out of 12 points? I am beginning to have a little contempt for what you consider evidence against people. Is this really all you have???
Kuhnkhat, all you’ve actually done is provide us convincing evidence that you’re an apologist for liars as well as a devout idiot.
Askolnick
Sorry, the previous version escaped before editing. Here is the proper version
—– —— —–
I don’t know either of the two players personally. You obviously have a considerable bee in your bonnet about both of them so I will leave it to others here to decide which of us is likely to have been more objective in their analysis.
At present you are merely alienating those of us who you want to disseminate information to. ‘Lying’ and ‘slunk’ are not exactly neutral words.
To call my comment ‘presposterous’ in the context of the comments made by D Middleton-who I also don’t know-merely calls into further question your objectivity.
Why don’t you throttle back a gear and tell us in a more reasonable tone of voice whether the Calgary Herald or Tim Balls Cv is correct, as regards the number of papers the latter has published? Then provide some more solid information that John Sullivan is trying to pass off the work of another as his own as at present I can’t get past your anger, which may or may not be justified.
Thank you.
tonyb
Hooboy, where do I begin? This will take some time and a few postings. Let’s start by having John O’Sullivan argue with himself:
O’Sullivan #2 says, “I have challenged Skolnick to provide evidence where I have claimed to be currently licensed as an attorney in the New York or federal courts and he has failed. I have made no such claims.”
John O’Sullivan #1 says: “John taught and lectured for over twenty years at schools and colleges in the east of England as well as litigating for over a decade in the New York State courts and U.S. Federal 2nd Circuit.”
(His LinkedIn professional profile: http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=64434874&authType=name&authToken=0rq9&locale=en_US&pvs=pp&trk=ppro_viewmore )
“As an accredited academic, John taught and lectured for over twenty years at schools and colleges in the east of England as well as successfully litigating for over a decade in the New York State courts and U.S. federal 2nd circuit.” (His LiveJounral profile: http://johnosullivan.livejournal.com/profile )
On May 26, 2011, O’Sullivan replied with this: on the LinkedIn discussion he started:
“Andrew, as we know you are your ‘journalist’ buddies on here aren’t interested in addressing any of the scientific points how are you doing in discrediting my credentials? Have you spoken with Cork about my law degree? Or perhaps you ought to contact the New York Bar Association and see if they have me registered or the American Bar Association ?”
(I did and found that he is NOT licensed to practice law in NY and that he is NOT a member of the American Bar Association as he claims in nearly all of his online resumes and profiles.)
https://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/attorney/AttorneySearch
American Bar Association membership office, (312) 988-5466
And in his “contributing writer” profile on Suite101.com, John O’Sullivan #1 claims to be a:
“Science writer and legal advocate specializing in anti-corruption, John O’Sullivan LLB, BA (Hon), PGCE, was born in Berkshire, England, of immigrant Irish parents in 1961. As an accredited academic, John taught and lectured for over twenty years at schools and colleges in the east of England as well as litigating for over a decade in the
New York State courts and U.S. Federal 2nd Circuit. …
“John, a member of the American Bar Association (ABA) is currently litigating in two major climate science lawsuits, one of which involves prominent climatologists, Dr. Michael Mann versus Dr. Tim Ball.”
http://www.suite101.com/profile.cfm/johnosullivan#ixzz0wUoYPbLG
John O’Sullivan is NOT a member of the American Bar Association. He is NOT licensed to practice law in NY State or the Federal 2nd Circuit courts. And he is NOT licensed to practice law in British Columbia, where he claims to be “currently litigating in two major climate science lawsuits,”
Readers can check this for themselves by calling the Law Society of British Columbia in Vancouver, Canada. And they can check with the membership office of the American Bar Association.
Askolnick,
Good, you HAVE posted where you got the quotes. I would suggest not using Linkedlin as there is nothing obviously wrong with it. I would also suggest that his claiming to be a member of the ABA and litigating is misleading, but, not false according to the information you yourself provide.
Now, where does he claim to be an attorney?? You apparently are sucked in by the typical misleading aggrandizement that is popular in resume situations. Have you ever hired or been a part of a group that had to hire people, or just interviewed people?? You say you are a journo and you haven’t dealt with this continuously?? Do you believe everything you see or are told from people you WANT to believe in but not those you want to smear??
Then again, you may understand exactly what is being done and are just using it to try and make it a real crime. Those who want to believe will.
Hi Kuhnkat, no, Andrew is not “sucked in” by anything. He is simply using the skills that he learned as an investigative journalist to distort what otyhers say in order to promote his own agenda. You were almost correct in your conclusion. Let me modify it slightly. Andrew understands exactly what he is doing and is just using intentional distortion of the evidence to try and make it a appear that John has committed the real crime of fraud. Pan, kettle, black?
Best regards, Pete Ridley.
John O’Sullivan #2 says, “He [Andrew Skolnick] also claims I passed off as my own work articles that were written by another John O’Sullivan, which is a lie.”
I am science journalist and member of the Science and Technology Writers Group on LinkedIn. In May, Mr. O’Sullivan popped up in our group and began a discussion titled ‘Global Warming Propaganda HAS Killed Science Journalism,’ in which he vilified science journalists as co-conspirators in the “global warming fraud.”
I had never heard of O’Sullivan and I never wrote a word about climatology. I had no dog in this race. Over more than 30 years of reporting on nature, science, and medicine, I never wrote a word on global warming. However, when I took a look at this guy’s credentials, I smelled the odor of mendacity. For example, why would a “lawyer” touting his record of “highly successful litigation” fail to identify the law school from which he claims to have earned his law degree in any of his online resumes and profiles? Anyone who has followed my science reporting career knows how much I dislike humbugs. When I and other members tried to verify O’Sullivan’s claimed credentials, it quickly became clear he is a humbug trying to con us.
When we tried to verify O’Sullivan’s claim of being a widely-published science writer, he wouldn’t give us links to his any of his “major publications.” In his many online resumes and profiles, he claims to have published “more than 150 major articles worldwide” including in National Review and Forbes magazines.
http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=64434874&authType=name&authToken=0rq9&locale=en_US&pvs=pp&trk=ppro_viewmore
We searched Forbes and National Review web sites and found no article that appeared to have been written by this John O’Sullivan, so we kept asking him to provide a link to any of the articles he published in those magazines. He would only tell us to go look for them ourselves.
For example, on May 25 he posted:
“Gareth, don’t you know how to Google? Try inputting ‘john o’sullivan climate’ then ‘National Review, Forbes or whatever. There’s something like 2,000,000 cross links to my work on Bing (far less climate biased than Google). Why not just Google ‘greenhouse gas theory’? Within the top two dozen links you’ll find most are me. I am, after all, the Internet’s most read writer on that junk science hypothesis. Have fun.”
Group member Gareth Renowden persisted and pressed him. On May 26, he posted:
“John, just one direct link to an article by you in National Review or Forbes. Should be simple enough. Otherwise, Google will just throw up a lot of links to the other John O’Sullivan, you know, the one who really does write regularly for National Review, and I’m not interested in his work, just yours.”
In reply, O’Sullivan posted on May 26:
“Here: http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/220381/going-against-green/john-osullivan
Posted by John O’Sullivan”
He followed that with another posted link the same day:
“Here’s another as you’ve given up trying to defend the indefensible fraud of man-made global warming: http://nrd.nationalreview.com/article/?q=MTFmZmUxOWZjZmIwOGU5NmNmYWQ3YmFiNjJiYzE2NDM=
Posted by John O’Sullivan”
We found those articles were indeed written by John O’Sullivan — but which John O’Sullivan was not clear. It took some digging to confirm that they had been written by the National Review’s well-known editor-at-large and NOT by this humbug.
http://www.hudson.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=publication_details&id=4588
Soon after we exposed his fraud, the entire discussion was deleted by a LinkedIn administrator — we suspect in response to litigious threats from O’Sullivan. However, LinkedIn automatically mails all discussion posts to group members so I have copies of every post to the discussion and provided them to Prof. Mann’s attorney.
Here’s are screen captures of O’Sullivan’s two attempts at literary theft. I will happily forward these emails to any reader who would like to verify their authenticity. And of course, if the “highly successful litigator” John O’Sullivan wants to claim I’ve made all this up, he can take me to court.
http://www.aaskolnick.com/global_deniers/OSullivan_NationalReview_claim_email_screen_capture.jpg
http://www.aaskolnick.com/global_deniers/OSullivan_NationalReview_claim_email_screen_capture2.jpg
Askolnick,
Again you claim he claims to be a lawyer and still have no provided any evidence of anything but misdirection. Are you saying he removed the word lawyer or attorney from his profiles?
I followed your two links to the alledged posts. Neither has him claiming that the link is his. It again does not prove anything. I have only your word that he claimed the posted link was his article.
I think that we all know by now that it is prudent to take Andrew’s word with a pinch of salt.
Best regards, Pete Ridley.
John O’Sullivan #2 says, ” I have advised Mr. Skolnick that if he believes I have misrepresented my legal qualifications in any way then he should raise the matter with Pearlman Lindholm or the appropriate authorities. That he has failed to do this speaks volumes.”
What speaks volumes is Mr. O’Sullivan’s shameless mendacity. On June 20, I informed Mr. O’Sullivan PUBLICLY that I had notified both the American Bar Association and the British Columbia Law Society’s Office of Unauthorized Practice about his false claims.
http://www.amazon.com/review/R2EG81R2VBZA75/ref=cm_cr_rev_detmd_pl?ie=UTF8&cdForum=Fx1AOTIL4MAVNUW&cdMsgNo=30&cdPage=3&asin=0982773412&store=books&cdSort=oldest&cdThread=Tx2CCTQQA922XTR&cdMsgID=MxP8VZAGQY3Q4Y#MxP8VZAGQY3Q4Y
John O’Sullivan #2 says, “I believe Skolnick (along with Joel Shore) are simply attack dogs put up by their Big Green paymasters to discredit Tim Ball and me because they know that Tim is going to defeat Dr Michael Mann in his lawsuit against Tim.”
Mr. O’Sullivan is lying through his teeth. As I just explained in my previous post, Mr. O’Sullivan provoked my investigation of his false and misleading claims by popping up in our Science and Technology Writers Group on LinkedIn to attack us as dupes and co-conspirators of the “global warming fraud.” He presented credentials that were clearly fraudulent and we let him have it.
I don’t know who Joel Shore is.
As I’ve informed Mr. O’Sullivan, I am a retired science journalist. I have never written anything on climatology or global warming before he came into our Linkedin group to attack science journalists. And no one is paying me anything to investigate and expose this charlatan. This work is its own reward.
More mendacity from Mr. O’Sullivan: The spinmeister says he is “advised” by Timothy Ball that “the only reason he did not proceed with [his defamation suit against the Calgary Herald and Prof. Dan Johnson] “was because he did not have sufficient funds.” The audacity of this prevaricator is inspiring.
O’Sullivan wants us to believe the brilliant, highly educated Timothy Ball decided to sue Johnson and the newspaper only to DROP the suit 9 MONTHS LATER — after he discovered he “did not have sufficient funds” to prove in court that he has the academic degree and other credentials he claims he has.
Really now, how much would it cost to submit one’s graduate school transcript and list of publications in peer-reviewed science journals to court?!
Ball tried to silence his critics with this SLAPP suit. When the Calgary Herald chose to fight instead of paying Ball to go away, he turned tail and withdrew the harassment suit — just 9 MONTHS after filing it.
Anticipating that this humbug will reply that Ball had no idea his lawsuit would cost him money, I’ll point out that Ball was represented in this suit by G. Neil McDermid, Q.C. of the law firm Fraser Milner Casgrain LLP of Calgary, Alberta — whom I’m sure explained to his client would cost money to pursue.
So let’s make the time line of this suit clear:
April 2006: Calgary Herald published Prof. Dan Johnson’s letter questioning Ball’s credentials;
August 2006: Calgary Herald publishes a clarification citing publications Ball claims in his CV;
September 2006: Ball files his suit against the Calgary Herald and Prof. Johnson;
Dec. 2007: Calgary Herald submits its defense in court reporting the results of its investigation that confirmed Ball had exaggerated and/or lied about his credentials.
June 2007: Having received no retraction or apology — and in face of the Calgary Herald’s further challenge to his professional reputation and integrity, Ball withdrew his lawsuit, 9 MONTHS after filing it.
http://www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/TBall%20statement%20of%20claim.pdf
http://www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/Calgary%20Herald%20Statement%20of%20Defence.pdf
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Tim_Ball#cite_note-BallvsJohnson-9
Askolnick,
OK,
I have wasted enough time on yoour hyperventilations. Put it all together in a PDF or document. What you have is so scattered and broken that, while it seems like a lot of it boils down to a couple of issues that are not crimes and in many circles would only be laughed about.
You have managed to make yourself look pretty ridiculous in my view. Of course, I am only an ignorant denier.
I followed your two links to the alledged posts. Neither has him claiming that the link is his. It again does not prove anything. I have only your word that he claimed the posted link was his article.
Hi Joel, thanks for clearing up your identity for me. It appears that you are associated with the American Physical Society in some way, perhaps have membership. Looking at the APS Constitution it appears that becoming a member is relatively easy compared with learned institutions for example in the UK, as long a one has some qualification relating to physics and is prepared to pay the annual or life membership fee.
Maybe I am misunderstanding the memebrship requirements “Membership. There may be accepted for Membership persons of any of the following classes: (a) graduate students specializing in physics; (b) teachers of physics; (c) other persons professionally trained in physics and engaged in its advancement; (d) persons engaged in lines of work related to physics; (e) persons who are not professionally engaged in either physics or related lines but whose interest and activity in the science would make them desirable Members” (http://www.aps.org/about/governance/constitution.cfm) so perhaps you can advise on that.
It appears that in 2008 you helped Dr Arthur Smith, Data Manager at the APS (http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=296142&authType=name&authToken=qPoE&locale=en_US&pvs=pp&trk=ppro_viewmore) challenge Lord Christopher Monckton’s article “Climate Sensitivity Reconsidered”.
As far as I can tell Dr. Smith is not a physicist who has written any significant papers or even articles on the processes and drivers of the different global climates so I am guessing that you made a significant contribution to what was said in his article.
It appears that there was some controversy over Lord Monckton’s reaction to it (e.g. MikeE on August 1, 2009 at 8:35 pm etc at http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/07/30/on-climate-comedy-copyrights-and-cinematography/), involving Anthony Watts and Dr. Roy Spencer, but that’s par for the course in this Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change (CACC) crusade.
Lord Monckton published a rebuttal of your and Dr. Smith’s arguments
(http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/monckton/monckton_rebutted.pdf) but I couldn’t find your response to it. Can you provide a link?
Since you give the impression of being an expert on the processes and driver of global climates and like to refute the claims of sceptics maybe you can refute the analyses made by Professor John Nicol in 2008 and by Roger Taguchi who has recently revised his analysis which shows that the IPCC’s estimate of the impact of a doubling of atmospheric CO2 is a factor of 3 too high. I can send you a Wordperfect version of Roger’s analysis if you like.
You will find some of his arguments in Judith’s “Physics of the atmospheric greenhouse(?) effect” (http://judithcurry.com/2010/11/30/physics-of-the-atmospheric-greenhouse-effect/) thread, particularly in his comments of Feb. 22, Feb. 7 & Feb. 9.
Hi Andrew (skolnick) in your comment on July 2, 2011 at 12:21 pm. you mentioned Gareth Renowden who runs the CACC propaganda site Hot Topic where I had exchanges of opinion (http://hot-topic.co.nz/the-climate-show-8-kevin-trenberth-and-our-shaky-future/) back in March. I see Gareth as being ine of those science journalists that John O’Sullivan might have been talking about at Linkedin.
Best regards, Pete Ridley.
Hi Joel, ref. your comment of July 1, 2011 at 8:36 pm. thanks for clearing up your identity for me. It appears that you are associated with the American Physical Society in some way, perhaps have membership. Looking at the APS Constitution it appears that becoming a member is relatively easy compared with learned institutions for example in the UK, as long a one has some qualification relating to physics and is prepared to pay the annual or life membership fee.
Maybe I am misunderstanding the memebrship requirements “Membership. There may be accepted for Membership persons of any of the following classes: (a) graduate students specializing in physics; (b) teachers of physics; (c) other persons professionally trained in physics and engaged in its advancement; (d) persons engaged in lines of work related to physics; (e) persons who are not professionally engaged in either physics or related lines but whose interest and activity in the science would make them desirable Members” (http://www.aps.org/about/governance/constitution.cfm) so perhaps you can advise on that.
It appears that in 2008 you helped Dr Arthur Smith, Data Manager at the APS (http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=296142&authType=name&authToken=qPoE&locale=en_US&pvs=pp&trk=ppro_viewmore) challenge Lord Christopher Monckton’s article “Climate Sensitivity Reconsidered”.
As far as I can tell Dr. Smith is not a physicist who has written any significant papers or even articles on the processes and drivers of the different global climates so I am guessing that you made a significant contribution to what was said in his article.
It appears that there was some controversy over Lord Monckton’s reaction to it (e.g. MikeE on August 1, 2009 at 8:35 pm etc at http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/07/30/on-climate-comedy-copyrights-and-cinematography/), involving Anthony Watts and Dr. Roy Spencer, but that’s par for the course in this Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change (CACC) crusade.
Lord Monckton published a rebuttal of your and Dr. Smith’s arguments
(http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/monckton/monckton_rebutted.pdf) but I couldn’t find your response to it. Can you provide a link?
Since you give the impression of being an expert on the processes and driver of global climates and like to refute the claims of sceptics maybe you can refute the analyses made by Professor John Nicol in 2008 and by Roger Taguchi who has recently revised his analysis which shows that the IPCC’s estimate of the impact of a doubling of atmospheric CO2 is a factor of 3 too high. I can send you a Wordperfect version of Roger’s analysis if you like.
You will find some of his arguments in Judith’s “Physics of the atmospheric greenhouse(?) effect” (http://judithcurry.com/2010/11/30/physics-of-the-atmospheric-greenhouse-effect/) thread, particularly in his comments of Feb. 22, Feb. 7 & Feb. 9.
Hi Andrew (skolnick) in your comment on July 2, 2011 at 12:21 pm. you mentioned Gareth Renowden who runs the CACC propaganda site Hot Topic where I had exchanges of opinion (http://hot-topic.co.nz/the-climate-show-8-kevin-trenberth-and-our-shaky-future/) back in March. I see Gareth as being ine of those science journalists that John O’Sullivan might have been talking about at Linkedin.
Best regards, Pete Ridley.
On a daily basis, I think about how outgoing IR radiation can travel into the ever-thinner and ever-colder layers of our atmosphere, be absorbed by rarefied resonant molecules, then come back via “back radiation” to do anything significant or measurable to our surface temperature. Despite the number of camels that can dance on the head of a pin in a microwave oven, the idea that “radiative balance” is anything other than an interesting slave effect is is the pinnacle of silliness…do you really believe atmospheric CO2 is an effective IR mirror, reflector or back-radiator? Humans are controlling a thermal radiation modulator and increasing the temperature of the earth’s surface? Oh boy, what will the geniuses of climate science dream up next?
…COO is evolving.
Andrew Skolnick has made a lot of less than complementary statements about John O’Sullivan so let’s look again at what Andrew has claimed/said and ask John if he can settle these unpleasant exchanges so that we can get back to debating the poorly understood science behind the processes and drivers of those different global climates. Andrew challenges John with:
– “ .. he is NOT a member of the American Bar Association .. ”. The claim “ .. O’Sullivan, a member of the American Bar Association (ABA) .. ” appears in the Linkedin “John O’Sullivan’s Summary” (http://www.linkedin.com/pub/john-o-sullivan/19/6b4/84a). John, did you make that claim and if so can you settle it by providing proof of your membership, as opposed to simply the associate membership claimed by Andrew?
– “ .. claims to be the author of more than 150 major articles in publications such as Forbes Magazine and National Review. He is not. .. ”. The claim “..his work features in the National Review, America’s most popular and influential magazine for Republican/conservative news and Forbes Magazine .. ” also appears in that summary at Linkedin (as well as at http://cupboard55summitshock.blogspot.com/2008/03/and-what-is-cupboard-55_31.html – see NB below). John, can you provide proof of the articles that you have had published in National Review and Forbes Magazine, as opposed to the articles by Editor-at-Large John O’Sullivan (http://old.nationalreview.com/jos/jos.asp)?
– “ .. he’s busy posting hate-filled rants against the judges, who ruled against his wife’s sexual harassment suit .. ”. There is an article “Stench of New York’s Rotten Courts” by John O’Sullivan which makes strongly worded accusations about “ .. corruption in the New York court system .. ” (http://www.courthouseforum.com/forums/thread.php?id=1049351). There are others at http://www.fulldisclosure.net/Programs/540.php?page=4, http://exposecorruptcourts.blogspot.com/2009/05/senator-john-sampson-announces-public.html, http://blog.timesunion.com/capitol/archives/17052/friday-open-thread-110/, etc. The “hate-filled rants” is merely opinion and the articles have nothing to do with climate science.
NB: The article “And what is ‘Cupboard 55’?” promoting the book Summit Shock by John O’Sullivan relates to this New York legal action – http://cupboard55summitshock.blogspot.com/2008/03/and-what-is-cupboard-55_31.html. In his profile John has added “Novelist” ahead of the “science writer” and uses “legal analyst” rather than the “legal advocate” that appears at Linkedin. One definition of “legal advocate” includes “ .. Legal advocates may or may not be licensed practicing lawyers or solicitors, but they must have suitable legal training sufficient to fully understand the legal limitations and ramifications of the areas in which they practice .. ” (http://auckland-legal-advocate.simnz.com/). It seems to me that John is quite entitled to describe himself thus.
Andrew, you said on 1st july @ 3:43 pm. that “ .. science journal editors do NOT send papers on climatology to poets, bricklayers, or microbiologists for review; they send them to reviewers who have recognized credentials in climatology .. ”. I doubt very much if science journal editors (or science journalists) are any different from other media editors (or journalists). Their form of media must sell so they will publish whatever will attract the interest of their target audience. Without sales the particular media outlet is dead, as are the jobs of those it employs. Science journals are no different.
Venter, ref your comment of 2nd July 2 at 6:24 am. I don’t see a rebuttal as a refutation, merely “An attempt to contradict or disprove an argument by offering a counter argument or countervailing proof. A rebuttal is not automatically a refutation” (http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/rebuttal.html). I would hope that John will provide a refutal in the sense of “ .. prove (a statement, theory, charge, etc.) of (a person) to be false or incorrect; disprove .. ” so that this debate, which does nothing to aid our understanding of the processes and drivers of those different global climates, can be brought to an end.
What is of most importance is the validity or otherwise of the scientific arguments offered, not the status of the individuals involved. Of course, where opinion not science is being offered (and climate “science” is riddled with opinion and speculation) then individual status and integrity do have an influence on those who are considering the opinion expressed.
Best regards, Pete Ridley
Peter, I took time to reply to your email because I took you for a person of ethics. I’m afraid I may have jumped to conclusions. You dismiss my comments about John O’Sullivan’s hateful rants against the attorney general, governor, and justices of New York as “merely opinion” that has nothing to do with this debate.
I am dismayed that you would dismiss Mr. O’Sullivan’s vile blogging campaign against a judge who ruled against his wife because she is in his words — a “lesbian” and a “puppet” — as having nothing to do with this debate. It has all the world to do with this debate because it shows just what kind of character Mr. O’Sullivan is. He is a mountebank who regularly resorts to the worst kind of slander to attack the people he disagrees with. It bears witness to his character, his integrity, as well as his intelligence.
Sorry for my mistake. Please do not email me anymore. I will no longer reply.
Peter, you further dismiss my point — possibly because you didn’t understand it — that science journal editors do NOT send papers on climatology to poets, bricklayers, or microbiologists for review; they send them to reviewers who have recognized credentials in climatology.
You reply, “I doubt very much if science journal editors (or science journalists) are any different from other media editors (or journalists).”
That well could be because you never worked as an editor for a peer-reviewed science journal — or as a newspaper or magazine editor, I have. For more than 9 years, I served as an associate editor of the Journal of the American Medical Association, where more then 230 of my articles were peer-reviewed and published. I took part in the manuscript meetings and peer-reviewed manuscripts of other authors. I also wrote for numerous magazines and newspapers. There’s a huge difference in the operation of peer-reviewed science journals and lay publications.
The most important difference is that editors of lay publications publish what they want to publish without sending submissions out to independent experts for review. As the name suggests, peer-review journals send submitted papers to outside review by experts in the respected field for recommendations whether or not to publish. They then consider the reviewers’ opinions in making their decision to reject, publish, or to request further work before reconsideration.
Furthermore, the readership of a peer-review science journal depends entirely on its reputation for publishing important and credible research. You’re comment that “they will publish whatever will attract the interest of their target audience,” is nonsense. Any respected science journal that publishes sensationalistic papers that do not stand up to scientific scrutiny would soon loose its credibility along with its readership.
“Any respected science journal that publishes sensationalistic papers that do not stand up to scientific scrutiny would soon loose its credibility along with its readership.” is consistent with “they will publish whatever will attract the interest of their target audience,”, no?
Hooboy! Whenever you think this humbug can’t find a bigger whopper to tell, he’ll surprise you. Did any of the global warming “experts” here catch the whopper in their colleague’s latest work of fiction:
“John O’Sullivan: Shock News: Disgraced Climategate Scientist Made Top UN Weatherman”
Friday, July 1st 2011, 10:22 AM EDT
http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=7970
“Jim Salinger, one of the scientists suspected of criminal misconduct in the Climategate scandal has been elected to the prestigious role of President of the Commission for Agricultural Meteorology of the World Meteorological Organization (WMO). Climate skeptics are aghast at the news.”
Pray tell climate skeptics, are you as AGHAST as John O’Sullivan?
Well, I certainly am! I’m truly aghast Aghast that so many “climate skeptics” would republish this dishonest crackpot’s latest rant all over the Internet without any consideration of its truthfulness.
As Gareth Renowden pointed out today, Jim Salinger is NOT the president of the WMO’s Commission for Agricultural Meteorology. Byong Lee was elected president of the Commission for Agricultural Meteorology for a four-year term in 2010!
http://hot-topic.co.nz/so-many-lies-and-the-liar-who-tells-them/
Jim Salinger had been elected president of the Commission for Agricultural Meteorology in 2006 — years before the so-called “Climategate scandal.”
O’Sullivan writes: “In an ironic twist it’s the Kiwi government department now trumpeting his new WMO appointment on the NIWA website.”
Which leads me to wonder out loud, do any “climate skeptics” have even the brains of a flat worm? If they looked at the article the scoundrel cites — and even provides a link! — they would see that it had been written in December 2006!!!
http://www.niwa.co.nz/news-and-publications/publications/all/wa/14-4/news2
Mr. O’Sullivan’s sidekick chimes in:
“Joe Olson of the Slayers group of skeptics was quick to comment, ‘This is how the greens recycle their ‘waste’.”
And then the humbug throws in another whopper of a lie:
“Salinger remains a suspected accomplice in the tight knit international clique of climatologists involved in the data corruption scandal at the University of East Anglia (UEA), England. Commenting on that ongoing criminal probe, Senior Investigating Officer (SIO), Detective Superintendent Julian Gregory said:
‘This has been a complex investigation, undertaken in a global context and requiring detailed and time consuming lines of enquiry. Due to the sensitivity of the investigation it has not been possible to share details of enquiries with the media and the public and it would be inappropriate for us to comment any further at this time.'”
NO. Salinger is NOT a “suspect” in any criminal probe. Detective Superintendent Julian Gregory’s comment, which O’Sullivan misquotes, refers to his office’s investigation of the the illegal theft of emails from the University that were used to perpetrate the so-called Climategate Scandal.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/7594656/Police-question-climategate-information-seekers.html
As I’m very new to the global warming debate, please tell me if I’m wrong: Are “climate skeptics” just a bunch of blind and deaf buffoons following humbugs and scoundrels like John O’Sullivan, swallowing every lie fed to them without even a minimum of examination?
Is this why John O’Sullivan claims to be “”the world’s most popular Internet writer on the greenhouse gas theory of climate change”?
askolnick, i am not aware that any of the serious skeptics that frequent blogs such as Climate Etc. pay any attention to John O’Sullivan or even know who he is, other than coordinating author of the the Skydragon book, which serious skeptics haven’t paid attention to either. The Skydragons are a fringe group in the world of AGW skeptics.
I’m pleased by this report that the Sky Dragon (the green house gas theory) is healthy and doing well.
Kermit, do you have a reading comprehension problem? Seriously.
I’ve been discovering that one of the problems communicating with “deniers” is that when you provide them with a fact they don’t want to acknowledge, they simply deny it — or pretend not to understand it.
C’mon, use ‘denialist’. It’s more robust.
===============
Thanks Ms. Curry. Perhaps I’ve been listening too much to O’Sullivan’s self-aggrandizing hype. Still, he’s correct that if you Google “global warming” you’ll see all the tons of crap he “publishes” — which gets republished and republished all over the Internet. He boasts of having “millions of followers.”
Clearly, Mr. O’Sullivan and all his dishonest antics are a problem for climate warming skeptics far more than they are a problem of global warming scientists. His bald-faced dishonesty is being associated with the climate skeptic community.
askolnik
With respect there are far bigger fish to fry emanating from the warmist community such as Michael Mann and Phil Jones. The latter has beemn forced by a British court to release the material that was the subject of the FOIA act he tried to avoid.
Those are the real stories-I don’t think that Mr O’Sullivan or Mr Ball are in the same league.
Ps Please don’t call us ‘deniers’as some of us whose parents fought in the war find it highly offensive. My own father in law was traumatised on entering a concentration camp and to equate denial of that episode with denial of climate change as is attempted by the lunatic fringe is very inappropriate.
.
tonyb
Tonyb says, “Please don’t call us ‘deniers’as some of us whose parents fought in the war find it highly offensive. My own father in law was traumatised on entering a concentration camp and to equate denial of that episode with denial of climate change as is attempted by the lunatic fringe is very inappropriate.”
Oh, please! My grandfather and a large chunk of family on my mother’s side perished in the Holocaust, so don’t you dare misplay the Holocaust card on me.
Look it up in any dictionary, Tonyb — “denier” means one who denies the truth of something. It does not mean neo-Nazi or Holocaust denier.
askolnik
Come on, you know what it has come to mean with regards to climate science. Why don’t you just think of another word-I’m comfortable with sceptic.
http://www.desmogblog.com/james-hansen-and-the-holocaust-frame-not-even-heroes-are-perfect
As I say, from this side of the fence there are far bigger fish to fry than the two minnows you are after.
tonyb
Sorry Tonyb, when it comes to word choices, dictionaries are my guide — not what you say you are “comfortable with.”
“The difference between the right word and the almost right word is the difference between lightning and a lightning bug.” — Mark Twain
The people who swallow John O’Sullivan’s outrageous lies without questioning are hardly “skeptics,” they are “deniers.”
You claim Ball and O’Sullivan are “minnows.” O’Sullivan probably has far more readers than any one who has posted in this discussion. I understand why he may be an embarrassment for climate “skeptics,” who are troubled by his gross dishonesty. But that’s their problem and they also need to address it and not pretend it doesn’t exist.
askolnick
John O sullivan would be known over here as the writer of a famous sit com and others of the same name have greater celebrity
http://www.google.co.uk/search?sourceid=navclient&aq=0&oq=john+o+sullivan&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1T4DSGL_enGB415GB416&q=john+o+sullivan
He doesn’t feature much on our radar unless you were heavily into climate science in which case he might be known as the promoter of the Dragon books but I thought that further up this thread it was said the Dragon books were not selling hugely?
The two are minnows compared to Mann and Jones-both of whom have question marks over their sciemtifc behaviour and also Hansen who has question marks over the form of his advocacy.
Mann and Jones are far more worthy of investigation as
a) they are much more relevant to the climate debate
b) their alleged misdemeanours matter much more in the context of the climate debate.
By the way ‘having far more readers’ (whilst debatable) doesn’t mean those readers are impressed by the material put before them. Sometimes people write things that become counter productive don’t they and I’m not sure the dragon books will be shown to have an impact where it matters.
tonyb
Tonyb says John O’Sullivan is a “minnow compared to Mann and Jones-both of whom have question marks over their sciemtifc behaviour and also Hansen who has question marks over the form of his advocacy… Mann and Jones are far more worthy of investigation…”
Hmmm, reminds me of what The Great Oz once said: “Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain!”
No dice, Tony. I’m going to continue holding the curtain open.
Benjamin Franklin was spot on when he said, “There are no greater liars in the world than quacks——except for their patients.” Even two and a half centuries ago, he understood that con artists prosper only because there are so many people willing to be conned. Anyone who rides into town with inflated credentials and bogus claims will likely leave the town richer and the town much poorer. And woe on to the guy who tried to warn his neighbors not to listen to the humbug.
The great science writer Isaac Asimov said trying to save people from their folly is like trying to snatch a chicken bone from a dog.
He was wrong. Dogs are actually more grateful the humans.
Askolnick said;
“No dice, Tony. I’m going to continue holding the curtain open.”
You must do what you want, but you must be aware that most of the members of the audience are in a completely different theatre waiting for the curtains to open on much more important players than the two members of the cast you seem so keen to examine.
tonyb
Hi Andrew, I’m surprised at your reaction to my comment of 3rd July at 4:48 pm. Inorder to get a bit more background I had a look at the exchanges on the Customer Review “Psychologists Call It ‘Projection’, June 5, 2011 By askolnick This review is from: Slaying the Sky Dragon – Death of the Greenhouse Gas Theory” at Amazon (http://www.amazon.com/review/R2EG81R2VBZA75/ref=cm_cr_rev_detmd_pl?ie=UTF8&cdForum=Fx1AOTIL4MAVNUW&cdMsgNo=30&cdPage=3&asin=0982773412&store=books&cdSort=oldest&cdThread=Tx2CCTQQA922XTR&cdMsgID=MxP8VZAGQY3Q4Y#MxP8VZAGQY3Q4Y).
Your criticisms and accusations against “the Slayers” here on Judith’s thread follow the same theme as on the Amazon review so there is no need to say any more about them but I found your comments about Robert Jastrow, Frederick Seitz, and S. Fred Singer to be no less “hateful rants” than what you accuse John O’Sullivan of making against “ .. the attorney general, governor, and justices of New York .. ”. Obviously you don’t see it as I do but I try to be even-handed, unlike some.
I cannot understand how you can consider hateful rants by anyone against another individual, whether it be “ .. the attorney general, governor, and justices of New York .. ” or “ .. scientific advisers to the U.S. government .. powerful connections in Washington, Wall St., and the major news media .. ” or any others. Opinion is opinion, not fact and when discussing climate science we should be sticking to facts as much as we can and making it clear when we are being forced to speculate because we don’t have sufficient facts. Unfortunately there are those on both sides of the CACC debate who are not really interested in facts but simply wish to promote their own particular agenda. Equally, I cannot understand how my attempt to be even-handed would reflect badly on my moral principles. Perhaps you’d like to explain that one.
You say “Mr. O’Sullivan .. is a mountebank who regularly resorts to the worst kind of slander to attack the people he disagrees with. It bears witness to his character, his integrity, as well as his intelligence .. ” but I am sure that there are readers here who are thinking that this may be a case of “The pot calling the kettle black” (http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/287950.html). Statements have been made by some about “Slaying the Sky Dragon” being a best seller (http://co2insanity.com/tag/slaying-the-sky-dragon/, http://slayingtheskydragon.com/en/read-the-reviews/96-amazon-reviews, http://www.amazon.com/Slaying-Sky-Dragon-Greenhouse-ebook/dp/B004DNWJN6, etc. etc. etc.). I tried to find out how many copies have been sold but drew a blank (can anyone help on this?) however I refer you to a book that definitely is a best seller which for many of us contains little that is factual but much that is worthy of consideration. One example is “Let he who be without sin cast the first stone” – John 8:7 (Andrew, as I told you in my E-mail “no, I’m not at all religious”).
It seems that I hit a raw nerve with my comments about why “ .. I doubt very much if science journal editors (or science journalists) are any different from other media editors (or journalists) .. ”. It seemed to me that E-mails leaked from CRU EAU in November 2009 just ahead of the UN’s COP15 catastrophe in Copenhagen (Climategate) confirmed what the authors of scientific papers that were sceptical of the CACC hypothesis had been saying for years. In March 2010 the Global Warming Policy Foundation published an article by the author of that excellent exposé “The Hockey Stick Illusion”, Andrew Montford, which you should have a look at. He starts with “The email conversations at the heart of ‘Climategate’ suggest a campaign to nobble journals, marginalise climate-change sceptics and withhold data from other researchers ..” (http://www.thegwpf.org/science-news/715-climategate-heated-discussions.html).
May I respectfully suggest that you have lot of catching up to do on this CACC issue. I ask you to reconsider your position as far as E-mails are concerned because I was beginning to understand you a bit better. It is much easier to be oneself in a P&C E-mail than in the public domain. When I was working in Ottawa in the 60/70s as a Member of Scientific Staff at the R&D labs of Bell-Northern Research I came across the AT&T advert “To communicate is the beginning of understanding” (http://www.atticpaper.com/proddetail.php?prod=1969-att-ad-jean-michel-folon&cat=7 – boy does that advert bring back memories). I’ll send another E-mail and if you don’t respond then I’ll aquiesce.
BTW, I loved the youtube presentation of your microwave oven experiment “Slaying the Deniers (a.k.a. ‘Needling the Deniers’)” (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pVqpJeptzcs) but do please be careful.
Best regards, Pete Ridley
PS:
Hi Joel, will you be responding to my comment of 3rd July at 5:12 am or do you accept what I say as valid and do you accept that Lord Monckton’s rebuttal of your criticism has satisfactorily refuted what you advised Dr. Smith so say?
Pete
Pete says, “It seems that I hit a raw nerve with my comments about why “ .. I doubt very much if science journal editors (or science journalists) are any different from other media editors (or journalists) ”
No Pete, you didn’t. You just showed you haven’t a clue what the difference is between peer-reviewed science journals and the mass media publications. It was an absurd statement and I just called you on it.
And now you’re saying what I wrote about Jastrow, Seitz, and Singer in my review of Slaying the Sky Dragon on Amazon.com is “hate speech” comparable to John O’Sullivan’s diatribes against a “lesbian” judge who ruled against his wife.
Exactly what did I say about Jastrow, Seitz, and Singer do you believe is “no less hateful” than O’Sullivan’s gay-bashing hate speech? You owe me — and readers — an apology.
Pete,
According to Brent Sampson, Amazon.com’s sales ranking system can provide a rough idea of how well a book is selling — or isn’t.
http://www.webpronews.com/navigating-the-amazon-sales-ranking-2006-06
Slaying the Sky Dragon is ranked today as the 280,722th best selling book on Amazon and — over the past month or so that I’ve been watching — its sales have ranked from around 120,000th or so to well over 500,000th.
According to Sampson, that suggests the book is selling on Amazon at a rate of 1 book per week or less. “Best seller” obviously is a relative term.
Comparing Slaying the Sky Dragon with books ranked below 1 millionth in sales (meaning a total of no more than 40 copies ever sold), it would be the “best seller.”
Another way to judge how it’s selling would be to consider the obscurity of its publisher, Stairway Press. Before publishing Slaying the Sky Dragon late last year, it had only published a total of 11 books — and issued this press release announcing the grand total of 5000 books sold (an average of just 455 each)!
http://www.stairwaypress.com/press-release-stairway-press-commemorates-5000th-book-sold-with-a-very-special-delivery/,
For an idea of what an actual “best seller” is, take a look at The Demon-Haunted World, Science as a Candle in the Dark by Carl Sagan and Ann Druyan, which is ranked today as the 1601st best selling book on Amazon (though first published more than 14 years ago) — a mere 279,121 books ahead of Slaying the Sky Dragon:
http://www.amazon.com/Demon-Haunted-World-Science-Candle-Dark/dp/0345409469/ref=sr_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1309805241&sr=1-3
BTW, Pete, I decided not to let this sleazy and cowardly slur go unchallenged. You wrote: “I am sure that there are readers here who are thinking that this may be a case of “The pot calling the kettle black.”
Is that your clever way of accusing me of being a fraud and a liar? If so, it is far more cowardly than clever.
Rather than citing the thoughts of hypothetical readers, Pete, why don’t you share with us your evidence that I am “a mountebank” who has misrepresented my professional and academic credentials — or else apologize.
Do you have any professional or academic credentials?
Yes, Teddy. They are considerable and — unlike, Mr. O’Sullivans — they are real and easily verified by anyone interested.
I’m interested. How can I check?
You can start with these:
For a nearly complete list of my peer-reviewed publications, go to the National Library of Medicine’s database:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed
Enter the following search terms on top of the page:
(((skolnick A [Author]) or (skolnick AA [Author])”JAMA : the journal of the American Medical Association”[Journal]) ) NOT Skolnick AH[Author]
Special Contributor articles published in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch:
http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_product=SL&p_theme=sl&p_action=search&p_maxdocs=200&s_dispstring=andrew%20a.%20skolnick&p_field_date-0=YMD_date&p_params_date-0=date:B,E&p_text_date-0=2000%20-%202008|1998%20-%202000|2000&p_field_advanced-0=&p_text_advanced-0=%28%22andrew%20a.%20skolnick%22%29&p_perpage=10&p_sort=YMD_date:D&xcal_useweights=no
The American Medical Writers Association’s John P. McGovern Award for Preeminent Contributions to Medical Communication:
http://amwa.org/default.asp?Mode=DirectoryDisplay&DirectoryUseAbsoluteOnSearch=True&id=171
Inaugural Rosalynn Carter Fellow for Mental Health Journalism;
Harvard University’s Goldsmith Prize for Investigative Journalism Finalist Award;
Pulitzer Prize for Investigative Reporting Nomination from the St. Louis Post-Dispatch;
Amnesty International USA’s “Spotlight on Media Award”:
http://www.asc.upenn.edu/Gerbner/Asset.aspx?assetID=1779
and
http://web.archive.org/web/20000929102044/http://www.amnestyusa.org/events/media1999/honorees/dispatch.html
World Hunger Year’s Harry Chapin Media Award for Impact on Hunger and Poverty:
http://www.whyhunger.org/programs/89-hcma/709-harry-chapin-media-awards-1995.html
Committee for Skeptical Inquiry’s Robert P. Balles Annual Prize in Critical Thinking:
http://www.csicop.org/si/show/csis_balles_prize_goes_to_physicist_author_leonard_mlodinow
Hi Andrew, thanks for responding on the “best seller” stats. Similar questions about the number of copies sold were asked back in January by several people including me but nothing was forthcoming apart from the Amazon ranking. As you say QUOTE: “Best seller” obviously is a relative term UNQUOTE.
You talk about the “ .. obscurity of its publisher, Stairway Press .. ” but it is not only the motives of the more obscure publishers that warrants attention. You may be interested in a couple of articles relating to this that I wrote last year – see “DEATH BY DROWNING – THE NEXT PHASE OF INDOCTRINATION?” Parts 1 & 2 (http://globalpoliticalshenanigans.blogspot.com/).
In your comment today at 3:50 pm you ask “ .. Is that your clever way of accusing me of being a fraud and a liar? If so, it is far more cowardly than clever .. ”. I say what I think Andrew. If I had convincing evidence to show that you were a fraud and a liar then I would say so in no uncertain terms and make the evidence available in support. I have seen no convincing evidence to lead me to think that but neither have I seen any such evidence to think that of John O’Sullivan and I’ve been aware of a lot of his activities in fighting the CACC propaganda for at least 15 months. As for you or John being “a mountebank”, I heard the expression for the first time today and find that it is QUOTE:
1. a person who sells quack medicines, as from a platform in public places, attracting and influencing an audience by tricks, storytelling, etc.
2. any charlatan or quack Unquote (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/mountebank).
So, no, I have no convincing evidence that either of you is a mountebank and if you can show me where I have made such an accusation then I will gladly apologise.
In your comment today at 2:19 pm you complained about me QUOTE: .. saying what (you) wrote about Jastrow, Seitz, and Singer in (your) review of Slaying the Sky Dragon on Amazon.com is “hate speech” comparable to John O’Sullivan’s diatribes against a “lesbian” judge who ruled against his wife UNQUOTE. I’ve looked again at what you are objecting to and to make you happier then I’ll gladly apologise for my inclusion of “justices” and retract that word. Judith, please can you get your moderator to reword my comment to be QUOTE: .. I found your comments about Robert Jastrow, Frederick Seitz, and S. Fred Singer to be no less “hateful rants” than what you accuse John O’Sullivan of making against the attorney general and governor of New York. Obviously you don’t see it as I do but I try to be even-handed, unlike some UNQUOTE.
Hi tonyb, ref. your comments yesterday at 10:03 pm. and today at 4:17 pm. some may like to think of John and Tim as just little fish in this big CACC pool but maybe Andrew is just fishing for something bigger and decided to “Cast a sprat to catch a mackerel”.
Hi RobB, ref. your comment today at 4:35 pm you could also try this http://www.aaskolnick.com/resume.htm .
Best regards, Pete Ridley
Pete, you say you’ve seen no evidence to believe John O’Sullivan is a liar and a mountebank, though you’ve been aware of O’Sullivan’s activities for at least 15 months.
I’ve presented that evidence both here and on Amazon.com (which you say you’ve read.) I provided links to sources of my information and invited you to verify my reporting with the American Bar Association membership office (312) 988-5466 and NY State’s Court system: https://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/attorney/AttorneySearch.
But you did not do that. You simply denied seeing the evidence. Well that’s what deniers do — they deny all evidence contrary to their beliefs.
As that old saying goes, there are none as blind as those who will not see.
Pete, you said you are sure there are readers here who think I’m “the pot calling the kettle black” for exposing John O’Sullivan as a humbug. I asked you if this is your clever way of accusing me of being a fraud and a liar.
You answered, “I say what I think, Andrew. If I had convincing evidence to show you were a fraud and a liar then I would say so in no uncertain terms and make the evidence available in support.”
Thanks at least for confirming that your comment was indeed a sleazy and cowardly slur. You have no evidence whatsoever that I’ve lied about my credentials or about O’Sullivans — and yet you suggest that I am a liar and a fraud in the minds of your imagined readers.
You say if you had evidence I’ve lied either about my professional credentials or O’Sullivans, you would say so “in no uncertain terms,” and you admit you have no such evidence.
So you put that sleazy and cowardly slur into the mouths of imaginary persons. Pete, you’re some piece of work.
Hi Andrew, I’m surprised and disappointed to find that you appear to be prepared to distort what people say just to make a point.
If you can be bothered to carefully read what I said your find that it was not that I “’ .. ve seen no evidence to believe John O’Sullivan is a liar and a mountebank .. ” as you claimed in your comment today at 12:19 am. What I said was “ .. So, no, I have no convincing evidence that either of you is a mountebank .. ”.
I have read your rants on numerous blogs very very carefully and simply say that we are all able to form our own opinions and draw out own conclusions about each other. Let’s all stop throwing insults and get down to communicating properly and trying to improve on our poor understanding of the process and drivers of the different global climates. “Gutter press” journalism and political manipulation have helped to ruin the scientific debate and undermined the trust that the general public used to have in what scientists said.
Best regards, Pete Ridley
Pete, you continue your sleazy and cowardly tactic of equating John O’Sullivan’s conduct with my conduct. You claim to have followed his exploits for at least a year and a half, YET you still deny knowing that he fabricated his academic and professional credentials. Two months ago, when he entered LinkedIn’s Science and Technology Writers group to attack science journalists as co-conspirators of the global warming “hoax,” it took me just a few days to look up his credentials and discover they were bogus.
For example, in virtually all of his resumes and profiles, O’Sullivan claims to be “a member of the American Bar Association,” which means he is a lawyer licensed to practice in the U.S. I called the membership office of the ABA to check out his claim and I was informed he is NOT an ABA member.
I’ve provided ample examples of the humbug’s fabricated credentials along with places for you to check whether I’m correct. But rather than check, you continue to plead ignorance and then suggest that I may be the one who is lying.
That, Pete, is what makes a denier a denier.
Correction: you said you’ve been aware of John O’Sullivan’s activities for at least 15 months, not a year and a half.
Pete and Tonyb have no interest in determining the veracity of their fellow denier John O’Sullivan, however sincere climate skeptics would want to see just who here is telling the truth.
They can call the membership office of the American Bar Association at 312-988-5466 and ask if John O’Sullivan of the UK is a member of the American Bar Association — as his many resumes and profiles claim. They will learn that he is not. To be an ABA member, he would have to be a lawyer licensed to practice anywhere in the United States. He recently joined as an associate — which is open to everyone, anywhere, whether or not they have any training in law. They only need “an interest in the work of the American Bar Association.” His associate number is 01930128.
And they should see what the ABA Associates Enrollment form says:
ABA associates are “composed of NONmembers with whom affiliation is considered to be in the interest of the Association.” American Bar Association “associates are NOT members of the American Bar Association.” (Emphasis added)
http://apps.americanbar.org/join/docs/Enroll_assoc.pdf
They should also call the National Review and ask if they EVER published ANY article written by “Sky Dragon Slayer” John O’Sullivan. This humbug has been passing off articles written by National Review’s well-known editor-at-large, John O’Sullivan as his: (212) 679-7330.
You should also note that this entire discussion could easily and quickly have ended if John O’Sullivan had replied with documentation of his academic and professional credentials rather than a lot of bluster and insults.
It’s been almost two months since I and other science writers have been pressing O’Sullivan to provide evidence of his dubious academic and professional credentials.
Yesterday, at 4:35, RobB asked how he can check my academic and professional credentials. Forty-six minutes later, I posted a series of links to credible web sites — including the National Library of Medicine, the University of Pennsylvania, the Carter Center, and Amnesty International, etc. Forty-six minutes later, end of discussion.
O’Sullivan claims to have “millions of followers” among climate skeptics. He is right that there’s a gazillion Google crosslinks to the mendacious and malicious screeds he publishes on a variety of blogs. He boasts of being “the world’s most popular Internet writer on the greenhouse gas theory of climate change.
In light of the evidence that he’s a humbug, his fellow deniers here will only say, “There’s nothing to see here, folks. Lets move along.” As I said, deniers deny. That’s just what they do.
Askolink said
“Pete and Tonyb have no interest in determining the veracity of their fellow denier John O’Sullivan, however sincere climate skeptics would want to see just who here is telling the truth.”
See my earlier reply in response to your comment about holding back the curtain.
Its just that some of us think there are far far bigger warmist fish to fry and the two sceptical minnows you are struggling to land are by comparison of no importance.
You have a very impressive cv but perhaps you may have become a little too fervent by your pusuit of what may or may not be the truth. Why don’t you turn your undoubted talents on to Mann and Jones? Good day
tonyb
askolnick
Thanks very much for posting those links to your academic and professional qualifications. You seem very well qualified but even though I agree with very little of the Dragon Slayers’ science, I find your approach a little too fervent and to be honest a little worrying. With that in mind, I will now withdraw from the thread if that’s ok. Cheers.
Is any other reader puzzled why RobB is worrying more about my “fervor” in exposing the fraudulent claims of the Sky Dragon Slayer leader than he is worrying about the black eye the “Slayers” are giving to the climate skeptic community?
Do you notice how easy it is to get deniers here to gripe at ME for pointing out John O’Sullivan’s false credentials — without their uttering a SINGLE word of criticism against him for deceiving them.
You need to read my comments elsewhere on this post to understand my view of Dragon Science. You misrepresent my position. I am not a denier. I am merely disturbed by the lengths you have undergone to make your points about a rather unimportant subject. I’m sure it’s not wrong. Just a bit creepy. That’s all I have to say. Good Day, Sir.
It’s a shame that Joel Shore seems to have abandoned this discussion as he could have given me the facts about membership of the American Physics Society. In November 2009 The APS claimed to be “ .. a membership organization of more than 47,000 physicists .. ” (http://aps.org/about/pressreleases/climatechange.cfm) but its “Constitution” says “There may be accepted for Membership persons of any of the following classes: (a) graduate students specializing in physics; (b) teachers of physics; (c) other persons professionally trained in physics and engaged in its advancement; (d) persons engaged in lines of work related to physics; (e) persons who are not professionally engaged in either physics or related lines but whose interest and activity in the science would make them desirable Members .. ” (http://www.aps.org/about/governance/constitution.cfm).
That suggests to me that not all of those 47,000 members are necessarily physicists and tells us nothing about the professional status of those who are.
I was a full member (MIEE) of the UK’s Institution of Electrical Engineers (IEE) – which has since merged with the Institution of Incorporated Engineers (IIE) to form the Institution of Engineering and Technology (IET). This has more than 150,000 members worldwide and (like the IEEE – http://www.ieee.org/membership_services/membership/join/qualifications.html) defines strict membership requirements (http://www.theiet.org/membership/types/index.cfm) for the different grades, covering education, training and professional activities. The APS appears to me not to be too concerned about the education, training and professional activities of its members but I could be mistaken. Does anyone here know if membership of the APS is as easy as simply paying the membership fee?
One thing about Joel that I do respect is that he is prepared to acknowledge at least part of our poor understanding of the processes and drivers of the different global climates. He said on 29th Aug 2010 “ .. it becomes very difficult to explain what happened during the ice age – interglacial cycles. There has to either be a huge forcing operating that we don’t know about (or a huge underestimate of the forcing due to ice albedo change or what-have-you) or there has to be some reason why the negative feedback didn’t operate during those times (http://www.realclimate.org/?comments_popup=4881).
He is not the only staunch supporter of the CACC doctrine to acknowledge this uncertainty. In April 2009 ecologist Professor Barry Brook, Adelaide University, who was an advisor on climate science to the Australian government when Kevin Rudd was Prime Minister, said QUOTE: There are a lot of uncertainties in science, and it is indeed likely that the current consensus on some points of climate science is wrong, or at least sufficiently uncertain that we don’t know anything much useful about processes or drivers. But EVERYTHING? Or even most things? Take 100 lines of evidence, discard 5 of them, and you’re still left with 95 and large risk management problem .. ” (http://bravenewclimate.com/2009/04/23/ian-plimer-heaven-and-earth/). In my opinion the most important part of that paragraph is the first sentence, the remainder simply being figures pulled out of the air giving the impression that their is uncertainty about only 5% of the science (I repeatedly asked Professor Brook to clarify what he meant but never received a satisfactory response). The IPCC uses a similar trick to try to quantify uncertainty, referring to it as “expert opinion” and there is a good summary in “IPCC: AR4 guidance on uncertainty” (http://climateaudit.org/2007/06/10/ipcc-ar4-guidance-on-uncertainty/) with a link to the source IPCC document.
Back in November 2009, just as Climategate was about to scuttle the UN’s COP15 collapse in Copenhagen, Joel made comments on the “American Physical Society rejects climate policy plea from 160 physicists” thread (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/13/american-physcal-society-rejects-climate-policy-plea-from-160-physicists/) supporting the APS’s belief in the validity of the CACC hypothesis. On 13th November 2009 he responded to a very interesting comment which science journalist Andrew Skolnick will probably get very upset about.
First Joel quoted what one Smokey said “BTW, the same thing happened last summer in the American Chemical Society. Dr Lindzen was exactly right. This hijacking of executive bodies isn’t an isolated event; it’s happening in the media, in schools and in professional organizations everywhere. There is also a coordinated effort to get control of executive bodies in every publication. And it’s world wide. Even the once great Economist chatters on incessantly now about “carbon,” and the necessity of all nations to agree to “stop climate change” at Copenhagen. And as we’ve seen, Science, Nature, Scientific American, and numerous other science oriented publications have long since been controlled by political activists”.
Then there was Joel’s response “Oh…I get it. So, the more and more organizations, science-oriented publications, and even oil companies come to conclusions you disagree with, the more and more evidence this is of massive collusion on a global scale! That makes perfect sense! I am beginning to understand how evidence works for “skeptics”! Actually, one of the amusing things about the petitioners is the fact that they wanted the APS to adopt a statement on climate change that would have made ExxonMobil look like an organization of tree-hugging environmental extremists by comparison .. ”. (Smokey’s response is interesting too and I expect Andrew to jump in with some derogatory comments about Professor Richard Lindzen).
There are two interesting issues in that quote, the first being the hijacking of executive bodies, including of scientific journals, as evidenced by the Climategate E-mails (Andrew, I look forward to your reaction). The second was the comment about ExxonMobil (I wonder if Joel has stopped using any of the products, like fuels, oils, chemicals, plastics “ .. the endless range of chemicals we encounter in everyday life .. ” – http://www.exxonmobil.com/Benelux-English/products.aspx – that has connections with ExxonMobil or any similar company that is allegedly paying all of us sceptics to deny that our continuing use of fossil fuels is leading to CACC. I doubt it.
I received an interesting E-mail today about ExxonMobil and its contributions to climate sceptics, with a link to the SPPI article “The Log in the Eye of Greenpeace” (http://sppiblog.org/news/the-log-in-the-eye-of-greenpeace#more-5344). It starts with “Matthew 7:5 – Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother’s eye”. I commend the article to you for enlightenment, including the section “BP, Greenpeace & the Big Oil Jackpot”.
Hi Andrew, ref. your comment of July 5, 2011 at 9:18 am. in my comment of July 3, 2011 at 4:48 pm what did I ask of John O’Sullivan regarding his claims to be “a member of the American Bar Association”?
Ref. your comment of July 5, 2011 at 12:58 pm. you presume to you know what I am or am not interested in. With your years of investigative journalism behind you I’d have expected that you would have earned that there is a great risk of being mistaken when you draw conclusions from scanty evidence. Just because you make a pronouncement does not make it fact. Perhaps it is time that you recognised your own limitations.
I am not only interested in the veracity of John O’Sullivan, Tim Ball, Hans Schoeder, Rev. Philip Foster and all the other Slayers and sceptics/deniers, but also the veracity of Andrew Skolnik, Gareth Renowden, Joel Shore, Al Gore, Maurice Strong, George Soros, Timothy Firth, James Hansen, Michael Mann, Phil Jones and all of the other disciples/supporters of the CACC doctrine.
Hi tonyb, ref. your comments today (5th) at 4:43 am. 10:10 am. and 4:15 pm I’m inclined to agree, however, I hope that your latest comment “good day” does not mean that you are going to withdraw from exchanges with Andrew and the like. Andrew seems to have been a good investigative journalist and if we can encourage him to be more open-minded about the CACC doctrine then he could perhaps make a worthwhile contribution to getting an honest message across to the general public.
At present there is far too much propaganda from both sides, which leaves the general public unsure of what to believe. Under those circumstances the natural reaction is to be frightened of the unknown and reract irrationally. Andrew appears to be an intelligent person but has only been involved in discussing CACC for a couple of months. Give him time to learn something about the subject and give him all the help that we can to understand the science and the associated uncertainties.
Best regards, Pete Ridley
Pete Ridley
To use his own metaphor Andrew needs to realise that he is at the wrong theatre watching the wrong show. He would find his talents much better employed looking at some of those people we both mention and in examining the climategate emails.
Andrew needs to throttle back several gears for me to want to re-engage with him, and also use his undoubted intellect to familiarise himself with the current state of what passes for climate science.
tonyb
Hi Andrew, in your comment of 5th July at 4:35 you said “ .. RobB asked how he can check my academic and professional credentials. Forty-six minutes later, I posted a series of links to credible web sites — including the National Library of Medicine, the University of Pennsylvania, the Carter Center, and Amnesty International, etc. Forty-six minutes later, end of discussion .. ”. Far from being the end this may just the start of the discussion about your proudly presented qualifications and achievements.
In my opinion there are far too many who live by the maxim that “If you don’t blow your own trumpet, who will” (http://www.personneltoday.com/articles/2006/10/24/37838/if-you-dont-blow-your-own-trumpet-who-will.html)? I prefer the maxim “Don’t Blow Your Own Trumpet, Let Your Clients Do It For You!” (http://www.thebestof.co.uk/local/cambridge/blog/dont-blow-your-own-trumpet-let-your-clients-do-it-for-you-get-client-testimonials/article012003.htm), probably because my daddy kept repeating “Don’t blow your own trumpet”.
Last November John O’Sullivan invited me to become involved with the Slayers’ proposed organisation Principia Scientific International and in December I was invited to contribute a chapter to the next Slayers book. During December I carried out what I called my “Due Diligence” research into PSI and its members and on 30th December I E-mailed my “Executive Summary” to members of the group. This begins with the quotation “Self praise is no praise at all” and goes on to say “Although there is a plethora of boastful promotion material there are many unanswered questions about PSI’s structure, the relationships between and motivations of the principle individuals involved, its modus operandi and strategies”.
“Self praise is no praise at all” applies to each of us, no matter what our opinions are about the CACC doctrine. John O’Sullivan has boasted of his achievements on many blogs and you have rightly called these into question. You too have boasted about your professional and academic credentials, telling Teddy on 4th July that “ .. they are considerable .. real and easily verified by anyone interested”. I didn’t think that the links you provided gave really convincing verification of your individual academic credentials but that’s only my opinion. I provided what I considered a worthwhile link (http://www.aaskolnick.com/resume.htm) but see that for the moment it simply leads to a page of adverts.
On 4th July I had found numerous pages in which the required details were provided (e.g. http://www.aaskolnick.com http://aaskolnick.com/new/mybio.htm http://www.aaskolnick.com/resume.htm) but for some reason the information available then has been replaced by adverts today – have you taken down those pages Andrew? Never mind, I saved some of them and they are much in the same vein is available from Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_A._Skolnick).
On 5th July tonyb said “ .. You have a very impressive cv .. ” but I’m not so easily impressed by those who blow their own trumpet. I “googled” a random sample of your proud boasts in your resume (http://www.aaskolnick.com/resume.htm) “Executive Director – Commission for Scientific Medicine and Mental Health, Center for Inquiry, 3965 Rensch Rd., Amherst, N.Y. 14228. Directed research, educational, and journalism programs of the Commission, which publishes the Scientific Review of Alternative Medicine and the Scientific Review of Mental Health Practices. February. 2004 to March 2006. Contributing Editor – PeerView Press and Doctor’s Guide to the Internet
(http://www.peerviewpress.com and http://www.docguide.com). Provided print and audio news reports on the latest clinical research reported at medical meetings and in peer-reviewed journals. March 2001 to January 2004”.
Doesn’t that sound impressive – but is it considered so by others who are knowledgeable and could blow that trumpet on your behalf? In Paragraph 2 I linked to thebestofcambridge thread “Don’t Blow Your Own Trumpet .. ” and of course the best of Cambridge is Cambridge University. Here’s what The University of Cambridge Cavendish Laboratory “Scientists’ unethical use of media for propaganda purposes) thread (http://www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk/~bdj10/propaganda/) had to say QUOTE:
.. the leader of the investigation, Andrew Skolnick, is director of the organisation CSMMH, the so-called Commission for Scientific Medicine and Mental Health. This organisation is not an official body as one might think from its title Commission, but rather a collection of people interested in “the scientific examination of unproven alternative medicine and mental health therapies”, Their mission statement at http://www.csmmh.org/about.html makes instructive reading, with references to ‘aberrant remedies’ and ‘dubious research’. The situation now perhaps becomes a little clearer. It would be consistent with the aims of members of such organisations for the experiment to be designed to maximise the chances of being able to discredit Natasha. Setting the threshold to 5, rather than the value that would make more sense, namely 4, would help achieve this, as would the scenario whereby it would be announced that Natasha had ‘failed the test’. Perhaps we need look no further to see why the threshold of 5 rather than 4 was chosen? .. ”.
Please see the article for the full context because I would hate Andrew to accuse me of cherry-picking.
Another interested party, Microbiologist Julio Siqueira, commented on this same subject and has some less than complementary things to say about Andrew, including his concluding remark QUOTE:
.. Final Words of Warning: Andrew Skolnick has managed to fool too many people for far too long. Some people who pretend to be skeptics are conveniently allowing him to swindle them. At JREF forum, they abound. The sheer fact is that simply no one gains from it. Not even Skolnick himself. Exposing this quack, and forcing him to come to more socially positive works, is what everyone should be doing instead. Skolnick claims that in the past he placed himself in danger for fighting for human rights. His motto then was “Live and Let Live”. Now, corrupted, he has turned to the motto “Live and Let Die”… But until he let die the quack in him, the only one who will be dying indeed is he himself. And, on this way, he will only look weirder and weirder, and farther away from his alleged scientific and social aims. Live and let live, so. Let him decide his own way…
UNQUOTE. Strong words which justify a defence Andrew – let’s hear it.
Once again, please read the full article. BTW, I have E-mailed Julio and provided a link to this thread as he may like to get involved in the discussion.
Just because John O’Sullivan associates himself with scientists and has written extensively about climate science and just because I have enjoyed the title Member of Scientific Staff at a respected Canadian R&D Laboratory does not make either of us scientists. By the same token I doubt that associating with medical scientists, enjoying positions as a medical journalist, an editor, a visiting Professor of Journalism and being a prolific co-author of numerous articles (e.g. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=%22Skolnick%20A%22%5BAuthor%5D) does not necessarily elevate someone to the status of a medical scientist or expert. Of course I could be mistaken and may look further into those other claims of yours, but if I was to uncover more “expert opinion” like that of the Cambridge University then your veracity could suffer, but, just as with the CACC hypothesis, there are all of those “if”s, “could”s, “may”s, etc.
On a lighter note, isn’t it strange how we can get totally different impressions about people just through blogging and searching on the Internet. Andrew’s demeanour here has not been what I would call tender and caring yet looking at his pictures of his labradors Argos (http://wn.com/Askolnick) and Penelope he comes across as being the kindly grand father next door. Lovely pictures Andrew. Those 2 years at Paier weren’t wasted.
Tonyb & RobB, despite his obsession with John O’Sullivan’s claims to fame Andrew has opened up a very important discussion here. This is the credibility of the individuals involved in the grossly politicised scientific issue of what if any significant impact our use of fossil fuels has had, is having and might have on those different global climatic regions defined by Koppen. Because the processes and drivers of those different global climates are extremely complex (bordering on the chaotic) even the research scientists and their assistants the modellers are forced to acknowledge, with their numerous “if”s, “could”s, “might”s and “maybe”s that they are unable to predict what will happen and can only make speculative projections based upon equally speculative scenarios. That leaves those of us who are not scientists very dependent upon analyses by others. Because we may not be competent enough to question the validity of their analyses I think that we have an obligation to question the credibility of those who make them.
Andrew has chosen to turn the spotlight on the Slayers and now I have turn that spotlight on Andrew. After all, “What’s good for the goose is good for the gander” (http://www.usingenglish.com/reference/idioms/what%27s+good+for+the+goose+is+good+for+the+gander.html) – no Andrew, this is not my “sleazy and cowardly tactic” of casting aspersions about your sexuality, simply the use of a convenient idiom, although I perhaps prefer this “propa” extension of “ganda” since it is so relevant to the CACC debate (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jan/28/china-tv-news-top-gun).
As you have suggested, the more important issue is the validity of the scientific analyses undertaken by the disciples/supporters and deniers of the CACC hypothesis. I am preparing some comments on the chapters by Slayer Alan Siddons and may have it ready tomorrow. There isn’t much said about Alan in the Slayers bios (http://slayingtheskydragon.com/en/about/bios), which is interesting enough in itself.
Best regards, Pete Ridley
Very interesting, Peter. I don’t have time to follow up on your investigations but your post has left me feeling a little conned.
You know Pete, you really are a putz to plop such bull paddies on us:
“I’m not so easily impressed by those who blow their own trumpet. I ‘googled’ a random sample of your proud boasts in your resume (http://www.aaskolnick.com/resume.htm) “Executive Director – Commission for Scientific Medicine and Mental Health, Center for Inquiry, 3965 Rensch Rd., Amherst, N.Y. 14228. Directed research, educational, and journalism programs of the Commission, which publishes the Scientific Review of Alternative Medicine and the Scientific Review of Mental Health Practices. February. 2004 to March 2006. Contributing Editor – PeerView Press and Doctor’s Guide to the Internet…”
“Proud boasts?!” What is wrong with you Pete? Do you have any grasp of the meanings of words you use? You’re quoting a RESUME, you idiot. If you had the reading comprehension of an intelligent 6th grader, you’d notice that the resume is entirely FREE of adjectives or adverbs. My resume consists entirely of facts, free of any commentary, let alone “praise.” Job titles; Employers; Locations; Dates; Duties and Responsibilities — facts.
And now you have shown yourself to be a liar to rival the status of John O’Sullivan, whose resume could get an A+ in any creative fiction class.
It is a bald-faced lie to say the rant you quote is the “opinion” of Cambridge University’s Cavendish Laboratory. What you quoted is from the PERSONAL WEB PAGE of Brian Josephson, who shared a Nobel Prize for his work almost 50 YEARS AGO that led to the invention of the Josephson junction, and hasn’t contributed almost anything to science in the past three decades after abandoning science to promote the paranormal field of psychics, spoon benders, ghost hunters, and other quacks and humbugs. Because he’s a Nobel Laureate, Cambridge University keeps in a comfortable padded office where he harmlessly self-publishes attacks on critics of the paranormal. This rant from Josephson’s personal web page is what Pete maliciously calls an “expert opinion” of the University of Cambridge’s Cavenish Laboratory!
He should be ashamed, though I’m beginning to suspect he is incapable of that emotion — especially after saying he “invited” the so-called “Microbiologist Julio Siqueira” to join this discussion. Siqueira is a cyberstalker who follows skeptics of paranormal hucksters around the Internet to attack them. He claims variously to be “as a “biologist,” “a microbiologist,” or “a clinical bacteriologist” to present his “expert” opinions. However, he’s never held a job in ANY field of science. He’s an elementary school English teacher in Brazil who self publishes rants and diatribes against critics of paranormal claims.
No wonder Pete has invited this “expert” to join the discussion. One big humbug wasn’t enough for him.
Anyone notice that John O’Sullivan has not answered Pete’s request for documentation to refute my charges? So he’s now doing his best to dig up all possible dirt he can throw at me. He’s even mocking me for “blowing my own horn” because I list my professional and academic experiences on my resume!
I just hope this putz doesn’t find out that I put toilet seats down out of consideration of women. He’ll probably spin that into an allegation that my reporting can’t be trusted since I’m a stooge for feminists. What a putz.
My spam filter blocked renewal notice from my web host (Paul Matthews — who operates RPM WEB SERVICES Wisesource.com, — the greatest web hosting service in the world i.m.h.o) and my web site was shut down earlier today. I just discovered it an hour ago and emailed Paul, He’s resetting the site back up. It probably is up by now.
Pete, I have to ask, what the hell is wrong with your thinking processes?
Citing one’s academic and professional credentials on one’s resume — or providing them when someone asks — as Teddy and RobB did — is NOT “blowing one’s own horn” or engaging in “self praise.” What in the world is wrong with you?
No doubt if I kept mum when they asked me for my academic and professional credentials, you would accuse me of being a hypocrite for not answering. If I give you a pint of milk you’d complain that it isn’t a quart. If I gave you a quart, you’d bitch that it’s not a gallon. There really seems to be at least a screw or two loose in your thinking mechanism.
Why else would you be raising a red herring issue to hide the important issue you clearly don’t want to discuss. The problem is not that John O’Sullivan is a “braggart.” It’s that he’s bragging about credentials he DOES NOT have. The problem you should be concerned with is that he is a humbug rather than he is a braggart. Go get those screws tightened, for crying out loud!
RobB, don’t be too upset about feeling that you may have been conned a little because in my opinion (notice Anrew, only my opinion) a large number of us have been conned, not only by trumpet-blowing insignificant non-entities but by our politicians and all of the other self-interested, power-hungry, politically-motivated, scare-monering individuals who lend their support to the CACC doctrine.
On the other hand, that may just be the biased opinion of a doddery (http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22Slaying+the+Sky%22+%22Allan+Siddons%22&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-GB:official&client=firefox-a#hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-GB:official&q=Doddery&tbs=dfn:1&tbo=u&sa=X&ei=QeUUTqj_JsSnhAeqxrD0DQ&ved=0CBcQkQ4&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=29154332bb3966ae&biw=1016&bih=560) git (http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22Slaying+the+Sky%22+%22Allan+Siddons%22&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-GB:official&client=firefox-a#hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-GB:official&q=Git&tbs=dfn:1&tbo=u&sa=X&ei=muUUTpZYxsCEB8Ld6ckN&sqi=2&ved=0CBcQkQ4&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=29154332bb3966ae&biw=1016&bih=560) who has no idea what he’s talking about.
Never mind, it takes all kinds (http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/It+takes+all+kinds) and most of us commenting here are fortunate enough to be members of a tolerant society in which every individual has “ .. the right to hold opinions without interference. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression .. ” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech).
Best regards, Pete Ridley
Hi Andrew, I am most surprised that you claim to have a HUMBLE opinion.
Best regards, Pete Ridley
Pete Ridley says:
Since I have made no claims regarding membership in the APS or what it means, I have no clue why you are going on about this. My general impression is that APS, probably not unlike most professional organizations, relies mainly on self-selection: i.e., it doesn’t set up rigid requirements for membership, relying on the fact that there is very little motivation for blatantly unqualified people to become members, particularly in large droves. But if someone wants to join the APS with no such physics credentials whatsoever, I would imagine that he/she probably could.
You are guessing wrong. As I recall, I read over what Arthur had written and gave him some comments. It is true that (to my knowledge) neither Arthur nor I have published in the area of climate science outside of a comment on the garbage that IJMPB published by Gerlich and Tscheuschner. We are friends / colleagues from physics graduate school who are united by a common interest in climate science but are both primarily involved in other pursuits in our everyday careers. (Both of us have PhDs in physics from a physics graduate school that…for whatever it’s worth…U.S. News and World Report ranks as one of the top 10 in the nation.)
The rebuttal was to Arthur not to me and I am not sure how exactly he responded although I know that Arthur had at one time an extensive running list of all the nonsense and incorrect statements that Monckton had managed to pack into his piece in that APS Forum on Science and Society newsletter. I would advise you not to so eagerly defend Monckton if you want to be taken seriously by actual scientists.
Joel tells Pete “I would advise you not to so eagerly defend Monckton if you want to be taken seriously by actual scientists.”
Fat chance Joel. Pete hasn’t met a global warming denier who lies about his credentials he doesn’t like.
Like Tim Ball and John O’Sullivan, Monckton loves to mint himself impressive credentials, which his fellow deniers refuse to question.
For example, Monckton has been claiming he won a Nobel Prize in 2007 for helping to expose some global warming fraud. On Jan. 25, 2010, the Sydney Morning Herald confronted him about this false claim a few hours after he made it on the Alex Jones radio show. “It was a joke, a joke,” he explained. However, the Herald reported that he had said it “with a straight face” and no one laughed. The radio host utterly bought the lie.
http://www.smh.com.au/national/the-diary/nobleman-is-no-nobel-man-20100125-muky.html#ixzz1RRVLRZVK
Even after the lie was exposed, Monckton continued to tell it. His biography on the Science and Public Policy, where he is this oil industry-supported “think tank’s” “Chief Policy Adviser,” STILL claims he was awarded a Nobel Prize in 2007!: http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/personnel.html
Monckton told another baldfaced lie in a 2006 letter to U.S. Senators Olympia Snowe and John D. Rockefeller. He said he was writing them as a member of the “Upper House of the United Kingdom legislature” (House of Lords). He is no more a member of the House of Lords than John O’Sullivan is a member of the American Bar Association!
Monckton was defeated when he ran for the House of Lords in 1999 and he lost again in 2007!
http://www.desmogblog.com/pompous-prat-alert-viscount-monckton-tour
http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Moncktons_letter_to_Snowe_Rockefeller_on_1218.html
I could go on but it’s getting tedious. The problem is not that everybody under the global warming denying tent is a fraud, it’s that no denier and very few climate skeptics will denounce the frauds when they’re exposed. Rather, they rush to their defense — as we’re seeing here.
I could go on but it’s getting tedious. The problem is not that everybody under the global warming denying tent is a fraud, it’s that no denier and very few climate skeptics will denounce the frauds when they’re exposed. Rather, they rush to their defense — as we’re seeing here.
.
Joel, you accuse me of publishing nonsense. Are you okay with explanations like this about how greenhouse gas warming is supposed to work?
The wavelength / frequency of this outgoing thermal radiation corresponds to that of the greenhouse gases. The molecules of these gases interact with the radiation trapping it within our atmosphere. In time this trapped heat is re-radiated back out again – some of it harmlessly disappears off into space but the compoent [SIC] which is re-radiated back down to Earth is a) what warms our climate and b) is what we refer to as the Greenhouse Effect (even though that’s not a particularly accurate term to use).
In a nutshell then, this is how global warming works – heat from the Sun warms the planet, is radiated back out, some of this heat gets trapped by greenhouse gases and the climate warms up.
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20091126151919AAxRoXI
A cold, rarefied gas “traps” outgoing radiation. This is so obviously stupid, it am continuously surprised anyone clings to it. You’re a clever physicist, perhaps you can tell me which of these optical effects (which also apply it IR radiation) described by John Tyndall embody this alleged “heat trapping”?
Reflection, refraction, diffraction, polarization, depolarization, double refraction, and rotation in a magnetic field…add diffusion if you like. Do you buy the notion that CO2 absorption and “back radiation” is greater than CO2 conductivity and the effects of convection? Really? Ever seen this measured?
Hopefully this will be my last comment on Pete’s attacks. Unlike my report of John O’Sullivan’s fabricated credentials, Pete’s arguments ARE ad hominem attacks made to discredit and distract from the facts I reported.
They are ad hominem because they are IRRELEVANT to the information reported. Of course, it wouldn’t be ad hominem had I said “take my word for it because I’m an authority.” But I didn’t.
I told him, RobB, and others to check the facts I reported for themselves. (So far, none of them appear to have done that — or if they have, they’re keeping the results to themselves!)
I described how O’Sullivan is a humbug who is lying about his academic and professional credentials in order to posture as an authority. I say throughout this thread, don’t take my word for it — here are some places to contact to verify whether he’s lying. I made an argument based NOT on my credentials but on verifiable facts.
Rather than checked to see if my claims are factual, Pete launched a ridiculous campaign to discredit me — even mocking me for “blowing my own horn” because I listed my education and professional experience on my resume!
At first, Pete (and RobB) tried to argue that this discussion — specifically begun by Dr. Judith Curry to examine the credibility of the science in Sky Dragon Slayers — shouldn’t be about the credibility of the authors of the Sky Dragon Slayers. He’s now trying to assail my credibility by inviting yet another humbug who lies about his professional credentials to join in on the attack.
He thinks readers here are idiots who do not notice that I’m NOT the lead author of Sky Dragon Slayers. My credibility has nothing to do with the credibility of the authors of this book — or lack thereof.
I’m appealing to the facts, not to my authority. So check the facts for yourself by calling the American Bar Association, National Review, and the Law Society of British Columbia’s Office of Unauthorized Practice and see if John O’Sullivan is telling the truth about his professional credentials.
A word of warning, though: Pete will not like you doing this and posting what you find. He hasn’t called to check for himself — or if he has, he isn’t telling us what he learned. So you might find him one night sifting through your garbage, looking for evidence of any nasty stuff he can post here. If you do — and if you have dogs like me — let them out.
Apparently I need to explain to Pete the difference between man and dog. He observes:
“Isn’t it strange how we can get totally different impressions about people just through blogging and searching on the Internet. Andrew’s demeanour here has not been what I would call tender and caring yet looking at his pictures of his labradors Argos (http://wn.com/Askolnick) and Penelope he comes across as being the kindly grand father next door.”
Dogs are the best communicating social animals outside of great apes. Because they virtually always speak the truth, they have earned my love and admiration. Humans lie through their teeth like dogs pant through theirs. And every time you catch them doing it, they should be hit with a rolled up newspaper.
Speaking of newspapers, the most important thing I was taught in journalism school is that “the journalist’s job is to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable.”
That’s why I enjoy going after lying scoundrels with a rolled up newspaper to hear them howl as we’re hearing here,
.
Hi Andrew, I see that once you focus on someone with different opinions to yours then you really get your teeth into them. Watch out John O’Sullivan, you’re his target now. You weren’t too gentle with poor old Judy Stein (http://www.aaskolnick.com/junkyarddog/vulgar.htm) were you (I do hope you treat your labradors better than that, but who knows what goes on behind closed doors, out of sight of the camera). On the other hand Judy is not a great fan of yours either (e.g. see http://groups.google.com/group/alt.meditation.transcendental/tree/browse_frm/month/1995-07/84d15e59bd0ba09f?rnum=21&_done=%2Fgroup%2Falt.meditation.transcendental%2Fbrowse_frm%2Fmonth%2F1995-07%3F).
I think that I am not being unreasonable in saying that your comment today (7th July) at 12:27 pm. was addressed to me. That being the case I see that you are at it again distorting what I say in order to give apparent support to your rants. Would you be kind enough to point precisely to where I said that my “ .. quote is the “opinion” of Cambridge University’s Cavendish Laboratory .. ”. I suspect that you’ll fail to rise to the challenge again, because my precise words were QUOTE: .. Here’s what The University of Cambridge Cavendish Laboratory “Scientists’ unethical use of media for propaganda purposes) thread (http://www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk/~bdj10/propaganda/) had to say .. UNQUOTE. The “thread” to which I referred quite clearly comes under the title of the University of Cambridge’s Cavendish Laboratory and the quote is there for all to see.
Talking about opinion, your “humble” one is that the award and medal-winning Cambridge physics graduate and Professor of Physics Brian David Josephson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_David_Josephson#Education http://www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk/~bdj10/), Nobel Laureate, Fellow of the Royal Society, Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge “ .. hasn’t contributed almost anything to science in the past three decades .. ” and is just someone who “Cambridge University keeps in a comfortable padded office .. ”. Not everyone shares your low opinion of distinguished Professor Josephson.
Professor Marc Clement, who graduated with a First Class Honours degree in Physics from the University of Wales followed by a PhD in Laser Physics, awarded a scholarship from the Royal Society, Chartered Engineer, Chartered Physicist and a Fellow of the Institute of Electrical Engineers (a far more impressive resume that that of Andrew Skolnick) totally disagreed with you just two years after Professor Josephson’s comments about you on his Cambridge University thread. Here’s what Professor Clement, Chair of Innovation at the University of Wales, Chairman of the Institute of Welsh Affairs, had to say in 2006 when he was Trustee for Wales to the board of the National Endowment for Science, Technology and the Arts (Nesta) QUOTE: .., In my opinion the person who best epitomises Welsh scientific achievement is the Cardiff-born physicist Professor Brian Josephson. “Not only is he Wales’ only Nobel laureate but his thinking has been consistently inspiring over the course of his career so far .. UNQUOTE (http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/tm_objectid=17616188&method=full&siteid=50082&headline=–the–scientist-with-the-motto–take-nobody-s-word-for-it–whose-work—makes–wales-great–name_page.html).
Note also that those accolades from Professor Clement came when Professor Josephson was applying his unquestionable talents as QUOTE: .. director of the Mind-Matter Unification Project of the Theory of Condensed Matter Group at the Cavendish laboratory at Cambridge University. He is now concerned with attempting to understand what may be described as intelligent processes in nature, particularly associated with brain function. I’m sure that Professor Josephson’s unique mind will continue to astonish his fellow scientists .. UNQUOTE.
Enjoy the rest of those accolades bestowed on Professor Josephson, who appears to have about as high a regard for you as you have for him, but bear in mind that the trumpet blowing was not by Professor Josephson himself.
I leave it to others to judge which of us can fairly be accused of telling a “ .. bald-faced lie .. ” or “ .. shown (our)self to be a liar to rival the status of John O’Sullivan .. ” or needs to “ .. Go get those screws tightened .. ”.
Best regards, Pete Ridley
Pete,
You really need to learn things before you talk about them and just embarrass yourself. Long ago, well before I had any interest in AGW, Josephson was presented to me as the canonical example of a brilliant physicist who had basically gone bonkers and started spouting pseudoscientific nonsense (in this case, in regards, to parapsychology). Here is the wikipedia site, which by its nature can’t be quite that blunt, but gives you the basic picture: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_David_Josephson
If you want to embrace Josephson’s ideas about this stuff, then be my guest, but you will find yourself lonelier in the scientific community than you even are now embracing very dodgy “skeptic” notions on AGW.
The way I see it, Joel, is that belief in mental telepathy, the possible influence of Vitamin C on morbid disease, aliens from outer space who immolated themselves already by discovering nuclear fission {Sagan], outer space origins of life on Earth, and a host of other possibly “crank” concepts
… might be considered somewhat eccentric but not harmful to humanity as a whole, whereas, the belief in catastrophic AGW, with no evidence to support the belief, is harmful to humanity as a whole, and there aren’t that many such beliefs, supposedly founded in science, which have such a potential for such widespread and inimical influence.
Why don’t you tell this to the 900+ men, women, and children who followed psychic and faith healer Rev. Jim Jones to Guyana where they were forced at gun point to drink cyanide-laced Kool-aide?
Oh, right. You can’t because they are all DEAD.
Or those sad, and terribly stupid members of the Heaven’s Gate cult who followed Marshall Applewhite to their deaths. About 40 of them and castrated themselves before committing suicide so that they would be taken aboard the UFO Applewhite told them was hiding behind Comet Hale-Bopp.
I could go on mentioning many of the thousands of poor victims of paranormal con artists who died swallowing the snake oil of these humbugs, but I’m sure you are as beyond hearing as they now are.
Take it easy on the Pauling Vitamin C issue; he postulated and reported on intravenous administration; the “testing” was done with oral doses. So his hypothesis was never actually examined.
Brian, why do you believe you have licensed to say anything you want regardless of the facts? Why do you think you can claim Linus Pauling’s hypothesis “was never actually examined,” when it clearly was.
P R Health Sci J. 2010 Sep;29(3):215-7.
Vitamin C and cancer: what can we conclude–1,609 patients and 33 years later?
Cabanillas F. University of Puerto Rico School of Medicine, San Juan, Puerto Rico. fcabanil@mdanderson.org
Cabanillas et al reported their review of published clinical trials — including those that involved IV administration as used by Pauling.
I would post a link to the published study, but I no longer believe there are any deniers who bother to look things up. Like Brian, they appear to have a sworn oath to never check “facts” before posting.
Brian, in replying to your post’s and Pete’s, I feel like the poor guy with the broom that follows the elephants in a circus parade.
Some colourful stuff going on here. :)
All ‘sides’ in the climate science melee have those who exaggerate and overplay their hands in the midst of the argument. Best just to get on with the science and assess arguments on their merits in my opinion. Still, those who haven’t got the skills needed to assess the science but still want to join in the fun will use whatever skills they have at their disposal to sway the argument in favour of the ‘side’ they align themselves with.
Being someone who is sceptical of strong claims about how the Earth’s climate systems work wherever they originate from, I would recommend that everyone in this current conversation pauses to reflect and re-orientate themselves within the context of the wider discussion about the science, the policy, and the social aspects of the climate science debate.
My opinions, for anyone who cares to consider them are:
1) People who oversell their credentials and/or the certainty behind their pronouncements do more harm than good for the ‘side’ they think they are supporting.
2) People who form judgements about others on the basis of their findings concerning third parties who they perceive ‘to be on the same side’ as that person risk missing out on potentially valuable and informative interactions.
3) The climate systems we are trying to understand are sufficiently complex that nature will have settled the current climate debate long before theory is sufficiently advanced to successfully predict its course.
4) In recognition of point 3), the wise course is to remain polite, intellectually open, and mutually respectful.
Tallbloke, you do know that Dr. Curry started this discussion (see title above: “Slaying a Greenhouse Dragon”) to examine the credibility of the science in this book? Right?
And you do know that John O’Sullivan — who continues to lie about professional credentials — is an author and proclaimed leader of the Sky Dragon Slayers?
We’re not talking about people “in the climate science melee” who “exaggerate and overplay their hands in the midst of the argument.”
Where talking about a humbug who is claiming false credentials on his RESUME!!!!
If you can’t understand the importance of this now, maybe someday, if you fall ill and visit a doctor who obtained his medical degree and license from a Crackerjack box, it just might come to you.
I am interested in seeing this discussion play out, I have wondered myself about Mr O’Sullivan’s credentials.
Dr. Curry, you’re one of the few people posting here who I still trust is an actual skeptic. I think a skeptic would want to check for herself and call the American Bar Association, the Law Society of British Columbia, the National Review, and check to see if this John O’Sullivan is listed in New York State’s web site listing of licensed attorneys. So stop wondering. Hint, hint.
So far, not ONE of these self-described skeptics has done that (or if they have, they’re not reporting what they learned.) They’re just too damn busy trying to shoot the messenger — and too hopping mad every time they shoot themselves in the foot instead.
no time and insufficient interest to track down myself (tonyb’s point about minnows is on point, IMO). but i will certainly let the discussion play out here.
Hate to tell you this Dr. Curry, but you’re swimming upstream against the huge wake of these so-called “minnows.”
If you Google “Judith Curry” + “global warming” you get about 64,500 links. Google “Slaying the Sky Dragon” you get 80,400 links. Google “John O’Sullivan” + “global warming” you get 170,000 links — almost three times as many as links to you — even though your credentials are genuine and your arguments are not crackpot.
Global denying frauds and humbugs are eclipsing true skeptics. These mendacious “minnows” are clearly controlling debate on the Internet and fooling the public, in large part because climate skeptics are reluctant to speak ill of anyone who challenges global warming orthodoxy.
Won’t quite a few of those 170k links be to the other John Sullivan?
If you mean National Review’s editor-at-large, yes, some probably are. However, none of the 80,400 links found for “Slaying the Sky Dragon” are to anyone but O’Sullivan and his merry band of Sky Dragon Slayers — which is about 25 percent more links than come up for Judith Curry.
Hah, now you’ve jumped the aquatic animal so badly you’ve got things backwards. C’mon, Andrew, back through the looking glass. Easy now.
==============
“The time has come,” the Walrus said,
“To talk of many things:
Of shoes–and ships–and sealing-wax–
Of cabbages–and kings–
And why the sea is boiling hot–
And whether pigs have wings.”
well this is clearly a job for anna haynes :)
I’m not trying to shoot the messenger, I’m just too damn busy trying to understand the science to bother trying to verify your claims.
I will say this though.I’ve witnessed John Sullivan threatening to ‘get legal’ with another critic, and I’m less than impressed with such behaviour.
All I’m pointing out is that whatever the truth is about your claims, it doesn’t impinge on the issue of the validity or otherwise of the scientific claims made by the people who contributed to the book he promoted.
The correct way to assess their scientific claims is simply to assess their scientific claims, not damn their authors by association with someone you claim has oversold his credentials.
Andrew, I looked at your resume and it’s very nice. You are very prolific. Maybe what you say about John is true, I don’t know. He should be allowed to defend himself. I do have much interest in looking stuff on him or you up for more than one or two links. What you are doing is ad hominem. You are also receiving this. I think this is more suited for journalist who like to throw mud.
Teddy, you say John O’Sullivan “should be allowed to defend himself.” So who’s stopping him? Why won’t he cite evidence readers can check to verify all the academic and professional credentials he claims in his resumes?
You know where he is now? He’s over on the Sky Dragon Slayer “Open Discussion” site he set up. Now that I’ve been blocked, he deleted my posts and is busy “defending” himself by calling me a liar, liar liar, with no one to contradict him. And of course, he’s not providing any information by which readers can verify the academic and professional credentials he claims in his resumes.
And no Teddy, my reporting how John O’Sullivan is lying about his credentials on his resumes is NOT an ad hominem argument. I’ve explained this again for you below as simply but authoritatively as I can.
You say, “Maybe what you say about John is true, I don’t know.”
But you could easily find out yourself. I provided phone numbers and a web site which you could use to check for yourself. But you wont. You prefer to say “ad hominem” and pretend it doesn’t matter. You’re so very wrong.
Fair enough. “Anything goes” then. :)
One is curious about the science, one is curious about the man. Right, or wrong, who’s more interesting to listen to?
==============
Kangeroo courtrooms full of salacious tittle tattle are far more entertaining than dry as old bones scientific debate so far as the majority are concerned Kim. ;)
Judith also said:
“Note: this is a technical thread, please keep your comments focused on Johnson’s arguments, or other aspects of Slaying the Sky Dragon”
So far as I’m aware, none of your comments above address any of the scientific claims made in the book.
My professional training is in mechanical science and the historical interpretation of the development of European science, and the logical and cultural assessment of scientific theory and it’s outcomes. Like Judith, I’m interested in the science.
Assertions regarding the book’s promoter of not of interest to me, because my understanding how Earth’s climate systems work will not be furthered by spending my time on such issues.
In general, I’m less impressed with the qualifications people do or do not have, than by the results they achieve. If a doctor or alternative practitioner demonstrates the efficacy of their treatment in a way which satisfies my standard of proof (preferably by producing previous patients who have lived to tell the tale) , then I’ll consider using their services.
I don’t judge a book by it’s cover.
Tallbloke, with all your professional training and education in science and scientific theory, I’m baffled that you think the credibility of the researcher who conducts and reports research is not important.
It damn well is and everybody who closely follows scientific research is well aware of this. That’s why virtually all respected science journals require authors to disclose any money or other benefits they receive from any company or party that can be affected by the publication of their paper. It’s become a huge and disgraceful scandal that pharmaceutical companies — as well as other corporate interests — are able to hire scores of “respected” scientists willing, for the right price, to put their names on papers written by the company’s marketing team.
THE INTEGRITY OF THE SCIENCE OF COURSE DEPENDS ON THE INTEGRITY OF THE SCIENTIST.
Sorry to shout, but I just don’t know how to get through to people who refuse to take their fingers out of their ears.
Your comment that your “standard of proof” for medical claims is the ability of the questionable healer to produce “previous patients who lived to tell the tail,” shows further lack of evidence of any serious education in science.
The worthlessness of “anecdotal evidence” — which snake oil pedlars all have by the tons — is known by every true scientist. The “standard of proof” for all credible scientists working in biology and medicine is confirmation from carefully conducted, well-controlled trial — not anecdotal evidence.
John Sullivan didn’t conduct or report the research, he collated the work written by others.
Your comment that your “standard of proof” for medical claims is the ability of the questionable healer to produce “previous patients who lived to tell the tail,” shows further lack of evidence of any serious education in science.
Your hastiness to jump to conclusions about my qualifications has made me doubt your conclusions about John Sullivan’s.
What I said about “previous patients who lived to tell the tale” was said in humour. I am a good deal more rigorous about the checks I make on people who offer me treatments, including qualified doctors who not infrequently take kickbacks from pharmaceutical companies whose research (as you point out) is sometimes as compromised as a good deal of the research in climate science.
Tallbloke, please try to get at least one fact right here, O’Sullivan is one of the co-authors of this book and, if you paid any attention to this discussion, you would know that he is (according to him) the world’s most popular reporter of science that disputes the global warming “hoax.”
And if you can show me any “conclusion” I drew about your scientific qualifications in my comment, I’ll eat my hat. I didn’t conclude anything about you, although you’re rapidly removing my lingering doubts.
You seem to have caught the same disease Lord Monckton suffers from. When caught making an absurdly false statement, he says he was only “joking” — and then he continues to make it — like his bogus claim of winning a Nobel Prize in 2007, which he is still making.
In the future, when you are joking — just so I don’t misconstrue it as a further lack of evidence of your scientific education — you better mark it with a smiley face. :-)
“And if you can show me any “conclusion” I drew about your scientific qualifications in my comment, I’ll eat my hat. I didn’t conclude anything about you”
Your comment … shows further lack of evidence of any serious education in science.
I hope you have a pork pie hat. BBQ sauce with that sir?
Humble pie to follow?
Tallbloke, hasn’t anyone told you that when you find yourself in a hole, to stop digging?
“Conclusion, n. A judgment or decision reached after deliberation.”
“Your comment… shows further lack of evidence of any serious education in science,” clearly refers to the addition of “further lack of EVIDENCE” of your scientific understanding. Reporting “further lack of evidence” is NOT reporting a “conclusion.”
So speaking of hats, you’re clearly talking out of yours.
But thanks for providing yet more evidence that you don’t even understand the basics of scientific inquiry and discourse. I’m sure if you keep piling it up, we will finally have enough to reach a conclusion.
We’re talking about a humbug who is claiming false credentials on his RESUME!!!!
Oh, I do that on a daily basis.
Ha ha ha my jokes aren’t all that funny but I try to laugh because I would be so sad if I became distraught over all of this.
P.S. For anyone still here with an open mind, who is wondering why John O’Sullivan will NOT provide evidence of his “membership in the American Bar Association,” his license to “litigate” in New York State, Federal 2nd District, and British Columbia courts, and his “major articles” published in National Review and Forbes magazine, he’s too busy providing “evidence” over on the Climate Change Dispatch web site where — after getting all my posts removed — he is now able anything he wants without fear of being refuted and is taking advantage of it:
http://aaskolnick.com/global_deniers/slaying-the-sky-dragon-announces-new-public-discussion-forum.htm
His evidence, unfortunately, consists of repeatedly calling me a liar. without providing a bit of evidence that the academic and professional credentials he claims are true.
I’ve uploaded a copy of the pre-censored “public discussion” to my web site:
http://aaskolnick.com/global_deniers/Slaying_the_sky_dragon_announces_new_public_discussion_forum.htm
As German freedom fighters love to shout, Die Gedanken sind frei!
Hi Joel, I’m puzzled as to why you provided a link to a site that only an hour before I had myself provided – odd. I am even more puzzled by your comment yesterday (6th July) at 9:56 pm “Since I have made no claims regarding membership in the APS or what it means, I have no clue why you are going on about this” – even more odd! Why am I puzzled about that? – well, here’s the chain of comments that causes my puzzlement:
– “Monckton’s triple counting: .. Frankly, I think the editors of the APS’s Forum on Physics and Society (which I am a member of, by the way) were a bit naive and probably never imagined what Monckton would do once the article appeared in their newsletter. Posted by: Joel Shore, July 19, 2008 10:06 PM” (http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2008/07/moncktons_triple_counting.php),
– “Monckton rebutted? From Dr. Arthur Smith, American Physical Society .. I am grateful to Dr. Joel Shore for comments on a draft of this letter” (http://www.webcommentary.com/docs/warm-smith-ans.pdf).
– “Concern About Monckton Article: .. As a longtime APS member and an (admittedly not very active) member of the Forum on Physics and Society, I am writing to express my concern about the article in the July 2008 newsletter by Christopher Monckton. While one can have differing views on whether the newsletter is an appropriate forum for contributions with different perspectives debating the science of climate change, this is not my primary concern. My concern is that now that Monckton’s piece has appeared, an organization that Monckton serves as “chief policy advisor” on has issued a press release, that describes his paper as “a major, peer-reviewed paper” in “a learned journal”. Do you consider your newsletter to be a peer-reviewed learned journal?. (As you are no doubt aware, there have also been other misrepresentations of this paper that have appeared in the media and prompted a response on the APS homepage.)
Frankly, I think that we, in the Forum, have basically been “used” in what is not really a scientific debate but rather a propaganda war. I would ask you, in the strongest possible way, to prevent future misrepresentations of Monckton’s paper and its appearance in our newsletter.
Thank you for your time. Joel D. Shore jshore@frontiernet.net
[affiliation withheld upon author’s request]” (http://aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/200810/shore.cfm),
– “Monckton’s comments on RealClimate (FalseClimate) .. One of the bloggers was Joel Shore, who had been acknowledged by Dr. Arthur Smith, an employee of the American Physical Society, as having assisted him with a lengthy letter attempting to rebut my APS paper. My comprehensive refutation of Smith’s letter is published separately by SPPI” (http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/energyresources/message/115651),
The big question of course is whether or not this Joel Shore you? Well, you also said that “ .. neither Arthur nor I have published in the area of climate science outside of a comment on the garbage that IJMPB published by Gerlich and Tscheuschner. We are friends / colleagues from physics graduate school .. (Both of us have PhDs in physics from a physics graduate school that…for whatever it’s worth…U.S. News and World Report ranks as one of the top 10 in the nation.)”.
I see that Cornell is listed among the U.S. News and World Report top 10 (http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/April10/GradRankings2011.html). Dr. Arthur Smith is said to have “ .. received a Ph.D. in theoretical condensed matter physics from Cornell University in 1991. He currently manages a software development group for the research journals of the American Physical Society .. ” (http://blog.gasbuddy.com/posts/EPA-to-raise-standards-pushing-up-vehicle-maintenance-and-gasoline-prices/1715-396121-209.aspx).
Also, Dr. Joel D. Shore, lecturer at RIT since 2009 “ .. received .. his PhD in theoretical physics from Cornell University in 1992. .. Recently, he has also developed an interest in global climate change. .. ” (http://www.rit.edu/~w-physic/Faculty_Shore.html).
Listed under that Joel Shore’s “Selected Publications: Comment on “Falsification of the atmospheric CO2 greenhouse effects within the frame of physics”, J. B. Halpern, C. M. Colose, C. Ho-Stuart, J. D. Shore, A. P. Smith, and J. Zimmermann, Internat. J. Modern Phys. B 24, 1309-1332 (2010)”. That paper commented on by Professor Josh Halpern (AKA Eli Rabett?), physics student Chris Colose, Dr. Joel Shore, Dr. Arthur Smith. Et al. was authored by Gerhard Gerlich and Ralf D. Tscheuschner and appeared in the International Journal of Modern Physics B (IJMPB) in January 2009 (http://www.worldscinet.com/ijmpb/23/2303/S02179792092303.html).
I make the wild guess that the lecturer at Rochester Institute of Technology is you, but maybe you’ll come back with “ .. You are guessing wrong .. ”, in which case I’ll happily apologise. Well, we can’t win them all can we, however, if I have guessed correctly then maybe it would be reasonable for me to ask how you justify your “Since I have made no claims regarding membership in the APS or what it means, I have no clue why you are going on about this”.
BTW, if all of the above Joel Shore’s are one and the same why do you think that he would be reluctant to disclose his affiliation to readers of the APS Forum on Physics & Society newsletter? I would have expected him to hide behind a false name just to be sure.
But maybe, as you said today (7th July) at 4:11 pm. I need to “ .. adopt enough critical thinking skills to critically analyze such stuff (my)self”.
Another thing that is puzzling me is your comment “ .. Long ago, well before I had any interest in AGW, Josephson was presented to me as the canonical example of a brilliant physicist who had basically gone bonkers .. ”. You were co-authoring a comment alongside Halpern et al. last year but well before that someone told you that Professor Josephson had gone bonkers but only five years ago Professor Marc Clement was trumpeting the praises of Professor Josephson as “ .. the person who best epitomises Welsh scientific achievement .. ”. Was it Andrew Skolkick who presented Professor Josephson “ .. as the canonical example of a brilliant physicist who had basically gone bonkers .. ”?
Best regards, Pete Ridley.
Wow, reading these forums gives me a headache some days, I will have to learn to look the other way if I think I’m going to look at something depressing.
I think I will go back to global warming blogs, wherein I am attacked and disparaged regularly,
believe it or not, it is easier to read that than to see it happen to other people.
Ken Coffman says:
None of the above. It is absorption.
Yes…Measurements of “back radiation” have indeed been made, as have measurements of the radiation that escapes from the top of the atmosphere. In fact, every time a satellite is used to do remote sensing, one is relying on the understanding of radiative transfer through the atmosphere.
The net effect of convection is the transfer of energy away from the earth’s surface. The amount of heat transferred from the surface to atmosphere via the evaporation / condensation mechanism is easy to calculate once one has an estimate for the total amount of precipitation that falls each year on the earth…In fact, it is a problem easy enough to give to students in an introductory physic course. The amount due to convection aside from evaporation / condensation is probably a bit more difficult to estimate but it is also a fair bit smaller.
“Yes…Measurements of “back radiation” have indeed been made, as have measurements of the radiation that escapes from the top of the atmosphere. In fact, every time a satellite is used to do remote sensing, one is relying on the understanding of radiative transfer through the atmosphere.”
This is one of my favorite things to remind skeptics
Joel,
“It is absorption.”
CO2 only absorbs a minute narrow bandwidth of the LW radiation spectrum. With trace CO2 amount in atmosphere and narrow bandwidth of its capability to absorb, the effect of CO2 in trapping heat is minimal.
“Yes…Measurements of “back radiation” have indeed been made”
The Sun energy directly reaches the Earth ground is estimated to 168W/m2 and measurements of “back radiation” was in the range around 260W/m2 or more. How do you interprete/feel when you are directly under the sunlight (168W/m2) you feel hot/warm and when under the clouds (260W/m2 or more back radiation), you feel cool. Is estimation of the Sun’s 168W/m2 reaching the Earth wrong or the instrument measuring the “Back Radiation” appropriate?
Pete Ridley says:
You have this bizarre tendency to go off on totally irrelevant tangent presenting evidence as if it were dramatic and damning when it is instead irrelevant and meaningless. Okay…When I said I made no claims regarding membership in the APS, I did not mean that I have never in my life made any such claims but merely that I didn’t do so in this thread. So, if you can find evidence while trolling the web that I have noted my membership in the APS before, I don’t see what this is supposed to prove.
When it was relevant, such as when I was writing a letter to the editor of the newsletter of the Forum on Physics and Society, or when it seemed reasonable to note in the interests of full disclosure, then I have noted my membership in APS…and specifically in that Forum. However, I never made any claims that this was some sort of badge of honor or award; it merely showed my affiliation with the organization.
No…It was so long ago that I don’t even remember who it was (whereas Andrew Skolnick is someone I had never run into until he posted on this thread) and, in fact, it may well have been multiple people. My guess is that one of them may have been my grad school adviser, which means it was about 20 years ago or so…although I am more confident about the (at least rough) timing of when I heard this than exactly who the sources were. I would say it is pretty much a commonly-known fact in the physics community and if you did a poll of physicists and asked them to name a physics Nobel Prize winner who went off the deep end, the top answer among those who answered would almost surely be Josephson…and at least a healthy fraction would give such an answer (as opposed to not knowing of anyone off the top of their head).
tallbloke says:
I think all but the true flat-earthers around here know that the Slayers “science” is just pseudoscientific garbage that ought to be such an embarrassment to the “skeptic” movement that you should be happy to have Andrew Skolnick demonstrate that in addition to all this, the ringleader of this group is basically a fraud. Perhaps it will give the “skeptics” who haven’t already done so (and, to their credit, many have) the much-needed excuse to distance themselves from utter crackpot pseudoscientific nonsense and at least try to maintain an aura of discussing actual scientific issues (like feedback and climate sensitivity) rather than just arguing the equivalent of “the earth is 7000 years old”.
Joel, your insults speak volumes.
Teddy, too bad you’re totally deaf to all reason.
Teddy, why don’t you hold onto your snotty comments until you can provide us with proof that I am lying — that John O’Sullivan is NOT a humbug who has made up most of his professional credentials?
I didn’t stay you were lying. I don’t know either one of you. You are the one with all the ad hominem and insults and you can’t stop.
Teddy, I’ll try again to educate you about the meaning of ad hominem. An ad hominem argument (also called ad hominem fallacy) is an IRRELEVANT attack on a person rather than on the person’s argument. For example, arguing that Mr. James should not be allowed to teach in public schools because he is an atheist is an ad hominem argument. Arguing that Charles Mansion should not be paroled because he is a sociopath and a murderer is NOT an ad hominem. It is a perfectly logical argument since the information is RELEVANT to the question of whether Mansion should be released from prison.
But don’t take my word for it: From the “Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy: A Peer-Reviewed Academic Resource”:
“You commit [an ad hominem] fallacy if you make an IRRELEVANT attack on the arguer and suggest that this attack undermines the argument itself. … The major difficulty with labeling a piece of reasoning as an ad hominem fallacy is deciding whether the personal attack is RELEVANT.” [emphasis added]
http://www.iep.utm.edu/fallacy/#Ad%20Hominem
The information I reported about O’Sullivan’s made-up credentials is relevant to both the authority and credibility of the Sky Dragon Slayer’s authors. Information that shows a scientist, science writer, or other “authority” is lying about his credentials is important for readers to know, because it calls into question the authority’s trustworthiness as well as his expertise. Since it directly addresses the authority’s claim of expertise and his credibility as a researcher or reporter, such
information is NOT an ad hominem argument. Again, don’t take my word for it; from the Wikipedia article on Credibility:
“Credibility refers to the objective and subjective components of the believability of a source or message. Traditionally, credibility has two key components: trustworthiness and expertise, which both have objective and subjective components. Trustworthiness is based more on subjective factors, but can include objective measurements such as established reliability. Expertise can be similarly subjectively perceived, but also includes relatively objective characteristics of the source or message (e.g., credentials, certification or information quality).” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Credibility
What’s more, pointing out an authority’s” source of funding (ie. fellow Sky Dragon Slayer Tim Ball) is NOT an ad hominem argument because it is essential for readers to know if the authority has any conflicts of interest in order to judge whether he is biased — or worse — a public relations man posing as a scientist or reporter. The
Wikipedia article on Ad Hominem Arguments makes this clear:
“Conflict of Interest: Where a source seeks to convince by a claim of authority or by personal observation, identification of conflicts of interest are NOT ad hominem – it is generally well accepted that an “authority” needs to be objective and impartial, and
that an audience can only evaluate information from a source if they know about conflicts of interest that may affect the objectivity of the source. Identification of a conflict of interest is appropriate, and concealment of a conflict of interest is a problem.” [emphasis added] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
It’s terribly ironic how “authorities” with bogus credentials and their supporters will almost always respond by launching actual ad hominem attacks on the person who points out their false credentials. Stephen Bond calls such attacks “ad hominem fallacy fallacies,” which he says are more common that real ad hominem attacks:
“Ironically, the fallacy is most often committed by those who accuse their opponents of ad hominem, since they try to dismiss the opposition not by engaging with their arguments, but by claiming that they resort to personal attacks. Those who are quick to squeal “ad hominem” are often guilty of several other logical fallacies, including
one of the worst of all: the fallacious belief that introducing an impressive-sounding Latin term somehow gives one the decisive edge in an argument.”
http://plover.net/~bonds/adhominem.html
Ad hominem attacks the man not what he says. Your quite a journalist and extremely American. Keep us updated by tracking the sales of books in Amazon. Your time is being well spent.
“Your quite a journalist and extremely American,” Teddy says.
You got it! Finally! THAT’s and ad hominem argument.
Teddy, my nationality is no more relevant to our argument than is your species.
But you’re wrong again that “ad hominem attacks the man not what he says.” I’ve provided you with several authorities on the ad hominem fallacy, which clearly state ad hominem attacks are those that involve an IRRELEVANT attack on the arguer. RELEVANT questions about the arguer ARE NOT ad hominem.
I could criticize you for not bothering to read those authoritative sources, because apparently you’re the only authority you need. However, you’ll only accuse me wrongly of making an ad hominem attack.
Hi Joel,
As you know from our other interactions around the climate debate on various blogs, I personally don’t have an issue with the basic physics of radiative transfer, but with the unwarranted conclusion that the energy contained in infrared radiation from the atmosphere is somehow transmitted into the upper ocean in sufficient amounts to have caused the late C20th warming.
I don’t need to resort to insults or character assassination to bolster my case, and I’m saddened to see you doing so.
“pseudoscientific garbage”
“ringleader”
“fraud”
“arguing the equivalent of “the earth is 7000 years old”.
Oh dear.
Joel,
“I think all but the true flat-earthers around here know that the Slayers “science” is just pseudoscientific garbage that ought to be such an embarrassment to the “skeptic” movement that you should be happy to have Andrew Skolnick demonstrate that in addition to all this, the ringleader of this group is basically a fraud. Perhaps it will give the “skeptics” who haven’t already done so (and, to their credit, many have) the much-needed excuse to distance themselves from utter crackpot pseudoscientific nonsense and at least try to maintain an aura of discussing actual scientific issues (like feedback and climate sensitivity) rather than just arguing the equivalent of “the earth is 7000 years old”.”
There is an idiom says “A soldier running 50m away from the battlefield is teasing another soldier “coward” ran away 100m. This is the climate community, AGWers or skeptics are more or less untrustworthy.
Anybody have an idea what “A soldier running 50m away from the battlefield is teasing another soldier ‘coward’ ran away 100m.” might mean?
What ever it means, it’s “sure as shooting” not an idiom
http://grammar.about.com/od/il/g/idiomterm.htm
It’s probably a saying, what ever it actually says.
And, while we are talking about how extremely nutty and fraudulent the “Slayers” really are, it is also probably worth at least noting the extreme politics that drive their bad science. Has anyone noticed the book that Ken Coffman’s Stairway Press is currently publishing and touting: http://www.stairwaypress.com/bookstore/into-the-cannibals-pot-lessons-for-america-post-apartheid-south-africa/ ? I am not one to use the “r” word casually, but how else is one to interpret the title and cover of this book?
It is further evidence that the Slayers is not about science at all…It is about ideology. Ken Coffman and John O’Sullivan could care less about science; they are just ideological extremists on a mission.
Oh, my God, Joel! I missed had that! I know Stairway Press is in Washington State — I better go take a look on the map and see how close it is the Skin-head belt of Idaho, where many neo-Nazi militias have training camps.
Here’s what Stairway Press says about the author of its racist rant:
“Ilana Mercer calls her book ‘a labor of love to my homelands, old and new’. The old is South Africa, which the author left in 1995. The new in the U.S.A. In both nations the founding European stock yielded up their dominance in the interest of justice and liberty. Instead of moving to equal citizenship under fair laws, however, both nations – in different style and measure but with similarly dire results-have embraced official tribalism (‘multiculturalism’) and state-enforced racial favoritism (‘affirmative action’). For South Africa the transformation has been fatal – brutally so for victims of nations swelling social disorder, as Ms. Mercer documents in heartbreaking detail. For the U.S.A is not too late to change course. The lesson of South Africa, if widely known, will help open American eyes.”
You’re right. They’re barely trying to disguise the prurient racism.
“In both nations the founding European stock yielded up their dominance” One got “cannibalism.” The other country (the U.S.) will too unless it wakes up. Lots of code words just in this brief review for “Americans” to “open their eyes” and get rid of the colored before it’s too late. And on the cover is a picture of dirty black hand prints all over the lily-white skin of a naked young white woman. http://www.stairwaypress.com/bookstore/images/95
Joel, thanks for bringing this to our attention. Ken Coffman sent me a unsolicited package last week with what I presumed to be the two “Sky Dragon Slayer” books. I truthfully was afraid to open it and left it on the book shelf near the front door. I am now thinking of moving it to the garage until I can get a bomb sniffing dog here.
Nope. The publisher is in Mount Vernon, WA, which is on the western side of the state,far from Spokane and all the Neo-Nazis.
I still want to get a bomb-sniffing dog.
Here is my publisher’s note which appears in Ilana Mercer’s lovely book called Into the Cannibal’s Pot–Lessons for America from Post-Apartheid South Africa.
Publisher’s Note
This is a book about ideas and ideology. When losing an intellectual argument, there are despicable people who point an accusing finger and shout racism. In our dark times where mob rule and collectivist ideas resonate with so many, this appalling strategy can be very effective.
To those who support colorblind civil discourse, rule of law, equality of opportunity, freedom, the golden rule (do unto others as you wish them to do unto you), liberty, freedom of expression and religion and private property rights…regardless of skin color or ethnic background (black, red, white, yellow, brown, green or violet), we extend the hand of friendship.
To those who support all forms of thuggery—including totalitarianism, collectivism, fascism, extremist fundamentalism, unequal treatment under law, income redistribution, nanny state government programs and the soft bigotry of low expectations— your skin color and ethnicity are irrelevant…and your ideas belong in the dustbin of history.
Why would “a book about ideas and ideology” use the word “cannibals” in the title and show a picture of a white woman in apparent distress with the hand-prints of non-whites all over her body? It seems to me like appealing to very old racial stereotypes with a very sorted history of use to perpetuate racial discrimination is hardly the way to start a conversation about ideas and ideology!
Try again.
1) What does a hand-print of a non-white look like?
2) Is “cannibal” a racist word? I know it’s word root if from a Caribbean tribe but I don’t know if they exist anymore.
Please explain professor.
Do an image search for “Cannibal’s Pot” and count the colors.
Explain. Is this some sort of US TV cultural thing? or Ted Turner’s forecast maybe? I am not from your country. What exactly are you counting? What numbers are you getting in your count?
A… Kermit, you do know defending such overt and ugly racism hardly helps your cause?
Perhaps I’m giving you too much credit, since you seem to think South Africa is in the Caribbean.
So in other words, “Don’t pay any attention at all to the picture on the cover of our book about murderous African savages — a beautiful young white girl with ugly black hand prints all over her lily white skin!”
Like the famous forked tongued Anthony, your editor’s note says you have not come here to praise Caesar, but to bury him and that Brutus is an honorable man… yeah, right.
You ought to be ashamed.
If that bomb sniffing dog doesn’t get here soon, I’m just going to have to drop the package you mailed me into a pail of water.
The package contains review copies of Slaying the Sky Dragon and The Hockey Stick Illusion and a friendly note…nothing more. Can we also let the record show that I have a lovely office by the Skagit River and it is not a shack or in a basement?
Record noted. Thanks.
But I’m still waiting for the dog.
You do understand, I hope, why seeing those ugly black hand prints all over that beautiful young white girl’s lily white skin on the cover of your latest book makes this a rather prudent decision.
I also never open my door to visitors wearing white sheets.
In my museum of ironies, I have a special room dedicated to the filing cases full of affidavits from people explaining why they won’t read the ‘Hockey Stick Illusion’. Your rationale goes in the top drawer of Case #1. We’ll especially point it out to the touring groups of schoolchildren.
=================
Where do you file posts of folks like Ken’s from 9:10 AM, where he talks about “Ilana Mercer’s lovely book called Into the Cannibal’s Pot–Lessons for America from Post-Apartheid South Africa.”?
The cry of racist is only ironic when it comes from a racist. But we’ll take your application under review.
============
I’m honored.
Would you care to answer the question asked?
askolnick,
How odd and twisted- but predictable- of you.
You should have stopped before making yourself look so much like a jerk.
And you wish to defend ugly, overt racism, why?
I am ok with discussing the issue of false claims on people’s bios here of relevance to skydragons, but the racist issue is off topic, i will delete future posts that address racism as it relates to skydragons
I think that comments rates very high on the “wow scale.”
I seriously love these kinds of comments. I’m curious, Ken – how representative do you think your views are among the “skeptical” community?
According to another book, the two tribes are either…
Head of the Body
or
Skull & Bones
everyone choose now.
Tom, it’s the ‘tribes’ and the Roman Imperium
http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2011/02/22/lisbon-reflections-a-tale-of-tribes/
Joel
I think that Monckton gives sceptics a bad name as he has an extremely high profile, and whilst knowledgeable about some aspects also says some daft things that I find embarassing.
I pointed out to askolnick that I didn’t feel that O’sullivan was in the same league as other players, as other than the Slayer books he is not someone I see quoted anywhere else, other than in climate blogs-and even then infrequently or at the wilder edge of blogs I take no notice of.
Perhaps you can explain why he is seen as so important as to warrant the time and attention being paid to him, to the exclusion of the genuinely big players such as Jones?
The other big turn off to a moderate such as myself are the politics-I abhor the extreme right AND the extreme left wing, and too much of both sides philosophies have got rolled up into the debate.
tonyb
Joel,
Another example of running away soldiers, not so glory.
Hi Joel,
I think an equally plausible explanation is that they are trying to make a large sum of money by presenting books which court controversy and get talked about. It’s all just noise as far as I’m concerned.
If Dragon Slayers is selling a couple of copies a week, nobody needs to be too concerned about its impact. Real science journalists like Fred Pearce are not so easily diverted from the truly important issues in climate science. So far as its scientific content is concerned, I note that Pekka Pirila comments that Claes Johnson’s approach is valid, but in his opinion, insufficiently developed to draw conclusions from.
Other slayers work has not been summarized or discussed here, so lumping them all together and summarily dismissing them on the basis of the allegedly overextended qualifications of one of them seems unreasonable to me, but YMMV.
Each scientific claim on its merits please.
Tallbloke, with regards to Claes Johnson’s approach, see the critique of Tomas Milanovic.
Hi Judy, I largely agree with Tomas, and have no problem with the idea that some backradiation of infrared wavelengths is emitted back towards the surface of the Earth. What I have a problem with is the claim that this backradiation was responsible for most of the warming of the upper ocean 1976-2004 by being ‘mixed into the surface layer of the ocean’. I hold this to be untenable, unphysical and unsupportable by observation or theory.
To be sure, some small amount of energy from back radiation will get mixed into the ocean surface layer, but nowhere near enough to account for the late C20th warming. Given that we have imperfect but not useless datasets which show a reduction in tropical cloud over the period 1980-1998 and upper troposphere specific humidity measurements from 1948 which show a strong covariance with a more than averagely active Sun, I find it remarkable that the staringly obvious conclusions are ignored and dismissed by the IPCC scientists.
At least other sceptical scientists such as Roy Spencer are finally coming round to agreeing with me that solar shortwave energy is absorbed and mixed to much greater depths and can cause warming which can persist and accumulate over multi-decadal and longer time periods. When the inevitable and logical ramifications of that fact are more fully realised I think we’ll see a shift in our understanding of Earth’s climate systems and how they work under a varying Sun and planetary albedo.
You draw too strong conclusions about my view.
What I said is that combining quantum mechanics with electromagnetism can be done in different ways. One of the less common approaches has similarities with the first step of Claes Johnson’s texts. This approach is useful in laser physics, but of little practical value for radiative heat transfer in the atmosphere. It’s still correct in principle, but trying to make calculations based on that approach is likely to lead back to standard approach.
I have also written many very critical comments of Claes Johnson’s papers in those threads based on their hopelessly low quality and numerous errors that make all his conclusions totally untenable.
Pekka, thanks for the clarification. I respect your superior knowledge in this area of theoretical physics.
The author is a jewish woman who’s Rabbi father spoke out against apartheid.
Judge books by their cover much?
So, because the author is Jewish, she can’t be a racist? As a Jew, I wish that were the truth.
As for judging books by their cover, Kermit should take a basic marketing class. Much time and money is spent by publishers in designing book covers to help them sell.
I suppose if a Jew publishes books with pictures of black men being flayed alive, hanging from trees, and set on fire by angry white crowds, they couldn’t possibly be racist.
Kermit, I can see why Miss Piggy dumped you.
Joel Shure says of Pete: “You have this bizarre tendency to go off on totally irrelevant tangent presenting evidence as if it were dramatic and damning when it is instead irrelevant and meaningless.”
Wow! You noticed that too? Quite a coincidence. Could it be that we really are working together — as Pete and John O’Sullivan would have readers believe — without knowing?
O.K., Joel, give it up. They’ve got us. Pete believes I’m feeding you lines to disparage Brian Josephson, and O’Sullivan has already fingered us, by saying, “Skolnick (along with Joel Shore) are simply attack dogs put up by their Big Green paymasters to discredit Tim Ball and me.”
I just hope they’re paying you a lot more than me because I’m getting bupkiss. Zippo. Not a penny.
You are absolutely right that it’s a commonly known fact in the physics community that space aliens abducted Brian Josephson’s brain not that long after he was awarded the Nobel Prize in 1973.
Ask any scientists knowledgeable about other scientific fields which Nobel Laureates have become an embarrassing joke to their respective fields and most would likely list three: Linus Pauling — who lost his rational mind to the belief that Vitamin C cures everything but stupidity; Brian Josephson, who hasn’t met a psychic charlatan who isn’t genuine; and by far the worst — Kary Mullis, whose crackpot claims that HIV does not cause AIDS has led to the death of hundreds of thousands of people, including many thousands of children in Africa, who could have been saved if their mothers had been given antiviral drugs during pregnancy.
Kary Mullis has hit the trifecta, winning himself a special place in Hell: He’s an HIV/AIDS denier, a global warming denier, and a promoter of belief in astrology. Wikipedia says: “Mullis claims climate change and the HIV/AIDS connection are due to a conspiracy of environmentalists, government agencies and scientists attempting to preserve their careers and earn money, rather than scientific evidence.” Mullis has explained the secret of his “scientific success:” “”Back in the 1960s and early ’70s I took plenty of LSD.” You can’t make this stuff up.
Throw in the account in his autobiography of an encounter with “an extraterrestrial in the form of a fluorescent raccoon,” and you can see why Pauling and Josephson are “also rans” in the race for the Most Disgraceful Nobel Kook of Them All.
I believe I’ve posted this earlier, but Stairway Press is a new publishing house (more like a shack or a room in the basement) that, prior to Slaying the Sky Dragon, had only published a total of 11 books and announced last year — with a press release! — that it published it’s 5000th book!
An average of 454 books sold per book published. No doubt, Slaying the Sky Dragon is going to shoot that average up to 460 or even higher.
Just checked Amazon’s sales ranking and the “best seller” has slipped to the 624,038th highest ranking sales position, which translate to something like one book sold per week or month.
http://www.amazon.com/Slaying-Sky-Dragon-Greenhouse-Theory/dp/0982773412/ref=cm_rdp_product
Since John O’Sullivan won’t come hear and explain “his side,” let me post what he’s saying over on his Sky Dragon Slayers “Open Discussion” web site: The following was posted recently by a reptilian named Gator. It appears to be a letter John O’Sullivan sent Peter (who has been unusually quiet here today).
True skeptics in this discussion will hardly recognize the arguments O’Sullivan attributes to me. And, needless to say, he provides not one word of information to help readers verify the academic and professional credentials he claims on his resumes.
http://www.climatechangedispatch.com/home/9165-slaying-the-sky-dragon-announces-new-public-discussion-forum
Peter,
I looked at these links and they are totally lacking in any evidence being no more than disgruntled opinion pieces about me. Indeed, my attackers – two greenie science/environment journalists – despite their best efforts at dirt digging – now grudgingly concede I was employed in England as a university lecturer and teacher for many years. Yet because they failed to find any evidence of my legal work in the U.S. (and I decline to give it) they then (erroneously) infer I cannot have a law degree nor have litigated in the New York State or federal courts for 13 years!
They then set up straw man arguments that I claimed to be two other John O’Sullivans (which I never did) and MOST POINTEDLY, they provide no links to any website where I make any such claims. I have repeatedly told these desperate characters that if they have any evidence that I have misrepresented my credentials then they should either publish it plainly in full view or pass it onto the appropriate third parties. Always the ‘evidence’ they refer to remains out of sight and the reader is supposed to take their word for it that they’ve caught me out (?).
In fact reading these diatribes I see that I am painted as the same kind of ‘peddler of lies’ as Marc Morano and others that don’t agree with their opinion that “Jim Salinger, [is] an honourable and decent New Zealander [and] deserves far better.” Let’s face it, if I’ve libeled Salinger or any other of those doomsaying fraudsters then let them sue me – I’d dearly love to face all of them in court.
Frankly, their delusional conclusion that I’m some third rate huckster falsely claiming to be a successful writer doesn’t stack up with what anyone can see for themselves if they Google ‘John O’Sullivan climate.’ (See for yourself – I’m the only John O’Sullivan dedicated to writing in this field). Google has 5.4 million cross-links to my climate and law related articles in which I detail legal reasons why Salinger, Michael Mann and Phil Jones, etc. should all be put behind bars. In fact you will find not one word of rebuttal published online from any lawyer against my legal analyses and these ‘journalist’ fruitcakes patently fail to cite any websites where any lawyer disputes anything I write. What does that tell you?
Again, all we are left with is their frothing consternation that I’m enjoying considerable success in slaying their beloved doomsaying heroes and jeopardizing their green gravy train. Indeed, when Tim Ball wins both his libel suits against Michael Mann and Andrew Weaver these humiliated ‘enviro-journalists’ will slither back under their slimy rocks fearful of losing their well-paid jobs. Good riddance, I say!
Regards,
John
Just for some fun:
John O’Sullivan says, I “now grudgingly concede I was employed in England as a university lecturer and teacher for many years. Yet because they failed to find any evidence of my legal work in the U.S. (and I decline to give it) they then (erroneously) infer I cannot have a law degree nor have litigated in the New York State or federal courts for 13 years!”
I never conceded grudgingly or even ungrundgingly that he was employed in England as a university lecturer and teacher for many years. In fact, I doubt that. Base on an earlier resume — assuming that this one is uninflated and more truthful — he appears to have a grade school teacher for many years. The fact is that I just don’t know what he did prior to 2010. He refuses to provide any information to verify his activities.
What utter B.S.! I confirmed with New York State and with the Law Society of British Columbia that he is not licensed to practice law in these jurisdictions — which is where he claims to be “litigating” or to have spent a decade “litigating.” And I confirmed with the American Bar Association’s membership office that he is NOT a member of the American Bar Association.
As for his “law degree,” we are STILL waiting for Mr. O’Sullivan to say where he went to law school and what year he graduated so that we can verify his claim.
For almost two months, he’s refused to answer. But I’ll leave it to readers to draw their own conclusion — at least until I can confirm what I suspect considering his ignorance of routine law practices (such as how to describe the name of the court in which he is “representing” his co-author client Tim Ball — there’s no such court called the “Vancouver Supreme Court” — and the necessity for claims to be sworn and verified before filing them in court — two years ago, he and his wife had their pro se claim thrown out of a NY State Court because it wasn’t sworn and verified!) http://vertumnus.courts.state.ny.us/claims/html/OSullivan.2009-039-142.html
And for the record, I don’t remember EVER publishing anything on “greenie science” or “environmentalism” — uUnless of course he means the photo article I did for Natural History magazine in 1975 on the Cynthia giant silkworm moth — the immigrant bug from China that made its way along the railroads throughout the U.S. Northeast. It really wasn’t about environmentalism. It was about these really keen and beautiful moths. http://www.aaskolnick.com/new/images/cynthia.jpg
I doubt that Mr. O’Sullivan ever saw that article. When it came out, he was in grade school and probably too busy pulling the wings off of bugs to read about them.
.
“Base on an earlier resume — assuming that this one is uninflated and more truthful — he appears to have a grade school teacher for many years.”
Got a link for that?
Yes.
Just followed this thread and some stones upturned.
The Sky Dragon group seem an eclectic bunch.
The idea of a book containing a collection of more or less separate points of view rather than separate papers seems a mistake.
Then for this book to be published beside other titles with no check as to the others content seems an even bigger mistake.
From the outside looking in, Claes Johnston and his wish to see photons abandoned, would seem to have little in common with Joseph Postma and Hans Schreuder.
Will some truth be linked to some nonsense and therefor buried?
Is opposition to the IPCC consensus enough common ground to overlook a huge difference of viewpoint on modern physics?
Its a pity that questions of science fact get distorted by political opinions.
This gives an opening for charlatans to latch on to and the present unpleasant climate is a consequence.
What does Al Gore, Lord Lawson John O’Sullivan Bill Gates or Lord Monckton and the like know about science.
Why should we listen to a word they say, I don’t.
Instead of a dispassionate examination of where the science leads we are invited to join the mudslinging.
“Instead of a dispassionate examination of where the science leads we are invited to join the mudslinging.”
I agree, but the recent exchanges on this post have nevertheless been a hilarious study in obsessive internet ‘investigation’ and ‘revelation’. Give me some more popcorn!!
“What does Bill Gates know about science?” — are you serious?!
Bryan, anyone who bothers to get an education in or about science should understand why the integrity of scientists is ALWAYS relevant when considering their work — as well as all their conflicts of interest.
Discussing their conflicts of interest or record of deception is NOT “mudslinging” any more than is examining the perjury record of a witness in court.
When was the last time you actually picked up any respected science journal and read its editorial policies? Ever? If you had, you would know that authors are required to list all possible conflicts of interests — which means funding or any other tangible benefit they receive from companies or parties than can benefit from the publication of their paper. Those who fail to do so and are caught fall under a cloud of criticism, and are often heavily censured (like the disgraced fraud, Andrew Wakefield, the best friend the measles virus ever had.)
Asking them who is paying them is neither an ad hominem question or “mudslinging.”
The integrity of scientists is not irrelevant — except for those who believe the integrity of science is irrelevant.
“The integrity of scientists is not irrelevant — except for those who believe the integrity of science is irrelevant.”
Actually, I agree with you on this. But if you wanted to be seen as an ‘honest broker’ in your zeal to ‘out’ the dishonesties, biases or pecuniary interests of those involved in the climate science debate, you would need to look into and write about transgressions by scientists and commentators on both ‘sides’ of the climate issue.
The taxpayer money put into climate research and related endeavours by the US government over the last 18 years is estimated to be in excess of 120 Billion dollars. I would suggest that this makes the funding of scientists on the sceptical side by foundations endowed by ‘Big OIl’ look like small potatoes.
There is a big story here for an able science and society orientated journalistic writer to get his teeth into.
“According to a May 2011, report to Congress by the US General Accountability Office, the total Federal Government funding for climate change from 1993 to 2010 amounts to $106.7 Billion. This does not include the revenues lost to the Federal Government for special deductions and tax credits (including grants in lieu of tax credits) of $16.1 Billion. These bring the total to $122.8 Billion.
The 2009 “Stimulus Bill” provided $26.1 Billion of this amount, with $25.2 Billion to the Department of Energy, including $16.8 Billion for energy efficiency and alternative energy. In the Fiscal Years (FY) 2009 and 2010 (which ended on September 30, 2010), the Federal government provided $52.8 Billion in climate change funding.
In terms of four stated general categories (without regard to agency) of the total funding, not including the Stimulus Bill, $43.0 Billion is categorized as technology, $31.3 Billion is categorized as science, $5.0 Billion is categorized as international aid, and $65 Million is categorized as wildlife adaptation.
One of the benefits of this funding may have been new satellites to better understand the earth and its weather, yet, including the Stimulus Bill, of $21.6 Billion to NASA only $1.1 Billion fell in the category of Direct Technology / Exploration. Under the general category of Science, NASA received $20.6 Billion for science, aeronautics and technology (note there may be errors due to rounding). The Department of Energy is the agency that has received the most funding — $58.7 Billion.”
Tallbloke, we can only hang one miscreant at a time. In case you haven’t noticed (though I’ve pointed this out to you several times), the title of this “scaffold” is “Slaying a Greenhouse Dragon” and it was created to examine the “science,” or lack thereof, in John O’Sullivan’s magnum opus, “Slaying the Sky Dragon.”
But I can understand why you prefer to put the “noose” around ANYONE other than a denier.
“we can only hang one miscreant at a time”
Well that’s a dull kind of kangeroo court to operate. :)
Humour aside, I wouldn’t have thought it impossible to write up a balanced article looking at both sides of the divide. Not so easy for the unbalanced perhaps.
“denier”
Fool.
Interesting comment.
I imagine I might already know the answer to this, but do you think that the transgressions by scientists and commentators on both sides are vastly asymmetrical? On the chance that you don’t, do you think that there needs to be some degree of balance in one’s investigations into and writing about transgressions by scientists and commentators on both sides?
askolnick replies
“What does Bill Gates know about science?” — are you serious?!”
Answer….. yes
I have not had the time or inclination to do a forensic delve into my rather throw away comment.
Suffice to say I read recently that Bill was wondering what all the global warming issue was all about.
He asked some scientist to explain it all and he is now convinced that there is a problem.
askolnick says
..”The integrity of scientists is not irrelevant — except for those who believe the integrity of science is irrelevant.”…….
I would expect that the professionalism and integrity of scientists should be taken as a given, not a rare exception to be commented on.
For instance I have no reason to doubt the integrity of the scientifically qualified authors in the slayers book.
Do you?
It seems to me that they have different outlooks and I have commented on this above.
Incidentally as curryja has posted above
“with regards to Claes Johnson’s approach, see the critique of Tomas Milanovic.”
Tomas gave a very effective critique of Claes ideas.
Thomas is firmly in the sceptic camp.
Ken Coffman and John O’Sullivan may have their own motives and I suspect Lord Oxburgh and George Soros have as well.
http://www.thegwpf.org/the-climate-record/2900-climategate-inquiries-whitewash-or-greenwash.html
Ol Nick,
“Integrity” do you find any in Phil Jones, Michael Mann, James Hansen…
Some of those tend to overstate or invent “science” in the name of politics. Monckton, at least, uses hyperbole to REVEAL the politics behind the bad science, and I bemoan his scientific transgressions for they get in the way of the light he’s trying to shine on the political aspect.
Thanks Bryan for enlightening us why you say one of the world’s most brilliant minds in computer science doesn’t know anything about science.
He believes the earth is threatened by global warming, ergo he knows nothing about science.
For all the dimwits who still don’t understand what an ad hominem argument is, please note: This is one.
askolnick says
..”Thanks Bryan for enlightening us why you say one of the world’s most brilliant minds in computer science doesn’t know anything about science.”
Bill Gates was a programmer.
Nothing wrong with that.
Science is all about experiments and their verification.
Bill Gates was not a scientist.
Bryan, it would be best for you to go take an introductory course in modern science before posting again. Many of the world’s greatest scientists never conduct experiments or even try to verify any.
Scientists are involved in many kinds of intellectual activities other than experimentation.
Besides, Dormouse, you must have fallen asleep again. You didn’t say “Bill Gates is not an experimental scientist.” You said, “What does Bill Gates know about science?”
A hell of a lot more than you. Clearly.
Bill Gates was a programmer.
Bill Gates was an entrepreneur, who devised a way to take IBM’s operating system for a micro and sell it back to them.
Bill Gates is now an eccentric philanthropist, who throws his money at chimerical schemes that have the appearance of plausibility to Seattle hippies and few others.
Good for him, I say.
“A 16 bit operating system doubled up from an 8 bit operating system sold by a 2 bit company which can’t stand 1 bit of competition” :)
Well, at least it gives the appearance of progress.
Here’s yet another version of John O’Sullivan’s professional credentials over on Suite101.com, which, as far as I have been able to confirm, is the only place where he’s being paid to be a “journalist” (Suite101.com pays wannabe writers about $15 – $30 per article)
“Journalist and legal advocate John O’Sullivan writes about and litigates on climate science corruption matters.”
http://www.suite101.com/content/high-earthquake-risk-now-imminent-say-two-leading-experts-a360905
Maybe one of Mr. O’Sullivan’s supporters here can get him to cite ANY — I mean ANY — litigation on climate science corruption matters where he is the attorney on record or even the plaintiff.
Hell will freeze over — or the oceans will boil away, before we’ll get an answer.
Bryan says, “For instance I have no reason to doubt the integrity of the scientifically qualified authors in the slayers book.
Do you?”
Tsk, tsk. Looks like someone hasn’t been paying any attention to this discussion.
Hard to argue with someone like that. Look at the trouble everybody at the Hatter’s tea party had with the Dormouse.
askolnick
I have given you the benefit of the doubt up till now.
I am however, comming to the opinion that you are rather unhinged.
Or to paraphrase Joel Shore above.
It is further evidence that askolnick posts are not about science at all
…It is about ideology.
Askolnick could not care less about science; you are just an ideological extremist on a mission.
As Chandrasekhar points out, the situation opposite to that of an atmosphere at local thermodynamic equilibrium LTE is a scattering atmosphere, and LTE allows a “temperature” to be defined locally that allows the Planck relation of wavelength and temperature to be used to relate emission and absorption of radiation (as point functions) as “Kirchhoff’s Law.”
G B Lesins and others have noted that arguments for the Earth’s atmosphere are in LTE are circular. I think the true situation is the Earth’s atmosphere is somewhere in between a scattering atmosphere and an atmosphere in LTE, which allows inequalities at least between emission and absorption of radiation of the Earth’s atmosphere to be obtained (and time dependent).
The Second Law of Thermodynamics itself is an inequality, and I believe this is quite enough to quash Greenhouse dragons
(that will continue to live anyway in the fantasy world of the computer gamer and make progress now and then to inflict virtual damage globally, depending on the skill of the gamer and his game controller)
I have just looked at my E-mail “In-box” and see 80 unopened E-mails, only 2 of which are not advising of comment on this thread. It’s going to take me ages to catch up. A quick scan of the most recent 10 brought up Joel’s comment of July 7 at 9:43 pm “When I said I made no claims regarding membership in the APS, I did not mean that I have never in my life made any such claims but merely that I didn’t do so in this thread”.
Joel, I find that hard to swallow but you may not be trying to spin out of what appears to be having told a lie about your membership of the APS. In your initial response, which you quoted in that comment, you appeared to me to be deliberately trying to avoid giving a worthwhile response to my point “Looking at the APS Constitution it appears that becoming a member is relatively easy compared with learned institutions for example in the UK, as long a one has some qualification relating to physics and is prepared to pay the annual or life membership fee .. so perhaps you can advise on that.”
That was not, as you suggest, me going “ .. off on totally irrelevant tangent .. ”. Supporters of the CACC doctrine make great play out of the fact that only a relatively small number of the members of the APS proposed an alternative position statement on CACC which was rejected by the executive memebrs. If the large bulk of APS members are not physicists qualified by education, training and professional experience who have a proper understanding of the CACC hypothesis then the numbers game becomes irrelevant, as I am sure you are fully understand. You are a member of the APS and I’d expect you to be aware of the requirements for membership, just as I, when a full member of the 100,000 (or so) strong Institute of Electrical Engineers and a full member of the Association of Professional Engineers of Ontario, was aware of the requirements for the different grades of membership of those institutions.
If you genuinely were not trying to avoid giving a proper response than I apologise for thinking otherwise but id does demonstrate how easily it is to get a distorted view of what people are intending to say. It appears to me that Andrew frequently presents a distorted interpretation of what others have said. I do not recall John O’Sullivan ever claiming that he is “ .. licensed to practice law .. ” as Andrew keeps suggesting. What I see John claiming is that he has been or is now litigating. I make no claim to having any special expertise in law but I understand that anyone can QUOTE: .. 1. Go to law; be a party to a lawsuit. 2. Take (a claim or a dispute) to a court of law. .. UNQUOTE (http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22I%E2%80%99m+enjoying+considerable+success%22&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-GB:official&client=firefox-a#sclient=psy&hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-GB%3Aofficial&source=hp&q=define+litigate&aq=0sx&aqi=g-sx2g1g-sx2&aql=&oq=&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=29154332bb3966ae&biw=1016&bih=527) and that John has done/is doing just that. Please correct me if I am mistaken.
I’ll try to make time to follow up on some other issues that I have with your comments but I mustn’t disappoint Andrew, as it seems from his “ .. who has been unusually quiet here today .. ” that he is missing me, so I must start talking again about him and his credibility.
Hi Judith, thanks for allowing this discussion about the credibility of individuals rather than CACC science to continue (your comment 7th July at 6:33 pm). It is very unfortunate that improving our knowledge about the poorly understood sciences underpinning the processes and drivers of the different global climates has been relegated by so many through hunger for power and the pursuit of self-interest to a level of importance significantly beneath that of the political processes and drivers of the CACC doctrine.
The discussion on this thread is focussing on one small, insignificant group of individuals, the self-styled Slayers, but the discussion is typical of the tit-for-tat non-scientific exchanges that have been going on for decades. This thread, focussing on the Slayers/Principia Scientific International (PSI) provides an interesting case study into the integrity of those on both sides of the discussion, with lessons to be learned when considering the discussions taking place between those who have a significant role to play in this CACC drama.
As William Shakespeare said “All the world’s a stage, and all the men and women merely players .. ” (http://www.artofeurope.com/shakespeare/sha9.htm). None of us who are or have been involved here in the CACC drama are other than bit-players. Even the well-paid “stars” who strut on the stage are insignificant compared with the shows backers. Yesterday’s star is tomorrow’s has-been. As an example, the ex-UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown was presenting himself and being heralded by others as a global CACC crusader ahead of and during the UN’s COP15 2009 farce in Copenhagen but where is he now, what is he doing and more to the point, who cares?
The significant individuals are those in the background, the backers, writers, producers and directors of the show. Some have already been mentioned on this thread, not only by me but by Ken, jae and Bryan, but there are plenty other individuals and organisations who are involved. A wise old bird in Australia called PeggyB, whose favourite maxim is “follow the money” can provide a long list.
Also involved are the true sceptics, who in the main are pretty disgusted by the tone of these exchanges and would prefer to listen to proper, respectful, scientific debate. That is how I started out in March 2007 after reading Mark Lynas’s CACC propaganda booklet “Six Degrees: Our Future on a Hotter Planet” (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Six-Degrees-Future-Hotter-Planet/dp/0007209045) but I very soon realised that this debate was more about politics than science (http://nzclimatescience.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=374&Itemid=1)
.
Tallbloke, I haven’t yet read all of your recent comments but yesterday’s at 6:43 pm. makes fair points and I go along with every paragraph except the final one. It would be perfect if the discussion stuck entirely to the science but it never will because of all of the significant uncertainties surrounding it. Real scientist want to do that and do acknowledge those uncertainties (Judith is one of them) but the general public are being subjected to a deliberately orchestrated scare campaign by a relatively small clique, just as encouraged by deceased Professor Steven Schneider back in 1989 (http://www.john-daly.com/schneidr.htm). For that reason the credibility of the scientists and others on both sides of the CACC debate who are making pronouncements about this highly uncertain science is fundamental. The Climategate revelations and subsequent enquiries focussed a bright spotlight not only on scientists but on the politicians and others (http://globalpoliticalshenanigans.blogspot.com/2010/05/can-there-be-independent-investigation.html) who are using these scientific uncertainties
Due to the gross politicisation of the CACC issue, with claims that the UN’s IPCC is feeding the propaganda to disciples/supporters of CACC and counter-claims that the oil industry is funding the feeding of counter-propaganda to the deniers/rejecters of CACC it is essential that the credibility of proponents from both sides is closely scrutinised. Unfortunately, as we all should recognise, there are too many investigations that only consider the evidence that suits the purpose of those doing the investigation. The Climategate enquiries are a prime example in the context of CACC.
In my opinion Andrew quite rightly questions the credibility of all who are associated with the Slayers but he unfortunately has his spotlight shining through a fog of ignorance about the CACC debate. He’s only been involved for a few months and has determinedly kept his sights on only one individual and one side of the debate. The other unfortunate thing about Andrew is his demeanor. His messge is important but his manner is deplorable – but there are those who will say I’m “the pot calling the kettle black”.
Judith is not the only one who wants to see the discussion here played out, but there is an awful lot to be discussed and a lot of stones to be lifted. Thorough discussions about the Slayers and PSI alone will take a long time and as others have correctly suggested here, their impact upon the CACC debate is insignificant, just as insignificant as is the impact of our continuing use of fossil fuels on those different global climates. As tonyb said on 4th July at 12:23 pm and several more times “ .. there are far bigger fish to fry .. ” but so far they have been too slippery to catch.
All of us debating here are having an insignificant impact as far as revealing the truth about what are the real drivers of those climates but if we make cruel allegations and insulting comments about others with whom we disagree then we can expect to see the spotlight turned against us too. Andrew has been absolutely brutal in his attacks on the Slayers, particularly on John O’Sullivan, but that is what we have come to expect of investigative journalists. We see that kind of journalism almost every day n the media and much of what is alleged or done disgusts decent people (as demonstrated by the News of the World recently).
Now, back to the small fry.
Bryan (July 8 at 4:52 am) I agree with you that “ .. Claes Johnston .. would seem to have little in common with .. Hans Schreuder .. ”. Please forgive me for cherry-picking your words somewhat but I have no knowledge of and have had no dealings with Joseph Postma. I have checked my numerous E-mail exchanges with the Slayers/PSI and find no reference to him, whereas “ .. Claes Johnson, professor of applied mathematics .. School of Computer Science and Communication, Royal Institute of Technology, 10044 Stockholm, Sweden .. ” (http://www.csc.kth.se/~cgjoh/) and “ .. Hans Schreuder, analytical chemist and webmaster of http://www.ilovemycarbondioxide.com in Ipswich, England .. ” (http://www.ukapologetics.net/08/lastgasp.htm) appear frequently.
On 20th September 2010 the PSI web-site (http://principia-scientific.org/pso/ but taken “down for maintenance” shortly afterwards) announced QUOTE: In the year of inception, 2011, our Chairman is Dr. Timothy Ball; our managers are John O’Sullivan (CEO), Hans Schreuder (CFO) and Rev. Philip Foster (Compliance Officer) ..
Our PROPOSED Board of Directors is: Dr. Martin Hertzberg Dr. Claes Johnson Joseph A. Olson Alan Siddons Dr. Charles Anderson Rev. Philip Foster John O’Sullivan .. ”.
Back in early January Hans expressed great faith in his sixth sense and it seems that his sixth sense has told him to stay out of this thread and leave responses to criticism of the Slayers to John O’Sullivan and publisher Ken Coffman. Since coming to this thread on 1st July I have repeatedly tried to encouraged those listed among the proposed PSI board to respond, most recently on 4th July when I said QUOTE: .. If “the Slayers” ever become perceived by the CACC propagandists as any kind of a serious threat to their cause then the attacks will get even worse Failing to squash the accusations now with hard evidence will be taken by many as admitting they are true .. ”.
Andrew, I hope that is enough to keep you happy for now. Time for a snack and a pint, but I’ll be back because, just like you I have plenty more to say.
Best regards, Pete Ridley
Pete, says, “It appears to me that Andrew frequently presents a distorted interpretation of what others have said. I do not recall John O’Sullivan ever claiming that he is “ .. licensed to practice law .. ” as Andrew keeps suggesting.”
Pete, you NEVER recall what you don’t want to remember and you NEVER see or hear anything you don’t want to. I’ve told you now a dozen or two times that O’Sullivan falsely claims to be a member of the American Bar Association in nearly all of his resumes and profiles. I repeatedly told you he’s lying and gave you the phone number of the ABA membership office to call to confirm that he’s not a member. But you WON’T call! You won’t check out any of the sources I’ve given you because you want to keep making you’re bullsnot claim that “Andrew appears to be distorting the truth.”
What the hell do you think membership in the American Bar Association means, you blithering moron? I’ve repeatedly informed you that ABA members have to be lawyers licensed to practice in the United States. But you keep ignoring the facts to keep positing denial nonsense and false accusations that I’m distorting the truth and making stuff up. Pete, either you’re a hopeless idiot or an incorrigible liar and I don’t know which is worse.
Here is the ABA membership offices phone number: (312) 988-5466
Here is John O’Sullivan’s associate’s number: 01930128
And here is the ABA’s requirement of a U.S. law license for membership:
http://www.americanbar.org/membership/join_the_aba/lawyer_membership.html
Pete will NEVER call since he’s as big a humbug as John O’Sullivan. When confronted by facts he doesn’t want to acknowledge, he replies, “I do not recall hearing that,” or “I don’t recall seeing that.”
I hope at least some readers care enough to seek the truth. The contact information is for them.
And of course, there’s O’Sullivan’s comment he posted on my book review of Slaying Sky Dragon on Amazon.com — which Pete assured us he read:
“Mr Skolnick I advised you that if you have any evidence that I’ve misrepresented my professional qualifications that the correct route for you to go is to contact the Clerk of the Court of the Vancouver Supreme Court, B.C. where I am representing Dr. Tim Ball-v-Dr. Michael Mann.”
http://www.amazon.com/review/R2EG81R2VBZA75/ref=cm_cr_rev_detmd_pl?ie=UTF8&cdForum=Fx1AOTIL4MAVNUW&cdMsgNo=17&cdPage=2&asin=0982773412&store=books&cdSort=oldest&cdThread=Tx2CCTQQA922XTR&cdMsgID=Mx206I3H6KA7DIS#Mx206I3H6KA7DIS
Of course, I had informed Mr. O’Sullivan that I had contacted the British Columbia Law Society’s Office of Unauthorized Practice, as well as the American Bar Association and National Review magazine, for whom he falsely claims to write.
(Note for the dim witted and factually challenged: In British Columbia, only licensed attorney’s are allowed to “represent” a client being sued in court.)
And of course there’s this famous brag by the barrister of braggadocio on LinkedIn:
“The true measure of my worth is the success as a lawyer and in my litigation in the most high-profile libel suits in Canadian history between Professor Michael ‘hockey stick’ Mann and Dr. Tim Ball. I’m representing Dr. Ball and will prove not only that Mann’s claims are vexatious but I will demonstrate he acted unethically within a clique of climate scientists implicated in global climate data fraud. My goal is to see criminal convictions against any and all scientists party to such unlawful conduct.”
O’Sullivan has widely published a fund raising appeal letter in which he cites his “legal opinions” in hopes of raising at least $400,000 to help defend co-author Tim Ball against charges of defamation in British Columbia court. He signs it, “John O’Sullivan, Esq.” a title only used in the United States by licensed attorneys:
http://m.climaterealists.com/?id=7632
In his LinkedIn profile, O’Sullivan identifies himself as “Legal Counsel” for the “Slayers Project.” http://uk.linkedin.com/pub/john-o-sullivan/19/6b4/84a
I could go on citing many more of instances where O’Sullivan claims to be a practicing lawyer, but it wouldn’t matter. Pete will continue denying ever seeing any evidence that O’Sullivan claims to be a practicing attorney. Because that’s what deniers do.
BTW, there is no “Clerk of the Court of the Vancouver Supreme Court — where he claims to be “representing” his co-author Tim Ball in court.
And there is no law suit titled “Dr.Tim Ball-v-Dr. Michael Mann” because Michael Mann is suing Tim Ball, not the other way around.
Hi Andrew, reference your comment today at 12:20 am. you are correct about that being an E-mail from John to me (5th July). It was in response to mine of 4th July to John and Ccd to the Slayers proposed as members of the PSI executive board (excluding Joe Olsen) and others and for completeness I quote here from my E-mail. The subject was “Joel Shore & Andrew Skolnick .. ” and I had said QUOTE:
Hi John, I fully appreciate how annoying it can be to have to spend time refuting vicious allegations but in my opinion Shore and Skolnick will continue orchestrating the attacks which they have been making since May, e.g. at http://www.goodreads.com/review/show/176635897, http://www.amazon.com/review/R2EG81R2VBZA75, http://www.theonelightgroup.com/latest/slaying-sky-dragon-review.
These attacks are not only going to continue but also to spread. We already see this on the New Zealand CACC propaganda site Hot Topic, where arch propagandist Gareth Renowden has just posted his article “So many lies – and the liar who tells them” (http://climatechangepsychology.blogspot.com/2011/07/gareth-renowden-so-many-lies-and-liar.html). It follows the same theme as Andrew Skolnick’s articles and is now copied at
http://climatechangepsychology.blogspot.com/2011/07/gareth-renowden-so-many-lies-and-liar.html.
If “the Slayers” ever become perceived by the CACC propagandists as any kind of a serious threat to their cause then the attacks will get even worse Failing to squash the accusations now with hard evidence will be
taken by many as admitting they are true. The longer it takes the harder it will be to reverse the damage.
You may recall that I made similar points back in January during our “PSI and Due Diligence” discussions. I said then that anyone associated with the Slayers would be tarnished if we were not seen to be squeaky
clean and so far we’ve had John, Tim, Claes and Joe under attack. Who’s next for the evil eye?
But then again, maybe I’m just being a paranoid doomsayer.
UNQUOTE.
I have no idea who hides behind the false name Gator or if he/she is one of the Ccs but I’d love to know.
Best regards, Pete Ridley
aSk ol’ nick –
That sh*t you wrote about Tim Ball in that review is false.
Brian, why don’t you back up your B.S. accusation by stating exactly what I said about Tim Ball you say is false. I’m not holding my breath.
Good thing, or I would have died of suffocation.
What’s the Amazon ranking now? Did you check the Kindle ranking too? What about the ranking for Geophysics books? How about Barnes and Noble?
Old Nick,
I doubt if you are real old. Nevertheless, you have a whole dictionary of scornful words and a little talent in expressing them – would be nice to put them into good use.
Sam, who said I am “real old”? If you tell us what variety of psychedelic you’re on, some of us may want to join you.
Dear-oh-dear Andrew, calm down and try not only to read what is written but also to understand it. I clearly said “ .. It appears to me that Andrew frequently presents a distorted interpretation of what others have said. I do not recall John O’Sullivan ever claiming that he is “ .. licensed to practice law .. ” as Andrew keeps suggesting”. I do not believe that you can produce any evidence whatsoever that John said that he is “licensed to practice law” (do you understand the meaning of quotation marks Andrew?) but if you can do this then I’ll happily apologise.
I do recall John claiming, as Andrew acknowledges, that he is “ .. a member of the American Bar Association in nearly all of his resumes and profiles .. ”. Some readers may have misled themselves into thinking it was a claim to Lawer-Membership and others may distort that claim of John’s just to try to make a point. Despite all of your ranting Andrew, the ABA itself makes it absolutely clear that there are several different grades of membership and refers to individuals in any of these grades as being members. For starters let’s look at the ABA’s home page (http://www.americanbar.org/aba.html).
The first drop-down has the title “Membership” which says “Nearly 400,000 members are the faces of the American Bar Association, from Lawyers to Law Students to Associates. This is where membership begins – see where you fit in”. The first option:
– “Join the ABA” offers four grades of membership, Lawyer-Membership, Law Student Enrollment, Associate Membership and Student Associate Membership.
– “Membership Rates” gives the rates for Lawyer-members, Law Students, and Associates, then “Other Dues Rates” for Lawyers, Associates, Law Students and Student Associates.
Individuals who have been accepted to any one of those four grades are recognised by the ABA as being among those “ ..Nearly 400,000 members .. ” (now I understand to be over 400,000). I have asked the ABA for a breakdown of the distribution of that 400,000+ total membership figure into the four membership categories.
Andrew, many of our age have learned that it is prudent to take what journalists say with a pinch of salt, no matter what form of journalism they are involved in and especially if it has anything to do with CACC propaganda. You have demonstrated on more than one occasion here that you are prone to misinterpreting what others say.
Bryan said on July 8 at 10:23 am .. I have no reason to doubt the integrity of the scientifically qualified authors in the slayers book. .. ”. What convincing evidence have you provided that would persuade Bryan to think otherwise. Most of your ranting has been against John O’Sullivan, not one of “ .. the scientifically qualified authors in the slayers book. .. ” that Bryan was talking about. I don’t believe that we should question the credibility of any scientist who presents questionable scientific arguments that are genuinely believed to be correct. I suggest that being merely a journalist, not a scientist, you need to do more than simply huff & puff if you want to convince any fair-minded sceptic otherwise.
Perhaps you were looking in the mirror when you thought of “ .. you NEVER recall what you don’t want to remember and you NEVER see or hear anything you don’t want to .. ”. Then again, maybe Bryan was getting close when he said on July 8 at 11:04 am “ .. I am however, comming to the opinion that you are rather unhinged .. ”.
After writing this note I googled “dishonest journalists” and found loads of examples but the article that I found most interesting was the Guardian’s “Richard Desmond is ‘violent and dishonest’, Bower tells law-makers” (http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/greenslade/2011/jun/22/richard-desmond-medialaw) which talks about defamation and libel (which relates to my response to Joel that follows. Another article that you might learn from is “Journalistic Investigation Has to Be True to Social Issues” (http://www.eurekadejavu.com/journalistic-investigation-has-to-be-true-to-social-issues/).
Joel, I do not recall having heard of you until I happened across your exchanges on the “Where is the Beef of the 2nd Law of Radiation?” thread (http://slayingtheskydragon.com/en/blog/116-where-is-the-beef-of-the-2nd-law-of-radiation with Claes Johnson and Martin Hertzberg on the science and your failed attempt to get John O’Sullivan to engage at the same level. Still, he’s not a scientist and seems to think that a good analogy to use in refuting the greenhouse effect is a corpse under a duvet not getting warmer.
The comments that I had seen from you gave the impression that you were a physicist who preferred to concentrate on the scientific side of the debate. I was surprised and disappointed by your comment “ .. And, while we are talking about how extremely nutty and fraudulent the “Slayers” really are .. the Slayers is not about science at all…It is about ideology .. ” (July 7 at 10:14 pm”). Claiming that “the Slayers” are extremely nutty (an extreme opinion) and effectively accusing them of being extremely fraudulent is not only talking about John O’Sullivan and Ken Coffman, but also about several others. These include Charles R. Anderson, Ph.D. Timothy Ball PhD. Martin Hertzberg PhD. Claes Johnson PhD. Joseph A. Olson, Hans Schreuder (http://www.slayingtheskydragon.com/en/about/bios).
I have come to expect comments about sceptics being nutty from the like of “joker” Josh the Rabett (February 3 at 3:49 pm), one of your co-authors of – Comment on ‘Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics’ – (http://arxiv.org/abs/1012.0421) but not from you.
Do you have evidence that would enable you to win a libel case filed against you by any one of those individuals who you accuse of being extremely fraudulent? You already know that Dr. Ball is prepared to take such action and they all have “ .. legal advocate .. John O’Sullivan LLB, BA (Hon), PGCE, .. litigating for over a decade in the New York State courts and U.S. Federal 2nd Circuit .. a member of the American Bar Association (ABA) is currently litigating in two major climate science lawsuits .. ” (http://www.suite101.com/profile.cfm/johnosullivan) to advise them.
I wonder what the Rochester Institute of Technology Board of Trustees (http://www.rit.edu/president/trustees/trustee-home) would think of such an accusation from one of its staff. RIT includes among its “values .. Treats every person with dignity. Demonstrates inclusion by incorporating diverse perspectives” (http://www.rit.edu/overview/vision.html). Calling fellow-professionals “ .. extremely nutty and fraudulent .. ” is hardly treating them with dignity, is it.
Please don’t allow yourself to be dragged down to the level of journalist Andrew.
BTW, Sam, Andrew may not be really old (July 9 at 12:42 pm but he is no spring chicken either (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ouW5bdMC2Dk&feature=player_embedded#at=11) – best shot at 1min 32sec.
Best regards, Pete Ridley.
Pete, you’re the Everready Bunny of disinformation.
I’ve told you I don’t know how many times that people who are affiliated with the American Bar Association as associates are NOT MEMBERS! I posted the exact words the ABA uses in describing the associate affiliation and I gave you the link to the associate enrollment form so you can read what the ABA says yourself: http://apps.americanbar.org/join/docs/Enroll_assoc.pdf
But, as you keep demonstrating, you’re not the least bit interested in the truth. . You’ve got a job to do and you clearly won’t let any documented facts get in your way.
For readers who want to know the truth, the following description is from the associates enrollment form that John O’Sullivan signed. You can’t get any more authoritative — or clearer — than this:
“ABA Associate Affiliation: Article Three of the ABA Constitution and Bylaws provides for the establishment of classes of Associates, composed of NONMEMBERS with whom affiliation is considered to be in the interest of the Association. Associates are NOT MEMBERS of the AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION and do NOT, as a group, constitute a MEMBERSHIP classification.”
Again, anyone interested in the truth will find it on the American Bar Association’s web site:
http://apps.americanbar.org/join/docs/Enroll_assoc.pdf
Pete, you ought to be ashamed, but I doubt you were born with the genes that wire our brains for shame or embarrassment . You’re clearly a sociopathic prevaricator.
Pete,
Nice and high way better than nick who mispterpreted scientists and psudoscientists, sad for a clever lad.
Hey Sam, just what is that stuff you’re smoking?
Tobacco industry denialists and killers ozone hole deniers liars resume padders blah blah blah
Skolnick, Tim Ball told me he was PhD of climatology and he has no reason to lie to me. A lot of garbage gets thrown around on the internet (by people like you) about other people – do you believe it all?
Name a “denialist” on the “denialists” list who makes an avocation out of mud slinging at other people on web pages.
I bet Skolnick is about the same age as me, looking at the video. I’m 60 (or I will be in September).
Brian says, “Tim Ball told me he was PhD of climatology and he has no reason to lie to me.”
Well, you’re right about one thing at least. He has no need to lie to you since you are so good at lying to yourself.
Lying to others, not so well.
Pray tell, what version did he give you for how many years he was a professor at the University of Winnipeg? Twenty-eight or 32? He’s claimed both, neither of which is true. He was a professor for only 8 years.
Ball sued the Calgary Herald for defamation when it printed Prof. Johnson’s letter saying Ball’s PhD is in geography, not in climatology, and that he had only served 8 years as a professor.
Soon after the Calgary Herald filed its defense in court documenting his false claims on his resume, Ball dropped the suit.
Calgary Herald’s Statement of Defense:
http://www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/Calgary%20Herald%20Statement%20of%20Defence.pdf
And then of course there are Ball’s own words from the interview he gave to sympathetic, right wing Canada Free Press on Feb. 7, 2007:
“I have a PhD in Geography with a specific focus on historical climatology from the University of London (England), Queen Mary College,” Dr. Ball told Canada Free Press (CFP) yesterday in a telephone interview. ”
http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/cover020707.htm
And this Wikipedia account:
http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_F._Ball
And there’s plenty of other documentation that shows Ball has been lying about his credentials that I could post — including the Queen Mary College Library record for Ball’s PhD thesis in — you guessed it — the Geology Department.
Pete,
I was thinking of the dog jumped over the barrier at 1m 32s, my mistake.
Pete Ridley says:
It is not an extreme opinion to say that “The Slayers” are nutty any more than it is an extreme opinion to say that someone who argues the Earth is 6000 years old is nutty. They are peddling pseudo-scientific nonsense and anyone who does not object to this in the strongest possible terms is aiding and abetting an attack on science itself. I did not say that every one of those people is a fraud, although I think Andrew Skolnick has provided strong evidence in the case of O’Sullivan. However, I would say that pretty much every one of them is peddling completely nutty science. Whether they do so because they are nutty or rather because they want to actively deceive those who are all too willing to let themselves be deceived is unclear…Although I have to say that in my back-and-forth with Claes Johnson, I found it very difficult to believe that he was incapable of realizing elementary conclusions regarding an equation that he had written down. So either he is he is much less competent than I give him credit for or he is actively engaged in deception. You make the call.
Look, you have to realize that people like Spencer, Christy, and Lindzen are pretty far on the scientific fringe in regards to their views on AGW; however, they at least still make scientific arguments at least in scientific venues. People like Ball, Hertzberg, Johnson, and Schreuder are way beyond the fringe. They are not engaged in science at all…It may sound “sciency” but what they are actually peddling is nonsense. I am sorry if this assessment offends your sensibilities, but that’s just the way it is.
Joel,
What you said about “Extreme”, “nutty”, “peddling pseudo-scientific nonsense” … may apply to you, Andrew, Trendberth, Michael Mann, Phil Jones, James Hansen and all other AGWers. There is no differences in the climate community, whether you are skeptics or AGW alarmists. Go back to real science not psuedoscience I have seen in both camps. Don’t waste a cent of our tax money, for God’s Sake!
And your “no! you are!” rant contributes to this discussion how?
nick,
If you can think deeper, we both are ranting and we both are contributing nothing to real science. Pot calls kettle black? We are in the same league (Joel as well) of non-contributing. The only thing you had contributed so far just scornful of words, demeaning others who have different opinions by misinterpretations, nothing more. Claes Johnson had contributed, though not perfect, a lot more than you + Joel + AGWers (including James Hansen, Trendberth … merely distorting science and wasted a lot of our tax money in the past 20 or 30 years or so in the billions) added together. I would advise you learn to be modest and learn something from Claes or others about science and making it productive. Don’t waste our billions of dollars of tax money each year.
My contribution to the Sky Dragon book was a new derivation of Planck’s radiation law showing that backradiation is fiction
without physical reality. Since CO2 alarmism is based on the idea of backradiation, this is not something which can be appreciated by alarmists. I also used basic thermodynamics to estimate climate sensitivity to be smaller than 0.3 C, which is neither alarming. I have not met any substantial criticism of the mathematics I have presented, only screaming without substance. The Slayers consist of individuals speaking for themselves and not for a group.
I am on the ICIHighlyCited list of the most cited scientists in the world and so maybe what I say is not nonsense. Or do you insist it is, Joel? If so, in what sense is it nonsense?
http://hcr3.isiknowledge.com/author.cgi?&link1=Search&link2=Search%20Results&AuthLastName=Johnson&AuthFirstName=Claes&AuthMiddleName=&AuthMailnstName=&CountryID=-1&DisciplineID=0&id=4707
From the ISI Web of Knowledge Highly cited list
Thank you for working on this Dr. Johnson.
(1) Your “new derivation” is based on dismissing a whole field of physics (statistical physics) that is now more than a century old because it apparently doesn’t suit you and you can find a quotation from one of the earliest practitioners commenting on the mysteriousness of it. You then take something that most people would consider an artifact of the numerical discretization of PDEs and elevate it to a fundamental principle of the universe based on no evidence whatsoever. You don’t even come close to presenting evidence that your new principle is in better agreement with a century’s worth of experimental data than the governing paradigms of statistical physics.
(2) Even while doing that, you derive an equation that shows that the net flow of radiative energy from a hot object to a cold object depends on the temperature of the cold object as well as that of the warm object (and in particular that the net flow decreases as the temperature of the colder object increases). Once you have done that, the game is over, you’ve lost and just reconfirmed the greenhouse effect. The fact that you interpret one of the terms in the equation differently than others interpret it (and in contradiction to direct experimental evidence) does not change the results that come out of the equation. Whether you call it “back radiation” or not is irrelevant. I think you are smart enough to recognize this, which raises the ugly possibility of purposeful deception on your part.
(3) I have never questioned the fact that you are an accomplished applied mathematician in the field of numerical analysis. While it may be somewhat unusual for someone to be so good in their field and put forth nonsense in another field, it is not unheard of. In fact, I saw from your blog that one of your books on numerical analysis was taken out of a course at a university there in Sweden after students complained about the insertion of pseudoscientific nonsense regarding AGW in the book. You claim this is an unparallelled instance of the banning of a math book, but it is also quite unusual for a math book to wander off into pseudoscientific examples and applications.
No Joel: you miss the point. I am not dismissing any statistical physics, I just avoid it because I cannot understand it, and I am in good company.
The important difference between backradiation and no-backradiation is
that with backradiation you work with gross flow of energy in two directions, while with no-backradiation there is only net flow in one direction. It is like writing 101 – 100 as a difference of gross flow or simply 1 as net flow. The difference comes out when you start to speak about small changes as percentages of gross flow vs net flow. A 1% change of gross flow 100 is 1 but of net flow only 0.01, hundred times smaller.
Now IPCC gets a climate sensitivity of 3 C by speaking about 1% of
gross backradiation of 300 W/m2, which is 10 times bigger than what I
get by only speaking of net flow, 0.3 C. Do you understand what I am saying? I derive the same Planck law as you find in books of applied physics, and my derivation shows that backradiation is fiction. And 1% of fiction is also fiction. Do you get the message or do you ask for more explanation? I am perfectly willing to help you understand.
Claes
In radiation physics, you have to solve for the upward and downward longwave flux separately, because they both have separate emission sources. It can’t be solved as a net flow without these components, which are independent of each other.
How do you the flows back and forth are independent? How do you know that you are speaking about real physics and not fiction? Why do
you “have to solve” for upward and downward flux separately?
They are independent because the photons are emitted independently upward from the ground and downward from the sky, and have separate and distinct spectral distributions.. You have to budget for each photon emitted, but it suffices to gather them into upward and downward streams with independent spectral properties.
How do you know there are two independent streams of photons up and down? Who demonstrated that?
When the electromagnetic fields are as weak as they are in the atmosphere the radiation from each source can be considered separately. An example from a situation, where this is not the case is a laser, where the emission is induced by the other radiation. in laser the emission from each transition is coherent with the other radiation, but in the atmosphere such coherence is so weak that it can be safely neglected.
Thus the atmospheric radiation can be considered as Jim D tells. In principle it could be done also in other ways, but in practice every realistic calculation comes back to the standard way of doing it.
Physics and in particular all physics, where quantum effects are important can often be looked at in several different ways, which are equivalent, but in most cases some of the possible ways of looking at physics leads to the easiest ways of performing actual calculations, while the other ways may be worthless for practical calculation. For the radiative energy transfer in the atmosphere the only known practical approach is the standard way that Jim D describes. That’s one valid approach and any other valid approach must give the same results.
The only accurate way is to account for the emission and absorption of every photon. The two-stream approach, as it is called, accomplishes that by integrating over the spectrum and photon path lengths in all directions, but basically two spectra. You look at each arrival layer, and integrate up to see what downward flux there is, and separately integrate down to determine the upward flux. The net convergence of these two fluxes gives the heating rate in that layer.
Claes,
You can’t simply avoid a whole field of physics because you don’t understand it. Thermodynamics is understood as having its theoretical foundations in statistical physics. There is more than a century of experimental and theoretical understanding that this is the case. By contrast, there is no evidence whatsoever that the universe is governed by finite-precision computation. Furthermore, statistical physics is a very elegant field, which you should endeavor to understand. Within the statistical physics framework, there is nothing particularly mysterious about the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, which can be understood based on very elementary principles of probability.
Your claim that “back radiation” is fiction is in disagreement with experiments that show that objects emit radiation according to their temperature (and emissivity).
And, finally, the IPCC does not get the 3 C number by taking 1% of 300 W/m^2. I still don’t see how a re-interpretation of an equation (which is, at any rate, not supported by any experimental evidence whatsoever and contradicted by a wealth of it) can overturn all of climate science.
No Joel, nobody has seen the casino of statistical mechanics, and neither Einstein nor Schrödinger never admitted to believe that this was reality, although they were under heavy pressure from the etablishment of modern physics to do so.
The idea that bodies radiate energy independently of the temperature of their surrounding is pure fiction; just a convention. Of course you can design an instrument that measures this fiction/convention, but that does not make it more real.
The 3C of IPCC comes from 1% of 400 W/m2 = 4 W/m2 combined with
Plancks law in form dQ ~ 4 dT which gives 1C, which gives 3C by inventing a feedback factor 3. This lacks connection to real physics and
is cooked up only to give an alarm of 3C. There is no evidence that climate sensitivity can be bigger than 0.3C, ten times smaller. IPCC has invented a factor 10, which in banking would correspond to serious fraud.
Do you really believe this 3C by IPCC is correct science? If you do, what is the evidence?
Claes: There are whole subfields of physics that are based on statistical mechanics (phase transitions being just one); you can’t just throw it away without demonstrating a replacement that is better able to describe the wealth of experimental data that we have. Besides which, there is absolutely nothing mysterious about it…It arises naturally from the statistics of large numbers of particles.
As for Einstein and Schrodinger, you are going to have to provide evidence for your claims. Einstein did not object to statistical mechanics but rather to quantum mechanics (or a particular interpretation thereof) when he made his famous statement about God not playing dice. In particular, he believed that there were “hidden variables” rather than that objects were in an indeterminate state until the act of measurement. For a long time, there was no evidence either way in regards to the interpretation, but the evidence in the past decades has shown that Einstein is wrong (or at least has severely restricted the ways in which such hidden variables could exist and act).
Experiment is the way by which physics is tested. Your statement that “Of course you can design an instrument that measures this fiction/convention, but that does not make it more real” is just a convenient way to ignore all of the experimental evidence against your point-of-view.
The 4 W/m^2 comes from radiative transfer computations for the atmosphere, the same sort of computations that are used (and tested) by scientists and engineers in remote sensing. The feedback factor of 3 is not “invented”…It is the best estimate obtained by both climate models and by studying the paleoclimate record. The positive feedbacks due to water vapor and ice albedo are on solid theoretical and experimental footing (as is the negative lapse rate feedback that “takes back” some of the magnification due to the water vapor feedback). The net feedback due to clouds remains more difficult to determine. There is still a fair bit of uncertainty around this number, to be sure, but there is a wealth of evidence supporting the IPCC most likely range of 2 to 4.5 C.
No Joel there is no wealth of evidence of 3C; there is virtually no evidence that climate sensitivity can be so big. No real evidence, just
invented fiction, from invented backradiation. Fiction not reality.
If you read the documents you will see that Einstein and Schrödinger would rather give up their lives than their souls to any casino of quantum mechanics. They were incredibly stubborn on this point. Read.
Statistical mechanics (as well as quantum mechanics) had better average out looking like continuum mechanics (of the world where you and I happen to live) because if they don’t, they’re wrong
Hi Claes,
It is worth noting that the NASA website no longer carries the old Keihl Trenberth enrgy budget diagram with its seperate gross radiation flows with a new diagram which gives a net flow.
Perhaps your message is now on-message :)
http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2010/11/16/whatever-happened-to-back-radiation-part-ii/
Anyone who says atmospheric CO2 traps or captures or blocks or stores outgoing thermal radiation is peddling nonsense. Atoms and molecules in our atmosphere are vehicles for net conduction and net convection of energy in one direction…outwards. “Back radiation” is a more powerful conveyor than conduction and convection?
The only way a substance with a low thermal mass (like a gas) can have any substantial influence over a substance with a large thermal mass (like water) is if the gas is very hot. Is the gas of our atmosphere hot? When your jet is flying at 35,000 feet, is it hot outside or cold?
Point a CO2 laser into the sky. Pulse the output. How much comes back to the ground from “back radiation”?
And before parroting Tyndall’s good name, take a look at his Contributions to Molecular Physics which can be downloaded for free from the Internet…and show me where he documents CO2 making the heat emitter hotter than it was via “back radiation”.I know that thermal energy is diffused by CO2, but how does that make the heat source hotter?
Once you start accepting things that can’t be measured, where do you stop?
Ken Coffman says, “Anyone who says atmospheric CO2 traps or captures or blocks or stores outgoing thermal radiation is peddling nonsense.”
I will give Mr. Coffman this, if there’s anyone who knows about peddling nonsense, it is a publisher of a vile, racist rant against allowing coloreds to take control of countries founded by their European ancestors.
And who has the shameless audacity to put a picture on the front cover of a naked young white woman with the ugly black hand prints of “cannibals” all over her lily white skin.
Coffman and the book author don’t bother to hide behind racist code words: They called the book, “Into the Cannibal’s Pot.”
See for yourself:
https://www.stairwaypress.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/frontcovercannibal_270.jpg
https://www.stairwaypress.com/
It just dawned on me that some of the readers here are probably thinking, “What’s wrong with that? White people should keep the cannibals in their place.”
For them, I have some choice words WordPress’ filter will not let through.
Are there and code words for delusional paranoid?
I just know one, “Teddy.”
On Friday a black guy and his daughter approached me in my office parking lot. He asked for money so he could buy his kids a meal. It occurred to me later that I could have saved myself $20 if only I had remembered that I am a horrible racist person.
I try very hard to be a horrible racist person, but it causes problems. You see, some of the people I admire most are people-of-color, like Walter E. Williams, Thomas Sowell, Stanley Clarke, Nate Robinson, Billy Cobham Vernon, Reid, Tony McAlpine, Victor Wooten and many others. What am I to do with myself?
I’m happy to explore my horrible racism in infinite detail, but I don’t think this is the right forum.
Heart warming story, Ken. Almost made me forget my shock and disgust over your latest book publication calling black South Africans (and by implication black Americans) “Cannibals.”
Just as my hatred for Adolph Hitler went away when I recently learned he was a staunch defender of animal rights. In fact, soon after coming into power, he prohibited all science and medical experiments on animals.
He had a better substitute.
To put it another way Ken, readers have to judge whether you’re a race-baiting scoundrel based on your words or your actions.
Most of us know which speaks the loudest. And your publication of this vile, racist book is just screaming in our ears.
askolnick,
Are you claiming that Ken wrote the book on South Africa being sold at the site you link to?
Cancel that question.
Ken,
You are selecting a very odd book to promote.
Frankly the selection reflects very badly on you.
Ken,
Your comments are scientific nonsense from start-to-finish. Yes, radiative heat transfer plays a larger role than convective heat transfer and conductive heat transfer (at least if you consider the gross radiative transfers between earth and atmosphere and atmosphere and earth…the NET radiative transfer is of the same order of magnitude as the convective transfer, including evaporation / condensation in this). Conductive heat transfer only plays a role over very short length scales and is negligible over longer length scales as can easily be demonstrated. (I had my intro physics class estimate the conduction of heat through the atmosphere on macroscopic scales by simply considering the conductivity due to the lapse rate in the atmosphere. The rate that one gets is on the order of a million times lower than the rate at which the earth radiates energy.)
Your claims about thermal mass are simply not relevant. The radiative energy absorbed by CO2 is rapidly transferred to the other gases in the atmosphere. While the thermal mass of the whole atmosphere is not that large compared to that of, say, the oceans, this does not mean the atmosphere is not relevant. It is very relevant given its role in modulating the heat transfer between the sun, the earth system, and space. The effect of the oceans is to provide a much larger thermal inertia in the system than would exist in their absence. (And, of course, the oceans are also a reservoir for the very important condensable greenhouse gas of water vapor.)
I don’t know what you think you are proving by your laser experiment. “Back radiation” is diffuse. It is also nothing magical. In fact, it is slightly imprecise to think of it as arising because of radiation from the surface (as this atmospheric scientist who is a stickler about terminology likes to point out: http://www.ems.psu.edu/~fraser/Bad/BadGreenhouse.html ). “Back radiation” exists simply because the atmosphere has a nonzero temperature (and a nonzero absorbance & emittance for IR radiation). Of course, the reason that the atmosphere has such a temperature is because of the transfer of heat from other places, including the absorption of radiation. The net effect of the laser would be to slightly increase the amount of energy that the atmosphere absorbs and hence its temperature and subsequent emitted radiation.
Your “heat source hotter” argument is one that you guys seem obsessively fond of not because it is scientifically sound but because it easily confuses the unwary. It is true that a source that is emitting radiation without receiving radiation (or converting another form of energy into thermal energy) cannot raise its temperature by having some of the emitted energy returned to it…It can only cool down more slowly. However, the earth receives energy from the sun. Its temperature is determined by the balance between what it receives and what it emits. If you reduce its net emission of energy by returning some of the energy that it emits to it, then you will indeed increase the steady-state temperature.
To claim that such a basic principle is not experimentally verified is nonsense. And, to claim that back-radiation, general propagation of radiation in the atmosphere and such are unmeasured is more nonsense.
Pete asks (I’m not sure who, possibly Joel Shure), “Do you have evidence that would enable you to win a libel case filed against you by any one of those individuals who you accuse of being extremely fraudulent?”
Being as intellectually as he is factually challenged, Pete then provides the evidence HIMSELF:
“You already know that Dr. Ball is prepared to take such action and they all have “ .. legal advocate .. John O’Sullivan LLB, BA (Hon), PGCE, .. litigating for over a decade in the New York State courts and U.S. Federal 2nd Circuit .. a member of the American Bar Association (ABA) is currently litigating in two major climate science lawsuits .. to advise them.”
With John O’Sullivan “advising them,” there’s no chance in Hades they could win a libel suit anymore than Ball won the last time he sued someone for saying many of his academic and professional credentials are bogus. As soon as the defendants filed their defenses, Ball ran for the exit and withdrew his suit.
Next time, with Mr. O’Sullivan as a legal adviser, Ball’s claim may not even get that far, when it’s dismissed for not being sworn and verified.
Two years ago, O’Sullivan and his wife had their law suit dismissed because they filed the claim without having it sworn and verified. Every law student learns, probably by their first week of classes, court claims MUST be sworn and verified or they will be considered “null” and tossed.
http://vertumnus.courts.state.ny.us/claims/html/OSullivan.2009-039-142.html
O’SULLIVAN v. STATE OF NEW YORK, # 2009-039-142, Claim No. 116991,
“In support of defendant’s motion, AAG Rizzo attaches a copy of the claim received by his office on June 15, 2009 which is unverified and unsworn. Assistant Attorney General Michael Rizzo states that “[f]ollowing service of the claim and also on June 15, 2009, the Office of the Attorney General sent a letter to claimant advising that it was treating the claim as a nullity because it was unverified.” Attached to counsel’s supporting affirmation is a copy of a letter sent to claimants and dated June 15, 2009. The letter informs claimants that defendant “is electing to treat the enclosed document received on today’s date as a nullity and is hereby rejecting and returning it to you for the following reasons . . . it is unverified.” The Court finds that defendant’s notice sent the same day as receipt of the defective claim constitutes due diligence.
“In opposition to the motion, claimants offer a copy of a notice of motion “to amend [the] claim . . . to correct the omission of Verification of Claim.” However, the copy provided does not contain a file stamp by the Clerk of the Court of Claims, nor does the Court’s record contain any such filing. Moreover, there is no proof before the Court that claimants subsequently served defendant with a properly verified claim.
“Thus, the Court must conclude that it is without jurisdiction for the additional reason that the claim is not verified. Claimant’s requests for relief are denied as unnecessary in light of the Court’s decision to dismiss the claim.
“Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that M-76911 is granted and the claim is dismissed.
“September 30, 2009
Albany, New York
James H. Ferreira
Judge of the Court of Claims”
This is what I would call a hilarious record of “a decade of highly successful litigation.” ROTFL
Andrew, thanks for offering more than simply the word of a journalist as evidence. That copy of the ABA application form that you provided a link to makes it quite clear that “ .. Article Three of the ABA Constitution and Bylaws provides for the establishment of classes of Associates, composed of nonmembers .. Associates are not members of the American Bar Association and do not, as a group, constitute a membership classification. Associates of the American Bar Association, except for International Law Associates, are nonlawyers (and thus not eligible for membership in the Association) .. ”.
I would expect anyone who is a “ .. legal advocate specializing in anti-corruption .. ” or any other aspect of law who applied using that form to have been aware of what that small print at the end of the form quotes from Article Three. There would seem to be no excuse for such a person stating that he is a member of the ABA.
What you perhaps should also provide is firm evidence that John applied using that very form, which would surprise me, since he does come across as being the sort of person who would prefer to apply using a piece of paper, an envelope and a stamp. I would expect him to have applied using the on-line “ABA Associate Enrolment Form” which is accessible via (yes, you guessed it) the “MEMBERSHIP – Join the ABA” page (https://apps.americanbar.org/ome/front/form/ome_main.cfm?JoinType=a&sc=RMM11IAEF).
At no stage as I completed that Associate Enrolment Form was any mention made of Article Three of the ABA Constitution and Bylaws or of Associates not being members. Not only that but it allowed me to choose to be a member of virtually every Section, Division and Forum available to an Associate.. After completing the Associate Enrolment Form I was asked to pay $175.00 in ABA dues and a further $1,775.00 for joining all of those sections, divisions and fora. If you carefully read (and I doubt if you carefully read everything that is written) the MEMBERSHIP: .. Sections/Divisions/Forums” page it clearly says “Only ABA members can join an ABA Section, Division, or Forum”. I repeat – Only ABA MEMBERS can join .. ”.
The final part of the Enrollment Form then told me that my “ .. *Membership will end August 31, 2012. Membership dues are not deductible as a charitable contribution .. ”. I repeat for your benefit – my MEMBERSHIP will end – MEMBERSHIP dues. Perhaps by this stage I could have been excused for thinking that once I’d paid the $1,975.00 total fee I was entitled to refer to myself as a “member” with a small “m” and going straight to pay my dues, rather than read all of that boring Article Three stuff stuck in at the bottom of the form that tells me that “Associates are not members … ”. How many of us bother to read the small print at the end of a long-winded document on things like terms and conditions – unless of course we are a lawyer, a “ .. Science writer and legal advocate specializing in anti-corruption ..” or similar.
After all, wouldn’t a retired chartered electrical engineer or journalist be very proud to now be able to say to associates and friends that “I’m a member of the ABA you know” (not that we would of course, because anybody with a gripe against us might start accusing us of being frauds).
It’ll be interesting to see how the ABA respond to my request for a breakdown of their 400,000+ MEMBERSHIP, won’t it.
BTW, I didn’t get to the stage of paying that $1,975.00 fee because when I pushed the “continue” button the next page said “Error Occurred While Processing Request”. Maybe John did complete the paper application after all (and didn’t bother to read the small print at the end).
Andrew, I think that you are perhaps a little too enthusiastic about classifying anyone as a liar or a fraudster or a nutter if he/she dares to doubt your journalistic pronouncements and are too ready to condemn. Try listening more carefully to what others say before jumping in with your opinions because you may have misinterpreted what the other party was trying to say. You remind me very much of another opinionated supporter of the CACC doctrine, biochemist from Calgary Ian Forrester. He too is a dog lover (not in his case Labradors but English springer spaniels http://www.langui.com/cnsfta/module.do?action=loadSite&mod=HighPointsModule&m=getDogDetails&dogId=1083). Although Ian comes across as being a knowledgable and competent biochemist he appears to have little understanding of the process and drivers of global climates, yet many who dare to challenge his beliefs are branded as liars (e.g. see http://www.desmogblog.com/coming-classroom-climate-conflict).
If you intend to continue commenting about CACC then please learn something about it so that you can speak from a position of knowledge, but be aware of all of the “if”s “might”s “could”s and “maybe”s that underpin the opinions of the “experts”.
Regarding your most recent rant (today at 1:32 am), I was addressing my “Do you have evidence that would enable you to win a libel case filed against you by any one of those individuals who you accuse of being extremely fraudulent?” to Joel Shore, the lecturer at Rochester Institute of Technology. I don’t recall anyone else making such accusations, although you have mentioned “fraud” and “fraudulent” in relation to John O’Sullivan.
As for the main gist of your comment, maybe John has learned something from those earlier failures and will surprise us all this time. Anyway, you overlook the fact that John may simply be giving assistance to Tim’s legal representatives rather than heading up the legal team.
“based on the legal opinions of John O’Sullivan and Michael Scherr. .. Mann’s folly was to engage Tim under Canadian litigation rules. Canadian rules of libel permit Ball’s legal team to for apply a court mandate ordering the release of all such withheld data because it is Mann who is the instigator of these proceedings. A good outcome in Canada for Tim will likely help open the door to expose Mann and his UN accomplices to further review in the United States” (e.g. see http://slayingtheskydragon.com/en/blog/138-authors-update-3-regardting-tim-ball) .
According to Pearlman Lindholm Barristers & Solicitors “Michael R. Scherr .. is a partner with the firm .. He has successfully argued cases before the Provincial Court of British Columbia; the Supreme Court of British Columbia, the British Columbia Court of Appeal, the Federal Court of Canada (copyright, trademark and passing off cases), the Ontario Superior Court and the Superior Court of Wayne County, Michigan, U.S.A. .. Past Chair – Canadian Bar Association British Columbia Branch Civil Litigation Subsection .. ” (http://www.pearlmanlindholm.com/bios/scherr.htm). If Michael Scherr is a member of Tim Ball’s legal team then perhaps the outcome of the libel actions by Michael Mann and Andrew Weaver will be just the opposite of what you are hoping for.
Of course, it is always possible that the “The Tim Ball Legal Fund” collection pot (http://m.climaterealists.com/?id=7632) will not fill any more successfully than did the “TIME FOR YOU TO RECLAIM OUR SCIENTIFIC LEGACY?” begging bowl held out by John to try to form the Slayers’ company PSI (http://www.gofundme.com/1v39s). In 5 months it has only managed to raise £400 of the target £15,000. The Legal Fund has “ .. a target set for $200,000 .. ” and if it makes similar progress then Tim might have to concede defeat. It may not come to that because John and Michael say that all “ .. Dr. Ball really needs now is one or two ‘big donors.’ .. who have done well in life and want to give something back to protect and promote free speech in scientific debate. Our new goal is to raise $400,000 .. ” (please read the whole article in order to appreciate the context, because I’d hate to mislead anyone).
Best regards, Pete Ridley
Pete declares, “because I’d hate to mislead anyone.”
And Marc Antony came, not to praise Caesar, but to bury him.
Yeah, right.
It’s a funny way to end 1338 words of nothing but misleading spin. (Yes, I did a word count; not that much to do waiting for pulled pork to finish cooking.)
If they’re paying your PR efforts by the word, Pete, I’m surprised you didn’t include Michael Scherr’s Boy Scout badges, his high school track trophies, and the Old Biddies of British Columbia’s Citizen of the Year award for helping old ladies across the street.
Funny how you’ve dropped your argument that Joel would have no chance of winning a libel suit if sued by Tim Ball because Ball now has John O’Sullivan as his legal counsel and switched to arguing the Joel has no chance of winning with Michael Scherr acting as Ball’s legal counsel.
So, why switch arguments, Pete? Was it the absurdity of relying on legal counseling from a “lawyer” who not long ago had his claim dismissed by NY court because he didn’t know court claims need to be sworn and verified? LOL!
.
I should add that 655 of those 1338 words are devoted to proving the American Bar Association is mistaken when it says “ABA associates are not members of the American Bar Association and do not, as a group, constitute a membership classification.”
This question about the ABA’s associate affiliation is so confusing. Who should we believe, the American Bar Association’s 19 words describing its associate affiliation or the 655 convoluted words of Pete Longspinner? Anyone?
Once again, we catch Pete in another outrageous and bald-faced lie. He says:
“At no stage as I completed that Associate Enrolment Form was any mention made of Article Three of the ABA Constitution and Bylaws or of Associates not being members.”
I finally got time to look and sure enough near the top of the page in STEP THREE of the ABA Enrollment Form, it explains “ABA Associate Affiliation:
“Article Three of the ABA Constitution and Bylaws provides for the establishment of classes of Associates, composed of non-members with whom affiliation is considered to be in the interest of the Association. Associates are not members of the American Bar Association and do not, as a group, constitute a membership classification. Associates of the American Bar Association, except for International Law Associates, are nonlawyers (and thus not eligible for membership with the Association) who have an interest in the work of the Association.”
But Pete says “At no stage as I completed that Associate Enrollment Form was any mention of Article Three of the ABA Constitution and Bylaws or of Associates not being members.”
Like his buddy John O’Sullivan, Pete Longspinner thinks nobody will bother checking the document he’s misquoting and misrepresenting. And if they do, he’ll simply deny, deny, deny.
See for yourself. Here’s a screen capture of the Step Three ABA form:
http://aaskolnick.com/global_deniers/aba_associate_enrollment.jpg
More popcorn please!
You think this crud is entertaining? It ain’t.
BTW “forward” and “back” radiation have to be solved for “separately” because if they aren’t, we wind up with the logical dilemma that the net heat transfer rate q
q = (sigma) [(eps1)T1**4 – (eps2)T2**4]
between the ground at temperature T1 and upper atmosphere T2 increases if T1 increases and T2 decreases, thereby cooling the Earth’s surface faster than without the “atmospheric Greenhouse effect” present.
Isn’t that right, Joel Shore? Isn’t that how the Greenhouse effect doesn’t work to cool the Earth’s surface?
Hi Joel (Shore), ref. your comment on July 9, 2011 at 9:27 pm. you did not only express the extreme opinion that the Slayers were extremely nutty (7th July 10:41 pm). What you said about the Slayers was “ .. we are talking about how extremely nutty and fraudulent the “Slayers” really are .. ” and you did not exclude any of the Slayers from your all-embracing statement. If you do not wish to include them all then I think that it would be prudent for you to be quite explicit about whom you are making that serious accusation, which appears to me to be potentially damaging to the reputation of each one of them. At very least you were accusing the Slayers of being “fraudulent” and at worst “very fraudulent”.
This is not something that I would accuse fellow professionals of unless I had convincing evidence of it. Even if I suspected that it might be true, I would avoid making the accusation without that evidence for several reasons, e.g. I would be concerned about:
– creating a false publication that could damage the reputation of those fellow professionals and involve me in an expensive and damaging libel case,
– falling out of favour with my employer for being in breach of its code of conduct,
– doing damage to my status as a professional.
RIT seems to be no different than other high-profile employer in expecting and being entitled to the highest standards from its employees when exposed to the public scrutiny and appears to have put into place structures to protect itself against any damage that might be caused to its proudly held status. It has set up procedures to handle the full range of possible situations that might do damage. One of these structures includes “Procedures for Handling Claims or Lawsuits”. Another is “University Resources for discussing and/or Reporting Concerns about Unethical Conduct .. As conveyed in RIT’s honor code and core values, RIT faculty, staff, and students are committed to conducting themselves with high standards of integrity and ethics in the university’s diverse and dynamic learning, working, and living environments” (http://finweb.rit.edu/humanresources/policies/unethicalconduct.pdf). I expect that buried in the small print somewhere will be procedures for handling undignified statements made by an employee outside of work activities.
You say that I “ .. have to realize that people like Spencer, Christy, and Lindzen are pretty far on the scientific fringe in regards to their views on AGW .. ”. What you have to realise is that the AGW/CACC debate is driven by politics, not science, as a consequence of which facts are distorted, opinions are presented as fact and uncertainies are hidden from public scrutiny as much as possible. Perhaps you aren’t aware of what deceased Professor Steven Schneider said back in 1989 because you didn’t bother to follow the link that I gave on July 8 at 2:12 pm. Here’s part of what he said and I leave it to you to find out what he followed up with when attempting to back-peddle (but I doubt that you’ll bother because you don’t wish to know).
“To capture the public imagination, we have to offer up some scary scenarios, make simplified dramatic statements and little mention of any doubts one might have. Each of us has to decide the right balance between being effective, and being honest” (http://www.john-daly.com/schneidr.htm). In other words, you can choose to lie if that is what is required in order to get the CACC message across to the general public.
Just because you have a PhD in theoretical physics and were recently the co-author with Josh (Eli Rabett) Halpern, Arthur Smith, Chris Colose, et al. of a comment which Bryan (February 3 at 7:54 pm) referred to as a “ .. disastrous attempt to challenge the Gerhard Gerlich and Ralf D. Tscheuschner paper .. ” does not make you an expert in the processes and drivers of global climates. Your “ .. research interests have, over time, included the glass transition and the slow growth of order in simple model systems, equilibrium crystal shapes and crystal growth, the flow of polymer melts, and optical modeling and light extraction in OLEDs. .. ” (http://www.rit.edu/~w-physic/Faculty_Shore.html), hardly likely to shed worthwhile light on the processes and drivers of the different global climates.
It is only recently that you have developed an interest in global climate change, which certainly does not pursuade me to believe that you know what you are talking about when claiming anyone to be “ .. pretty far on the scientific fringe in regards to their views on AGW .. ” or “ .. way beyond the fringe .. peddling .. nonsense”.
“I’m sorry if this assessment offends your sensibilities, but that’s just the way it is”.
Regarding your faith in the CACC doctrine, maybe it would help if I sent you a copy of Roger Taguchi’s analysis showing that the IPCC’s guess at radiative forcing is 3 x too high, meanwhile why don’t you take a look at Roger’s comment here of February 11 at 4:50 am and mine of July 3 at 4:21 am & 5:12 am).
Hi Andrew (Skolnick), ref. July 10 at 10:04 am. and other rants of yours, as I have already suggested, try reading what is written and not trying to read between the lines. You said on July 10 at 11:26 am “ .. Once again, we catch Pete in another outrageous and bald-faced lie .. ”. No you don’t Andrew. What we catch is you once again not bothering to read with due care and attention what has been said. By the time any applicant reaches Step 3 the Associate Enrolment Form has been completed, hence my very carefully and correctly worded statement “At no stage as I completed that Associate Enrolment Form was any mention made of Article Three of the ABA Constitution and Bylaws or of Associates not being members” (which I anticipated you would wrongly challenge). Thanks for that screen capture of yours because it allows viewers to see for themselves that form filling has been completed before Article 3 is mentioned and just after the message “*Membership will end August 31, 2012. Membership dues are not deductible as a charitable contribution for income tax purposes” and all that remains to be done is to check what has been filled in and make the payment of those MEMBERSHIP DUES it says are not tax-deductable! Once that is completed the MEMBERSHIP as an associate commences for just over one year. Do you understand my point yet?
As I have suggested before (but you insist on ignoring) read carefully what is written. Also, check the facts carefully before challenging someone, especially with a statement like “ .. Once again, we catch Pete in another outrageous and bald-faced lie .. ”. I leave it to others to judge who the bald-faced liars are here.
You are coming across as one of the ostriches in these pictures (http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=ostrich+%22head+in+the+sand%22&hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=gKz&rls=org.mozilla:en-GB:official&prmd=ivns&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=FeoZTuSkCJOKhQe1pdHMBQ&ved=0CCoQsAQ&biw=1016&bih=527).
Sam NC, the word “modest” seems not to be in the journalists’ dictionary.
Hi Claes (Johnson), it’s good to have you back here fighting these dragons It’s a shame that other Slayers haven’t joined you (I don’t expect that Ken regards himself as being one of the Slayers, only a close associate). Although Joel may have “ .. never questioned the fact that you are an accomplished applied mathematician in the field of numerical analysis .. ” he does appear to have accused you and your fellow Slayers, of being fraudulent.
Best regards, Pete Ridley
Pete, you are an absolutely indefatigable source of dishonesty.
This was your previous lie:
“At no stage as I completed that [American Bar Association] Associate Enrolment Form was any mention made of Article Three of the ABA Constitution and Bylaws or of Associates not being members.”
You now pile this heaping whopper on top:
“By the time any applicant reaches Step 3 the Associate Enrolment Form has been completed, hence my very carefully and correctly worded statement “At no stage as I completed that Associate Enrolment Form was any mention made of Article Three of the ABA Constitution and Bylaws or of Associates not being members” (which I anticipated you would wrongly challenge).”
Readers can see for themselves what a dishonest person you are on this screen capture of the THIRD step in completing the ABA’s Enrollment Form, which clearly informs enrollers that they are joining as associates, not as ABA members:
http://aaskolnick.com/global_deniers/aba_associate_enrollment.jpg
On this screen capture of the THIRD step in completing the ABA’s Associate Enrollment Form, the ABA clearly informs enrollers that they are joining as associates — not as ABA members.
Readers can also see the headline on top that says, “ABA Associate Enrollment Form” and right below that “Welcome to the Associate Enrollment Page.” To the right, is a “Progress” scale that indicates the applicant is on the THIRD step of the FOUR-step enrollment process. So that’s FOUR steps to fill out the enrollment form — NOT THREE before moving on to the payment section.
STEP FOUR requires the applicant to review all the information and correct any errors. When done, they are asked to click to proceed to the payment page.
So Pete Spinmeister, you are lying through your crooked teeth by continuing to claim, “At no stage as I completed that Associate Enrolment Form was any mention made of Article Three of the ABA Constitution and Bylaws or of Associates not being members” as anyone can see from the screen capture.
You also don’t know how to spell. The word is “enrollment.”
Andrew, you and I have had our say here and should leave others to make up their own minds about us and our opinions (if anyone is interested). I suggest that t’s time for us both to let others take the podium and continue our exchanges in private. I’ll only respond to your comments by E-mail in future. Meanwhile, ponder these http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=like+talking+to+a+wall
Best regards, Pete Ridley
As clearly was your purpose Pete Longspinner: Blow smoke and confusion into the eyes of readers so they don’t see how the “de facto CEO, Legal Counsel” and co-author of the Slaying the Sky Dragon gang, is lying through his teeth about his academic and professional credentials.
You offer to quit posting your disjointed and dissembling diatribes if I stop posting links to the records that show John O’Sullivan is an even bigger humbug than his partner, fellow Sky Dragon Slayer Tim Ball. And you want me to resume replying to your emails.
As I informed you Pete, I will not reply to anymore of your emails, because you habitually misconstrue and misquote statements — just like the malicious crackpot who cyberstalked me several years ago. You know, the one you tracked down and invited to join this discussion to shed some light on my “character”?
Like you, he posed as a well-meaning party to privately solicit statements from me by email — which he falsely paraphrased, put quotation marks around the rewritten statements, and sent to others to get their response to statements I never made.
Twice fooled, shame on me? No way. If you asked me the time of day, I wouldn’t give it to you. In fact, I’d immediately look at my wrist to make sure my watch was still there.
Gong!
====
heh heh do it again he didn’t hear he’s too busy doing his act
Hi Joel (Shore), ref. your comment on July 9, 2011 at 9:27 pm. you did not only express the extreme opinion that the Slayers were extremely nutty (7th July 10:41 pm). What you said about the Slayers was “ .. we are talking about how extremely nutty and fraudulent the “Slayers” really are .. ” and you did not exclude any of the Slayers from your all-embracing statement. If you do not wish to include them all then I think that it would be prudent for you to be quite explicit about whom you are making that serious accusation, which appears to me to be potentially damaging to the reputation of each one of them. At very least you were accusing the Slayers of being “fraudulent” and at worst “very fraudulent”.
This is not something that I would accuse fellow professionals of unless I had convincing evidence of it. Even if I suspected that it might be true, I would avoid making the accusation without that evidence for several reasons, e.g. I would be concerned about:
– creating a false publication that could damage the reputation of those fellow professionals and involve me in an expensive and damaging libel case,
– falling out of favour with my employer for being in breach of its code of conduct,
– doing damage to my status as a professional.
RIT seems to be no different than other high-profile employer in expecting and being entitled to the highest standards from its employees when exposed to the public scrutiny and appears to have put into place structures to protect itself against any damage that might be caused to its proudly held status. It has set up procedures to handle the full range of possible situations that might do damage. One of these structures includes “Procedures for Handling Claims or Lawsuits”. Another is “University Resources for discussing and/or Reporting Concerns about Unethical Conduct .. As conveyed in RIT’s honor code and core values, RIT faculty, staff, and students are committed to conducting themselves with high standards of integrity and ethics in the university’s diverse and dynamic learning, working, and living environments” (http://finweb.rit.edu/humanresources/policies/unethicalconduct.pdf). I expect that buried in the small print somewhere will be procedures for handling undignified statements made by an employee outside of work activities.
You say that I “ .. have to realize that people like Spencer, Christy, and Lindzen are pretty far on the scientific fringe in regards to their views on AGW .. ”. What you have to realise is that the AGW/CACC debate is driven by politics, not science, as a consequence of which facts are distorted, opinions are presented as fact and uncertainies are hidden from public scrutiny as much as possible. Perhaps you aren’t aware of what deceased Professor Steven Schneider said back in 1989 because you didn’t bother to follow the link that I gave on July 8 at 2:12 pm. Here’s part of what he said and I leave it to you to find out what he followed up with when attempting to back-peddle (but I doubt that you’ll bother because you don’t wish to know).
“To capture the public imagination, we have to offer up some scary scenarios, make simplified dramatic statements and little mention of any doubts one might have. Each of us has to decide the right balance between being effective, and being honest” (http://www.john-daly.com/schneidr.htm). In other words, you can choose to lie if that is what is required in order to get the CACC message across to the general public.
Just because you have a PhD in theoretical physics and were recently the co-author with Josh (Eli Rabett) Halpern, Arthur Smith, Chris Colose, et al. of a comment which Bryan (February 3 at 7:54 pm) referred to as a “ .. disastrous attempt to challenge the Gerhard Gerlich and Ralf D. Tscheuschner paper .. ” does not make you an expert in the processes and drivers of global climates. Your “ .. research interests have, over time, included the glass transition and the slow growth of order in simple model systems, equilibrium crystal shapes and crystal growth, the flow of polymer melts, and optical modeling and light extraction in OLEDs. .. ” (http://www.rit.edu/~w-physic/Faculty_Shore.html), hardly likely to shed worthwhile light on the processes and drivers of the different global climates.
It is only recently that you have developed an interest in global climate change, which certainly does not pursuade me to believe that you know what you are talking about when claiming anyone to be “ .. pretty far on the scientific fringe in regards to their views on AGW .. ” or “ .. way beyond the fringe .. peddling .. nonsense”.
“I’m sorry if this assessment offends your sensibilities, but that’s just the way it is”.
Regarding your faith in the CACC doctrine, maybe it would help if I sent you a copy of Roger Taguchi’s analysis showing that the IPCC’s guess at radiative forcing is 3 x too high, meanwhile why don’t you take a look at Roger’s comment here of February 11 at 4:50 am and mine of July 3 at 4:21 am & 5:12 am).
Hi Andrew (Skolnick), ref. July 10 at 10:04 am. and other rants of yours, as I have already suggested, try reading what is written and not trying to read between the lines. You said on July 10 at 11:26 am “ .. Once again, we catch Pete in another outrageous and bald-faced lie .. ”. No you don’t Andrew. What we catch is you once again not bothering to read with due care and attention what has been said. By the time any applicant reaches Step 3 the Associate Enrolment Form has been completed, hence my very carefully and correctly worded statement “At no stage as I completed that Associate Enrolment Form was any mention made of Article Three of the ABA Constitution and Bylaws or of Associates not being members” (which I anticipated you would wrongly challenge). Thanks for that screen capture of yours because it allows viewers to see for themselves that form filling has been completed before Article 3 is mentioned and just after the message “*Membership will end August 31, 2012. Membership dues are not deductible as a charitable contribution for income tax purposes” and all that remains to be done is to check what has been filled in and make the payment of those MEMBERSHIP DUES it says are not tax-deductable! Once that is completed the MEMBERSHIP as an associate commences for just over one year. Do you understand my point yet?
As I have suggested before (but you insist on ignoring) read carefully what is written. Also, check the facts carefully before challenging someone, especially with a statement like “ .. Once again, we catch Pete in another outrageous and bald-faced lie .. ”. I leave it to others to judge who the bald-faced liars are here.
You are coming across as one of the ostriches in these pictures (http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=ostrich+%22head+in+the+sand%22&hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=gKz&rls=org.mozilla:en-GB:official&prmd=ivns&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=FeoZTuSkCJOKhQe1pdHMBQ&ved=0CCoQsAQ&biw=1016&bih=527).
Sam NC, the word “modest” seems not to be in the journalists’ dictionary.
Hi Claes (Johnson), it’s good to have you back here fighting these dragons It’s a shame that other Slayers haven’t joined you (I don’t expect that Ken regards himself as being one of the Slayers, only a close associate). Although Joel may have “ .. never questioned the fact that you are an accomplished applied mathematician in the field of numerical analysis .. ” he does appear to have accused you and your fellow Slayers, of being fraudulent.
Best regards, Pete Ridley
Hi Joel (Shore), ref. your comment on July 9, 2011 at 9:27 pm. you did not only express the extreme opinion that the Slayers were extremely nutty (7th July 10:41 pm). What you said about the Slayers was “ .. we are talking about how extremely nutty and fraudulent the “Slayers” really are .. ” and you did not exclude any of the Slayers from your all-embracing statement. If you do not wish to include them all then I think that it would be prudent for you to be quite explicit about whom you are making that serious accusation, which appears to me to be potentially damaging to the reputation of each one of them. At very least you were accusing the Slayers of being “fraudulent” and at worst “very fraudulent”.
This is not something that I would accuse fellow professionals of unless I had convincing evidence of it. Even if I suspected that it might be true, I would avoid making the accusation without that evidence for several reasons, e.g. I would be concerned about:
– creating a false publication that could damage the reputation of those fellow professionals and involve me in an expensive and damaging libel case,
– falling out of favour with my employer for being in breach of its code of conduct,
– doing damage to my status as a professional.
RIT seems to be no different than other high-profile employer in expecting and being entitled to the highest standards from its employees when exposed to the public scrutiny and appears to have put into place structures to protect itself against any damage that might be caused to its proudly held status. It has set up procedures to handle the full range of possible situations that might do damage. One of these structures includes “Procedures for Handling Claims or Lawsuits”. Another is “University Resources for discussing and/or Reporting Concerns about Unethical Conduct .. As conveyed in RIT’s honor code and core values, RIT faculty, staff, and students are committed to conducting themselves with high standards of integrity and ethics in the university’s diverse and dynamic learning, working, and living environments” (http://finweb.rit.edu/humanresources/policies/unethicalconduct.pdf). I expect that buried in the small print somewhere will be procedures for handling undignified statements made by an employee outside of work activities.
Hi again Joel, you say that I “ .. have to realize that people like Spencer, Christy, and Lindzen are pretty far on the scientific fringe in regards to their views on AGW .. ”. What you have to realise is that the AGW/CACC debate is driven by politics, not science, as a consequence of which facts are distorted, opinions are presented as fact and uncertainies are hidden from public scrutiny as much as possible. Perhaps you aren’t aware of what deceased Professor Steven Schneider said back in 1989 because you didn’t bother to follow the link that I gave on July 8 at 2:12 pm. Here’s part of what he said and I leave it to you to find out what he followed up with when attempting to back-peddle (but I doubt that you’ll bother because you don’t wish to know).
“To capture the public imagination, we have to offer up some scary scenarios, make simplified dramatic statements and little mention of any doubts one might have. Each of us has to decide the right balance between being effective, and being honest” (http://www.john-daly.com/schneidr.htm). In other words, you can choose to lie if that is what is required in order to get the CACC message across to the general public.
Just because you have a PhD in theoretical physics and were recently the co-author with Josh (Eli Rabett) Halpern, Arthur Smith, Chris Colose, et al. of a comment which Bryan (February 3 at 7:54 pm) referred to as a “ .. disastrous attempt to challenge the Gerhard Gerlich and Ralf D. Tscheuschner paper .. ” does not make you an expert in the processes and drivers of global climates. Your “ .. research interests have, over time, included the glass transition and the slow growth of order in simple model systems, equilibrium crystal shapes and crystal growth, the flow of polymer melts, and optical modeling and light extraction in OLEDs. .. ” (http://www.rit.edu/~w-physic/Faculty_Shore.html), hardly likely to shed worthwhile light on the processes and drivers of the different global climates.
It is only recently that you have developed an interest in global climate change, which certainly does not pursuade me to believe that you know what you are talking about when claiming anyone to be “ .. pretty far on the scientific fringe in regards to their views on AGW .. ” or “ .. way beyond the fringe .. peddling .. nonsense”.
“I’m sorry if this assessment offends your sensibilities, but that’s just the way it is”.
Regarding your faith in the CACC doctrine, maybe it would help if I sent you a copy of Roger Taguchi’s analysis showing that the IPCC’s guess at radiative forcing is 3 x too high, meanwhile why don’t you take a look at Roger’s comment here of February 11 at 4:50 am and mine of July 3 at 4:21 am & 5:12 am).
Best regards, Pete Ridley
Pete,
Your posts are getting more and more ridiculous. First you complain about me just stating what every serious scientist knows (heck, even Lord Monckton knows), which is that the “Slayers” are just spreading pseudoscientific nonsense. Then, you engage on an attack on a scientist who is very respected in the scientific community, Stephen Scheider, by taking out of context and misinterpreting what he actually said.
And you wonder why people like you in the skeptic community are not taken seriously?!!
Finally, you quote Bryan’s opinion of our deconstruction of the G&T embarrassment as if he is some expert. If you want to defend pseudoscientific nonsense, be my guest. It will help insure that skeptics like you continue to be viewed as clowns by the scientific community.
Not just by the scientific community, Joel. Everybody loves a clown.
AScolnick and Pete Ridley: Please be more succinct. Your rambling posts are becoming a chore to scroll by. :)
Hi tallbloke, it’s a shame that the blog doesn’t have an “ignore” button.
I’ve had my say so I’ll be very very succinct in future comments.
I’m debating whether to laugh out loud now or wait until Pete posts his next rambling raving.
Thanks Pete. I’d like to see a system where the first 5 lines of a comment are displayed, and you click a little + icon if you want to see the rest.
A Challenge Pete and Other Sky Dragon Slayers Are Guaranteed to Fail
Hades will freeze over before Pete or other Sky Dragon Slayers meet the following challenge: Cite for us even a few of the law suits Sky Dragon Slayer and highly “successful litigator” John O’Sullivan won in New York and Federal courts.
This should be a simple challenge since all lawsuits are public record.
On Mr. O’Sullivan’s Slaying the Sky Dragon web site, the boastful leader identifies himself as “an accredited academic who taught and lectured for over twenty years at schools and colleges in the east of England as well as successfully litigating for over a decade in the New York State courts and U.S. federal 2nd circuit.”
http://www.slayingtheskydragon.com/en/about/bios
The challenge: Cite some of the law suits Mr. O’Sullivan claims to have “successfully litigated” over a period of 13 years in New York and in Federal 2nd Circuit courts.
The only claims I’ve been able to find are the sexual harassment suits he and his wife filed, which were dismissed:
http://vertumnus.courts.state.ny.us/claims/html/OSullivan.2009-039-142.html
Which sent him into a rage lasting several years, during which he blogged and wrote letters to newspapers angrily attacking one of the judges who ruled against him as a “lesbian,” “puppet,” and “scum.” He even self-published a “true story” fictional “novel” of his quest for justice titled “Summit Shock,” which sold almost as well as “Slaying the Sky Dragon.”
http://www.ripoffreport.com/government-corruption/ny-supreme-court-app/ny-supreme-court-appellate-di-d37g5.htm
Other than this record of unsuccessful litigation, I have not been able to find any record of litigation by Mr. O’Sullivan. And the boastful “barrister” keeps declining to cite any.
Perhaps the boastful “barrister” is just too bashful. So I’m asking his good friends here to meet this challenge and cite evidence of Mr. O’Sullivans 13 years of work as a “successful litigator in NY and Federal 2nd District courts.”
Unless of course they’re willing to concede the Sky Dragon Slayer leader and author is a shameless humbug.
WARNING: No one hold your breath.
Good God, Skolnick, that’s a horrible piece of junk to go posting on somebody’s web page.
There must be someplace you can go post things like that; Murdoch closed down his slop operation, so I don’t have any suggestion for you at the moment
STOP THE PRESSES!
Global Warming Denier Brian Valentine Attacks
Murdoch’s Global Warming-Denying News Empire
Hey Brian, you do realize that Rolling Stone recently ranked Rupert Murdoch as the worst of the “12 Politicians and Execs Blocking Progress on Global Warming”?
Says Rolling Stone: “No one does more to spread dangerous disinformation about global warming than Murdoch. In a year of record heat waves in Africa, freak snowstorms in America and epic flooding in Pakistan, the Fox network continued to dismiss climate change as nothing but a conspiracy by liberal scientists and Big Government. Glenn Beck told viewers the Earth experienced no warming in the past decade — the hottest on record. Sean Hannity declared that “global warming doesn’t exist” and speculated about “the true agenda of global-warming hysterics.” Even Brian Kilmeade, co-host of the chatty Fox & Friends, laughed off the threat of climate change, joking that the real problem was ‘too many polar bears.’
“Murdoch’s entire media empire, it would seem, is set up to deny, deny, deny. The Wall Street Journal routinely dismisses climate change as “an apocalyptic scare,” and Fox News helped gin up a fake controversy by relentlessly hyping the ‘climategate’ scandal — even though independent investigations showed that nothing in the e-mails stolen from British climate researchers undercut scientific conclusions about global warming.
“Murdoch knows better. In 2007, he warned that climate change ‘poses clear, catastrophic threats’ and promised to turn News Corp. into a model of carbon neutrality. But at his media outlets, manufacturing doubt about global warming remains official policy. During the 2009 climate summit in Copenhagen, the Washington editor of Fox News ordered the network’s journalists to never mention global warming ‘without immediately pointing out that such theories are based upon data that critics have called into question.’ Murdoch may be striving to go green in his office buildings, but on air, the only thing he’s recycling are the lies of Big Coal and Big Oil.
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/lists/whos-to-blame-12-politicians-and-execs-blocking-progress-on-global-warming-20110119/rupert-murdochceo-news-corporation-19691231
I just hate that stinking Rolling Stone – I didn’t even get an honorable mention
Maybe next time Brian, once they have a chance to review all your recent work here.
askolnick,
Being trashed in the Rolling Stone over climate (or nearly any issue at all) is not a bad thing.
Yes, Hunter, I’m sure you would die for that honor. Unfortunately, you’ll have to accept being trashed here.
Rolling Stone started life as a little music magazine back in !967. I was puzzled about why that particular magazine would be interested in talking about a serious issue like CACC. Whenever I am puzzled like this I look at the money angle. I understand that the magazine was seeing hard times around 2000 and was looking for something to attract a younger readership in order to boost sales and advertising. Looking for anything to boost profits and given his interest in pop music I suppose the CACC bandwaggon had some special appeal for Wenner Media Inc. chairman and Rolling Stone founder Jann Wenner, who I understand retains tight control over its operations. I loved this comment reported in the LiveLeak article “Rolling Stone Names Inhofe on “Climate Killers” List” (http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=45d_1263572672) about his rock critic Jim DeRogatis in 1996, QUOTE: .. DeRogatis responded that Wennar “is a fan of any band that sells eight million records.” Wenner fired DeRogatis the next day UNQUOTE.
Wenner is not the only publisher to jump on the CACC bandwaggon (http://globalpoliticalshenanigans.blogspot.com/2010/09/death-by-drowning-next-phase-of_29.html) but it looks to be heading for a long overdue crash.
Best regards, Pete Ridley
askolnick,
Is the “Dragon book” about the law or AGW?
It seems you are doing a troll’s job of hijacking the topic into legal issues.
I am certain there are legal issue sites that would love to hear more about your fine legal analysis. Is this one of those sites?
Greenie weenie lawyers believe it is necessary to trash “denier” literature because it has the potential to reduce their revenue stream from suing the Government and anyone else with five dollars in their pocket for not doing what Jim Hansen told them to do.
Its like ambulance chasers who trash “doctors” who diagnose “fake whiplash” etc
Hunter, please pay attention. We’ve been discussing the integrity and authority — or lack thereof — of the Sky Dragon Slayers, led by John O’Sullivan, who is posing as a science and legal authority based on dubious and bogus credentials.
You might try writing this down on your hand so you will remember: It is John O’Sullivan, author and leader of the Sky Dragon Slayers, who claims to be a highly successful lawyer “currently litigating in two high-profile climate science lawsuits.” Not I or other of his critics who’ve posted here.
This discussion was established by Dr. Curry to examine the integrity of the scientific claims of the Sky Dragon Slayer authors. Hence the integrity and credentials of the authors have come under scrutiny.
It’s not my fault that I’m discussing “legal issues.” If Mr. O’Sullivan’s numerous resumes and online profiles claimed he hit more home runs in professional baseball than Babe Ruth, I assure you we would be discussing sports instead.
The key question we’ve been discussing is whether the author and leader of the Sky Dragon Slayers is a respected authority on climate science and law — as he boasts– or a liar and a humbug, as the record seems to show.
Thanks Brian for confirming my argument that none of Mr. O’Sullivan’s defenders will provide evidence of his claims of 13 years of successful litigation in NY and Federal 2nd District court.
But you shouldn’t be shooting at the messenger. If you’re offended by this “horrible piece of junk,” your gripe should not be with me. It should be with Mr. O’Sullivan — who wrote those vile attacks against NY State judges, The author of those awful screeds is the leader and co-author of Slaying the Sky Dragon and he is now applying similar literary skills to attack scientists studying global warming and science journalists who report their research.
I can understand why Mr. O’Sullivan and his defenders don’t want readers to know about his earlier writing “career” — since it was less than 2 years ago when he switched from publishing rants against a “lesbian” judge to publishing rants against scientists conducting climate research. However, readers need to know he is NOT the renowned science writer and highly successful lawyer some have been fooled into believing.
If you’re offended by Mr. O’Sullivan’s hate speech, you should be pointing your denier’s blunderbuss at him, not at the messenger.
Interesting how birds of a feather are flocking together in this discussion.
We have here the leader of the Sky Dragon Slayers John O’Sullivan, who published numerous screeds against the “lesbian” “scum” judge for ruling against his wife’s law suit, and we have Sky Dragon Slayer publisher Ken Coffman. who just published the latest candidate for the White Sheets of America Book Award, ““Into the Cannibal’s Pot.” This soon-to-be best seller among skin heads and White Citizen Council members, urges American descendants of European founders to not let the “cannibals” destroy their country the way South Africans let “cannibals” destroy theirs.
Birds of a feather all right. Vultures.
Just came across this “legal analysis” by John “Sky Dragon Slayer” O’Sullivan.
Titled: “My latest legal analysis upon discussions with Dr. Judith Curry”
http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=5678
“It’s heartening to find that Dr. Curry shares in the desire of skeptics for improvements in climate science ethics generally. Hopefully, we can find common cause to more quickly rid ourselves of the bogus greenhouse gas theory. Until that pseudo-science is buried I fear we still risk plunging downward into the spiral of scientific dystopia now more generally referred to as ‘post-normal science.”
Apparently he’s not hoping to quickly rid us of “legal experts” and “science writers” deceiving people with bogus credentials — since that would leave him with little to do.
He signs his “legal analysis” thus: “John O’Sullivan is a legal advocate and writer who for several years has litigated in government corruption and conspiracy cases in both the US and Britain.”
Mr. O’Sullivan and his defenders have ignored all appeals for evidence that he has litigated in government corruption and conspiracy cases in both the US and Britain for several years (other than his wife’s failed sexual harassment suit of which he wrote so much about).
My extensive searches have failed to turn up any. John O’Sullivan is not named in any government corruption suit I can find, either as plaintiff or defendant or as an attorney of record. We are still waiting for evidence that these are not the whopping claims of an utter humbug.
askolnick says:
He signs his “legal analysis” thus: “John O’Sullivan is a legal advocate.
My extensive searches have failed to turn up any. John O’Sullivan is not named in any government corruption suit I can find, either as plaintiff or defendant or as an attorney of record.
It is possible to be someone’s legal advocate without being a qualified lawyer, e.g. in the capacity of ‘McKenzie’s friend’.
Wikipedia says:
A McKenzie friend assists a litigant in person in a common law court. This person does not need to be legally qualified. The crucial point is that litigants in person are entitled to have assistance, lay or professional, unless there are exceptional circumstances.
Their role was set out most clearly in the eponymous 1970 case McKenzie v. McKenzie.[1] Although this role applies in the jurisdiction of England and Wales, it is regarded as having its origins in common law and hence has been adopted in practice in other common law jurisdictions such as Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the Republic of Ireland, and the USA.[citation needed] Although in many cases a McKenzie friend may be an actual friend, it is often somebody with knowledge of the area. He or she may be liable for any misleading advice given to the litigant in person but are not covered by professional indemnity insurance.
The role is distinct from that of a next friend or of an amicus curiae.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McKenzie_friend
Hi tallbloke, thanks for reminding Andrew about “It is possible to be someone’s legal advocate without being a qualified lawyer”. I made the same point on July 3 at 4:48 pm.
BTW, do you run a blog thread “John Nicol: Greenhouse Effect re-examined” (http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2010/10/25/john-nicol-greenhouse-effect-re-examined/)? I’m preparing a comment which will make reference to that paper of John’s and to the paper of Roger Taguchi’s that I challenged RIT lecturer Joel Shore to try to refute. Joel hasn’t responded to that challenge, made on July 3 at 4:21 am – I wonder why.
Best regards, Pete Ridley
I haven’t seen any such paper by Taguchi. All I have seen are a few incomprehensible posts in some blog. The fact that all nonsense that anyone generates and writes somewhere on the web does not get refuted is not evidence that it is correct; it is evidence that people can produce nonsense much faster than those of us dedicated to fighting ignorance (rather than spreading it) can easily refute it…particularly when we have other responsibilities.
Joel, in my comment of 3rd July at 4:21 am I challenged you to refute the independent analyses of the greenhouse effect undertaken by Professor John Nicol and by Roger Taguchi. I offered to send you a copy of Roger’s analysis and John’s is available on the Internet (http://www.middlebury.net/nicol-08.doc). You have declined to respond to that challenge and I wonder why. Both of those papers acknowledge that the greenhouse effect is does exist but they both refute the arguments of the CACC supporters about the impact of it.
You failed to respond to that challenge and now complain that you “ .. haven’t seen any such paper by Taguchi. .. ”. If you had asked for a copy I would have sent it 9 days ago but you shied away from that. I’ve just E-mailed a copy to you so you have no excuse now, do you.
Best regards, Pete Ridley
Pete,
It is not my job to debunk every piece of nonsense that you find on the internet. These “papers” aren’t even peer reviewed, which means they haven’t passed even the lowest bar used to reduce signal-to-noise to a more manageable level.
That said, at a glance, here is some of what is wrong with Taguchi:
(1) Net feedback from real world data: Sorry…but careful analyses of the 2oth century data has concluded that it is compatible with a wide range of climate sensitivities, so it doesn’t provide a very good constraint. Some of the things that Taguchi ignores are: other forcings, such as the negative forcing due to manmade aerosols, the fact that the EQUILIBRIUM climate sensitivity is not the same as the transient response (i.e., the climate system has not yet equilibrated to the current forcings), and that natural climate variability produces additional uncertainties in that 0.7 C number.
(2) The theory part is just a confused mixture of knocking down strawmen and saying things that, if true, would presumably mean that tons of remote sensing applications would not work as successfully as
they do.
Frankly, Taguchi’s paper is just another example of the nonsense that scientists have to endure slung at them when working in fields like climate change or evolution where large numbers of members of both the lay and scientifically-inclined public don’t want to believe the scientific conclusions that go against their ideological or religious beliefs. It really has very little to do with science.
Taguchi should try to get his paper published if he wants anybody in the scientific community to take it serious enough to waste more time debunking it. Heck, Gerlich and Tscheuschner got their piece of pseudoscientific nonsense published, so he shouldn’t give up hope that he can get his published too , especially if he is willing to go sufficiently far afield in journals.
Joel, in my humble opinion you have said nothing of substance to refute Roger’s analysis and I suspect that you will do the same about John Nichol’s if you respond to that part of my challenge. There is nothing in your response that shows a single flaw in Roger’s paper. You use the same feeble argument that Professor Barry Brook, Adelaide University, used when I challenged him to refute John Nichol’s paper back in 2009 (http://bravenewclimate.com/2009/06/03/sa-sets-a-33-renewables-by-2020-target/). Whether it has been peer reviewed or not is not the issue, which for me is whether or not you have the competence to refute what he says. Roger has produced a scientific argument showing that the impact of a doubling of atmospheric CO2 from 300 to 600 ppm should produce no more than 1C increase in temperature, not something that I can get scared about.
Since starting to research the CACC hypothesis in 2007 (as a layman not a scientist) I have come to trust the advice of one person in particular, i.e. Roger Taguchi, who has recently retired from a very successful career as a science educator. Roger studied Physical Chemistry and did post-graduate research under Professor John Chales Polyani (http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/chemistry/laureates/1986/polanyi-bio.html) who shared the Nobel Prize in Chemistry 1986 with Dudley R. Herschbach, Yuan T. Lee”. Roger’s research was on the transfer of energy from electronically excited Na atoms to molecular CO, where the product CO molecules would be in vibrationally excited states (observed by IR emission in the first overtone), so he does know something about atomic and molecular spectroscopy, and Boltzmann distributions. Having researched your background my humble opinion is that Roger is at the very least as well qualified as you are to be able to properly analyse “the greenhouse effect.
Of course you could prove that I am totally wrong by refuting Roger’s analysis with sound scientific analysis of your own rather than simply waffle such as you have offered so far. Until you do that I will accept Roger’s conclusions rather than yours. If you are able properly refute what Roger says then I know that Roger would acknowledge any mistakes that he might have made. I have been privy to numerous E-mail exchanges between Roger and several well-qualified and highly experiences scientists in which Roger has happily acknowledged and corrected any errors that have been brought to his attention.
Last year I invited your associates Professor Josh Halpern (AKA Eli Rabett) and science student Chris Colose to refute Roger’s earlier version of his paper and both attempted (unsuccessfully) to refute what he said with scientific arguments (e.g. see http://chriscolose.wordpress.com/2009/10/26/consequences-of-being-over-concerned/, http://rabett.blogspot.com/2010/04/eli-can-retire-part-viii-epa-reads.html and http://rabett.blogspot.com/2010/05/judith-curry-debunding-room-is-open.html). At one stage Professor Halpern said “Tell Roger to put up or shut up”. Isn’t it about time that you, he, Chris Colose and Professor Brook “put up or shut up”.
Roger has spent a great deal of time undertaking his analysis using his own expertise in physics. As far as I know he has no financial, career or status incentive for doing this, only a scientists desire to help discover the truth behind the wild claims of political organisations like the IPCC and the politicians and others who support it for whatever vested interest reasons. Can you make the same claim?
As I said earlier, I have passed your hasty comment on to Roger and asked if he will respond. I sincerely hope that he returns here to enlighten you. Meanwhile, what do you have to say about John Nichol’s paper. I can pass those comments on too.
Best regards, Pete Ridley.
Peter,
Frankly, I have no delusions that I will convince you in regards to Roger’s paper…and even if I did, you would just go out and find another piece of nonsense to support your pre-determined ideologically-driven conclusion in regards to climate science. One of the grand delusions in discussions about evolution and climate science is that contrarian views are driven by science…They are not. They are driven by an ideological predisposition not to believe the science because it conflicts with strongly-held beliefs.
That is why it is not a high priority for me to waste my time on analyzing Roger’s paper in more detail. I have looked at it enough to convince myself that “there is nothing to see here; move along.” I actually have things to do that I rank ahead of this, some of which (unlike this) I am actually paid to do. There is only so much time I can devote to the thankless task of debunking nonsense that people who want to believe will likely continue to believe regardless of how well it is debunked.
Yes, I can…except that I think your wording of “wild claims” and “political organizations” is extremely biased…although this is certainly a good description of the “skeptic” side of the coin.
“One of the grand delusions in discussions about evolution and climate science is that contrarian views are driven by science. They are not. They are driven by an ideological predisposition not to believe the science because it conflicts with strongly-held beliefs.”
Very well said, Joel.
One of the striking similarities I’ve found between Creationists and Global Warming Deniers is their penchant for misquoting and misrepresenting the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, probably because all you have to do to convince the typical man in the street that you’re a science expert is to quote — or utterly mangle — the Laws of Thermodynamics. Makes no difference if you first toss the laws of thermodynamics into a blender. No matter how you mishmash them, the public will be impressed with your “scientific expertise.”
The funniest example I witnessed was when the Champaign-Urbana (IL) News Gazette published an article on the University of Illinois Natural History Museum’s fund-raising campaign to acquire a cast of a dinosaur. The editor who assigned the reporter told him to give equal time to the Creationists view. So the reporter, who regularly covered U. of I. science, even quoted the Creation “scientist’s” claim that “Einstein’s 2nd Law of Thermodynamics proves evolution is impossible.”
Back then, I was Life Sciences Editor at the university’s news bureau and I called the editor and complained about their false and ridiculous report and explained that Albert Einstein was born 29 years AFTER Rudolf Clausius formulated the first part of the 2nd L. of T. and 14 years after Clausius modified the law to introduced entropy. “That’s your opinion,” the editor retorted.
Alas, many newspaper editors and reporters also cannot tell science facts and theories from pseudoscience and ideologically driven bull—-.
Tallspoke, it boggles my mind how spinners and deniers keep citing authorities for their claims without actually reading them.
Citing Wikipedia’s article on “McKenzie Friend,” you say, “It is possible to be someone’s LEGAL ADVOCATE without being a qualified lawyer, e.g. in the capacity of ‘McKenzie’s friend’”.
How odd for you to omit the part of the Wikipedia article that says a “McKenzie friend” cannot be a legal advocate. Here is what the article YOU quote says under the section “What a McKenzie friend cannot do:”
“Act as a legal representative.”
Tallspoke, please tell us just what part of “a McKenzie Friend cannot act as a legal representative” did you not understand? Or did you think that I would look at what it actually says?
In every jurisdiction I’m aware of, only licensed legal representatives can represent or advocate for litigants in court.
What’s so particularly off putting by this latest clumsy spin attempt is the fact that Mr. O’Sullivan does not describe himself as a “McKenzie’s Friend,” but as a “legal advocate,” which is defined as “a person, usually a barrister or solicitor, with right of audience (i.e. the right to speak in open court) as the representative of a party in a case.”
http://www.law-glossary.com/definition/advocate.html
Tallspoke’s inept referencing of Wikipedia’s article on “McKenzie’s Friend” makes as much sense as would referencing its article on “Seeing Eye Dogs” — since litigants who need their assistance may also bring them into court.
ascolnick says:
Tallspoke’s inept referencing of Wikipedia’s article on “McKenzie’s Friend” makes as much sense as would referencing its article on “Seeing Eye Dogs” — since litigants who need their assistance may also bring them into court.
Oh dear, another bloviation from ascolnick, and he was only a click away from seeing that my statement is correct. I said:
“It is possible to be someone’s legal advocate without being a qualified lawyer, e.g. in the capacity of ‘McKenzie’s friend’.”
And that is indeed the case. It only requires the judges assent for the McKenzie’s friend to be granted right of audience. Which makes them the de facto legal representative for the litigant. In cases where the defendent cannot afford a lawyer, this is nearly always granted, for very sound and pragmatic reasons.
ascolnick, you are an unpleasant, ignorant fool.
Tallbloke,
“ascolnick, you are an unpleasant, ignorant fool.”
That makes you are equal. Pete is standing high on this.
Sam NC, I politely gave a point of information to ascolnick, and got a heap of unfounded and ignorant abuse in return. So now the gloves are off, and I’ll call it as I see it.
I know, just cool and calm down like Pete. That makes a big different.
The only fools around here Tallspoke are those who fall for your dissembling.
I can’t believe your audacity in selectively and deceptively quoting from the Wikipedia article on “McKenzie’s Friend” in order to prove a dishonest point. If it were an honest mistake, you could have replied, “Sorry, I didn’t see that part that says, “A McKenzie friend cannot act as a legal representative. I stand corrected.” But it wasn’t. So now you doubled-down.
I asked you , “What part of “a McKenzie Friend cannot act as a legal representative” did you not understand? You didn’t answer. Your silence says it all. It was no mistake, but a deliberate attempt to deceive readers, by misleadingly quoting a source that disproves your argument.
A McKenzie friend cannot be a legal representative. That’s a quote from your own source.
Here’s another quote from the same source, found on the line immediately beneath:
“What a McKenzie friend cannot do:
Act as a legal representative
Exercise rights of audience, unless invited to speak by the judge,”
With the right of audience granted, the McKenzie Friend is the de facto legal representative of the defendant.
So wikipedia is self contradictory here (not unusual).
“It was no mistake, but a deliberate attempt to deceive readers”
So now you are a mind reader as well as an amateur legal expert ascolnick?
Tallspoke says, “So now you are a mind reader as well as an amateur legal expert?”
No. But, as the numerous awards I’ve received from humanitarian and journalism groups for investigating and exposing humbugs and fraud demonstrate, I do know something about people who misquote references to prove a claim that is not true.
In this case, the truth cannot be clearer. Tallspoke, the only reference you used to back up your claim that a McKenzie friend can be a legal advocate or representative is the Wikipedia article on “McKenzie’s Friend.” But anyone who takes the trouble to look at the actual article will see it says, “a McKenzie friend cannot act as a legal representative.”
So what are we going to believe, your ongoing obfuscation or the actual words in the reference you misquote? Hardly a tough choice to make.
Ok, you’re just repeating yourself and failing to address the point, so I’m content to leave it there.
The reason I’ve repeated myself is to keep the attention on what the Wikipedia article ACTUALLY says about McKenzie’s friends NOT being a legal representative, and not on the variety of spin you offer to convince us otherwise.
And I will keep quoting the ACTUAL statement addressing this issue in the reference YOU cited.
Andrew,
Are you proud of yourself for this?
Sorry, I meant to type “but we won’t swallow any bait-and-switch…”
I (and I assume Brian and RobB) missed Judith Curry’s post saying discussion of Ken Coffman’s latest book “Into the Cannibal’s Pot” and racism is not appropriate for this discussion and posts discussing racism will be deleted. I apologize to Prof. Curry for missing her post before adding the comment above.
These posts should soon be deleted. So Brian and Rob, let’s drop the subject.
Deleted is probably best. For what it’s worth, I believe your effort to conflate the likes of Mike Smith with Ken Coffman is the worst example of despicable internet commentary I believe I have ever read. You are like some kind of deranged stalker. It was funny to start with, but for the sake of this fine blog’s reputation, it’s time to give it a rest now. Go and take your medicine.
RobB, please respect Prof. Curry’s request.
I don’t think anybody mentioned the fantastic job the Mythbusters TV program did in testing just which side of the CO2 argument is trafficking in myths.
To do so, they built four large transparent boxes. Two of the boxes were controls and were filled with nitrogen and oxygen sans CO2 and methane; one was filled with nitrogen and oxygen plus CO2 proportionate to the concentration in normal air; and the fourth was filled with nitrogen and oxygen with methane at normal atmospheric concentration. They then shined bright lights on the four models for 4 hours while they precisely monitored all the air temperatures.
Obviously, some here won’t like the myth they busted:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pPRd5GT0v0I&NR=1
Let’s just say they did a very impressive bit of Sky Dragon Slayer slaying.
There is also a video of a little “kitchen science” I did to show how Claes Johnson’s claim, which befuddles theoretical blackbodies with living organisms, is so ridiculously wrong. In “Slaying the Sky Dragon,” he writes:
“A cold body can heat up by eating/absorbing high-frequency high temperature coheren waves in a catabolic process of destruction of coheren waves into incoherent heat energy. A warm body cannot heat up by eating/absorbing low-frequency, low-temperature waves, because catabolism involves destruction of structure. Anabolism builds structure, but a blackbody is only capable of destructive catabolism (the metabolism of a living cell consists of catabolism and constructive anabolism).”
Lets just forget all the silly stuff about theoretical blackbodies not being able to pass themselves off as living cells and see whether they can be heated hot enough to emit high-energy radiation, by absorbing lower-frequency, lower-energy waves.
You might want to make some microwave popcorn for this:
Now we’re getting somewhere. Outstanding!
Does adding a CO2 molecule to the atmosphere increase or decrease conduction/convection to space? A tiny bit?
How much might the increased heat of the atmospheric sample increase the temperature of the emitter? A tiny bit?
What is the overall, net contribution at the emitter? Can you isolate and measure it? It is anywhere near 10% (33C) as commonly attributed to atmospheric warming?
This experiment, which, like any other greenhouse, reduces the effect of convection, shows a 0.34% increase in temperature (297K to 298K). If you want to impress me, you have to allow convection to work (as it does in our atmosphere) and then show how much the emitter is heated by “back radiation”. Good luck!
Convective-radiative models of the atmosphere tell us how much. It is actually not as complicated as one might think (given that the process of convection itself is very complicated) because the role of convection is essentially to try to restore marginal stability to the atmosphere when the lapse rate exceeds the appropriate (moist or dry) adiabatic lapse rate.
You’re not making sense, Joel. Convection is the result of pressure differences, which arise from temperature differences.
I’ve about had it with make it all up any old time you like nonsense peddlers
Almost right. Convection is the result of density differences caused by heating. The warmer are will rise, cooled at the (moist or dry) lapse rate until it is the same temperature as the surrounding air.
So it rises until it’s at the same temperature as the surrounding air, which is purportedly static even though it’s being displaced by the risen air?
Are you sure you don’t want to rephrase that?
The temperature of the surrounding air is not static, it cools at a different rate from the air entrained in the convective column (or current). If it cools more slowly the the air in the convective column then convection is limited. If it cools more quickly then you get cumulus buidup if conditions for cloud formation are favorable.
Apologies, on re-reading it seems that my phrasing could have been better as well.
What I meant is that the volume of the rising air would have to displace other (cooler) air, which would then need to move downwards.
I made it sound like the temperature should be static, which is not what I meant at all.
Rattus,
What about bouyancy or inertia and densities, not neccessary until ” the same temperature”.
Rattus,
What about bouyancy or inertia and densities, not neccessary until ” the same temperature” unless you have assume same composition of the surrounding air and the rising air situation.
Hey Sam, is there a special kind of decoder ring or something we can get to make sense of your comments?
I asked Claes to respond to Andrew’s microwave oven experiment and here’s what he said:
The radiative heating waves in a microwave oven has a much higher amplitude than the radiation from a blackbody of the temperature corresponding to the frequency of the heating.
This makes it possible to heat by low frequency waves, if only their amplitude is big enough.
But it is not possible to heat one blackbody by low frequency waves emitted from a blackbody of lower temperature. To heat your meal by putting it close to some ice cream will not work.
What nonsense! The Slayers’ sophistry relies on purposely ambiguous statements and confusing the comparison case. What we are interested in regarding the greenhouse effect is a three-body problem involving the sun, the earth, and the atmosphere. The question is: Will the steady-state temperature of the earth be warmer in the presence of an atmosphere that absorbs (and re-emits) some of the radiation than when all the radiation that the earth emits escapes to outer space. And, the answer to this question is a resounding YES.
It does not mean that your meal will be heated up if you put some ice cream near it. The correct question would be whether the steady state temperature of your meal put out in the sun would be higher if there is some ice cream near it than if instead there is some liquid nitrogen near it. Again, the answer to this is YES because the ice cream will emit more radiation back to the meal than the liquid nitrogen would.
The fact that the Slayers engage in such sophistry should be enough to completely discredit them. They are not engaged in serious scientific discussion….They are engaged in purposeful deception.
Joel, sadly, it’s a win-win deal for the deniers. They know at least 96 percent of the public are incapable of understanding the difference between even the simplest description of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics and “Blah blah blah blah blah ice cream blahdee blah blah.”
So they come way shaking their heads thinking,” Gee, scientists never seem to agree on anything.” And the deniers have won just as well as if they think, “Prof. Johnson must be right because ice cream always makes me feel cooler.”
The purpose of deniers, whether they’re smoking-doesn’t-cause-death-and-disease deniers or global warming deniers, is to make the public think there’s no agreement among the great majority of scientists.
Just look at that ridiculous gobblydegook offered by Claes Johnson, comparing theoretical blackbodies with the biology of living cells! The Sky Dragon Slayers clearly are following that age-old advice of hucksters: “If ya can’t dazzle ’em with ya brilliance, you can always baffle ’em with your bulls—.”
“…a blackbody is only capable of destructive catabolism (the metabolism of a living cell consists of catabolism and constructive anabolism).”
I have to say, it takes a kind of talent to make up impressive sounding boloney like this.
In order to understand an explanation of a phenomenon through a metafor or parable, you have to have an open mind. If you close your eyes you will see nothing. Try to think of the meaninig of what you have just ridiculed, assuming that it can make sense. Try and you will see something!
Jesus argued with parables, over which many millions have been fighting, killing, and dying over the past 2000 years because, unlike everyone else, they know what Jesus meant.
I think scientists should stick to clear language, unless of course they’re looking to bamboozle people or start a cult.
Good Joel, you are on the right track! The radiation from a black body
is determined by its temperature and the temperature of its surrounding:
If you put some liquid nitrogen next to your meal it will cool off more than with ice cream as dessert. Since we agree on these fundamentals, we must also agree that climate sensitivity cannot be larger than 0.3 C, right?
No. The radiation from a black body is determined by its temperature alone. The temperature of its surroundings affects the energy flow to it, and therefore affects the net energy flow to or from the black body.
How do you know that? Who proved this to be the case?
Planck? No! Who?
Now you’re really not making any sense at all.
Peter & Claes,
Just different wording of the same thing. Don’t waste the bandwidth.
It’s more than just wording.
He’s conflating radiation, energy and temperature in such a way which is at best confusing and at worst misleading.
That’s the sort of thing which gives sceptics a bad name.
Peter,
Admittedly, your wording is clearer. AGWers cannot even get to the level of Claes understanding of radiation, energy and temperature.
Sam, I really wish I could see that
Maybe you should put that into the next book you publish on global warming. Right now, we’re discussing the “science” published in the “Slaying the Sky Dragon. And in this book Mr. Johnson made a ridiculous and untrue statement that “a warm [or white hot!] body cannot heat up by eating/absorbing low-frequency, low-temperature waves.”
His statement discusses the energy level/frequency of the photons transmitting the energy from a source, while deliberately ignoring the total energy being carried by the photons.
But here we have a simple demonstration that proves you CAN heat objects with low-frequency radiation — whether it’s a sewing needle in a kitchen or water molecules in the ocean — which Mr. Johnson says CANNOT be done in the book we’re actually discussing.
My kitchen demonstration shows how you can take photons emitted by a source, that are so weak in energy they can’t even be seen with infrared night goggles, and use them to heat an object until it brightly glows white hot.
If you and Mr. Johnson want to issue a correction in the next edition, we’ll allow it, but we want swallow any bait-and-switch no matter how much ice cream comes with it.
nice kitchen experiment. I’d say you spoiled it by adding the silly text at the end about oil funding. Otherwise its a nice piece. fwiw
Thanks, Steven, but in defense of my postscript, you did see what the subtitle of the video is?
“Needling the Deniers”
It’s an established fact that at least one of the main authors, Tim Ball, worked and/or works for oil-industry supported front groups. As Sourcewatch notes, among other questionable current associations, Ball was a “‘scientific advisor'” to the oil industry-backed organization, Friends of Science.”
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Tim_Ball
Sorry, the last part got a bit garbled:
As Sourcewatch notes, in addition to questionable current associations, Ball was a “‘scientific advisor’” to the oil industry-backed organization, Friends of Science.”
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Tim_Ball
OMG! not the oil industry! will the horrors never stop!
Dave, let me try to help you understand.
A group of researchers published a study in a prestigious medical journal dramatically demonstrating the safety and efficacy of a new drug. Pressure on the FDA leads to fast-track approval. Widespread sale of the drug, however, leads to numerous cases of serious adverse effects and a follow up study found that the new drug is no more effective than existing drugs, including a generic at a 1/10th of the cost of the new drug. Then it is discovered that the researchers had been on the pharmaceutical company’s payroll and had withheld that information from the journal’s editor and everyone else.
OMG! Not the pharmaceutical industry! Won’t the horrors never stop!
And a prominent epidemiologist at Yale University publishes a series of papers in journals around the world disputing the association of smoking with lung cancer, heart disease, mouth and throat cancer, low-birth weight and other birth defects, infant and child respiratory infections, and a host of other health problems. When a medical news editor discovers that the professor has been funded by the tobacco industry he queries the professor and Yale University, only to be told to they’re noting going to answer any questions about his funding (as a private school, Yale does not have to respect Freedom of Information laws). It turned out the distinguished epidemiologist had been awashed in tobacco money.
OMG! Not the tobacco industry! Won’t the horrors never stop!
Dave, did it ever occurr to you why respected science journals now require authors to reveal all conflicts of interest — meaning any support they receive from companies or parties that could benefit from the publication of their paper?
You know why medical editors adopted this policy? No?
Because they want to STOP these horrors.
How ironic. I just opened up an email heads-up about a study just published in the Human Reproduction Update titled:
Maternal smoking in pregnancy and birth defects: a systematic review based on 173 687 malformed cases and 11.7 million controls
http://humupd.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2011/07/09/humupd.dmr022.full
This latest and very large epidemiological literature review of 100 studies found maternal smoking was associated with substantially higher risks of a variety of birth defects, including, limb reduction, club foot, eye malformations, oral clefts, hernias, and gastroschisis. (Low-birthweight with all its associated problems, including neonatal mortality and brain and lung damage, was established long ago.)
Sadly for the tobacco industry, it no longer has the “renowned” Yale epidemiologist to drag out for “expert opinions” why this latest study is “nonsense.” That hired gun passed away some time ago. No idea whether it was due to lung cancer or other smoking-related disease. It it was, it would be poetic justice.
But don’t worry, the tobacco industry still has an arsenal of hired guns — many of whom also work for the oil, gas, and coal industry or the “think tanks” they support.
Presumably you would agree that advocacy and vested interest also applies to those with a political interest in the science of CAGW.
I’ve been talking about financial conflicts of interest, RobB. I’m not sure what you’re talking about.
“Invested interest” is defined as having ” a strong personal concern in a state of affairs, system, etc., sometimes resulting in a private gain.”
The term can be used to describe a pharmaceutical company researcher involved in a clinical trial of the company’s drug. Or it can be used to describe the young scientist Jonas Salk, who was looking to develop a way to prevent polio and make a name for himself. In the first case, there is no problem as long as the researcher discloses his “invested interest.” In the latter, no disclosure is necessary since any personal gain comes directly from society’s gain. [Warning: Baited hook]
And “advocacy” means “active support of an idea or cause.” Advocacy is not necessarily good or bad. It depends on what a person advocates and what is being advocated — and most importantly, whether they try to hide support they receive that constitutes a conflict of interest.
One one hand, countless “advocates” of public health measures and education are involved in researching the causes of communicable diseases. They deserve kudos for their advocacy.
On the other, there are “advocates” not quite so honorable. I’m thinking particularly of the “advocates” of views contrary to the consensus of the international scientific community, who are getting money under the table from industries wishing to confuse the public about the scientific evidence. Whether the money comes from the tobacco industry or the oil industry, these “advocates” are scoundrels.
I’ve been discussing the latter. I’m not sure what you’re talking about. I especially don’t know how you define “political interest in the science of CAGW.”
Askolnick, you did not reply to my prior post so I will persist. I sought funding from coal and oil interests to do studies that I thought needed to be done to defend them from the big green lies. Is that a conflict of interest? Nothing was under the table. My studies were published by API and Greening Earth, my sponsors. Honorable industries have a right to defend themselves from ideological thugs. These folks extract the basic resources that civilization depends on. Your minor medical examples are irrelevant.
By the way, there is no such thing as “the consensus of the international scientific community” when it comes to climate change. That is another green lie.
I did not reply to you David Wojick because your statement was unworthy of a reply. Just look at what you wrote:
The oil industry provides a valuable product. The greens are a menace. I’m a gunslinger hired to shoot down greenies. How is my work bad?
There was absolutely nothing in this statement about anything other than your hatred of greenies and your opinion of yourself. Why would I care what you think of yourself — or of “greenies?” You flatter yourself enough without my help.
Now you ask me if I think your soliciting money from the “honorable” oil and coal industries to do studies to “defend them from the big green lies” is a conflict of interest.
The fact that you ask that shows the answer will be utterly meaningless to you.
Asko, I think the way you rewrote my qoute exemplifies your lying ways. I regard you and your kind as one of the greatest forces for evil we have on our hands. As such I am honored to fight you. But you have nothing to offer except lies and a hatred of our fire based civilization, which I choose to defend.
David, If you’re the caliber of defenders the oil industry is hiring to fight the evil enemies of “fire based civilization” then we have nothing to fear.
You are a great and mighty warrior with fossil fuel running through your veins in lieu of blood. I have no doubt the name David Wojick will someday become as admired as the names Exxon Valdez and Deep Water Horizon.
Gee, I have done studies for both the coal and oil industries, trying to protect them from the irrational green onslaught. They provide a valuable product. The greens are a menace. How is my work bad?
No, I did not say that a microwave oven cannot heat your meal: I said that
a microwave oven which is a black body, cannot heat above its own temperature. But a microwave oven like that would not be possible to sell,
and this what now happens to CO2 alarmism: People are not buying it anymore!
What you said in your book, Mr. Johnson, was nothing about microwave ovens — that’s my schtick. What you said in your book — which is what I’m discussing — was your comparing blackbodies to “living cells” and your claim that an object cannot be heated with low-energy photons beyond a cut off point.
I showed this to be ridiculously wrong in my kitchen science video. If you wish to issue a correction, please do, but don’t try to deny what you actually wrote in Slaying the Sky Demon:
Which is:
“A cold body can heat up by eating/absorbing high-frequency high temperature coherent waves in a catabolic process of destruction of coherent waves into incoherent heat energy. A warm body cannot heat up by eating/absorbing low-frequency low-temperature waves, because catabolisminvolves destruction of structure. Anabolism builds structure, but a blackbodyis only capable of destructive catabolism (the metabolism of a livingcell consists of destructive catabolism and constructive anabolism).
I can understand why you rather not talk about this passage and switch to talking about ice cream: because it is hopelessly wrong as well as silly.
Perhaps you might like to discuss what immediately follows it instead:
” A blackbody acts like a censor or high-pass filter which transforms coherent high-frequency high-interest information into incoherent noise, while it lets low-frequency low-interest information pass through.”
One must ask, does the CIA know about this? Could they be secretly helping blackbodies censor high-interest information?
I know, I know, like Jesus, you like to preach in parables. First “a living cell,” and now “censors of high-interest information,” you really have taken to heart that advice, to always baffle the rubes with Bull—-.
All AGWers believe ice cream can heat up the Sun. I believe Joel and nick are amongst them (Jim D, pekka, fred molten).
Your tub of ice cream probably makes the sun a few zeptrillionths of a degree hotter than it would have been, all other things being equal – which they can’t be as, amongst other things, the ice cream required energy to freeze it – which probably cooled the sun by some equally astronomically small amount.
How did they simulate oceans, clouds, wind and rain?
Not to mention the adiabatic lapse rate
Peter317 I understand your comment of July 12 at 6:09 pm to mean that “the sort of thing (that) which gives sceptics a bad name .. ” includes anything that is “ .. at best confusing and at worst misleading .. ” with respect to the drivers of the different global climates. If I am understanding you correctly then it not only applies to sceptics but to supporters of the CACC hypothesis. Until there is a useful scientific understanding of those highly complex (chaotic?) processes and drivers of the different global climates there are plenty on both sides of the debate who continue offering analyses which are confusing or misleading. What is unacceptable is when contributors to the debate are deliberately trying to confuse or mislead.
After being invited to get involved with “the Slayers” and their proposed company Principia Scientific International (PSI) I undertook a “PSI & Due Diligence” investigation involving each of the participants and what was being proposed for PSI. Although I concluded that I didn’t wish to be involved I found no evidence that any of those involved were deliberately trying to confuse or mislead others about the science. I have read some of their analyses through the eyes of a non-scientist and am unconvinced by their arguments or the claim that they have brought about the “Death of the Greenhouse Gas Theory” but I believe that they genuinely think that their scientific analyses are valid.
I prefer the analyses of John Nichol and Roger Taguchi, which show that the dragon never really existed in the first place – it’s only a komodo (http://seapics.com/feature-subject/reptiles/komodo-dragon-pictures-001.html).
Although I am a sceptic I believe that I see such contributors from both sides but I can only think of one who seemed to openly encourage scientists who support the CACC hypothesis to deliberately mislead. I, like plenty more sceptics, consider that deceased Professor Stephen Schneider brought discredit on the CACC supporters when in 1989 he said “To capture the public imagination, we have to offer up some scary scenarios, make simplified dramatic statements and little mention of any doubts one might have. Each of us has to decide the right balance between being effective, and being honest” (http://www.john-daly.com/schneidr.htm). My interpretation of that statement is that it is up to each scientist contributing to unravelling the complexities of climate drivers to decide whether or not to lie about it. This may have come to be expected of many politicians, journalists, used cars salespersons, even lawyers and religious leaders but not of those involved in respected professions involving scientific research.
In July 1988 Al Gore, with the help of James Hansen, captured the imagination of the United States Congressional hearing on climate change by orchestrating a scary scenario. You can find out more about that at http://globalpoliticalshenanigans.blogspot.com/2010/09/death-by-drowning-next-phase-of.html with further details given in the links at Notes 6) & 7).
Another example of scientists (and the media) deliberately presenting distorted pictures to non-scientists in order “ .. To capture the public imagination .. ” is provided by Professor Iain Stewart in Part 1 of his September 2008 BBC Climate Wars series. You can find more about that in my comments of May 9 at 10:19 PM and May 11 at 2:56 PM on the “Paul Dennis on Iain Stewart” thread (http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2011/3/25/paul-dennis-on-iain-stewart.html) of Andrew Montford, author of “The Hockey Stick Illusion (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1906768358/ref=s9_simi_gw_p14_t1?pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_s=center-1&pf_rd_r=1H3QR3X9GN4WXAPJ9Y7E&pf_rd_t=101&pf_rd_p=51471022&pf_rd_i=507846) which I considered well worth paying to read, unlike “Slaying the Sky Dragon.
The final paragraph of my 11th May comment on Andrew’s (Montford, not Skolnick) brings us nicely back to the topic of this thread.
My apologies to tallbloke if I haven’t been succinct enough – Judith, how about providing an “ignore” button on your blog?
Hi Joel, I have passed your hasty comment on to Roger and asked if he will respond. I sincerely hope that he returns here to enlighten you. Meanwhile, what do you have to say about John Nichol’s paper. I can pass those comments on too.
Sam NC, ref. your comment July 12 at 8:44 pm. I’m always cool and calm when I post comments. None are sent spontaneously.
Best regards, Pete Ridley
Pete,
Sam NC’s response was to me, for calling ascolnick an ignorant fool. he was saying I should keep my cool, like you have.
I actually agree with you that the point at issue in this thread about the way object radiate and absorb radiation is moot, although for different reasons than those put forward by Roger Taguchi and John Nichol, worthy and interesting though their analyses are. Whether or not back radiation is correctly characterised, the wavelengths are such that the energy cannot penetrate into water whether it is carried by particles, waves, or tied to a pigeons leg, and so additional co2 cannot explain the thermal expnsion of the global ocean in the late C20th. The Sun did that, through reduced cloud cover.
Since air temperature lags sea surface temperature by several months, there is little doubt that it is the sea which warms the air, not the other way around. Global warming was a solar driven phenomenon.
I glanced through Nichol’s paper even faster than I looked at Roger’s. But one thing I would tell him is the following: There is a good reason why scientists focus on the radiative balance at the top of the atmosphere and not at the surface in order to determine the effect of greenhouse gases. You would do well to learn why that is. If you don’t understand this elementary principle, you are not qualified to discuss the subject in any serious way.
You make it sound like ‘the top of the atmosphere’ is a well defined location scientists can “focus on”. Nothing could be further from the truth.
The radiative balance at the TOA has an uncertainty of measurement which exceeds the (overinflated) forcing value assigned to co2 by a factor of around three.
No-one knows by how much the average altitude of the TOA was affected by the shrinking of the thermosphere by ~30% noticed by NASA during the Solar quiet after 2007.
In short Joel, “in order to determine the effect of greenhouse gases”, scientist are making guesses.
Tallspoke says, “You make it sound like ‘the top of the atmosphere’ is a well defined location scientists can “focus on”. Nothing could be further from the truth.”
No, he didn’t. Read again what Joel said, this time with the purpose of understanding his point instead of looking for something to twist into a strawman argument.
Joel said there’s a good reason why scientists are studying the radiative balance at the top of earth’s atmosphere rather than at the surface.
Strawman arguments, anyone? Tallspoke has baskets full.
You are going to have to provide evidence to back up all of these claims that you make. The forcings values assigned to CO2, for example, is essentially agreed to by all serious scientists, including Roy Spencer and Richard Lindzen. Only real crackpots seem to dispute it.
Where exactly the TOA is is basically irrelevant to determining what the forcing is there from doubling CO2. The atmosphere becomes increasingly tenuous as you go out: Even the difference in radiative balance for CO2 doubling that you get between the top of the troposphere and the top of the stratosphere isn’t that great.
Right. Saying that the top of the atmosphere is well defined is as silly as saying the edge of the sea is well defined. That’s why Tallspoke tried to put those silly words into your mouth. It creates the appearance of a “scientific” controversy and a “lack of consensus,” and Bingo! He wins.
“You are going to have to provide evidence to back up all of these claims that you make. ”
I could quote Trenberth on the TOA measurement uncertainty if I would be bothered to find the reference. Qualitatively, he says that
“It’s a travesty”
But the figure is around 5W/m^2, around three times the non-feedback co2 forcing.
Do you disagree?
Translation of Tallspeak:
“You’re wrong again, Joel. I don’t have to provide evidence to back up my claims. My word is sufficient authority.”
If Joel disagrees, I will have to trawl for the reference, and he will owe me three quatloos if I find it, because he knows I’m right and would simply be stalling for time and wasting mine.
Tallspoke now says, “If Joel disagrees” he’ll provide evidence to back up all the claims he made.
“If Joel disagrees?” Tell us Tallspoke, just what part of this disagreement did you not get? Joel said:
“You are going to have to provide evidence to back up all of these claims that you make. The forcings values assigned to CO2, for example, is essentially agreed to by all serious scientists, including Roy Spencer and Richard Lindzen. Only real crackpots seem to dispute it. Where exactly the TOA is is basically irrelevant to determining what the forcing is there from doubling CO2. The atmosphere becomes increasingly tenuous as you go out: Even the difference in radiative balance for CO2 doubling that you get between the top of the troposphere and the top of the stratosphere isn’t that great.”
All of it, obviously.
The denier’s fist strategy in dealing with facts and arguments is to deny they were even made.
And then to proudly proclaim, “I didn’t think I needed to provide evidence “because he knows I am right.”
Tallspeak, you’re a textbook example of a denier.
Yawn.
I’m dealing with Joel’s request for clarification one item at a time. Starting with TOA energy balance measurement error.
Please reduce the signal to noise ratio by butting out while we await his reply to my question.
“Do you disagree that the TOA energy balance measurement error is around three times the non-feedback forcing value for co2”
Tallspoke, what part of Joel’s statement do you not understand?
“You are going to have to provide evidence to back up all of these claims that you make.”
You do know what “all” means, don’t you?
Paging Joel Shore
Your comment is simply irrelevant to what I was actually talking about. I wasn’t talking about experimental measurements of the energy balance. What I was talking about was a paper in which someone was very concerned about calculating the effect of carbon dioxide concentration on the surface radiation budget. My point was that it has long been recognized that the important question is carbon dioxide concentration on the energy budget at the top of the atmosphere.
I know that I used the word “energy balance” rather than “energy budget” so I guess that is what confused you and got you on to a completely irrelevant tangent.
How can we talk meaningfully about the energy budget at the top of the atmosphere if the energy balance is so poorly determined?
The energy balance has to be determined before the budget can be estimated to any useful precision.
Trenberth admits that the actual measurement of the TOA balance is too poor to determine the effect of additional co2, but then goes on to claim he can determine it sufficiently using a climate model with an error of +/- 0.5W/m^2(1)
Given his problem with missing heat, and the as yet unresolved problems around the absorption of incoming shortwave in clouds(2), this is sheer hubris. Either that,or Trenberth is more confused than I am, and so are you if you think this is an irrelevant issue.
At least you’ve correctly identified what the important question is so far as the overall Sun Earth Space energy interaction is concerned, but this doesn’t address the issue of Earth’s climate system’s response to a putative change in the TOA balance, We can’t say anything about how extra co2 might affect global surface T until we understand how latitudinal shifts in the jet streams and changes in cloud elevation change the rate at which energy is lost to space for example.
(1)http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/Trenberth/trenberth.papers/TrackingEnergyISSIv5.pdf
(2)http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cms/wcollins/papers/cess.pdf
tallbloke: This is the sort of thing that perhaps seems counter-intuitive to those who haven’t done a lot of modeling of physical systems. However, it is not uncommon at all to have a model that can’t get absolute agreement with experimental data to a certain precision but is nonetheless reliable in predicting differences to better than that precision. In fact, I would go as far as to say that if this were not the case, most of the modeling that I have successful done over the years would simply not have been possible. So, yes, the radiative forcing due to added CO2 can be determined with reasonably good precision…which is why you don’t see people like Spencer and Lindzen disputing the ~3.5-4 W/m^2 number for CO2 doubling.
I agree with you to a certain extent that cloud feedbacks and such are more uncertain, giving greater uncertainty for the response to this radiative forcing. However, you fall into a trap the trap of thinking to know anything, we must know everything when you say “We can’t say anything about how extra co2 might affect global surface T…” If science really worked like this, we would never be able to say anything about anything because there are always things that are incompletely
understood. The fact is that we still have a good enough theoretical understanding…and good enough empirical data about how climate has reacted to forcings in the past…in order to narrow down the range of possible climate responses even if a reasonably large degree of uncertainty remains.
Joel says, “This is the sort of thing that perhaps seems counter-intuitive to those who haven’t done a lot of modeling of physical systems. However, it is not uncommon at all to have a model that can’t get absolute agreement with experimental data to a certain precision but is nonetheless reliable in predicting differences to better than that precision.”
Indeed, the entire field of quantum mechanics deals with the behavior of particles that cannot be fully pinned down: The more certain scientists are about one thing, the less they know about another. For example, if they precisely determine the energy of an electron, they can only guess where it is. If they precisely determine the position of an electron, they might as well flip a coin to determine its energy.
This “uncertainty principle” is a fundamental feature of all matter on the atomic and subatomic level. It didn’t please Einstein’s sensibilities and he remained a “denier” of quantum mechanics’ limitations the rest of his life. It led his friend and fellow physics giant Enrico Fermi to tell him “Stop telling God what to do.”
Sill, scientists are able to make breathtakingly precise predictions of how matter behaves even though they can have no certainty at all about how any part of it fully behaves.
Joel,
Nice anecdote. Doesn’t add anything here though. If you are able to convince yourself that a 1.7W/m^2 forcing can be positively fingered for a 0.4C rise in surface T over half a century in a system which displays non-linear behaviours and a multicentury secular increase in surface T whilst the nearby star’s UV radiation fluctuates by 10% at a decadal scale then fair enough for you.
Don’t be surprised when others point to 25W/m^2 mismatches in modeled cloud behaviour compared to empirical data and start laughing at you though.
I’ll leave you to explain to our climate clown why the kind of uncertainty we face in climate modeling due to poor empirical measurement resolution and fundamental difficulties in calculating values for the short wave absorptivity of water droplets of indeterminate size and density with light propagation properties we haven’t been able to theoretically describe don’t really compare to Alices adventures in quarkland.
Demesure Posted Jan 7, 2008 at 1:17 AM | Permalink | Reply
For the French non flux-ajusted model LMD/ISPL (team of Hervé le Treut, lead Author of Chapter 1 of WG1 AR4), here is the archive of internal correspondances between modellers.
It seems they have divergence problems of their own, for example some quite “funny” and illustrative translations in this letter:
– “Olivier has mentionned the problem of snow accumulation reaching several km must be resolved”
– “Flux comparisons between top and bottom atmosphere show a discrepancy of about a dozen W/m2, it’s too much”
– “Zonal means show a big cold biais (5 to 15°C) at the tropopause”
http://tinyurl.com/68fxwqz
Dave, let me try to help you understand.
A group of researchers published a study in a prestigious medical journal dramatically demonstrating the safety and efficacy of a new drug. Pressure on the FDA leads to fast-track approval. Widespread sale of the drug, however, leads to numerous cases of serious adverse effects and a follow up study found that the new drug is no more effective than existing drugs, including a generic at a 1/10th of the cost of the new drug. Then it is discovered that the researchers had been on the pharmaceutical company’s payroll and had withheld that information from the journal’s editor and everyone else.
OMG! Not the pharmaceutical industry! Won’t the horrors never stop!
And a prominent epidemiologist at Yale University publishes a series of papers in journals around the world disputing the association of smoking with lung cancer, heart disease, mouth and throat cancer, low-birth weight and other birth defects, infant and child respiratory infections, and a host of other health problems. When a medical news editor discovers that the professor has been funded by the tobacco industry he queries the professor and Yale University, only to be told to they’re noting going to answer any questions about his funding (as a private school, Yale does not have to respect Freedom of Information laws). It turned out the distinguished epidemiologist had been awashed in tobacco money.
OMG! Not the tobacco industry! Won’t the horrors never stop!
Dave, did it ever occurr to you why respected science journals now require authors to reveal all conflicts of interest — meaning any support they receive from companies or parties that could benefit from the publication of their paper?
You know why medical editors adopted this policy? No?
Because they want to STOP these horrors.
Askolnick,
Re: Mythbusters, let me see if I got this straight.
They used four boxes, two with normal greenhouse gas concentrations and two controls with zero greenhouse gas. Not 40% less, half or even a quarter, but zero!
And no other significant energy transfer or storage mechanism: no convection, clouds, ocean, wind etc.
And the temperature in the ‘greenhouse’ boxes was almost a degree higher. Yessirree, a whole degree! Who would have thought!
Now tell me again, what exactly does that prove about the real world?
Peter317, I don’t understand the meaning of your question. Is it that you haven’t been following and don’t know what the debate is about? Or is it something else?
Tell me what you think the Mythbuster’s experiment demonstrates and perhaps I can better understand your question.
The experiment demonstrates that, under controlled conditions with little or no non-radiative energy flow, air containing greenhouse gases gets slightly warmer than air containing no greenhouse gases. No more, no less.
How is that experiment even remotely representative of what happens in the highly complex real-world environment?
It certainly doesn’t come close to ‘proving global warming’, as in the comment at the end of the video.
Peter317 asks, “How is that experiment even remotely representative of what happens in the highly complex real-world environment?”
It’s not. I didn’t say it was and even the Mythbusters didn’t claim that.
We’ve been arguing in this discussion about a principal pseudoscientific claim in the book “Slaying the Sky Dragon.” The authors claim the greenhouse heating effect of CO2 in the atmosphere is a myth and a hoax. Mythbusters set up an experiment to see if that “greenhouse effect” is a myth or real. They found it is not a myth.
You may unintentionally be misrepresenting what the Mythbusters concluded. They didn’t say their experiment “proved global warming.” They said it proved — what many deniers claim — the greenhouse effect of CO2 contributes to global warming.
They had accepted that the earth is warming, because, well, because the vast majority of the world’s scientists say it is (much like they accept many broadly-held scientific beliefs — like the movement of our planet around the sun and the germ theory of disease, which also are not universally accepted.
Listen more carefully to the end of the Mythbuster video. The boy concludes at the end of the experiment, “I think this is showing that methane and carbon dioxide are major culprits in global warming.” Then one of the hosts says, ” The results from the global warming experiment were pretty conclusive.” Yeah,” the boy answers, “the [model] greenhouses with methane and carbon dioxide stayed consistently warmer than the controls.”
This program didn’t try to prove global warming. It examined one of the mechanisms the vast majority of the world’s scientists believe is helping to heat up our planet. And they concluded, it’s not a myth.
What I’m saying is that simplistic experiment doesn’t say, one way or the other, anything significant about the real world, and they’re being misleading by even suggesting that it does.
Don’t get me wrong – I’m no fan of the dragon slayers, as you’d realise if you read some of my other posts, but it’s not particularly effective to fight BS with other BS.
Fair enough. I’ll call this an honest disagreement between us. You say the Mythbuster’s segment on greenhouse warming effect doesn’t say anything significant about the real world and is misleading, I think it does and that it was fair. I think this is an honest difference of opinions and I respect yours.
I can hardly say the same for the disagreements I’ve had with the Sky Dragon Slayers. As the wise man observed, everyone is allowed to have their own opinions, they’re not allowed their own “facts.”
Even Alarmist say H20 needs to increase to get the higher temperatures. There was no mention of H2O in the experiment just CO2 and methane. We are not seeing increases in H2O in North America as they had predicted. The fix was in, they were not going to come out against AGW, they knew what result they wanted so they went after that.
“Even Alarmist say H20 needs to increase to get the higher temperatures.”
Don’t be ridiculous, Doug. Anybody with even the slightest knowledge of climate science knows that atmospheric water content automatically increases with rising temperature. Wherever there is liquid water, increasing the temperature will increase the amount of water that evaporates into the air as well as increasing the amount of water the atmosphere can hold before it becomes fully saturated.
Because water vapor is a powerful greenhouse gas, that’s one of the reasons climatologist worry about a “run-away” effect of rising global temperatures.
Well, the effect of this ought to be really easy to see and to measure.
After all, the temperature rises to several degrees above average every single day. (and generally sinks to several degrees below average every single night) And the deviation from average is even more profound in the summer months.
It has been measured. See, for example, http://www.sciencemag.org/content/323/5917/1020.summary and http://www.sciencemag.org/content/310/5749/841.abstract
Do you have anything that’s not behind a paywall?
Peter317 – here and here
One can usually find copies of published papers without paying if they look:
http://metofis.rsmas.miami.edu/~bsoden/files/science_moistening_05.pdf
http://www.see.ed.ac.uk/~shs/Climate%20change/Data%20sources/1020HumidityVaporWarming.pdf
Thanks for the links.
Those papers ought to put people’s minds at rest over the “run-away” effect, which clearly does not happen in the real world, despite much higher than average temperatures.
Really? Just where did you read that? The conclusions in both of these papers should put no rational person’s “mind at rest.”
“Upper tropospheric water vapor provides a powerful feedback for amplifying climate change, and its increase is a crucial ingredient
to model projections of future global warming.”
“Thus, although there continues to be some uncertainty about its exact magnitude, the water vapor feedback is virtually certain to be strongly positive, with most evidence supporting a magnitude of 1.5 to 2.0 W/m2/K, sufficient to ROUGHLY DOUBLE double the warming that would otherwise occur. To date, observational records are too short to pin down the exact size of the water vapor feedback in response to long-term warming from anthropogenic greenhouse gases. However, it seems unlikely that the water vapor feedback in response to long-term warming would behave differently from that observed in response to shorter-time scale climate variations. There remain many uncertainties in our simulations of the climate, but evidence for the water vapor feedback— and the large future climate warming it implies—is now strong.”
The denier game rule seems to be first deny the facts and then deny their implication.
Since very few scientists are claiming that a true runaway effect is in the cards, this is not a particular surprise. As askonick notes, the prediction is that the water vapor feedback magnifies the warming by a finite amount, not that it produces a runaway.
(James Hansen has made same claims about a true runaway being possible if we really go to town burning our fossil fuel reserves, but his reasons for believing this remain somewhat vague. He does, however, explain ways in which he believes that the present situation would be unique from previous situations…and hence why we could get a runaway when it hasn’t occurred in the past. I make no claims that he is right, but just saying that its not having occurred in the past means it won’t occur now, without an attempt to address his points, is an incomplete argument.)
Still, I think the focus should be mainly on what most scientists agree there is good evidence for, which is a magnification of the equilibrium
climate sensitivity by the water vapor feedback, not a runaway.
Which part of, “However, it seems unlikely that the water vapor feedback in response to long-term warming would behave differently from that observed in response to shorter-time scale climate variations” did you not get?
Also, you require increased temperature in the first instance in order to get increased water vapour. But you need a lot more energy just to overcome the latent heat of evaporation than you would need to simply heat a dry surface. And you need yet more energy to compensate for that conducted and convected away before you can even start increasing the temperature.
When you can accurately quantify all of the above then I’ll start listening to you. Until then, kindly stop calling me a denier.
Joel, it’s actually askolnick who’s been alluding to a runaway effect, not me.
Why didn’t they put that in Myth Busters? It would have made the experiment better.
They did, Doug, but you were too busy thinking up insults to throw at them to pay attention. Take a look — this time with your eyes open. There’s water in each of the four boxes.
You’re talking about the water which came from the melting ice statues
I’m talking about the water which came from the melting ice and the water that sublimated from the ice.
…not, as implied, liquid water placed in the boxes at the start of the experiment
Oh, please, Peter. The minute you place ice in a warm environment you have liquid water (not to mention water vapor coming directly from sublimation).
Ice melts at different rates, depending on the temperature and other things. Having a measured amount of liquid water throughout would have been a controlled parameter – melting (and sublimating) ice isn’t.
The only word I used that could be considered an insult was “alarmist” which obviously wasn’t directed at them. Obvious to those that can read and are not blinded by bias and hate as you are.
DougT, you clearly were referring to the Mythbuster folk when you maliciously said, without the slightest evidence for the slur: “The fix was in, they were not going to come out against AGW, they knew what result they wanted so they went after that.”
Askol, I apologize if I besmirched the good name of Reality TV. You seem like the type that watches a lot of TV. I didn’t mean to offend your lifestyle.
At least DougT is consistent, consistently wrong in everything he posts. Mythbusters is NOT an example of “reality t.v.” It is a science entertainment TV program with a script and cast. The hopeless maroon treat facts the way severely allergic people treat peanuts.
asolnick,
I think you need a new keyboard!
Hey RobB, why don’t we trade for what we need? You give me a new keyboard and I’ll give you some honesty.
:)
Askhol, if its not Reality TV then why was Mythbusters nominated for an “Outstanding Reality Program” Emmy? Maybe you know more about TV than the Emmy people? Yet again, youv’e been Mythbusted!
Doug (yourself deeper), Mythbuster’s was nominated for a new category of Emmys called “Outstanding Reality Television” along with other decent programs like “Antique Road Show,” and “Deadly Catch,” — not in the less savory Emmy category of “Reality Competition Series.”
That Emmy category includes programs like “American Idol,” “So You Think You Can Dance,” and “Cops,” described by Wikipedia as involving “purportedly unscripted dramatic or humorous situations, documents actual events, and usually features ordinary people instead of professional actors, sometimes in a contest or other situation where a prize is awarded.”
Contrary to your silly slur, Mythbusters is identified as an “educational science” program by Wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MythBusters
“Reality TV” has a special meaning; it refers to those staged competitive elimination games on desert islands, etc., and other pseudo-documentary dramas involving interpersonal conflict, etc. Nothing to do with scientific or actual documentary programming.
Askhol and Brian H,
It may also be categorized as a television show that starts with “M”, but the name of the Emmy category they were in is “Outstanding Reality Television”. That is how the National Academy of Television Arts & Sciences categorized it, so that’s what I call it.
It’s not of any importance to any of us what you call it, Doug. It’s what the rest of the world calls it. You’re Doug-in and not budging. We get it. And we don’t care.
In the Mythbuster experiment, the same amount of ice WAS added to each of the four models and the temperature of each model at the beginning of the experiment was the same.
Furthermore, the only endpoint tested was temperature — because the experiment was conducted to test whether carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gasses can raise the temperature of the environment — which is what Sky Dragon Slayers deny. The answer they found is yes: the greenhouse effect is real and no myth.
Unwilling to accept evidence to the contrary, I’m sure deniers will continue to denounce this simple experiment because it failed to find the Higgs boson and did nothing to balance the U.S. federal budget.
The ice in the different boxes melted at different rates, ie the water was NOT a controlled parameter in the experiments.
It was after Doug D suggested that the experiment could have been improved by including water that you started asserting that it was. Stop trying to turn things into something they’re not.
Peter, I can understand why you prefer to keep punching away at strawmen arguments instead of dealing with the actual one.
No one said the Mythbusters experiment sought to measure anything but the temperature of the four models. I merely pointed out Doug’s claim that water wasn’t included in the experiment is wrong. A roughly equal amount of water was added to each of the four experimental models.
The irony of your strawman argument, Peter, is that you’ve actually made an even more convincing case for the Mythbusters’ conclusion. You point out that melting and vaporizing water from ice requires a huge amount of heat. You’re absolutely right. If the Mythbusters had not added those large blocks of ice to the models, the temperature difference between the box with CO2 and the controls would have been even greater.
I’ve already pointed out that the experiment showed nothing of real-life significance – remember my ‘fighting BS with BS’ posting yesterday?
So, noting that it doesn’t make much difference to anything, why do you persist in pushing that argument? Just to get one over on other posters? While not recognising that you’re doing the same as you’re accusing others of? Do yourself (and us) a favour and give it a rest. You’ve already milked the last drop.
Pete317 says, “I’ve already pointed out that the experiment showed nothing of real-life significance … why do you persist in pushing that argument?
I’m impressed with how well you paint circles around the arrows you shoot. Got bad news for you Pete, this doesn’t make you Robin Hood.
Whatever.
Look, I’m through with this petty little argument – life’s just too short.
I know you’re going to have some smart-aleckey remark about this but, you know what, I don’t care.
If scientists can ever figure out a way to put the Earth into a balloon and
then stuff the whole thing in an old cardboard box, we are in big trouble.
It will feel very claustrophobic as well & I dread the thought of how we all
would react if they planned on closing the lid. I just wonder, how much
money scientists will require, to get us back into orbit around the Sun, once they have finished their experiment.
Don’t worry though, the Bible doesn’t mention this happening…
For your experiment to be valid though,… wouldn’t the above have to be put into practice?
When you see Earth from space, the atmosphere is very close to the Earth’s surface.
You need to put a solid mass into the balloon and then measure just the thin air mixture, that represents our real world situation. And all while inside a walk in freezer at whatever the: Average Universal Space Temp. (AUST) is…
I like your ‘Do more with less’ attitude, too.
Tom, most people who have received at least some education in science understand why scientists use “models” of the real world in many of their studies. It allows them to conduct experiments on such things as the atmosphere of earth, Venus, Jupiter, and the Sun inside a laboratory. And scientifically literate people understand the great value of using models to answer specific questions about the actual object of study.
There are countless examples of the accuracy and worth of scientific models. For example, no scientist ever observed IN ANY WAY the thermonuclear furnace at the center of our Sun (or any other star), where hydrogen is crushed into helium — for obvious reasons. These furnaces are hundreds of thousands of miles beneath the star’s surface surrounded by crushing plasma at many millions of degrees Kelvin, where no scientific instrument can ever penetrate. So scientists studied models of the sun’s furnace in their laboratories in order to learn an astonishing amount of how our universe works. The existence of thermonuclear weapons bear witness to the accuracy of those models.
Sorry Tom, nothing of your comment is relevant or valid. The model used in the Mythbusters program was NOT used to examine ANY question other than whether the pseudoscience promoted by the Sky Dragon Slayers is true or false.
Their model answers that question eloquently: Adding the greenhouse gasses carbon dioxide or methane to the atmosphere does indeed raise temperature by capturing infrared energy, which would otherwise escape.
I’ve been talking about financial conflicts of interest, RobB. I’m not sure what you’re talking about.
“Invested interest” is defined as having ” a strong personal concern in a state of affairs, system, etc., sometimes resulting in a private gain.”
The term can be used to describe a pharmaceutical company researcher involved in a clinical trial of the company’s drug. Or it can be used to describe the young scientist Jonas Salk, who was looking to develop a way to prevent polio and make a name for himself. In the first case, there is no problem as long as the researcher discloses his “invested interest.” In the latter, no disclosure is necessary since any personal gain comes directly from society’s gain. [Warning: Baited hook]
And “advocacy” means “active support of an idea or cause.” Advocacy is not necessarily good or bad. It depends on what a person advocates and what is being advocated — and most importantly, whether they try to hide support they receive that constitutes a conflict of interest.
One one hand, countless “advocates” of public health measures and education are involved in researching the causes of communicable diseases. They deserve kudos for their advocacy.
On the other, there are “advocates” not quite so honorable. I’m thinking particularly of the “advocates” of views contrary to the consensus of the international scientific community, who are getting money under the table from industries wishing to confuse the public about the scientific evidence. Whether the money comes from the tobacco industry or the oil industry, these “advocates” are scoundrels.
I’ve been discussing the latter. I’m not sure what you’re talking about.
Are other readers as amazed by this crackpottery as I am?
“I regard you and your kind as one of the greatest forces
for evil we have on our hands.”
“You have nothing to offer except lies and a hatred of
our fire based civilization.”
“I am honored to fight you.”
I think we can all rest a little easier knowing the caliber of warriors the oil industry has hired to fight evil scientists, science writers, and other enemies of our fire-based civilization. LOL!
It’s a pity that mythbusters had a poorly designed experiment. Surely there are some better experiments whose design can be agreed by believers and non-believers in the greenhouse effect, whatever that might be. And then the science would be clearer, because the answers delivered would be objective and precise.
1. I would like to see experiments to show that transparent IR absorbing gases can modify the radiative thermal equilibrium temperature of a blackbody in radiative thermal equilibrium with the sun.
2. I would like to see experiments to show that CO2 molecules permitted free convection (or at least experimentally simulated free convection) can warm an underlying surface exposed to the sun (or other source of light). Note that we can get a whole atmosphere’s worth of 0.04% CO2 molecules in 17km atmosphere in 3.4m of 100% CO2 at sea level.
One thing I would urge caution on…you could have the same amount of stainless steel in a bowl and in a sieve, but the ability to hold water would be quite different. Compressing CO2 into a solid band might lead to misleading results.
Otherwise, I like your thinking, BLouis.
I bought an instrument that measures and logs CO2, humidity and temperature, but came to the conclusion that a simple lab experiment to validate the misnamed greenhouse effect could not be done in a greenhouse enclosure. To measure the net effect of CO2, we need to balance the “back radiation” against the conduction and convection of added CO2. As a personal policy, I’m simply not going to embrace anything that can’t be measured. Once you start believing in things that can’t be measured, where do you stop?
Ken, I’m not sure the solid vs sieve metal model applies to a gas which is always a bit sievy. But if the 100% CO2 introduces some distortion, such should be describable by the laws of physics and the outcome still predictable to a high degree of precision.
The tested gas mix could be anything required to demonstrate the physics. Tyndall found ethylene had a much greater effect than CO2 in “IR transmission failure”. He also found an apparent “saturation” of effect with lengths of gas greater than about 4 feet. The “saturated gassy” debate should be easily settled with real science.
Still toying with experimental design in my mind – would 100mm diameter plastic pipe 3.4m long be good enough to demonstrate the “effect” without creating too much resistance to convective flow? Would it need to be internally silvered and externally insulated to minimise losses? An IR and light transparent polyethylene top and a black painted thin metal bottom should be OK. Convection compensation sounds a whole lot trickier, but some setup with temperature and flowmeters at lateral openings at the top, coupled with ambient temperature replacement gas deliverable at the bottom under electronic feedback control should work.
I think it would be good to see a “polyclimate” experimental design by consensus of multiple participants with different perspectives. But are the players game to participate in a real scientific process?
I think an experiment would be great, but the question must be well-framed. The question is not how hot uncaptive gas gets or how much IR passes through to the target. We know IR energy is absorbed by water vapor and CO2 in narrow bands, the gas heats up, the container will heat up, etc. Energy is conserved. The question is: how much is the emitter temperature increased? For the AGW theory to work, outgoing IR must be absorbed, then re-emitted by the atmosphere, then come back to earth to heat the thermal mass of the ocean. A minute’s thought will show–if there is any effect, it’s not going to be much and you need to subtract any increased conduction or convection from the added CO2. Sane people accept that CO2 can only delay outgoing energy and this delay could be a long time, perhaps as much as a few milliseconds. With a time delay, this means the peak temperature might be reduced a little bit and the minimum temperature might be increased a little bit, but will have no effect on the 24-hour average, or the 365-day average…or any average. It cannot create higher and higher record temperatures.
I think the reason certain people want to talk about the human-controlled radiation modulator the TOA is the same reason that the mind-control spoon-bender wants to supply the spoon.
There is the fundamental problem of what is actually getting measured at the moment!
a. land surface temperature is measured as air temperature about 2m from the ground.
b. sea surface temperature is measured as sea temperature at a depth of some variable number of meters
c. satellite surface temperature is the temperature of whatever the effective radiating surface is as seen from a satellite – which could be the top of the clouds, the top few mm of the sea, the ground or vegetation or ice, etc.
Do we really know what we are measuring now and the logic behind it and the comparability of land and sea measurements, etc????
The well framed question can be discussed by a “polyclimate” community until they get it right. Is anyone game to frame the question?
Maybe you need to think for more than a minute then. How exactly are you expecting increased conduction and convection, by the way, from these changes in atmospheric composition?
Pure nonsense. The issue isn’t one of “delay”. It is about the balance between energy in and energy out. It is the same logic by which if you have water flowing into the sink and out the drain and it finds some level where it is balanced and then you partially plug up the drain with debris, the water level will rise until the balance is restored. (In this analogy, water level plays the role of temperature…because the water level must increase to increase the rate that water flows down the drain, just as the temperature must increase to increase the rate that energy leaves the earth.)
No…The reason is because we want to talk science where you want to talk nonsense that is just motivated by your extreme ideology and has nothing to do with science.
With all due respect Joel, I am glad engineers run the world and not physicists like you.
The reason I hope we can talk about a time delay for outgoing radiation is because it should be clear that you can’t hold much energy in something that is cold, small and rarefied. There is much more thermal mass in the ocean waters than in our small amount of atmosphere. Maybe you believe “greenhouse” gasses contribute an added 33C to our surface temperature. Perhaps you don’t believe an atmosphere of pure nitrogen would have a temperature gradient. How far does your 33C extend? Is it 33C warmer than it would be at 10,000 feet? 35,000 feet? 100 miles where the temperature is closer to 3K (though it would be better to think of space as having no temperature, since temperature depends on mass).
If I add a molecule of CO2 to an atmospheric sample so there is now one more molecule in the sample than there was, then I expect the thermal conductivity of that atmosphere to increase, not decrease. If I add a CO2 molecule to an atmospheric sample so there is now one more molecule than there was, and the atmosphere is not constrained, and that molecule resonates, then I expect the density of the sample to decrease and the convection effect to increase. These effects will counter any “back radiation” effect. What is the net result?
Radiation balance is a thing that is. You don’t have to worry about it, it will take care of itself. It always surprises me when people think they can get useful work out of weak radiation. The energy density is low. The thermal mass of the emitter is small. The emitter temperature is low. With intense radiation, you can get some useful work done, but this “back radiation” is not intense.
The bathtub analogy is fun and it would be great if we knew all the inputs and outputs with any precision, but we don’t and it might take a hundred years to improve our instrumentation and gather enough high-precision data to be sure of anything. Until then, there are lots of sources of water of many different forms and many different ways for the water to escape and all kinds of things stirring the water and making it slosh and a lot we don’t know about the system.
I’m an extreme ideologist and you’re an innocent physicist with a heart full of love trying to save the world from itself. Outstanding.
Ken,
The fact that the surface of the earth is 33 K warmer than it would be in the absence of an IR-absorbing atmosphere is a simple consequence of conservation of energy. The notion that the lapse rate in the atmosphere somehow can get you around conservation of energy is false; even if you have a certain lapse rate in the troposphere, that doesn’t determine the surface temperature: you need both a slope and an intercept to specify y at a given x if you have a line y = m*x + b. Also, the atmosphere does not have to have a lapse rate at the adiabatic lapse rate; rather, the adiabatic lapse rate essentially determines the maximum lapse rate that can be maintained, because lapse rates higher than that are unstable to convection. (For example, in the stratosphere the temperature actually increases with height.)
The thermal mass is essentially irrelevant. As you do correctly note, it is the oceans that eventually store most of the energy. The role of the atmosphere is to regulate the amount of energy from the sun that gets in and the amount of energy from the earth that gets out…and hence to determine the radiative balance. The radiative balance at the top of the atmosphere is what matters because the Earth system can only exchange energy with the sun and space via radiation; the surface can exchange energy with the atmosphere also by conduction and convection, which is why looking at the radiative balance of the surface isn’t that informative.
Your claim about increases in conduction and convection have a number of problems. In particular, as I have noted before, conduction is not a significant player except at the shortest length scales. The extent to which convection (and, in particular, evaporation-condensation) increases significantly (which is not really due to the increase of CO2 directly but due to the rise in temperature) is already included in the
modeling as the so-called “lapse rate feedback”, a negative feedback in the models.
The Slayers are just the equivalent of the Young Earthers in the debate over evolution. You are not arguing real science.
Joel says, “The Slayers are just the equivalent of the Young Earthers in the debate over evolution. You are not arguing real science.”
It’s hardly a coincidence that Creationists and Sky Dragon Slayers both misrepresent the Laws of Thermodynamics.
Ken said, “With all due respect Joel, I am glad engineers run the world and not physicists like you.”
Without physicists, engineers would still be communicating with drums and carrier pigeons.
Ken also wrote, “I’m an extreme ideologist.” Finally, something we agree on.
Engineers are physicists too. They study physics in general and additionally:
Mechanics (solid body),
Fluid mechanics,
Thermodynamics,
Heat Transfer…
They also study:
material science, computer and computing, statistics, economy, business administration for mechanical engineers.
There are other engineers as well such as electrical engineers, chemical engineers, …
Not quite Edim. Physics is a branch of science and physicists are scientists in this field. Not all engineers are scientists — just like not all medical doctors are scientists. While engineers and physicians employ scientific knowledge, most in these professions are in the business of applying science not conducting it. Would you call the guy who fills your dental carries a scientist? Like engineers and physicians, some dentists are scientists, most are not.
With all due respect to engineers (and I mean that sincerely), you don’t become a physicist by taking 2 or 3 semesters of an introductory physics course! This doesn’t mean physicists are better than engineers…It is just that their training is different and their strengths and weaknesses tend to be different.
Some engineers know more physics than some physicists. And their physics must work.
Many engineers do scientific research.
Many physicists are just bureaucrats. Of course, many engineers are bureaucrats too.
My point is, there are many engineers (good ones), who are more than qualified to have an opinion on physical sciences.
Joel. I’m a qualified mechanical engineer. It’s true I learned little about radiative physics on my courses. However, I did learn about fluid dynamics, heat engines, coupled oscillators and a host of other things applicable to climate science. One thing I learned is that you don’t rely on theoretical models if there are large factors involved concerning actual physical phenomena which are poorly understood. e.g. cloud forcing and the absorption of solar shortwave by clouds. A 25W/m^2 discrepancy when you are trying to pin down a 1.7W/m^2 signal should raise big red flags on certainty estimates. Anything else is mutual delusion between people who review each other’s work.
I also hold a degree in the history and philosophy of science, and have a deep understanding of the way groupthink, consensus, prejudice and sheer inertia comes to replace the ongoing development of fundamental knowledge and the impartial application of the scientifiic method in the construction and maintenance of the theory and practice of scientific institutions during the periods between revolutions in understanding.
When theoretical physicists say they are right and everyone else is wrong it’s not unreasonable to turn their Dunning Kruger pointing finger back to themselves. I’m sure they have a coherent understanding of the theoretical radiative physics they have constructed, but when they ignore important variables in the fluid dynamics in their rush to construct models and allow others to make false claims about the inferences which can be reasonably drawn from them, they do themselves and everyone else a dis-service.
Not many physicists understand systems the way systems engineers do. Physicist are usually more reductionist. In terms of systems the biologist or computer science is more in tune with that than a physicist.
Yes, it is strange to see physicists so utterly confused about the physics of climate. The reason for this state of affairs can be found in my new book Dr Faustus of Modern Physics http://www.csc.kth.se/~cgjoh/mysticism.pdf
which explains why and how rationality in physics was abandoned in the
beginning of the 20the century.
I expect most engineers could describe in general terms how a resistive heater works. They might not know the nuances, but they won’t make big errors like calculating that more energy comes out than was put in. In addition, most engineers will understand how a refrigerating system works. Or an ultrasonic welder. Or a Peltier cooler. Or the Carnot cycle. Or a photovoltaic cell. Or a nuclear reactor. Or an exothermic chemical reaction. Or battery chemistry. It might take five minutes of surfing the Internet, but they will grasp the basic function…what goes in and what comes out. Most engineers will be comfortable with the concepts of thermal mass, thermal resistance and thermal gradients.
However, to understand how a IR, back-radiating atmospheric heater works…one so powerful that it can increase the surface temperature of the earth by almost 10%…that requires a climate scientist. For example, someone with a brilliant intellect like Ray Pierrehumbert.
Distributed uniformly over the mass of the planet the absorbed energy would raise the Earth’s temperature to nearly 800,000K after a billion years, if Earth had no way of getting rid of it.
—Raymond T. Pierrehumbert
Climate scientists will tell you that Ray’s statement is 100% true…while any engineer would scratch his head and say “Uh, what? Excuse me?” Ray’s statement is equivalent to this:
“If I had a magic wand,” Ken said, “that could turn lead into gold, I’d have myself a whole lot of gold, man.”
This statement is literally true, but there is no usable intelligence in saying it.
How about some wisdom from Ghostbusters?
“Personally, I liked the university. They gave us money and facilities, we didn’t have to produce anything! You’ve never been out of college! You don’t know what it’s like out there! I’ve worked in the private sector. They expect results.”
– Dr. Ray Stantz (Ghostbusters)
It’s fitting Ken Coffman, the publisher of the pseudoscience comedy “Slaying the Sky Dragon,” would turn to the paranormal comedy “Ghostbusters,” for some “wisdom” to quote.
However, he should have quoted movie dialog far more appropriate for describing the “scientists” who wrote “Slaying the Sky Dragon” —
Dana Barrett: You know, you don’t act like a scientist.
Dr. Peter Venkman: They’re usually pretty stiff?
Dana Barrett: You’re more like a game show host.
Ken Coffman says:
That you guys lower yourselves to the level of attacking Ray Pierrehumbert’s attempt to give his fellow physical scientists an order-of-magnitude understanding of the amount of energy the Earth receives from the sun over the eons just shows how scientifically bankrupt your arguments are. In fact, Ray’s statement is a perfectly reasonable description of the sorts of energies involved. It is obviously presented as a counterfactual (since there is no way to prevent the earth from radiating any energy back out into space) and in that spirit, it clearly has some elements that are not realistic or that require assumptions: e.g., the assumption that the specific heat at those temperatures would still be roughly the same as at current terrestrial temperatures for the resulting plasma…or whatever it would be at those temperatures. [And, by the way, it took me just a few minutes to verify Ray’s calculation and to see what value he was assuming for the specific heat; I find it a bit ironic that the statement is being criticized by some people who would probably not even be able to reproduce the calculation if you asked them to.]
The point was to give fellow scientists an understanding of the scales involved. If I were Ray, I might have chosen a shorter timescale like a million or a hundred thousand years in order to keep the temperature less extreme, but that is certainly a matter of taste in presenting such counterfactual order-of-magnitude calculations. He probably wanted to choose a long period to emphasize the counterfactual nature of it…and also because it is closer to the timescale over which the earth has actually been receiving energy from the sun.
That’s something that amuses me…how the team sticks together and won’t budge an inch…even when faced with a statement that is monumentally stupid.
I can imagine sitting in a design review…
Boss: Worst case, how hot is your transistor die going to get?
Ken: Well, boss, if there was no way for the heat energy to dissipate, it would get really hot. In fact, if you waited long enough, it would get 176 times as hot as the sun’s surface.
Boss: Oh, really? Hotter than the surface of the sun? You’re aware the equipment would ignite and melt and vaporize long before the temperature got to 800,000K?
Ken: Sure, I know, I’m just saying, if the heat was captured and accumulated, and you waited long enough, eventually, the temperature of my transistor will get hotter than the center of the sun. It’s a fact, boss.
Boss: At what temperature does silicon melt?
Ken: 1400C or so.
Boss: Long before that, you have slag…there is no transistor.
Ken: I know, but if there was some way to accumulate heat energy without losing any, and keep adding it, then the temperature would increase without bound.
Boss: Do you know of such a apparatus or scheme?
Ken: No, but what I said was true…
Boss: Does your thought experiment have any basis in physical reality?
Ken: No.
Boss: Then you gave me the opposite of information and you’re wasting my time. Pack up your desk, Coffman, and go get a job as a climate scientist.
I’ll offer the Pierrehumbert quote…it will make a good interview question the next time I’m in the hiring loop–a good test of whether the candidate engineer has any common sense (and a sense of humor).
Ken,
Ray did not present his statement as a “worst case scenario”; he presented it as an order-of-magnitude understanding of the amount of energy that the earth receives from the sun.
Frankly, you are a piece of work. First, you publish one of the biggest books of anti-scientific pseudoscientific garbage in modern times and then you have the nerve to attack genuine scientists.
I hope everyone understands these are the kind of garbage-purveyors that climate scientists have to deal with. It is really sad such people are around to pollute our scientific discourse with their nonsense.
askolnick says:
Without physicists, engineers would still be communicating with drums and carrier pigeons.
Without engineers, physicists would still be observing space with hand ground lenses, and investigating electromagnetism with hand wound coils.
By the way askolnick,
Samuel Morse, painter and anatomist invented the telegraph.
Antonio Meucci, mechanical engineer, invented the telephone,
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/jun/17/humanities.internationaleducationnews
Konrad Zuse, civil engineer invented the world’s first functional program-controlled Turing-complete computer, the Z3, which became operational in May 1941.
Bob Metcalfe electrical engineer from the United States co-invented Ethernet and founded 3Com
As I said — and Tallbroke ignored — it took scientists to make the discoveries those engineers needed to become inventors.
Without the discoveries of scientists Hans Orsted and William Sturgeon, Samuel Morse would have been sending Morse code messages by beating on drums. And Meucci would have invented the tele-carrier pigeon.
And neither Zuse nor Metcalfe would be computing or Etherneting anything if English physicist John Fleming had not pioneered the development of vacuum tubes for detecting and amplifying electrical signals in 1904 — and the great mathematician and computer scientist Alan Turing, the father of modern computer science, had not developed the concept of the algorithm and computation.
Tallbroke has further proven my point, that without physicists, engineers would still be communicating with drums and carrier pigeons,
askolnick
You didn’t say ‘scientists’
You said ‘Physicists’
But it’s a pointless debate, because scientists and engineers have worked together and furthered each others discoveries and inventions for centuries, back to a time when no-one bothered to differentiate between the two.
What is worth noting though is that many major breakthroughs in various scientific fields have been made by discipline outsiders, and the defensive turf war mentality of consensus climate scientists has been largely responsible for the myopic problems the field has run into.
I don’t think that is a very accurate assessment of the reality of the situation. For one, climate scientists are in fact a motley crew…As has been pointed out, Hansen is an astrophysicist by training, Gavin Schmidt is (if I recall correctly) an applied mathematician by training, Ray Pierrehumbert is (I believe) a physicist. What climate science is actually suffering from is the same thing that evolutionary theory is suffering from, which is outsiders who are making pseudoscientific attacks on it because they don’t like the conclusions being reached. To some degree, this can produce an overreaction on the part of the scientists (e.g., it is not pleasant to read scientists taking some pleasure in the death of someone else or at least talking about wanting to obstruct FOIA requests), but given the nastiness, duplicitiveness, deceptiveness, and vigorously anti-science nature of the attacks that have been waged on climate science and climate scientists, it is probably not surprising that the scientist have sometimes reacted in this way. Sure, you are going to have some sort of bunker mentality set in when there are really people
lobbing bombs at you.
Look at this thread and how many people have actually defended a book (Slayers…) that is probably one of the most anti-science books , full of such pseudoscientific nonsense that even crazies like Lord Monckton can’t stomach it! This is the sort of crap that scientists in the field of climate science have to face just because they are working in a field where there are lots of people who take interest in the work because of its challenge to their ideological dogmas.
Great points Joel.
Sadly, they’ll be lost on the ones here who need them most.
I note with amusement that ascolnick castigates Tim Ball for misrepresenting himself as a climatologist because his first degree was in Geography and his Phd was done at a time when there were no Phd’s in ‘climatology’, but feels that Joel Shore makes “great points” when he (wrongly) informs us that James Hansen’s qualification is in astrophysics (he was a visiting student in that discipline at Kyoto), and that Gavin Schmidt is a mathematician (who made an utter cock-up of his stats in his solar paper (Benestad & Schmidt 2009).
The fact is ‘climatology’ is a cross discipline field where people from many different academic backgrounds can make a valid contribution. The exclusivity (and boy do they go to a lot of effort to exclude people) of the club is based not in academic distinction or field but in adherence to an unproven hypothesis confronted with a mass of conflicting evidence they wish to avoid dealing with as the scientific method demands.
For a good measure of Tallspoke’s veracity, you should examine the whoppers in his comment above:
“I note with amusement that ascolnick castigates Tim Ball for misrepresenting himself as a climatologist because his first degree was in Geography and his Phd was done at a time when there were no Phd’s in ‘climatology’, but feels that Joel Shore makes “great points” when he (wrongly) informs us that James Hansen’s qualification is in astrophysics (he was a visiting student in that discipline at Kyoto), and that Gavin Schmidt is a mathematician (who made an utter cock-up of his stats in his solar paper (Benestad & Schmidt 2009).”
What shameless mendacity. Tim Ball falsely identifies himself as having been a Professor of Climatology for 28 and sometimes 32 years when in truth he was a professor of geography for 8 years! And his Ph.D. was in geography, NOT climatology. And when he got that degree, there already had been other scientists who ACTUALLY earned Ph.Ds. in climatology. But that didn’t stop the humbug from claiming to be the “first” person in Canada to earn a Ph.D. in climatology.
Tallspoke then falsely accuses Joel Shore of misinforming us that “James Hansen’s qualification is in astrophysics (he was a visiting student in that discipline at Kyoto).”
But that’s just what Joel told us when he said, “Hansen is an astrophysicist by training,”. Tallspoke would have us believe that Joel is as big a liar as Tim Ball because being “a student” isn’t the same as receiving “training.”
The mendacious spinner then wants us to believe Joel’s saying “Gavin Smith was trained in applied mathematics” is the same as Tim Ball lying about his academic and professional credentials — solely because Tallspoke doesn’t believe Schmidt is a good mathematician!
I have to wonder if Tallspoke EVER reads what he writes before hitting his enter button.
Ken, you may find it interesting to look a Bo Nordell’s work on thermal pollution as a potential cause of warming. Makes more sense to me since physics says that if we generate heat on earth, it can cause warming above the radiative equilibrium temperature. His analysis talks more about heat energy and its distribution is large real thermal masses – land and water.
It is not difficult to calculate the rate of heat production from anthropogenic sources … It turns out to be something like 0.02 W/m^2 over the earth’s surface. This makes it basically negligible compared to the forcing due to anthropogenic increases in greenhouse gas concentrations (i.e., it is about 2 orders of magnitude less).
This is not to say that it can’t have important effects on local scales (e.g., the warming of river water by a power plant) or that it might not become a problem in the future if the amount of energy we use increases by an order of magnitude or so, but it is not a significant issue on a global scale now.
Right, Joel, and if urban heating biases your instrumental temperature record, we have a problem. I know the alchemists of climate science adjusted for urban heating or declared no adjustment is necessary, but I don’t trust the progressive activists who dominate academia and government.
The climatologist-biased view of heat says that heat is only transmitted by radiation and that temperature is a measure of heat. Conduction and convection can be ignored. Heat energy movements and temperature changed are linked via the standard heat equation to mass and specific heat. That is why there is such a different between Nordell’s work which makes physical sense and the climatologist view which says it is radiation or nothing.
So called externally sourced radiative “forcings” are radiatively balanced in a state of radiative thermal equilibrium by radiative emissions.
Changing potential energy (chemical, gravitational, nuclear, etc) to heat results in heat energy which performs work which raises temperatures of masses nearby. This phenomenon is an undeniable fact of physics which has been quantified by Nordell. Perhaps his calculations should be repeated by others in the time-honored scientific way.
BLouis says, “The climatologist-biased view of heat says that heat is only transmitted by radiation and that temperature is a measure of heat.” This is false and a strawman argument he put up to knock down.
I don’t know of ANY climatologist who ever said or thinks “heat is only transmitted by radiation.” Likewise, I know of no climatologist who uses that overly simplistic, inaccurate definition of temperature.
“Temperature is a measurement of the average kinetic energy of the molecules in an object or system and can be measured with a thermometer or a calorimeter. It is a means of determining the internal energy contained within the system….
“Note that temperature is different from heat, though the two concepts are linked. Temperature is a measure of the internal energy of the system, while heat is a measure of how energy is transferred from one system (or body) to another. ”
http://physics.about.com/od/glossary/g/temperature.htm
BLouis79,
If you don’t know what you are talking about, the best thing to do is not to say anything rather than spewing out a whole bunch of total gibberish and nonsense. It is now clear that you understand absolutely nothing about the subject that you are talking about.
I found Nordell’s “paper” here: https://www.cfa.harvard.edu/~wsoon/JosDeLaatWasteHeat08-d/Nordell03.pdf and what you are endorsing is a claim that 0.02 W/m^2 of heat from anthropogenic energy use (which, thankfully, he did calculate correctly) produces a temperature change of 0.7 C. That is a climate sensitivity of 35 C / (W/m^2), which puts the IPCC’s paltry estimate of 0.75 +/- 0.25 C / (W/m^2) to shame!
For those interested in the credentials of Bo Nordell, suggest more material is available via his global warming home page: http://tinyurl.com/5wb6l2s
It is clear that climate scientists are fixated on W/m2 radiation as the major means of heat energy transmission to thermal masses and nowhere does the standard physics of heat/temperature/mass/sepcific heat feature in their thinking.
BLouis79,
You might want to read this reply:
https://www.cfa.harvard.edu/~wsoon/JosDeLaatWasteHeat08-d/Coveyetal05-Nordell.pdf
In which they show how silly his result is.
Rattus, the reply is no different from what Joel says and sticks to the “radiation is all” mindset climate scientists are stuck in.
Do climate scientists:
* deny that heat energy liberated from potential energy on earth causes any warming?
* deny that one can attempt to compute the disposition of that heat amongst the thermal masses of earth?
* deny the fundamental physics of the standard heat equation?
* deny that at gases have a rather smaller heat capacity than solids (volumetrically about 3 orders of magnitude less)
* deny that when a blackbody is heated by the production of work, that it’s thermal radiative equilibrium temperature will rise
BLouis says, “Rattus, the reply is no different from what Joel says and sticks to the ‘radiation is all’ mindset climate scientists are stuck in.
Do climate scientists:
* deny that heat energy liberated from potential energy on earth causes any warming?” etc.
BLouis your stubborn persistence in setting up strawman arguments to knock down and putting words in the mouths of climatologists is blatantly dishonest.
What is scientifically dishonest is:
* unwillingness to propose a precise greenhouse hypothesis that can be tested experimentally;
* refusal to accept that an experiment can even verify a proposed greenhouse phenomenon
* misguided application of radiative thermal equilibrium theory to heat generated on earth by conversion of potential energy
What is dishonest is to set own requirements in a way that looks objective, but is carefully drafted to give a wrong impression to people without proper background knowledge. That’s what you have been doing systematically for a long time as far as I can tell.
What Blouishooey! Do you ever post anything even remotely truthful?
What is “scientifically dishonest” is to persistently set up strawman arguments to pretend to knock down and to deliberately misrepresent the arguments of climatologists.
BLouis, it’s a pity you didn’t heed Joel’s advice and keep quiet.
Or, Samuel Clemen’s: “It is better to keep your mouth closed and let people think you are a fool than to open it and remove all doubt.”
The Dunning-Kruger effect ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect ) seems to be particularly strong in BLouis79!
BLouis,
Forget it. They (Pekka, Andrew, Joel) are not interested in your scientific statements. They shouted like whores in response to keep you silence.
Fascinating comment re The Dunning-Kruger effect, Joel. Thanks for bringing their work to our attention. As a nominator for several “Iggies” and an author of an article on the the Ig Nobels for JAMA, I thought I was an authority on the subject. The fact that I did not know Dunning and Kruger won an Iggy in 2000 suggests I too may be suffering from the Dunning-Kruger effect. :-(
On the other hand, the fact that I am able to doubt my expertise suggests I’m not ;-)
But there’s no question you’re right about Blouis. He could be a poster child for the Dunning-Kruger effect. :-)
Sam says, “Forget it. They (Pekka, Andrew, Joel) are not interested in your scientific statements. They shouted like whores in response to keep you silence.”
I didn’t see any scientific statements from Blouie, just dishonest strawmen arguments.
It is interesting, Sam, that you know so much about how whores shout.
Just to make it clear why we are so dismissive of BLouis79’s “scientific” arguments here:
(1) He falsely claims that climatologists consider only radiative effects when in fact the quantitative calculations are done with radiative-convective models.
(2) He makes this claim in defending the work of Nordell, who in fact did only consider radiative heat transfer.
(3) Worse than that, Nordell used a model for radiative heat transfer which is fine to show basic qualitative effects but completely inappropriate for calculating quantitative effects. If climatologists used the same model in their work, they would not just be predicting temperature rises of ~3 C for doubling CO2 but rather more like 100 C or more.
No strawmen arguments from me, only logical attempts to find out what the warmists are actually arguing, since they have trouble articulating scientific argument.
I must have hit a raw nerve to be ganged up on. Interesting. Must be getting close.
BTW, Dunning-Kruger effect applied properly to “certain” science would state that the people who are more certain are more likely to know less.
Real scientists will slay me with a real testable hypothesis and a real experiment in the time honored scientific manner. I’m ready.
“I must have hit a raw nerve to be ganged up on. Interesting. Must be getting close.”
Blouie, you flatter yourself.
Joel, happy to have your input into an experimental design to demonstrate whatever physical effect you think the “greenhouse” is (backradiation vs insulation vs IR absorption) and where the heat energy is supposed to go or not go.
I don’t really see the point of such an experiment. To the extent that you want to investigate the absorption of radiation by CO2, that is already well-understood and measured in the laboratory.
To the extent that you want to really explore radiative transfer in the atmosphere, your experiment is too simplistic…In particular, the atmospheric greenhouse effect relies on the fact that there is a lapse rate in the atmosphere and also that the density of the atmosphere (and hence the amount of absorbing molecules in it) decreases as you go up. Also, radiative transfer in the atmosphere is a well-understood subject and experimentally verified by the entire field of remote sensing.
To the extent that you want to determine the full effect of additional CO2, including feedbacks, clearly that cannot be done within your simple model. There are certainly uncertainties here (most notably in cloud feedbacks) that we desperately want to better quantify, but again the way this has to be done is by studying the atmosphere, not a little box with CO2 in it.
The “saturated gassy” debate isn’t really a debate since it has been settled science since the 1950s. However, even if it were, you aren’t going to demonstrate anything involving it in a small scale experiment because, as I noted in another post, it involves the full atmosphere, in particular the facts that the atmosphere get more tenuous as you go up and that there is a lapse rate so that higher parts of the atmosphere are colder.
I wonder if our argument about “back radiation” is a revisitation of the one-fluid vs. two-fluid arguments that go back to Michael Faraday’s day.
By ‘current’, I mean anything progressive, whether it be a fluid of electricity, or two fluids moving in opposite directions, or merely vibrations, or, speaking still more generally, progressive forces. By ‘arrangement’, I understand a local adjustment of particles, or fluids, or forces, not progressive. Many other reasons might be urged in support of the view of a ‘current’ rather than an ‘arrangement’, but I am anxious to avoid stating unnecessarily what will occur to others at the moment.
– Michael Faraday, Experimental Researches in Electricity
Of course, it doesn’t make much difference–as long as the “back fluid” is not double-counted…i.e., in the case of outgoing longwave radiation, not already included in the balance statement.
Judith,
The authors you’ve referred to do like the idea of “slaying the sky dragon”. But do you , too , really mean it when you write:
“I’m hoping we can slay the greenhouse dragon that is trying to refute the Tyndall gas effect once and for all.”
Hands off! I like the dragon. I wouldn’t want to be 33 deg C colder than I am.
tt –
Hands off! I like the dragon. I wouldn’t want to be 33 deg C colder than I am.
Amazing, just amazing. Do you ever read what you write? Do you ever read what you’re answering?
Sky Dragon Slayer leader John O’Sullivan is becoming the “Voldemort” of Global Warming Deniers. At least among deniers in this discussion, he may soon be known as, “”He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named.”
I notice we haven’t heard a peep from Pete Ridley or other Sky Dragon Slayer apologists about O’Sullivan’s latest “news article,” in which he maliciously and wrongly attacks the UN’s World Meterological Organization over charges he completely made up.
http://judithcurry.com/2011/01/31/slaying-a-greenhouse-dragon/#comment-82675
In this article dated July 1, O’Sullivan falsely reports climate skeptics are absolutely “aghast” over the election of climatologist Jim Salinger to be president of the UN’s World Meteorological Organization’s Commission for Agricultural Meteorology, because, he falsely says, Salinger is under investigation by British police for “criminal misconduct.” O’Sullivan quotes a statement by Detective Superintendent Julian Gregory concerning their criminal probe into the criminal THEFT of climatologist Jim Salinger’s EMAIL, and falsely claims it’s about an “ongoing criminal probe” of Dr. Salinger “criminal misconduct.”
(For those for whom truth actually matters, in 2010, South Korean Byong Lee — not Dr. Salinger — was elected president of the Commission for Agricultural Meteorology for a four-year term.)
What? Not a word from Pete in defense of O’Sullivan’s outrageous and malicious falsehoods? I find this curious considering how much effort Pete already spent playing word games to defend the “integrity” of the Sky Dragon Slayer’s leader – such as the game he played to show how, he says, I’ve been “distorting” what O’Sullivan says about his credentials.
Pete wrote, “I do not recall John O’Sullivan ever claiming that he is ‘ .. licensed to practice law .. ‘ as Andrew keeps suggesting. I do not believe that you can produce any evidence whatsoever that John said that he is ‘licensed to practice law.’”
Pete took words I hadn’t attributed to O’Sullivan and challenged me to prove he had used these exact words. Ignoring the fact that O’Sullivan is falsely claiming to be an attorney representing Tim Ball in British Columbia courts, Pete demands that I prove a strawman argument that O’Sullivan used the exact words “licensed to practice law.”
I told Pete where to find a plethora of evidence that O’Sullivan’s is falsely claiming to be an attorney representing Tim Ball in the Supreme Court of British Columbia. And I welcomed Pete to confirm for himself that, according to the Law Society of British Columbia, John O’Sullivan is NOT licensed to practice law in British Columbia and that he is NOT a member of the American Bar Association, and that he’s not a lot of other things he claims in his resumes. Pete instead chose to play his word games.
So everyone can see some of the evidence for themselves, I’ve just uploaded screen captures of some of the bogus claims John O’Sullivan made on LinkedIn.com’s Science and Technology Writers Group back in May.
Below are some of the quotes along with links to the uploaded LinkedIn email screen captures. Among them are O’Sulivan’s claim to being the author of two National Review articles — which turned out to be written the magazine’s editor-at-large, John O’Sullivan and not by this imposter!
Perhaps the most audacious falsehood in these quotes is his hilariously ironic statement, “I am a member of the American Bar Association. The ABA’s Model Rules of Professional Conduct states that a lawyer ‘shall not knowingly make a false statement of material fact.’”
This humbug is giving chutzpah a bad name: This Sky Dragon Slayer leader is NOT a member of the American Bar Association.
Mr. O’Sullivan says I “cite quotes from [him] that are blatantly faked,” so I suspect he’ll claim these LinkedIn emails are “fake.” If they were, he could inform LinkedIn.com’s attorneys and I would be in serious legal trouble for forging the company’s emails.
Unlike many of the Sky Dragon Slayer leader’s professional credentials, these emails are real and I’d be happy to prove it in court, should he be so inclined.
It says a lot about the scientific credibility and integrity of the Sky Dragon Slayer authors (and publisher!) that they would pick such a humbug to be their leader.
———–
John O’Sullivan’s statements made to
LinkedIn’s Science and Technology Writers Group
Andrew, you illustrate superbly well why you are not a lawyer and I am. Thanks! http://www.aaskolnick.com/public_html/screencapture_no.1_5.22_6.02.jpg
“By innuendo you defame me. Your constant inferences that lawyers serve their clients rather than uphold the law are patently false. It is unethical for any lawyer to intentionally lie for a client. It’s called perjury and if caught may land a corrupt attorney in jail. I am a member of the American Bar Association. The ABA’s Model Rules of Professional Conduct states that a lawyer ‘shall not knowingly make a false statement of material fact.’ …
“Finally, I now give you fair warning that I will not tolerate any further innuendos from you about my ethics. Go look up innuendo as it relates to libel. Better still speak to a libel expert. You’ll learn that what you think is perfectly innocent on its face, isn’t at all when it is posited with extrinsic facts known to be negative when placed in proximity to a particular recipient of the communication, for the purpose eliciting the harmful effect on reputation. …
“I will not accept any more of your repeated innuendos that I have any relationship whatsoever to tobacco and coal/oil interests. Your style of debating is far too personal-stick to the issues and don’t tell a libel lawyer how to suck eggs. No one wants to see you slapped with a very expensive libel suit. I’ve bigger fish to fry.” http://www.aaskolnick.com/global_deniers/screencapture_5.17_9.21.jpg
“We mentioned the Michael Mann libel suit in which I am defence counsel for Dr. Tim Ball. …
“Gareth referred to ‘deniers’ and accused me of ‘mischaracterizing’ the high level of scientific certainty about climate. Andrew agreed and insulted my status as a lawyer but stating, ‘An attorney is to truth the way a professional boxer is to unblemished skin.” :-) ‘ He suggested as an attorney I might be ‘hiding the truth’ and I needed to ‘cut the crap.’ ….
“Andrew then realizes I am Tim Ball’s attorney and he declares, ‘It seems you ARE being paid to bad mouth climatologists and other scientists after all.’” http://www.aaskolnick.com/global_deniers/screencapture_5.24_8.02.jpg
“Andrew, please do not tell an experienced and successful lawyer how to suck eggs. As I explained to you, Dr Ball will not only substantiate his position but will also demonstrate to the court damning and contradictory evidence that refutes the hot air you keep blowing.” http://www.aaskolnick.com/public_html/screencapture_5.22_6.02A.jpg
“I will, indeed, be well paid if I am able to persuade a judge and jury that doomsaying climate scientists, Michael Mann and/or Andrew Weaver are ‘dishonest and criminal frauds.’
“I’ve every confidence the court will agree with me. This is how a modern democracy under the rule of law operates and how good attorneys become successful. Is there something wrong with that?”
http://www.aaskolnick.com/global_deniers/screencapture_5.23_4.35.jpg
“Yes, I am prepared to put my money where my mouth is on this by way of a contingency fee agreement with Dr. Tim Ball. I get paid only if he wins. You ‘journalists’ on here who would rather spend your time thinking up ways to make personal attacks on scientists and their lawyers who want to get into court to prove the facts.”
http://www.aaskolnick.com/global_deniers/screencapture_5.26_11.58.jpg
Emailed May 26, 2011 7:43 pm:
John, just one direct link to an article by you in National Review or Forbes. Should be simple enough. Otherwise, Google will just throw up a lot of links to the other John O’Sullivan, you know, the one who really does write regularly for National Review, and I’m not interested in his work, just yours…
Posted by Gareth Renowden
http://www.aaskolnick.com/global_deniers/screencapture_Garreth_5.26_7.43.jpg
Emailed May 26, 2011 7:50 pm:
here: http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/220381/going-against-green/john-osullivan
Posted by John O’Sullivan
http://www.aaskolnick.com/global_deniers/OSullivan_NationalReview_claim_email_screen_capture.jpg
Emailed May 26, 2011 7:57 pm:
Here’s another as you’ve given up trying to defend the indefensible fraud of man-made global warming:
http://nrd.nationalreview.com/article/?q=MTFmZmUxOWZjZmIwOGU5NmNmYWQ3YmFiNjJiYzE2NDM=
Posted by John O’Sullivan
http://www.aaskolnick.com/global_deniers/OSullivan_NationalReview_claim_email_screen_capture2.jpg
Rather then read this verbiage ascolnick, I’ll await developments in the court case you have been making subjudicial comments about. Any idea when it is scheduled for?
Tallspoke, the case has not been scheduled. No judge has been assigned. The plaintiff is still waiting for Ball’s attorney to file their answer to Prof. Mann’s amended claim.
You are again speaking quite carelessly. I have NOT made “subjudicial comments” about the lawsuit. John O’Sullivan is doing enough of that for everyone. My comments addressed Mr. O’Sullivan’s and Mr. Ball’s bogus professional credentials — which are NOT a matter in this lawsuit.
For your edification, I had posted a link to Ball’s answer to the original claim and to Prof. Mann’s amended claim. If you had edified yourself, you would have seen that John O’Sullivan is not a party in this suit nor is he listed as one of the attorneys. This is a fact on public record, not a “subjudicial comment.”
“I had posted a link to Ball’s answer to the original claim ”
Please post it again, I can’t find it amongst the acres of diatribe and verbiage.
Sorry Tallbloke, I didn’t post the link to Ball’s answer to Mann’s complaint in this discussion, I posted it in the discussion following my book review on Amazon.com. The link to a PDF copy is:
http://aaskolnick.com/global_deniers/2011%2004%2021%20-%20Response%20to%20Civil%20Claim-1.pdf
Thanks ascolnick, an entertaining read.
A more entertaining read is Dr. Mann’s amended complaint, which has greatly been lengthened with many defamatory statements O’Sullivan has made acting on Ball’s behalf. Still waiting to see the defendant’s answer to these.
Isn’t this somewhat contradictory ascolnick? You spend the best part of a week telling us John O Sullivan is not a practising lawyer who therefore cannot act as Tim Ball’s legal representative.
Then you say he is acting on Tim Ball’s behalf.
I read Mann’s amended complaint last night.
I didn’t see anything in it ascribed to John O Sullivan.
I think you are ‘making stuff up’.
Tallspoke, because I can’t believe you could be this stupid, I have to assume you are this dishonest. There’s a million ways someone can act on a person’s behalf without being their attorney — a health care proxy, an accountant, a secretary, even a professional hit man.
You definitely are lying through your teeth when you say you “read” Mann’s amended complaint and saw nothing in it ascribed to John O’Sullivan. The amended complaint is chock full of quotes of defamatory statements from the Sky Dragon Slayer leader’s writings.
It astounds me that you would lie like this since all I have to do is post a link to the amended complaint so readers can see for themselves just how untrustworthy you are:
http://www.aaskolnick.com/global_deniers/amendednoticecivilclaim.pdf
I suppose it shouldn’t surprise me anymore when deniers lie through their teeth. Yet it does.
I should also correct your mischaracterization of what I’ve said. I never said O’Sullivan “is not a practicing lawyer.”
I’ve consistently said that I have found NO evidence O’Sullivan is a lawyer licensed to practice anywhere and that he continues to refuse to say where he supposedly is licensed to practice law.
All the evidence I’ve found strongly suggests that he is lying about having a law degree and that he is a license to practice law. He often demonstrates a hilarious ignorance of judicial matters — like having his and his wife’s claim thrown out of a NY court in 2009 because it was unsworn and unverified.
However, I can’t prove he isn’t licensed to practice in Timbuktu or other such place. But in the three court jurisdictions he boasts to be litigating or has litigated, he is NOT licensed.
O’Sullivan claims to be an attorney representing Tim Ball in the Mann vs. Ball libel suit filed with the Supreme Court of British Columbia. However, the court records do not list O’Sullivan as an attorney for the defendant. Furthermore, the Law Society of British Columbia says O’Sullivan is NOT licensed to practice law in BC.
Of course, O’Sullivan could easy prove he’s not a humbug simply by telling us where and when he earned a law degree and where he is licensed to practice law.
He won’t because that would enable us to find out if any of his claimed academic and professional credentials are real.
It truly is astonishing how much time, you, Pete, and other “skeptics” here have been trying to discredit my reporting, rather than spending a couple of minutes asking John O’Sullivan where he is licensed to practice law and when and where he earned a law degree.
It’s pretty clear why that is.
ascolnick, the document I read last night has the court file number VLC-S-S111913 stamped 25th March 2011.
It appears from the document you have linked above that I was reading Mann’s original petition, not his amended petition of June 7th bearing the same court file number, which does, as you say, include a lot of material relating to John O Sullivan.
I therefore withdraw my inference that you were ‘making stuff up’ with regard to the contents of the amended Mann petition and offer you my apology for saying it.
The amended petition makes Manns additional claims in respect of Dr Tim Ball on the basis that John O Sullivan is acting as Ball’s “attorney”. If as you claim, John O Sullivan is not in fact a qualified lawyer, this would seem to raise an issue for the court to deal with.
I wrote this before I read your post above relating to John O Sulivan’s professional staus. The point you make about not being able to prove wheter or not he is a qualified lawyer has now been noted.
Apology accepted Tallbloke, but please be more careful in the future — especially what impugning or questioning the character or competence of another person. You need to make sure what you write is true before even suggesting that they’re “making things up.”
The court record you misconstrued as Dr. Mann’s Amended Claim is clearly identified as his “NOTICE OF CLAIM” — not the “AMENDED NOTICE OF CLAIM” he filed nearly 3 months later in June. Rushing carelessly to judge others is the best way to convict yourself in the public eye.
It should be noted that the plaintiff’s Amended Complaint uses quotation marks around the words “attorney” and “legal consultant,” which indicates that he is quoting claims O’Sullivan publicly made rather than stating verified facts:
“Further, or in the alternative, at all material times, O’Sullivan has acted as the agent and as an ‘attorney’ and as a ‘legal consultant’ for the defendant Ball and O’Sullivan published the Drtimball.com Attack on websites as alleged in paragraph 11E of this Amended Notice of Civil Claim) within the course and scope of his aforesaid functions as agent, and attorney and/or legal consultant. In the circumstances, the defendant Ball is jointly and/or vicariously liable for those website publications.”
askolnick says:
Apology accepted Tallbloke, but please be more careful in the future — especially what impugning or questioning the character or competence of another person.
Sure. Perhaps you might consider that another person could have made an honest error before accusing them of “lying through their teeth” too.
Pete Ridley: Apologies. I’m just trying to demonstrate the art of succinct reply. :)
You’re right, I did jump to the conclusion that your false accusation was not due to an honest error. I apologize for that.
Thank you. Apology likewise accepted.
Hi Andrew (Skolnick) you persist in clogging up this thread with your rants and distortions. You said yesterday at 3:29 pm “ .. we haven’t heard a peep from Pete Ridley .. ” then today at 11:10 am “ .. It truly is astonishing how much time, you, Pete, and other “skeptics” here have been trying to discredit my reporting, rather than spending a couple of minutes asking John O’Sullivan where he is licensed to practice law and when and where he earned a law degree .. ”. In response to the request by tallbloke on July 10 at 4:39 pm I’ve tried very hard to ignore your nonsense but unfortunately others are encouraging you and I can’t resist responding.
I remind you of my comment 2 weeks ago (July 3 at 4:48 pm) QUOTE: Andrew Skolnick has made a lot of less than complementary statements about John O’Sullivan so let’s look again at what Andrew has claimed/said and ask John if he can settle these unpleasant exchanges so that we can get back to debating the poorly understood science behind the processes and drivers of those different global climates. Andrew challenges John with “ .. he is NOT a member of the American Bar Association .. ”. .. John, did you make that claim and if so can you settle it by providing proof of your membership, as opposed to simply the associate membership claimed by Andrew? UNQUOTE.
For your enlightenment (if it is possible) many months ago, long before I had heard of an individual named Andrew Skolnick, I spent much more than a couple of minutes trying to find out where John O’Sullivan had studied law and drew a blank. As I have already mentioned here (July 6 at 4:56 pm), in December/January after I had been invited to join the Slayers and get involved with their proposed company Principia Scientific International (PSI) I did my “PSI & Due Diligence” check on all of the people involved, including John. As I pointed out in that comment QUOTE: .. on 30th December I E-mailed my “Executive Summary” to members of the group. This begins with the quotation “Self praise is no praise at all” and goes on to say “Although there is a plethora of boastful promotion material there are many unanswered questions about PSI’s structure, the relationships between and motivations of the principle individuals involved, its modus operandi and strategies” .. UNQUOTE.
On 9th July I E-mailed the ABA Member Service withg a simple request “Please can you give me an approximate breakdown of the ABA membership. I understand that you now have over 400,000 members distributed among the four grades, Lawyer-Membership, Law Student Enrollment, Associate Membership and Student Associate Membership. It would be helpful to know how many members are in each category”. The unhelpful response I received on 13th July included “ .. the ABA does not disclose detailed information about its membership so we will be unable to supply the requested data”.
I have responded with “ .. I’m disappointed by your curt response. There is a raging debate going on at Judith Curry’s thread “Slaying a greenhouse dragon” (http://judithcurry.com/2011/01/31/slaying-a-greenhouse-dragon/#comment-85986) in which one of your Associate members, John O’Sullivan (membership number 01930128) is viciously accused by a science journalist (Andrew Skolnick) of lying about his membership and of being a fraudster. This could be damaging to John’s reputation and standing with associates and might be refuted if you provide an indication of roughly how many members you have in each category, i.e Lawyer, Associate, Student and Student Associate. What is the reason for being reluctant to disclose this? .. If you still feel that you are unable to provide the requested information then please would you provide me with the E-mail address of your supervisor at the ABA”.
Since I have had no further response I have also E-mailed the Associate Executive Director, ABA Public Services Group Director, Center for Professional Responsibility, Jeanne P. Gray (http://www.americanbar.org/groups/professional_responsibility/contact_us.html) for help. Surely the acid test of the significance of John O’Sullivan’s claim to being a member is whether or not the ABA itself considers his claim to be fraudulent. If the ABA takes no action over this then your allegation would seem to be unfounded. It surprises me that with your claimed expertise in investigating and exposing fraud you appear to have done little more than rant about this on the Internet. After all Andrew, actions do speak louder than words.
It should be clear to most people, but perhaps not to you because you refuew to remove your blinkers, that I am as eager as you are to clear up the matter of John O’Sullivan’s status within the legal profession. One difference between us is that I am not prepared to make unfounded accusations.
Best regards, Pete Ridley
Pete says quite disingenuously, “It should be clear to most people … that I am as eager as you are to clear up the matter of John O’Sullivan’s status within the legal profession.” What should be clear to most readers is that Pete continues to post garbs of garbage to distract attention from the facts about this humbug.
For example, to distract from the American Bar Association’s clear statement that people who affiliate themselves as “associates” are NOT “members,” Pete goes on and on about how long he’s tried to get the ABA to explain how many members it has and how many associates. What a mendacious maroon!
In nearly all O’Sullivan’s resumes and profiles, he claims to be an ABA member. The ABA clearly states that ABA members have to be attorneys licensed in the U.S. and that associates are NOT members of the ABA.
Those are the facts available for anyone to see. But Pete is not into facts. He’s into spinning. Just count the hundreds of words Longspinner used above to describe his ongoing battle with the ABA to get it to reveal how many members and how many associates it has.
HOW many words did he used to describe his attempts to get John O’Sullivan to say were he allegedly is licensed to practice law and from where and when he earned a law degree? Zero.
Instead, he’s badgering the ABA to ignore its policy and provide him with a breakdown of its membership — as if a breakdown would somehow transform O’Sullivan’s associate affiliation into an ABA membership.
Pete than tries undermine my reporting by falsely claiming I’ve “done little more than rant about this on the Internet,” instead of filing a complaint with the ABA. As I posted in the discussion following my book review on Amazon.com — which Pete CLAIMED to have read — I notified both the ABA and the Law Society of British Columbia about O’Sullivan’s false claims and I’m waiting for the results of their investigations.
And Pete deserves another dope slap for deceptively quoting me out of context. When I posted, “we haven’t heard a peep Pete Ridley,” it did NOT refer to Pete’s silence over John O’Sullivan’s bogus credentials.
It clearly refers to Pete’s complete silence over John O’Sullivan’s latest “news article” — in which the mountebank maliciously and wrongly attacked the UN’s World Meterological Organization over charges he made up.
http://judithcurry.com/2011/01/31/slaying-a-greenhouse-dragon/#comment-82675
The mendacious maroon STILL hasn’t uttered a peep about O’Sullivan’s made up news article. No doubt, when he can come up with a way to spin it, we’ll hear plenty from Pete.
Can I make a friendly suggestion, Andrew? Print all of your comments from this article and share them with your mental health professional. It might lead to a breakthrough in your treatment…and can’t hurt, right?
Ken, you making “a friendly suggestion” would be like you publishing a credible book. Not in the stars.
I just read the reviews on Amazon.com for the Ilana Mercer book Ken has published. It looks to be a well written, interesting read. The cover and title are lurid to be sure, but that’s the way books get noticed. I won’t be judging this one by its cover.
Maybe you should mosey over to wiki and find out who the author is.
Tallbloke, Judith Curry requested that we stop discussing the racism in the latest book from the publisher of “Slaying the Sky Dragon,” because it’s off topic. Everyone else has respected her request.
I’ll make my own mind up about what the book and its author are and are not when I read it. I don’t need you prejudging the issue for me, There’s been enough of that going on in climate science already.
Enough said.
Pete Ridley took offense when I complained that he’s spending enormous amounts of time trying to convince us John O’Sullivan is not lying about his academic and professional credentials — but no time actually checking the truth of those claims.
He says he’s spent the last 2 weeks badgering the ABA into revealing how many members and how many associates — information he thinks will prove the American Bar Association is wrong and O’Sullivan is telling the truth about being a member.
He protests that he “as eager” as anyone else to “clear up” questions about O’Sullivan’s dubious and bogus credentials.
Well, if that’s true, Pete, please tell us how long you have been badgering Mr. O’Sullivan to tell you where he is licensed to practice law. What did he tell you when you kept insisting for an answer?
If you’re not just being a disingenuous blowhard, Pete, tell us how long you have been badgering Mr. O’Sullivan to tell you when and from where he earned his “law degree.” What did he tell you when you kept insisting for an answer? Hmmm?
If you’re not being a mendacious clown for our amusement Pete, please tell us how long you’ve been badgering Mr. O’Sullivan to tell you which articles he published in National Review and Forbes magazines. And what did he tell you when you kept insisting for an answer?
That’s what I thought. You’re too busy sending a barrage of inquiries and complaints to the American Bar Association because they won’t disclose how many members and how many associates it has — information that you somehow believe can be used to “refute” ABA’s statement that O’Sullivan is affiliated as an associate and is NOT an ABA member.
Pete Longspinner, your claim of being “eager” to find out the truth about John O’Sullivan is as bogus as his made-up credentials.
Hi tallbloke, thanks for that heads-up on the invention of the telephone (your comment July 16 at 9:49 am). Following up on your reference to Antonio Meucci I came across “Who Really Invented the Telephone?” (http://www.telephonetribute.com/telephone_inventors.html) which made me wonder about Alexander Graham Bell’s activities. When I joined Bell-Northern Research (Ottawa) in 1969 as an ASSOCIATE Member of Scientific Staff (later to be a full MEMBER – spot that Andrew?) I was quickly notified of the parentage of the organisation – Bell Labs in the US – and of whom they considered had invented the telephone, Alexander Graham Bell. Wikipedia (and perhaps others) claim that Bell was a scientist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Graham_Bell) but it seems that he was in fact a teacher and an inventor who seems not even to have taken the “ .. 2 or 3 semesters of an introductory physics course .. “ (Joel July 17 at 8:53 am). So by Joel’s test he doesn’t appear to have reached the dizzy heights of being a physicist, although he did make a rather significant contribution to our ability to communicate with each other about it.
By the way, despite my position at BNR being Member of Scientific Staff I never was a scientist but an engineer developing a replacement for the Key Telephone System (KTS – see US Patent 3843845 22nd October 1974 http://www.freepatentsonline.com/3843845.pdf). I have come across numerous non-scientists who claim to be scientists, particularly among the computer programmers who are involved in trying to model that thing referred to as the global climate. They remind me of cowboy builders who conveniently forget to put in the foundations.
I know that none of that has anything to do with the thread topic but I think that anything is better than reading Andrew’s nonsense. Never mind, there is a link between this and the topic, which really is about the credibility of the Slayers’ claims to CACC sainthood. Another of those who was initially involved in the E-mail exchanges about their (stillborn?) company Principia Scientific International (PSI) back in December/January is Dr. Clifford S. Saunders, BSc Engineering, MSc Psychology, Ph.D Cybernetics. Clifford also worked at BNR in the 1970s, in the same group that I had worked with when researching the human-factors aspects of the KTS. I left BNR before Clifford joined so it was quite a coincidence to meet up with him through the Slayers. Like me, Clifford also pulled out from involvement with PSI, although perhaps for different reasons.
Joel, you very nicely summed up Michael Mann’s “hockey team” when saying on July 17 at 7:50 pm “ .. climate scientists are in fact a motley crew ” but why didn’t you come clean the members of that particular motley crew to whom you were referring with your “ .. it is not pleasant to read scientists taking some pleasure in the death of someone else or at least talking about wanting to obstruct FOIA requests)”.
Come on Joel, should I spit it out for you. QUOTE: From: Phil Jones To: mann@vxxxxx.xxx
Subject: Fwd: John L. Daly dead Date: Thu Jan 29 14:17:01 2004 .. Mike, In an odd way this is cheering news ! One other thing about the CC paper – just found another email – is that McKittrick says it is standard practice in Econometrics journals to give all the data and codes !! According to legal advice IPR overrides this. Cheers
Phil … Prof. Phil Jones, Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0)xxxxxx, School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) xxxxxx, University of East Anglia, Norwich Email p.jones@xxx.xx.xx, NR4 7TJ UK UNQUOTE.
Yes, that’s the same John Daly who wrote that article about Professor Stephen Schneider (my comment to you on July 10 at 4:17 pm).
Apologies tallbloke, I have again failed you succinctness test (My version of Microsoft WORD doesn’t think there was such a word as succinctness but it is in my Webster’s and Oxford dictionaries. Of course Americans are renowned the world over for distorting the English Language and can’t even spell “enrolment” properly, including our resident master of the art of distortion, Andrew – July 10 at 10:25 pm http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_do_you_spell_Enrolment).
Best regards, Pete Ridley
Pete Longspinner says, “I know that none of this [his off-topic ramblings] has anything to do with the thread topic but I think that anything is better than reading Andrew’s nonsense.”
He means anything is better than admitting that Pete has no interest in whether the Slaying the Sky Dragon authors are led by a humbug who is lying about his academic and professional credentials. The integrity and credibility of the authors of this pseudoscientific blunderbuss is not something readers need to be concerned.
Why else would he keeping pouring irrelevant ramblings into this discussion rather than ask his comrade O’Sullivan for some of the articles the humbug claims to have published in National Review and Forbes magazine — or to tell him where he’s licensed to practice law and from where and when he earned a law degree?
Pete’s a spinner all right.
Pete, I chided you for misspelling “enrollment,” because you misspelled it in your misquote of the American Bar Association’s “Associate Enrollment Form.” When you quote something, you’re not suppose to alter the spelling to suit your own prejudices.
What a buffoon!
As is usual in Pete’s “research” and commentaries, he gets his facts wrong. He says, rather than a scientist, Alexander Graham Bell “was in fact a teacher and an inventor who seems not even to have taken the ‘2 or 3 semesters of an introductory physics course…'”
As well as an inventor and teacher of the deaf, Bell indeed was a scientist who conducted research into sound and human speech production and was Professor of Vocal Physiology and Elocution at Boston University.
Andrew, specially for you, “In that same year (1872) he opened a school for deaf people who could not speak. These people were called deaf-mutes in the 1800s. He used a teaching system developed by his father in Scotland. Ultimately Bell’s school merged into Boston University and he became a Professor of Vocal Physiology and Elocution there” (http://isaacseclass.weebly.com/uploads/4/5/6/2/4562262/inventorsbell.pdf). Taking all of the facts into consideration QUOTE: .. it seems that he was in fact a teacher and an inventor who seems not even to have taken the “ .. 2 or 3 semesters of an introductory physics course .. ” .. UNQUOTE.
Read on MacDuff, perhaps even you can learn.
Best regards, Pete Ridley.
As is your usual MO, Pete, you make a claim and then moronically disprove it — with little help from me. You say “Taking all of the facts,” you conclude that your incorrect statement was true — while ignoring all the facts that disagree.
You left out all the ones in the Wikipedia article you had quoted that discuss Bell’s scientific research into sound and human speech.
Taking all the facts in consideration, Pete, you’re shamefully dishonest.
I think Pete’s point is that Bell was his own man. The fact that his work was described as ‘scientific’ by the scientists of his day who thus ‘adopted him for science’ doesn’t change the fact that he was a pioneer who didn’t need them to train him. Perhaps you don’t understand what we’re driving at. Or more likely reflexively negate it.
You say you “think Pete’s point is that Bell was his own man.” And I think you’re a fool, but what you and I think is irrelevant. What is relevant is what Pete actually said — he said some “claim that Bell was a scientist, but it seems that he was in fact a teacher and an inventor.”
Bell was a scientist as wells as a teacher of the deaf, a professor at Boston University, and an inventor. I don’t think anyone here said one way or the other whether Bell “was his own man” or not. What a ridiculous and irrelevant thing to argue!
Lol, missed the point by a country mile.
Oh well, I thought you a fool first, so I was a step ahead there too.
Hi Pete,
There are many examples in the history of science where science institutions have ‘adopted’ inventors and dicoverers after the fact. Even after their death in some cases, It’s all part of the infallibility narrative…
wiki says:
Nikola Tesla was an inventor, mechanical engineer, and electrical engineer. Because of his 1894 demonstration of wireless communication through radio (take note ascolnick) and as the eventual victor in the “War of Currents”, he was widely respected as one of the greatest electrical engineers who worked in America.[3] He pioneered modern electrical engineering and many of his discoveries were of groundbreaking importance. In the United States during this time, Tesla’s fame rivaled that of any other inventor or scientist in history or popular culture …
Tesla was ultimately ostracized and regarded as a mad scientist by many late in his life.
Hi tallbloke, a couple of years ago I exchanged opinions on Australian senator Steve Fielding’s blog with another individual who is just as blinkered as Andrew. That individual hid behinds the false name of Cooloola but eventually had the courage to come out elsewhere and admit to being one John Byatt. He too had not the slightest understanding of the processes and drivers of the different global climates but pontificated just as Andrew does here. Most of us there decided in the end that he best thing was to place him on “ignore”. At least Andrew has the courage of his convictions, even though he is misguided, but he is just as nasty as is John Byatt.
Some people just do not understand how to debate in a reasonable manner.
Best regards, Pete Ridley
Pete, a commendably brief and concise comment
Clearly, my work here is done. :)
Pete, I’m still waiting for your answer. You stated again that no one wants to know the truth about the Sky Dragon Slayer’s leader’s credentials more than you.
So I’m asking again, Pete, since you communicate a lot with John O’Sullivan, what did he tell you when you asked him what articles he published in National Review and Forbes magazine?
What did he tell you when you asked him where he is licensed to practice law?
What did he tell you when you asked him from where and when he earned his “law degree”?
And what did he tell you when you asked him if he is lying about being a member of the American Bar Association, since he’s in fact a non-member affiliated as an associate?
If you’re so “eager” to learn the truth about his so-called credentials, why aren’t you answering, Pete? Is it because you’re as big a humbug as he is?
That’s what we’ll be forced to conclude if you continue to stonewall.
The discussions on this thread have been more about some of the individuals involved in writing “Slaying the Sky Dragon” and about other insignificant individuals involved in the exchanges rather than in what some might regard as the Slayers’ feeble attempts to prove that the greenhouse effect is as mythical as the dragon itself.
Judith Curry said on February 3 at 10:08 am “ .. of all the chapters in the book Slaying the Greenhouse Dragon, this one on computational black body was the only one I judged even worth reviewing here .. The rest of the book is half political rant, and the other half is simplistic but erroneous analyses of the earth’s energy budget (Siddons, Anderson) .. ”. The Slayers offer a free sample of “Slaying the Sky Dragon” with Chapter 1 by Tim Ball and Chapters 2-5 by Alan Siddons and having read them I cannot disagree with Judith.
I was disappointed (but not surprised) that in Chapter 4 “The Influence of the Atmosphere” Alan Siddons didn’t mention anything about energy absorption or emission by that same atmosphere. Alan presents some interesting profiles of temperature with height in the atmosphere for the different planets. I know that a picture is supposed to paint a 1000 words but those pictures told me nothing about the greenhouse effect dragon or how it had been slayed. Alan said very little indeed about the influence of the atmosphere and mostly he just kept repeating “Atmospheric heat rises with pressure. Is that the greenhouse effect at work?”. That’s hardly a fatal thrust into the dragon’s soft underbelly, more of a pin-prick into the tough upper skin.
I’m sorry to say that I have to agree with Joel when he said on July 15 at 6:00 pm “ .. The issue isn’t one of “delay”. It is about the balance between energy in and energy out .. ” and on July 16 at 7:53 am “..The notion that the lapse rate in the atmosphere somehow can get you around conservation of energy is false .. ”. My understanding of the consequences of more energy entering a physical system than leaving it is that the system heats up. If greenhouse gases are able to cause the earth/atmosphere system to absorb more energy supplied to it by the sun than it radiates to space then it will heat up. It seems that they do this mainly by passing the absorbed energy on as a result of molecular collisions with the main atmospheric gases N2. O2 and Ar which are unable to radiate to space or anywhere else. The rate of heating will depend upon the heat capacity of the system (oceans being most significant) but ultimately the system will continue heating until once again incoming and outgoing radiation balance.
Have I misunderstood some fundamental point here? After all, I’m not a scientist or a theoretical physicist or a modeller, just a retired Chartered Electrical Engineer who only took that “ .. 2 or 3 semesters of an introductory physics course .. “ (Joel July 17 at 8:53 am). Maybe RIT lecturer Joel, with his PhD in Theoretical Physics, can put me straight on this.
Best regards, Pete Ridley
Looks like I spoke too soon.
“Have I misunderstood some fundamental point here?”
Yes.
If the Earth’s atmosphere gained and lost heat via well mixed greenhouse gases radiatively always in the the same way in the same locations then it would behave as the greenhouse AGW hypothesisers say.
However, there is more heat shifted off the planet’s surface by convective effects than by radiative effects, and while it’s true that all of the heat which leaves Earth’s atmosphere for space has to be radiated, the rates at which it gets radiated depends on where it is radiated from. This depends on where and how energy is convected from and to. There are a lot more variables involved in that than people who prefer to model nice easy line by line radiative transfer models like to deal with. Especially since there are fundamental problems with modeling clouds.
http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cms/wcollins/papers/cess.pdf
A small latitudinal change in the course of the jet streams could easily offset the effect of increased co2 because it causes a change in the rate energy is lost to space. Likewise a small change in the average altitude of clouds.
Likewise a small change in the opacity of clouds.
Cloud feedback is negative.
http://mathsci.ucd.ie/met/msc/fezzik/Phys-Met/Ch04-4-Slides.pdf
HTH
Tallbloke:
First of all, convection is included in the models. Second of all, the only way that the earth can emit energy to space is via radiation and the way it emits via radiation is through temperature. So, you can just wave your hands around and say “convective effects”. You have to make substantive claims, such as, “I believe the the temperature warms at altitude without significant warming at the surface.” Of course, the problem with such a claim is that the current data doesn’t show this…In fact, the claim has been that in the tropics there is less not more warming at altitude than is expected given the surface warming. This is likely due to data problems…but still doesn’t leave much room for the warming to actually be greater at altitude (relative to the surface) than the models predict.
Also, you can’t conclude the cloud feedback is negative on the basis of one paper, ignoring all other evidence. It is even worse when you choose a paper that doesn’t even say that the cloud feedback is negative. What that paper talks about is the forcing effect of clouds. I.e., it says that as low clouds increase then there is a negative forcing. However, the question that must be answered to determine the cloud feedback is how low clouds and high clouds change with warming. For example, if low clouds were to decrease with warming then that (together with the observation that low clouds produce a net negative forcing, which I think noone really disagrees with) would mean that the cloud feedback is positive.
At the end of the day, what we are left with is the fact that, yes, there are uncertainties in climate science. However, there is no evidence that those uncertainties and what the evidence implis in regards to climate change and the uncertainties involved are better assessed by right-wing think-tanks and others who have a strong disposition because of their ideological beliefs than by the scientists actually working and publishing in the field.
That is what this whole thing really boils down to: People of a certain political persuasion don’t like what the best assessment of the science is telling us, so they fight the science, so that they don’t have to compromise their ideology.
Joel, you said
First of all, convection is included in the models.
Yes, I know that. And you know that the modeling doesn’t have sufficient granularity or adequate conceptual basis to model it sufficiently well to produce results accurate enough to isolate the effect of increased co2. Or if you don’t, you should.
Second of all, the only way that the earth can emit energy to space is via radiation
I said so in my comment so stop trying to make out I’m a know-nothing.
and the way it emits via radiation is through temperature. So, you can[‘t] just wave your hands around and say “convective effects”. You have to make substantive claims,
I pointed out several ways in which changing distributions of convection patterns affect the rate of radiation to space (Due to different latitudes and altitudes being at different temperatures). Since I’m not the one claiming accuracy for models, it’s you who needs to make, test and verify substantive claims not me.
such as, “I believe the the temperature warms at altitude without significant warming at the surface.” Of course, the problem with such a claim is that the current data doesn’t show this…In fact, the claim has been that in the tropics there is less not more warming at altitude than is expected given the surface warming. This is likely due to data problems…but still doesn’t leave much room for the warming to actually be greater at altitude (relative to the surface) than the models predict.
.Not sure what you’re driving at here, but as usual you seem fixated on temperature gradients without appreciating that a shift in cloud thickness, altitude or latitudinal distribution coupled with the varying insolation over the annual cycle *and* variation of insolation at latitude is going to change the radiative balance by a lot more than extra co2, and the observational evidence is that the jet streams do indeed change latitudinal position with temperature change.The difference that makes to radiative balance is going to be a lot larger than changes made to radiative balance by co2. We may be able to make progress with understanding each others viewpoints through further discussion around this area.
Also, you can’t conclude the cloud feedback is negative on the basis of one paper, ignoring all other evidence.
What other ‘evidence’? Conjecture based on models which are admitted to be inadequate are not evidence. Spencer just had his new paper accepted by the way:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2011/07/our-refutation-of-dessler-2010-is-accepted-for-publication/
It is even worse when you choose a paper that doesn’t even say that the cloud feedback is negative.
I cited the paper to demonstrate the problems with the fundamental physics of energy absorption in clouds, not to prove feedback sign.
if low clouds were to decrease with warming then that (together with the observation that low clouds produce a net negative forcing, which I think noone really disagrees with) would mean that the cloud feedback is positive.
Yes, but it would be a positive feedback largely due to increased solar activity, rather than increased co2. See Spencer’s discussion of whether clouds change temperature, or temperature changes clouds. It’s both, and that’s why there is confusion.
At the end of the day, what we are left with is the fact that, yes, there are uncertainties in climate science.
Thank you for acknowledging this. My main point is vindicated. Which is that we are nowhere near fingering a 1.7W/m^2 forcing from increased co2 for the warming that occurred 1976-2005. The fact that a similar size and magnitude of warming occurred 1910-1940 while co2 rose very little is a clear demonstration that natural variability was capable of producing such temperature variation, and very likely still is.
However, there is no evidence that those uncertainties… are better assessed by right-wing think-tanks and others who have a strong disposition because of their ideological beliefs than by the scientists actually working and publishing in the field… People of a certain political persuasion don’t like what the best assessment of the science is telling us, so they fight the science, so that they don’t have to compromise their ideology.
I wish the scientist were doing more work in the field instead of huddling round fundamentally inadequate computer models making silly claims for their accuracy and what they can infer from them.
You should realise you are simply projecting your own ideological position by saying the rest of this. I bet I have ‘greener’ credentials than you Joel. I use less tha 5KW/hours of electricity a day in my home. I heat water with a solar panel. I heat my home with a woodburner which I chop naturally fallen timber for. I cook on the same woodburner in the winter. I use a motorcycle which I rebuilt which returns 80mpg to commute on. I use an electric bicycle for local errands. I grow my own vegetables. I re-use and recycle materials. I gather and filter rainwater. I worked as a forester for 5 years planting many thousands of trees
What do you do for the ecology and environment where you live Joel?
Get off your holier than thou horse and drink your milk.
Pete, unfortunately, the atmosphere is a complex chaotic system. We simplify it according to the laws of physics in order to understand it. Any simplification of the complexity must stick to the rules of the physical processes in play.
Thermal radiative equilibrium, according to Stefan Boltzman and Kirchhoff, appears unquestioned. According to the relevant formula widely used to compute the blackbody temperature of earth, the variables are:
1. Solar temperature
2. Distance from the sun
3. Radius of earth
4. Albedo
There is nothing in the formula which says that composition of the blackbody plays any part unless it significantly affects those variables. So the essential simplification says firstly that it doesn’t matter what the earth is made of (albedo being constant), the radiative equilibrium temperature is unaffected.
Clearly, solar output’s effect on earth’s temperature has an effect, but this appears often discounted by purveyors of the CO2 greenhouse theory.
Distance from the sun also has an effect, but I don’t recall seeing analysis of this and its effect on climate. (Anyone seen any papers on that?)
Radius of earth does not appear to change significantly, but if the radiation comes from the atmosphere and its height changes according to temperature, then maybe it does have a measurable effect.
Albedo while assumed to be constant, does change and the Earthshine project tracks this.
Note that there is nothing in the formula which actually says where one measures the thermal equilibrium temperature of a blackbody solid with a gaseous atmosphere. This appears a major point of scientific disagreement. Greenhouse theorists say this temperature should be found on the surface of earth. This makes no sense, as the body in a vacuum in radiative thermal equilibrium with the sun includes the atmosphere. Postma argues from the perspective of an astrophysicist that the appropriate place to measure is an average of the atmospheric temperature (about 5km altitude from observation). Postma’s interpretation makes a lot of sense to me.
If the “surface” composition of earth+atmosphere (assuming constant albedo) can make *any* difference at all to its radiative thermal equilibrium temperature is yet to be demonstrated that I can find. It isinteresting that “Most troubling is the realization that the physical cause of blackbody radiation remains as elusive today as in the days
of Kirchhoff.” (http://www.ptep-online.com/index_files/2009/PP-19-01.PDF, page 11)
The major poorly understood effect is that of clouds on albedo and whether clouds provide a net negative or positive feedback effect with rising temperature. Prevailing opinion appears to be that high clouds cause warming and low clouds cause cooling. There is considerable uncertainty of the net effect and the best supercomputer cloud parameterization models to date aren’t powerful enough.
Inside the atmosphere, it it still feasible that the earth’s “as seen from space” radiative thermal equilibrium temperature remains constant, while changes in atmospheric gases, clouds, aerosols, etc change the distribution of heat in the atmosphere – possibly changes in lapse rate or changes in height of atmosphere or other effects. I don’t recall seeing a prevailing view on these effects.
Additional complexity of complicated atmosphere effects just makes it harder to determine the “mean global surface temperature”, if there is such a meaningful thing.
BLouis79: Postma is deceiving you, and unfortunately, you seem to be obliging him (probably because you want to be deceived). The effective radiating level of the atmosphere is determined by the composition of the atmosphere: If the atmosphere were transparent to radiation, then the effectively radiating level would be at the surface. How could it not be? As you add more and more IR-absorbing substances to the atmosphere, the level rises.
The way that Postma is deceiving you is by causing you to believe that there is some magical fixed effective radiating level when in fact it is that level that will change as the composition of the atmosphere changes. Very simple really and very well understood by all serious scientists in the field.
It is sad that people like Postma find such fertile ground to tread their deceptions.
Joel, as you say (and contradict yourself in other words), the effective radiating level of an atmosphere containing IR absorbing gases is clearly *not* at the surface and certainly not under the clouds.
Postma doesn’t say there is a magical fixed radiating level, but he says that on average it should be where one finds the radiative thermal equilibrium temperature by observation (measurement).
That the level changes with composition of atmosphere makes some sense and clearly indicates that you are arguing that the effective radiating level is *not* at the surface.
Well, it obviously is not at the surface in our atmosphere…Noone is saying it is. What is being said is that, in the absence of IR-absorbing elements (greenhouse gases and clouds), it would have to be at the surface and no arguments about lapse rates or pressure or what have you is going to get around this basic fact of conservation of energy.
And hence, the fact that the ground is 33 K warmer than the thermal equilibrium temperature is evidence that the greenhouse effect raises the surface temperature by 33 K over what it would be for a hypothetical planet (with the same albedo) that did not have an atmosphere that absorbs terrestrial radiation. This greenhouse effect is provided by greenhouse gases and by clouds (although the latter also provides some of the albedo).
Albedo? Greenhouse?
Which phase water when and where?
That is the question.
============
Joel, that the earth has an atmosphere of gas that by virtue of its mass is able to have a temperature does not mean that the ability is wholly a result of IR absorbing capacity, since conduction and convection still operate without requiring IR absorption. I haven’t yet seen a theoretical or experimental justification of the relative contributions of these.
But the model analysis of radiative transfer data by SpectralCalc suggests the radiative component is small.
BLouis: If the earth did not have an IR-absorbing atmosphere then the current radiation emitted to space would vastly exceed that absorbed from the sun and it would rapidly cool down. Conduction and convection are irrelevant as they would just provide additional cooling mechanisms, whereas the problem is not with there being too little cooling but too much in this case.
Also, it is not hard to get contributions for heat transfer from at least the evaporation-condensation part of convection (which is the largest part) and to get an order-of-magnitude estimate for conduction through the atmosphere. See the diagram by Trenberth and Kiehl for the values. The first (evaporation-condensation) follows from a basic first-year physics calculation once you are provided with an estimate of either global annual evaporation or precipitation (which are, to a very good approximation, equal). The latter (conduction) is another first-year physics problem once one has the lapse rate for the atmosphere and shows that conduction plays a negligible role over such length scales. (It can play a somewhat larger role over small length scales, such as the earth heating the air very close to it, which then transfers this heat into the bulk of the atmosphere by convection.)
Once again a scientific disagreement can easily be settled with an experiment.
If IR absorption is the dominant means of atmospheric warming, then if we exclude IR surface transmission, we can measure the residual heat transfer.
We need:
* sunlight
* constrained vertical columns of non-IR absorbing and IR absorbing gases
* blackbody surface at the base of the column
* visible and IR transparent material at the top of the column
If we put an IR absorbing material directly over the blackbody surface, so that we effectively exclude that mode of heat transfer, what will happen?
Will the gas columns warm by conduction/convection or not?
Which will be warmer, the non-IR absorbing gas or the IR absorbing gas?
I just clicked on this post because it was at the top of the “recent comments” on the home page. But I have to ask:
Is this a joke?
“If we put an IR absorbing material directly over the blackbody surface, so that we effectively exclude that mode of heat transfer”
What universe and what laws of physics are we using? Does it not occur to you that your magic “IR absorbing material” will itself emit IR?
rustneversleeps, one of the “greenhouse” mechanisms is that CO2 absorbs IR and traps heat without significant reemission or IR to space.
Further, spectral measurements at TOA demonstrate the ability of the atmosphere to absorb some wavelengths of IR.
According to proponents of the “backradiation” theory, the IR absorbing material prevents net radiation outwards.
Do you think the “greenhouse” mechanism is a joke??
Pete, a better analogy is of radiation as a flow, inwards for solar, outwards for IR. By adding CO2 you inhibit the outward flow causing energy to back up, like the water level of a sink with a blocked drain. Eventually the flow is restored to balance the inflow, but at a higher temperature (water level).
Cool, now add in the shifting variably leaky mat which spills some of the water over the edge of the basin (clouds).
And don’t forget the plug hole keeps changing size and position. (clouds again)
Not so simple any more huh?
Yet another strawman argument, Tallspoke? No one argued that the science behind global warming is “simple.” This is just an eloquent demonstration of a principle found throughout nature, which anyone can do in their kitchen to understand how properties in a natural system can be self-regulated.
Many people who are not educated in science don’t understand the importance of scientific models for studying how the world works. Even worse, a small and pathetic proportion of those people don’t want to be educated.
I can understand why you keep trying to shift the discussion from analyzing the ridiculous pseudoscience in Slaying the Sky Dragon to other issues in the global warming debate. But Tallspoke, this is the reason the discussion was established.
Coming from you, accusations that I’m off topic in this thread are hilarious.
You are a joke.
I wish more people were reading this.
=========
This will be a nasty shock to climate scientists, but in order for an analogy to have any utility, it must be analogous. Duh. I won’t insult the intelligence of the denizens by listing any of the fatal miscorrelations between a bathtub and our climate, they are trivially easy to spot.
I will mention a couple of thoughts which might not be so obvious. One is that, for various reasons, one of which is that the surface of the earth has various temperatures; our outgoing radiation is “broadband”. Is there any physical meaning to an average temperature? For example, when I got on a plane in Phoenix, the temperature was 313K. When I arrived in Seattle, the temperature was 283K. That’s an average temperature of around 300K, but does that mean there were wide swaths between Seattle and Phoenix with a temperature of 300K? Maybe, but maybe not. The average has no physical meaning.
Suppose I had two transmitters blasting signals into space…one tuned to 1000hz and the other to 2000hz (just to use easy numbers). The average frequency is 1500hz. However, from a satellite, I find no 1500Hz signal. Does that mean anything? No, the average of 1500hz has no physical meaning. Evaluations using blackbody radiation dependent on the earth’s average temperature are meaningless.
Secondly, when looking at the earth’s radiation, we note something similar to Fraunhofer lines where narrow bands are attenuated. We can figure out which atoms and molecules are correlated with these bands…which is fascinating and interesting. According to climate science, the energy absorbed in these bands leads to a lot of heating of the atmosphere. That’s CSL (Climate Science Logic), my friends.
Using the same logic, you could make a case that incoming solar radiation can’t heat our oceans. After all, there are wavelengths with severe attenuation…that energy does not get to the water and can’t heat it up. However, the average temperature of the tropical oceans is greater than 20C. It’s a puzzle, my friends.
Can we talk about what really happens in the atmosphere? Outgoing broadband radiation gets diffused in narrow bands corresponding to various molecular resonances. Not blocked, stored, trapped or captured. Diffused. This means unidirectional (outgoing) radiation is converted into omnidirectional radiation…which naturally has less magnitude when detected from space. How you conflate that to a nearly 10% increase in the earth’s surface temperature?
Only by using CSL–where common sense and objective logic do not apply.
By Sky Dragon Slayer publisher Ken’s “logic,” if he stuck his feet into a freezer and his head into a hot oven, the average temperature would keep him quite comfortable.
Now this is the kind of “kitchen science” I’d love to see Ken demonstrate.
O.K., Ken Coffman didn’t exactly argue this. What he argued is more ridiculous: He says, “average [temperature] has no physical meaning.”
What the maroon doesn’t seem to understand is that every time you measure the temperature of ANY material, you are measuring the AVERAGE temperature of the kinetic energy of all molecules in the material being measured.
The chance of all molecules in any big clump of matter having the same temperature is, for all practical purposes, zero. Indeed, the very definition of “temperature” shows Ken’s “logic” is idiotic:
“Temperature is a measurement of the average kinetic energy of the molecules in an object or system.” http://physics.about.com/od/glossary/g/temperature.htm
Yet Ken argues “average temperature has no physical meaning.”
Ken, thanks for for your demonstration of CSL (Coffman “Science Logic”). I eagerly await the results of your freezer-oven experiment.
Ken, you have missed the basic point of the analogy, which is budgets. You may not like mean temperature, but total outward flux has a specific value, as does total inward flux, as does the 1:1 correlation of outward flux with an effective radiative temperature. The analogy is about these three quantities, and the ability of CO2 to inhibit outward radiative flux.
Hi Jim D, ref. your comment yesterday at 10:27 pm, please would you clarify what you mean by “ .. the 1:1 correlation of outward flux with an effective radiative temperature .. “ having a specific value. I’m guessing that you are talking about a fictitious black body temperature which would emit the same total amount of energy as the amount that is estimated to radiate into space from the earth/atmosphere system.
Best regards, Pete Ridley
Through Stefan-Boltzmann’s relation you can equate a radiation output to a black-body temperature. Doubling CO2 happens to be equivalent to a black-body temperature change of 1 degree C at 255 K. What does the surface-atmosphere system have to do to increase its black-body equivalent temperature by 1 degree? It has to all warm by an amount approximately 1 degree, it turns out, because of the constraints of convection on the temperature profile.
Hi Jim D, (your comment today at 9:28 pm) thanks for confirming my understanding that you were talking about that fictitious black body thing. Now can you please clarify for me what happens in the real world of our earth with its oceans, land, ice, vegetation and an atmosphere of N2, O2, Ar, H2O, Co2, CH4? I’m only a retired electrical engineer, not a theoretical physicist or other form of scientist so I just can’t visualise all that as a fictitious black body. I am still eager to learn all that I can from anyone who seems to me to know what they are talking about. I’ve found a few, e.g. Roger Taguchi, John Nichol, Jack Barrett, Vincent Gray, Roy Spencer, Jasper Kirkby, Anastasios Tsonis, Zbiniew Jaworowski, Hartmut Frank and their ilk, but not many.
BTW, have you heard the good news from the CERN CLOUD experiments? Dr. Kirkby reported on it in May in a short Physics World interview (http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/multimedia/45950) so perhaps one of the physicists here, like Joel, is a member of the IOP and would be kind enough to explain what Kirkby has found. Alternatively we can see it at http://link.brightcove.com/services/player/bcpid106573614001?bckey=AQ~~,AAAAGKlf6FE~,iSMGT5PckNvcgUb_ru5CAy2Tyv4G5OW3&bctid=941423264001.
I loved his comment starting at 2:50 min “ .. everybody agrees that clouds have a huge effect on the earth’s climate but the understanding of how big that effect is really very very poorly known .. they have large uncertainties, very big error bars and that is partly a result of the fact that the basic science, the basic understanding, of how these aerosol particles are formed, these measurements haven’t been done yet. We are doing those measurements now with CLOUD. .. ”. It’s fascinating stuff. I eagerly await his next report, due out about now. Anyone heard of a more recent report/interview?
Best regards, Pete Ridley
Pete:
The Top man at CERN has told the scientists on the CLOUD project they mustn’t discuss the results. It might upset the funding stream…
http://calderup.wordpress.com/2011/07/17/%e2%80%9cno-you-mustnt-say-what-it-means%e2%80%9d/
Pete Longspinner — ever willing to play the idiot when he thinks idiocy can help hide the truth — said, “thanks for confirming my understanding that you were talking about that fictitious black body thing.”
In science, a perfect blackbody is a hypothetical “thing.” It is NOT a “fictitious thing.” This is like calling absolute zero “fictitious.”
Pete, If I’m wrong about you playing the idiot, I apologize. If you are one rather than playing one, I’ll retract my statement.
Hi tallbloke, ref. your comment today at 8:29 am, thanks for that heads-up on CLOUD reporting. It is claimed that Dr. Kirkby had his funding postponed for 6 years because he dared to suggest that his research would put paid to the CACC hypothesis. QUOTE: UK – Dr Jasper Kirkby(Particle Physicist) is a superb scientist, but he has been a lousy politician. In 1998, anticipating he’d be leading a path-breaking experiment into the sun’s role in global warming, he made the mistake of stating that the sun and cosmic rays “will probably be able to account for somewhere between a half and the whole of the increase in the Earth’s temperature that we have seen in the last century.” Global warming, he theorized, may be part of a natural cycle in the Earth’s temperature. Dr. Kirkby was immediately condemned by climate scientists for minimizing the role of human beings in global warming. Stories in the media disparaged Dr. Kirkby by citing scientists who feared oil-industry lobbyists would use his statements to discredit the greenhouse effect. And the funding approval for Dr. Kirkby’s path-breaking experiment — seemingly a sure thing when he first announced his proposal– was put on ice. Dr. Kirkby was stunned, and not just because the experiment he was about to run had support within his scientific institute, and was widely expected to have profound significance. Dr. Kirkby was also stunned because his institute is CERN, and science performed at CERN had never before seemed so vulnerable to whims of government funders UNQUOTE (http://everist.org/archives/links/!_AGW_links.txt).
Best regards, Pete Ridley
Pete, it is sad that that you don’t a grey body, like the atmosphere/surface appear on average from space, has to warm to increase its outgoing radiation. I really don’t know how you are picturing this system, if at all.
On the CERN thing, perhaps it will explain the reason the solar 11-year cycle exhibits a forcing/response sensitivity far higher than the .6 C per W/m2 (3 degrees per doubling) that CO2 is suggested to have. Skeptics are sorely in need of an explanation of the large 11-year cycle of surface temperature.
Hi Jim D, ref. your comment yesterday at 10:04 pm, your “ .. it is sad that that you don’t a grey body .. ” seems to be missing that fundamental word “understand”. The reason that there is so much debate about CACC is that we (not the royal we, but the total we, including the scientists) don’t understand enough about the processes and drivers of the different global climates to be able to say what is the real impact of our continuing use of fossil fuels on the different global climates.
You yourself seem to acknowledge this (perhaps without realising it) with your “ .. far higher than the .6 C per W/m2 (3 degrees per doubling) that CO2 is SUGGESTED to have. .. ” – another guesstimate by the experts?.
“ .. On the CERN thing .. ” I expect, as do Jasper Kirkby and his team of experts, that the CLOUD experiment will do much more than “explain the reason the solar 11-year cycle exhibits a forcing/response sensitivity far higher than the .6 C per W/m2 .. ”.
Best regards, Pete Ridley
I don’t believe our instrumentation captures all the modes of incoming and outgoing energy and I don’t believe your politically convenient theory captures all of the linkages (couplings and cloud feedback) between insolation and surface temperature. With respect to the bathtub analogy there are many unknown sources of incoming water and many “holes” for water to escape (unknown in number and unknown in size) and lots of babies splashing around in the water so the noise level of the level measurement is large.
The only thing the atmosphere can do is act as an integrator and mixer…it can’t block, store, trap, capture or significant energy when compared to the thermal mass and energy content of the oceans. The idea that the atmosphere is effective as an insulating blanket when it’s in series with the vacuum of space is silly. Radiation balance is a side-effect…don’t worry about it, it will take care of itself. The idea that you can do something useful with it (like increase the temperature of the earth’s surface)? Well, you have to work pretty hard to believe that. It’s nonsense.
Since Ken Coffman doesn’t like water models anymore than he likes CO2 models, less change just a few words in his comment to make his “CSL” (Coffman Science Logic) a bit clearer:
“I don’t believe our instrumentation captures all the modes of incoming and outgoing energy and I don’t believe your politically convenient SWEATER theory captures all of the linkages (BODY HEAT AND BODY ODOR) between insolation and BODY temperature. With respect to the SWEATER analogy there are many unknown sources of incoming HEAT and many “holes” for HEAT to escape (unknown in number and unknown in size) and lots of babies PULLING ON THE SWEATER the noise level of the level measurement is large.
“The only thing the SWEATER can do is act as an integrator and mixer…it can’t block, store, trap, capture or significant energy when compared to the thermal mass and energy content of the BODY. The idea that the SWEATER is effective as an insulating blanket when it’s in series with the AIR OUTSIDE THE BODY is silly. Radiation balance is a side-effect…don’t worry about it, it will take care of itself. The idea that you can do something useful with it (like increase the temperature of the BODY’s surface)? Well, you have to work pretty hard to believe that. It’s nonsense.”
Don’t know about you guys, but I’m convinced. Hence forth, I’d rather freeze to death than put on a sweater and perpetuate the “nonsense that sweaters and other forms of insulation help keep us warm.
Surely, Andrew, you understand that an insulating sweater (or a thermos or the pink stuff in your attic) allows the retention of heat by restricting convection loss (and to some extent, conduction loss). Have you ever heard anyone argue that a sweater reduces the body’s radiation? A thermos takes advantage of a small amount of reduced radiation, but that’s not its main means for retaining heat. No one argues that, by slowing heat loss, a body might be warmer than it would otherwise be, but that is not the question.
The question is: will the retardation of rate of heat loss ever make the source hotter than it started out?
Ken,
Do you understand the fact that the earth is receiving energy from the sun? Maybe that is the part you are missing. Either that or you are purposely switching from the notion of what happens to a source that has a heat source (either internal or external) to the case where it doesn’t because experience has shown that you can deceive the unwary with such nonsense. (Hence all the bogus arguments about the self-cooking chicken.)
This is exactly the sort of nonsense that shows to any scientist that the Slayers are not about science but are really about misrepresentation of science for their ideological ends.
Joel can only argue from analogy and is incapable of seeing any problem with that. Maybe it’s language arts he doesn’t understand.
Ken you’re so over your head you’re in danger of drowning and getting sucked down the drain of our kitchen sink model of self-stabilizing energy flow.
You never heard of using insulation in space vehicles and space stations to prevent heat loss? Just how do you think manned space ships and stations loose heat into space? I can almost hear you robotically say, “by convection and conduction.” Think again. In space, heat loss is virtually 100 percent through radiation.
And the answer to your question is yes, slowing heat loss can make an object hotter than it was. It’s an almost no-brainer (meaning people with almost no brains are able to figure this one out.) This is such a commonly observed phenomenon only a complete dumbbell (or liar) would answer “no.”
A car with open windows in the sun will eventually reach a stable temperature when heat gain is matched by heat loss. Roll up the windows and you will greatly slow the rate of heat loss without significantly effecting heat gain. So the temperature inside the car will rise until it reaches a new point of equilibrium — where heat loss and heat gain become equal again. (Which is why cars with closed windows get hot in the sun but do not melt!) Before climbing into a very hot car, people often open the windows to let it cool off. Opening the windows increases the rate of heat loss (but not heat gain) so the car will cool until it again reaches a point of equilibrium, where heat entering the car equals heat leaving.
Of course, the major means of heat loss from a car is convection, followed by conduction, with a little help from radiation. The earth, however. spinning through the near perfect vacuum of space, looses heat ONLY through radiation. Slow our planet’s heat loss through radiation and its average temperature will rise until heat loss and heat gain reach a new equilibrium.
And that’s what a blanket of atmosphere does for a planet — especially when it contains significant amounts of water, carbon dioxide, methane, and other “greenhouse” gasses. The escape of heat from the planet is slowed, while nearly all the energy from the sun reaches the surface unimpeded. By slowing the planet’s heat loss, it will grow warmer until a new heat-gain/heat-loss equilibrium is reached.
A planet’s atmosphere doesn’t “trap” or “block” heat. It can only slow the rate of heat loss, not prevent it. Nor does it directly heat the planet. Remove our Sun from the solar system and earth would become colder than Pluto. The effect of removing earth’s atmosphere would be far less dramatic — though almost as bad for life as we know it. It would lower our planet’s average temperature by 33 degrees C. (60 degrees F.). At that temperature, almost all of the water on earth would be locked up as ice.
Ken Coffman, the humbug John O’Sullivan, and the rest of the Sky Slayers want us to believe we don’t need the atmosphere to keep our planet at a viable temperature.
As the renowned Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes said, “The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic.” Unfortunately, it doesn’t appear to be illegal for the popcorn vendor, fearing the loss of business, to yell “false alarm” when a person reports an actual fire.
Hi Ken, you are starting to sound like head Slayer John O’Sullivan and his response to the CO2 blanket, when he asked if I though that a corpse gets warmer under a duvet (my comment yesterday at 2:28 pm. para 3). As Joel suggests at 9:12 am, what you seem to be ignoring is that there is energy coming in under the CO2 duvet (or sweater) as well as going out. If you increase the insulating properties of either then wouldn’t you expect the temperature underneath to increase until energy in = energy out again. Perhaps you can explain why this wouldn’t happen. Thinking about an electric blanket under the duvet (switched on of course) might help you.
Best regards, Pete Ridley
I ran this comment by Mikael Cronholm…I think his knowledge of IR radiation and its effects can be considered definitive. He pointed out an error in my thinking:
“This means unidirectional (outgoing) radiation is converted into omnidirectional radiation…”
This is probably the only thing I object to. I think the earth is a diffuse radiator more than a directional one. First of all, it is not even a smooth surface, and the materials that emit are not likely to have a directional emission.
– Mikael Cronholm
Great point, Mikael, thank you. Diffuse radiation becomes further diffused which comes back to the emitting surface and makes it hotter than it was? Nope, sorry, Warmists. No way.
Again, your statement is just absolute nonsense. The temperature of the earth is determined by the balance between the energy it receives from the sun and what it gives off back out into space. When some of the radiation emitted by the earth’s surface is absorbed by the atmosphere, the surface temperature necessary to achieve this balance is higher.
Your statement about returning radiation not being able to make the earth hotter than it was applies to the case where the sun is turned off. That is not a relevant case (for at least billions of years). The constant (purposeful?) confusion of these sort of basic things is what makes “Slayers” pseudoscience rather than real science.
Hi Ken, ref. your comment today at 8:42 am and your comment on July 19 at 6:41 am. I am surprised that you persisted in referring to radiation being unidirectional, whether it is outgoing from or incoming towards the earth. Judith already pointed out on February 2 at 8:13 am that “ .. The emission from molecules in the atmosphere is isotropic (goes in all directions) .. ”. I’m also surprised that it took Mikael Cronholm to get you to recognise that the same applies to radiation leaving the earth. Once again I am forced to agree with Joel (and you know how that hurts) when he says “ .. The constant (purposeful?) confusion of these sort of basic things is what makes “Slayers” pseudoscience rather than real science. .. ”. I’ve just been having another read of Alan Siddons’ four chapters in the free sample of “Slaying the Sky Dragon” to see if I would change my mind about them but still have to agree with Judith’s “ .. a politically motivated book that is full of crankology .. ” (February 2 at 7:00 am).
Best regards, Pete Ridley
Surely, Pete, you don’t think the fact that outgoing radiation is diffuse (though still directional in the sense that we’re talking about ‘outgoing’ radiation) strengthens the AGW case. It does not, it weakens it. I prefer to think of radiation as outwardly bound…induced by the delta-T of two materials, but I don’t object to anyone taking outward flow and summing the inward flow as long as energy is conserved and not created out of thin air. We should also recognize Joe Olson’s point that, if you’re talking about energy transfer from place to place, you need to take into account the square law attenuation with distance. Oops.
AGW protagonistas like Shore, Skolnick and Trenberth will tell you that so much energy comes in from cold, thin air that the surface of the earth is warmed by 33C. If you want to believe that, then go ahead.
How about one simple question? If CO2 is such a powerful and amazing insulator, why do window manufacturers use Argon and Krypton in their windows?
Hi Ken, did I say that CO2 was a powerful insulator? If so please show me where and I’ll try to get it corrected. Maybe they use Ar and Kr because they are inert (as well as having larger kinetic diameters than CO2).
Best regards, Pete Ridley
It’s tough to pinpoint what exactly what people think the all-powerful CO2 actually does. Insulate? Block? Trap? Capture? Reflect? Store? Diffuse? No matter what, you’ll finally get to this point: CO2 molecules, tickled by IR radiation, get thermalized. They heat up. Okay, that’s nice. There is so little of it (390PPM), it must get really, really hot if its going to do anything noticeable. Hence the theory of Little Carbon Dioxide Suns (LCDS). But that’s no good, because they don’t get really hot…not when there is 1,000,000 PPM (close enough) of other gases, which have temperatures, and those temperatures are not very hot.
But don’t worry, there are formulas in books and really smart people who do modeling based on those formulas …close down the coal mines and pay your greenie carbon taxes and enjoy your bicycle ride to work. It’s all good.
Yes, Ken, just because you don’t understand how it works and because it offends your ultra-right-wing sensibilities does not mean that all the scientists who do understand it are wrong. That’s where you anti-science young-Earthers and no-greenhousers go wrong.
Joel, Ken is clearly the Sky Dragon Slayer’s jester. He puts on a funny hat, dances wildly around, and mumbles incessant nonsense to keep them amused. When they tire of that, he’ll regale them with tales of savage cannibals.
Ken, the biggest problem is that the people who think CO2 causes large warming don’t even agree on an exact physical mechanism, though i thought the prevailing theories were Backradiation; Insulation; IR Absorption.
Beyond that, attempts to design a polyclimate experiment to demonstrate the effect and its magnitude have not revealed any interest.
Apparently, it is impossible for any laboratory-based experiment to properly model the phenomena that cause atmospheric “greenhouse” warming. I would suggest that the reason for this is that there is no physical phenomenon that can cause the stated warming.
On the other hand, for those that still believe in the “greenhouse”, if the CO2 doubling temperature rise is 1-6 degK including water vapor feedback; then what is the CO2 halving temperature drop. If the CO2 halving temperature drop is not 1-6 degK, then why not?
I am also interested to know what causes the remaining 30 degK of believed warming and why changes in the other variables might not dominate over the 1-6deg attributable to CO2.
Frankly, Ken I’m surprised your Sky Slayer associates didn’t tell you. Manufacturers put Krypton in windows to keep Superman from busting through them.
What an idiotic argument! Argon and Krypton are used to fill the thin space between two window panes because of the low thermal conductivity and because they are INERT.
Carbon dioxide actually has a slightly lower thermal conductivity than Argon (0.0146 vs. 0.016), however, CO2 is NOT inert. (It’s quite soluble in water, in which it forms a weak acid that can corrode copper, brass, and certain other metals and even dissolve marble and limestone.)
http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/thermal-conductivity-d_429.html
I still remember, when I was first trying to come to grips with AGW theory, how shocked I was when Don Easterbrook told me that I will never see a step-by-step engineering-level explanation for how CO2 contributes a measurable increase of the earth’s surface temperature. No matter what, there will always be the “then a miracle happens” hand-waving stage. I don’t blame the Warmistas…if all I had was TOA radiation balance to work with, I’d be sorely tempted to use it. Diffuse energy from cold, rarefied air increasing the earth’s surface temperature by almost 10%. That’s an amazing physical process. I can say that skeptics spend a lot more time and effort trying to understand the AGW theory than the opposite…this comment string is a perfect illustration.
I’d still love to see the step-by-step explanation but all we’ll get is the standard nonsense. Outgoing IR radiation heats the CO2 in the air, the air gets warmer and warmer air holds more water vapor, the water vapor traps more heat and the resultant warming effect is magnified. What an amazing process. Too bad only the most clueless and corrupt will buy into it.
How much does 390PPM of CO2 change the temperature of 1,000,000 PPM of N2, O2 and Argon? Why do we talk of N2 being warmed by CO2 when we should talk about how N2 cools CO2? How does any small warming from resonating CO2 molecules balance against increased atmospheric conductivity and convection? At the altitude where conduction is insignificant. the atmosphere is so thin that it has no thermal mass…can’t it be safely ignored when discussing surface warming? How does delaying outgoing energy by a few milliseconds create new peaks in surface temperature? What exactly does he CO2 molecule do to block, capture, store or trap outgoing radiation?
Wriggle, progressive activists. Wriggle.
If you want to understand things, you do what you do in any field of science: You start by reading a good textbook on the subject, for example, Ray Pierrehumbert’s book. You can then read the technical literature on the subject. If you want something at a less technical level, you read a popular book on the science, but obviously the explanations there will be more qualitative.
Or you can just whine about how it is impossible any explanations and recite silly mantras like “How does delaying outgoing energy by a few milliseconds create new peaks in surface temperature?” that just show your profound ignorance of the subject.
Oh yeah, and you can invent your own paranoid conspiracy theories whereby an entire field of science has been taken over by progressive activists. And, these folks have also taken over the National Academy of Sciences and just about every similar scientific organization on the planet.
Joel, just like Creationists — who misrepresent the 2nd law of thermodynamics in order to deceive the public into thinking evolution is scientifically impossible — global warming deniers misrepresent the law to hoodwink the public into believing the warming effect of greenhouse gasses is similarly impossible.
We’re dealing with the same kind of dishonest ideologues, who are willing to the twist the words of science beyond recognition in their efforts to deceive the public and promote their extremist agenda.
It’s no coincidence that both of these groups of scoundrels use distorted versions of the 2nd law of thermodynamics to attack science. They know only a very small percentage of the public has a good grasp of thermodynamics — though many know these are important fundamental laws of science.
Jim, I think that’s a simple and eloquent explanation. Too bad it will be lost on Pete. Trust me.
One of the things about it I like is that it’s “kitchen science” anyone can do. Partially cover the kitchen sink drain with a mat or stopper and turn on the faucet enough to begin slowly filling the sink. The water level will rise until the amount of water entering the sink equals the amount flowing around the obstruction and down the drain. At that point, the water level in the sink will become stable.
Then close the drain a little more. The water level will start rising again. However, the increasing weight of the water will raise water pressure at the partially obstructed drain, which will force an increasing amount of water to flow around the obstruction and down the drain. When the flow rate down the drain equals the flow rate from the faucet, the water level will again become stable, but at a higher level. You can keep on doing this until the water overflows the top of the sink.
And it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to see that the water is not violating the laws of thermodynamics. The effect is perfectly analogous to the effect of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere. Like putting a sweater on the planet to slow heat loss, putting more infrared-blocking gasses into the atmosphere slows down the loss of heat into space. When you slow down the escape of heat, the amount of heat will increase just as it does when you restrict the flow of water down a kitchen drain.
I love kitchen science.
I am sure you have a nice big bowl of the juiciest cherries anyone ever had in your kitchen.
And in your kitchen Teddy, we would only find a lemon.
Yes, I have always liked this analogy. The IR radiation, being the flow out of the drain has to match the faucet, so the temperature (level) rises to enable the IR to increase (by Planck’s Law) to compensate for the blockage. I wish I could claim to have invented it, but no, it has been around for a while.
In my country we have overflow drains so your experiment wouldn’t work. Unless you fudge it.
Teddy, do you think you’re adding anything to this discussion with your silly comments?
I did not intend on adding anything, just removing the stupidity that was there
If you’ve ever owned rental units, there are upstairs tenants who can can eventually defeat of the aerosol offset’s suppression of the AGW signal and flood the 1st-floor unit. Upstairs tenants are a special breed.
Try this kitchen science experiment with a pot of boiling water:
Measure the temperature of the water with IR thermometer.
See how close you can hold your hand over the top of the boiling water.
Now measure the temperature of the flame from the side.
Try measuring from a distance of a meter.
See how hot your hand feels 1m from the flame.
See how close you can put your hand to the flame from the side.
Turn off the stove. See how long it takes for the water to cool a certain amount.
Repeat boiling the pot of water (top up if required).
Now blow 5% CO2 (breath) gently over the top of the water. Does it cool slower (GH effect, CO2 trapping heat) or faster (conduction/convection/wind)?
Good! Even better would be to trap the insulating CO2 in the pot somehow. The question is…is the water ever a higher temperature than when the experiment started. We can accept a small modulation of the cooling rate, but we do not accept that the heated source ever gets hotter than it started out.
Correct. The ocean warming was due to the extra insolation due to reduced tropical cloud cover 1980-1998 (ISCCP data). If the additional co2 slowed the cooling rate fractionally, this was just a tiny effect compared to the effect of reduced albedo.
Hi tallbloke and BLouis79 in your comment yesterday at 5:51 pm and 8:02 pm I wonder if you missed my “earth/atmosphere system” bit. I was talking about the complete physical system and putting energy into it as an entity and wasn’t considering any individual part of it, like the earth’s surface. I have no illusions about the complexity of the internal mechanisms within that system (or the impact that they have on the different global climates), but for simplicity I was not considering those, just as I gave no consideration to the mechanisms taking place on individual molecules in the water that I have just boiled for my coffee.
As for your claim that cloud feedback is negative, please can you provide a link to the evidence upon which you base that statement, because from what I have seen I too get the impression that claimed negative cloud feedback could well balance out the claimed positive feedback of increased water vapour in the atmosphere.
Blouis79, you talked about “ .. composition of the blackbody .. ” but in my ignorance I understand that the radiation from the earth/atmosphere system into space is not that of a black body. Please enlighten me if I am mistaken.
According to my idiots guide to “Atmosphere, Weather and Climate” (http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=MUQOAAAAQAAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_atb#v=onepage&q&f=false) by Professors of Geography (note Joel – not Theoretical Physics) Roger G Barry (U of Colerado at Boulder) and the late Richard J Chorley (U of Cambridge) radiation from the earth/atmosphere system is far from that of a black body, as seen in Fig. 3.1 if you can get a copy. A similar diagram is presented in “A First Course In Atmospheric Radiation” (2nd Ed.) by Grant W. Petty, Professor of atmospheric science at University of Wisconsin-Madison at Fig. 8.1 (“http://www.sundogpublishing.com/AtmosRad/Excerpts/AtmosRad212.pdf) although against wavenumber rather than wavelength. (I’ll come back to Professor Petty’s text book diagrams and an alternative interpretation in a later post).
As for your “Additional complexity of complicated atmosphere effects just makes it harder to determine the “mean global surface temperature”, if there is such a meaningful thing” – no argument there.
Jim D (July 18 at 8:27 pm) isn’t that what I said?
Tallbloke, do you really think that Joel (or Andrew) are worth getting excited about. Neither are any more expert in the processes and drivers of the different global climates than you or I. Joel; is a modeller, Andrew is a journalist, end of.
Can we stop talking about the flow of water from a tap into a bucket and out again and get back to the flow of energy in and out of the earth/atmosphere and showing that the Slayers have killed no dragons.
Best regards, Pete Ridley
Pete, near everybody uses the blackbody approximation to compute the thermal radiative equilibrium temperature. I agree with you that the earth is not, but it is unclear if a difference in spectrum should cause a difference in radiative equilibrium temperature.
Assuming a blackbody and presuming that different blackbodies in the universe do have different chemical composition, the question I was asking is fundamentally, can the radiative thermal equilibrium temperature of a blackbody change with chemical composition?
Pete, see Roy Sencer’s blog for negative cloud feedback. He just had his new paper accepted for publication.
Water’s emissivity is near blackbody 0.987 I think.
Vegetation can be as low as 0.6.
Hi tallbloke, thanks for the heads-up on Roy Spencer’s latest paper and the guesses about emissivity of water and vegetation. You may find “Emissivity Values for Common Materials” (http://www.infrared-thermography.com/material-1.htm) useful. In my simple explanation of the greenhouse effect I consider the earth (with its oceans, land and vegetation) and the atmosphere (with its different gases and aerosols) as a single entity that absorbs and emits radiated energy. I see that the list to which I link provides emissivity of water (liquid and solid), soil, sand, etc. and of course that filthy thing carbon that the power/money-hungy like the UN, the EU, Greenpeace, Al. Gore, etc. try to frighten us all with but I could find no mention in the list of that essential life-supporting substance CO2 or any of the other atmospheric gases. Perhaps some bright theoretical physicist or the like can explain why they would be ignored.
Out of curiosity I googled “emissivity of CO2” and did come across an interesting article “EMISSIVITY, ABSORBENCY AND TOTAL EMITTANCE OF CARBON DIOXIDE (CO2)” by Nasif Nahle Sabag (http://www.biocab.org/Academic_Curriculum.html), “ .. University professor for University Regiomontana, A. C., Monterrey, N. L., Mexico. Lectures on the next matters (from 1974 to 1986): General Biology. Advanced Biology. Ecology, Contamination and Environment. Biological Economy. Biophysics .. ”.
I’m sure that the following extract will get some people gong here (especially the resident ranter) QUOTE: .. From the table, the emissivity of carbon dioxide decreases with height and its partial pressure. In addition, the total emittance of CO2 with a partial pressure (Pp) of 1 atm*m would not exceed 0.9 W/m^2. At its current partial pressure, the CO2 has a total emittance of 0.423 (second line in blue characters) For this reason the value for the total emittance (€) given by some authors from the IPCC -5.35 W/m^2- is not the actual value, but an adaptation to make the numbers agree with pre-assumed and subjective numbers. The IPCC team of experts has changed the radiative forcing so many times that the IPCC team have had to admit that the numbers are not real. The real values for the emittance or “radiative forcing” have been provided by the heat transfer science and thermodynamics.
Now the IPCC team has found that the radiative forcing changes erratically, induced by the climate changes. The last assertion from the IPCC team is an assumption without scientific support, and it contradicts the physics of heat transfer because the radiative forcing capability of any system depends of its physical characteristics, like specific heat, mass, enthalpy, etc. not in the state of climate. The climate is not driven by the radiative forcing of the elements in the atmosphere, but by the Sun and the oceans. .. Carbon dioxide is a conveyor of energy through convection and radiation more than an accumulator of heat. UNQUOTE.
I’m not convinced by that last bit because as I understand it CO2 also conveys energy to the major atmospheric gases by collision and they cannot radiate that energy out to space.
Best regards, Pete Ridley
Pete says:
“I consider the earth (with its oceans, land and vegetation) and the atmosphere (with its different gases and aerosols) as a single entity that absorbs and emits radiated energy.”
Hi Pete, whilst it might be useful to consider the whole Earth for some purposes, it must be borne in mind that whilst the land masses can absorb the longwave radiation emitted from the atmosphere, longwave ‘back-radiation’ cannot penetrate the surface of the ocean much beyond its own wavelength. This means that a large amount of energy gets concentrated into a very thin layer, rapidly raising temperature and causing prompt evaporation which takes energy up, up and away in the latent heat of evaporation contained in gaseous water molecules.
Very little of this back radiated energy therefore gets entrained into the upper ocean through wave action compared to the energy in sunlight, which penetrates many metres down into the upper ocean. This is why it is my contention that the increase in ocean heat content from ~1930 is solar caused because the suns activity was for many decades in the C20th above the ocean equilibrium level where the ocean neithr gains nor loses heat content. I determined that level from an empirical study of sunspot number (and therefore Total solar irradiance) and sea surface temperature (which is proportional to ocean heat content). The terrestrial amplification of the solar signal determined by Prof. Nir Shaviv http://sciencebits.com/calorimeter is therefore linked to solar activity. It is most likely caused by albedo changes, which are aslo proportional to solar activity, via mechanisms such as the Svensmark effect and the close coerrelation between solar activity and specific humidity levels in the upper troposphere which I discovered two years ago by examining the radiosonde data.
Hi tallbloke your comment “ .. longwave ‘back-radiation’ cannot penetrate the surface of the ocean much beyond its own wavelength. This means that a large amount of energy gets concentrated into a very thin layer, rapidly raising temperature and causing prompt evaporation which takes energy up, up and away in the latent heat of evaporation contained in gaseous water molecules .. ” may well be correct but as far as the earth/atmosphere entity is concerned will “that energy taken up, up and away” all get back into space? I suspect that it will not because not all of that energy will be lost through radiation, e.g. some might be passed on to N2. O2 and Ar by collision.
You appear to be mainly concerned about the energy retained by the earth whereas I am thinking in terms of the earth/atmosphere system. Am I wrong to do this?
In passing, perhaps you can explain what happens to that energy carried up, up and away by the water vapour from the ocean when its condenses onto those little particles of dust to form rain. One source suggests that “ .. Latent heat of condensation is energy released when water vapor condenses to form liquid droplets. An identical amount of calories (about 600 cal/g) is released in this process as was needed in the evaporation process. This is one mechanism of how thunderstorms maintain their intensity. As moist air is lifted and cooled, water vapor eventually condenses, which then allows for huge amounts of latent heat energy to be released, feeding the storm .. ” (http://okfirst.mesonet.org/train/meteorology/HeatTransfer.html) but perhaps, like Wikipedia has been known to do, that site is misleading us non-scientists.
Best regards, Pete Ridley
Pete says:
You appear to be mainly concerned about the energy retained by the earth whereas I am thinking in terms of the earth/atmosphere system. Am I wrong to do this?
Pete, I’m thinking of the Earth atmosphere system too. It’s just that the land atmosphere system is significantly different to the ocean atmosphere system, and the two should be considered in terms of their very different physical characteristics. As you can see from Pekka’s reply below, back radiation doesn’t warm the ocean, whereas it can warm the land. The ocean is 7/10ths of the planetary surface. The Sun warms the ocean. The top two metres of ocean have as much heat capacity as the entire atmosphere above it. The SST drives the global atmospheric temperature. Atmospheric temperature changes lag behind sea surface temperature changes by several months. The tail does not wag the dog.
Hi tallbloke, I’m aware of the complexities of how energy is transferred WITHIN the earth/atmosphere system but my comments are not concerned about those. You, Pekka and others are doing a fine job describing some of them and don’t need any contribution from me. I’m concerned about the restriction of energy flow out of the entire system by radiation to space. I don’t think that the dog would be chasing its tail up there. If Pekka is referring to what affects the different global climates when he says “ .. It’s not possible to attribute any real change to one component or one subprocess only. .. ” then I couldn’t agree more.
Best regards, Pete Ridley
The radiation that the skin layer emits penetrates the same distance trough the water as the incoming long wave radiation. The emission is stronger than absorption. Thus the net effect is to lose energy by IR radiation, not to gain energy. The evaporation removes also energy from the skin. For these two reasons the skin is cooler than the water immediately below.
The additional heat needed to maintain the temperature of the skin comes from below from the energy absorbed from solar SW radiation, which penetrates several meters deeper and to a smaller extent tens or even hundreds of meters into the ocean.
As the direction of the energy flow of the uppermost layers of oceans is not from the skin down but from below up to the surface there is nor need to worry about the way, how heat penetrates from the skin to the layers a few meters below. It doesn’t do that at all.
The mixing of different layers is importnat, but not in that particular way.
You are right that “Very little of this back radiated energy therefore gets entrained into the upper ocean through wave action compared to the energy in sunlight, which penetrates many metres down into the upper ocean” as this amount is actually negative and the energy of the penetrating sunlight much more than remains to heat the ocean. Most of the energy of the solar radiation comes to the skin and is lost from there, but a little may remain to heat the ocean.
Pekka, thank you very much for your summary and additional knowledge. Do you agree with me then, that the enhanced greenhouse effect works not by directly warming the ocean with back radiation, but by increasing the altitude at which radiation to space takes place?
If so, has anyone managed to model or quantify what the increase in altitude would be for a 120ppm increase in co2 if all else remains constant? And how much that would theoretically increase surface temperature?
Thanks for your time.
I tend to explain correct physics independently on the direction of possible further conclusions. I realized that I did actually strengthen your point, although I’m not likely agree on everything else, but I’m writing here as a physicist with my own understanding and views, not as a representative of some interest. (Sometimes I may write also as an energy economist or systems analyst, as those roles are equally valid for me as that of physicist.)
Concerning your question, may reaction is that it’s not a good practice to pick any component of the energy flows and say that this is or is not the reason for warming (or cooling). It’s almost always question of the balance of all significant components to that balance.
Looking at the ocean, increased CO2 influences immediately it by modifying the balance of outgoing and incoming IR radiation. More CO2 in the atmosphere means that the incoming radiation comes from a little lower altitude as the radiation from higher up doesn’t penetrate all the way to the surface at strongly absorbing/emitting wavelengths. More CO2 means also that a little more radiation comes down at wavelengths, where the absorption/emission is so weak that some of it passes through the whole atmosphere without getting absorbed and re-emitted. Because the atmosphere is warmer at lower altitudes, the amount of radiation is larger, when it originates lower.
These same physical phenomena influence also, what happens to the outgoing radiation at TOA, but that’s not directly visible from the surface and doesn’t affect the outcome directly. It’s, however, possible to discuss the same physical from a different point of view and emphasize the TOA.
Furthermore, what happens at TOA affects ocean also through convection and latent heat flow. The balance at TOA determines the altitude and temperature of the tropopause and from that the temperature of the whole troposphere trough the essentially fixed lapse rate. The balance at the ocean surface depends also on convention and latent heat and changes in radiative net heat flux are largely balanced by changes in convection and latent heat transport, because the lapse rate must be restored. Finally everything depends of everything, and we are back, where I started: It’s not possible to attribute any real change to one component or one subprocess only.
Pekka, now you say yourself what you have criticized me for saying: It is not possible to say if the effect of a bit more CO2 is a bit of cooling or warming or nothing. Have you changed your mind?
At the risk of becoming embroiled in a discussion of semantics rather than physics, I’ll suggest the following. Regardless of how we define “warming”, the ocean will be neither gaining nor losing energy in a steady state. Its absorbed energy from solar radiation and back-radiation from the atmosphere will equal its emitted energy – mainly as IR and latent heat transfer via evaporation. Of course, this average will reflect a net daytime warming and a net nighttime cooling. Under an energy imbalance – imposed, for example, by increasing CO2 – the absorbed energy will exceed emitted energy averaged over day/night intervals.
If we arbitrarily selected a moving water molecule in the ocean and asked where its energy came from, about 2/3 will have come from back radiated IR and 1/3 from absorbed solar radiation. Because of wave action, these two forms are quickly mixed despite the fact that IR is so efficiently absorbed that most absorption occurs in the top micrometer or so of the ocean.
Are the above numbers significantly altered by the source of latent heat release from the ocean surface due to evaporation? The answer is that they are not. Because of mixing, we can assume that the energy for evaporation comes from both the solar and back radiated component, but for the sake of argument, we might ask what the numbers would look like if all came from back radiation and none from solar absorbed energy. It turns out that the role of back radiation would diminish only slightly, because the total energy involved in latent heat transfer (calculated from global evaporation/precipitation rates) is only a rather small fraction of the total energy back radiated into the ocean. Even with this unrealistic assumption, back radiation would contribute more energy to the ocean than solar radiation. Examples of some of these numbers can be found in Table 2b of Trenberth-Fasullo-Kiehl 2008.
Finally, it’s important not to confuse back radiation with net IR flux (the difference between upward and downward IR). If we subtract downward IR from upward IR, the difference is rather small, and so the net contribution of IR to ocean energy release is relatively small, even compared with latent heat release. The upward contribution by itself, however, is much larger than the latent heat component of total energy loss from the ocean.
The best way to look at things is indeed as increasing the altitude at which radiation escapes to space. The advantage of that point-of-view is again that, since the communication to space is only via radiation, that is the best place to consider the radiative balance. And, yes, this has been quantified. That is how scientists determine the ~4 W/m^2 radiative forcing for CO2 doubling that translates into just over 1 K of warming (this being without feedbacks). If we use a mean lapse rate of something like 7.5 K per km, we could work backwards to say the mean height for radiative emission goes up about 150 m from doubling.
That being said, I’ve always found these arguments about back radiation not warming the oceans to be hokey. Where do you think the energy goes? The total transfer of energy from evaporation-condensation is something like 80 W/m^2 (and this follows directly from an estimate of mean global annual precipitation). And, you’ve got ~330 W/m^2 of back-radiation. Only the “skeptic” community would come up with an argument for why something is such a strong absorber of IR that it can’t be warmed by it!
Anyone interested in seeing more evidence of what a mendacious humbug the leader of the Sky Dragon Slayers is should read his latest “BREAKING NEWS” report: “Greenhouse Gas Theory Trashed in Groundbreaking Lab Experiment,” by John O’Sullivan, http://climaterealists.com/?id=8073
This one surely ranks a 9.2 on the Richter scale of O’Sullivan’s earth shaking mendacity. In it, he describes his fellow Sky Dragon Slayer’s replication of a century-old experiment performed by the renowned scientist (and trickster) Robert W. Wood. Wood’s experiment had proven most of the higher heat in a greenhouse results from the glass preventing heat loss through convection. That was news in 1909.
One of the things that appears to be keeping O’Sullivan occupied these days is searching for “news” that he can misrepresent as “momentous” and the final nail in the coffin of the global warming “hoax.”
“Greenhouse gas theory of global warming is refuted in momentous Mexican lab experiment,” his news lede declares. “Results mean epic fail for doomsaying cult and climate taxes.”
“The analogy had been that greenhouse gases (e.g. CO2) act like the glass in a greenhouse trapping heat in Earth’s atmosphere and if they build up (due to human industrial emissions) the planet would dangerously overheat.”
What’s earth shaking here is his mendacity. That’s not at all how the greenhouse effect works. Every authoritative reference I’ve seen explains why garden greenhouses are not an accurate analogy for the how the greenhouse effect works. For example, here’s what Wikipedia’s article says:
“[The greenhouse effect] is named after the effect of solar radiation passing through glass and warming a greenhouse, but the way it retains heat is fundamentally different as a greenhouse works by reducing airflow, isolating the warm air inside the structure so that heat is not lost by convection.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect
Check any authoritative reference on the greenhouse effect and you will see it described as fundamentally different from how a garden greenhouse works.
So is the result from a global warming denier’s reproduction of a famous experiment performed in 1909 “news?” Only in the mind of a Sky Dragon Slayer. One hundred and two years ago, Prof. Wood demonstrated how garden greenhouses are warmed. So why would Mr. O’Sulivan publish this nonsense as a “momentous” “ground breaking” scientific discovery that “refutes” what he calls the global warming “hoax?”
As I’ve been arguing here, a humbug who lies about his professional credentials is even more likely to lie about what he calls “science.”
Anyone who would like a superb explanation of how the Sky Dragon Slayers’ semantic word games are disingenuous should visit this wonderful website:
http://joannenova.com.au/2011/05/why-greenhouse-gas-warming-doesnt-break-the-second-law-of-thermodynamics/
Take this explanation for example:
“The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics applies to net flows of heat, not to each individual photon, and it does not prevent some heat flowing from a cooler body to a warm one.
“Imagine three blocks of metal side by side. They are 11°C, 10°C, and 9°C. Think about what happens to the photons coming off the atoms in the middle of the medium temperature block between the other two. If heat never flows from cooler blocks to warmer blocks, all those photons have to go “right“, and not ever go “left”, because they “know” that way is towards a cooler block? (How would they?!)
“The photons go both ways (actually every way, in 3D). There are more coming from the 11°C block to the 10°C block, sure, but the the 10°C block is sending ‘em back to the 11°C block too. So heat is flowing from cold to hot. It happens all the time. Net heat is flowing always hot to cold. But some heat is going the other way, every day, everywhere, bar possibly a black hole.
“People are being caught by semantics. Technically, strictly, greenhouse gases don’t “warm” the planet (as in, they don’t supply additional heat energy), but they slow the cooling, which for all pragmatic purposes leaves the planet warmer that it would have been without them. It’s a bit like saying a blanket doesn’t warm you in bed. Sure, it’s got no internal heat source, and it won’t add any heat energy that you didn’t already have, but you sure feel cold without one. – Jo”
Again with the one-fluid/two-fluid question. Will we resolve this in my lifetime? Probably not. Is radiation some sort of flux caused by the difference in temperatures or is it a summation of photons coming and going? It doesn’t matter how you care to visualize it as long as you don’t double-count the forcing. Don’t count the effect of imaginary “back radiation” when the effect is already included in the outgoing forcing. Don’t send energy out, have it absorbed by something, then come back to make the emitter hotter than it was.
We agree that CO2 can delay the escape of outgoing radiation by a few milliseconds, but we don’t agree that “back radiation” will ever increase the emitters’ maximum temperature. It can decrease the peak temperature a little and it can increase the minimum temperature a little, but there is no net accumulation. You guys can call me whacky, but I am not the one who says 390PPM of atmospheric CO2 can trap, capture, block or store outgoing radiation.
But that’s so complicated…
Easier example is the common microwave oven, where “cold photons” (microwave radiation: well under 1K black body source) are used to heat up water to 374 kelvins.
Not only that but the frequency used is designed to be off the absorption band of water, yet energy is transferred to the water molecule (bonus question: Why not use a resonance frequency?)
Microwave ovens are a good example of “skeptic physics” going wildly off target: If colder source/low frequency photons can’t heat up a warmer source, then how exactly does the microwave oven work?
You might argue that there’s a difference between ‘active’ & ‘passive’ source…But if that’s the case then how exactly does the photon know whether it’s from a magnetron or cold black body?
Golly, Foobar. Are you saying there is a correlation between the earth’s so-called greenhouse effect and the way a microwave oven works? Heat energy emitted by oceans ‘microwaves’ CO2 in the atmosphere which re-emits and adds new energy to the ocean that wasn’t already there a few microseconds earlier?
Write it up and send it in. I’m sure, since it would add ammunition to the AGW case, it would fly through peer review. Give it a jazzy name and acronym. I’m so proud of you, Fooby.
Foobar, you apparently missed my earlier discussion about my “kitchen science” video, in which I roast Sky Slayer Claes Johnson’s bewilderingly bizarre claim to a crisp with the help of a microwave oven.
http://judithcurry.com/2011/01/31/slaying-a-greenhouse-dragon/#comment-85619
Of course you can heat something to a very high temperature with low-energy photons. But Ken Coffman, humbug John O’Sullivan, Tim Bell, Claes Johnson, and the rest of the Sky Slayers are blowing smoke into the eyes of the scientifically illiterate to convince them nothing can be heated warmer with photons from a source that emits photons at a lower-energy level.
That’s the kind of “science” you can expect from people, who lie about their academic and professional credentials, or their close associates.
Ken says, “You guys can call me whacky, but I am not the one who says 390 ppm of atmospheric CO2 can trap, capture, block or store outgoing radiation.”
Yep, that’s why we call you “whacky.”
Oh, and also because you publish pseudoscientific and racist claptrap by authors you call “the finest writers we can find…writers who might otherwise be overlooked in the world of the written word.”
Yep, way way whacky. There’s a reason why these “finest writers” are being overlooked.
I thought you said Judith had told you to stop playing the ‘racism’ card.
You’re way out of your depth on the climate science, so you stoop to this.
Correcting Tallspoke is a full time job.
Judith Curry told me no such thing.
In her comment above, she said the discussion of Ken Coffman’s latest book, Into the Cannibal’s Pot, and racism is off topic and asked all of us to stay on topic. Including you.
“In her comment above, she said the discussion of Ken Coffman’s latest book, Into the Cannibal’s Pot, and racism is off topic and asked all of us to stay on topic.”
And yet here you are, repeatedly making off topic snide comments about a book written by an author you know nothing about (Ilana Mercer), and her publisher. Against the wishes of our hostess
What a distasteful, ill informed and grubby tactic. You should be ashamed of yourself.
Hi tallbloke, I don’t believe that he wouldn’t understand your “ .. You should be ashamed of yourself .. ”.
Best regards, Pete Ridley
Tallspoke, do you ever tire of speaking falsely?
EVER?
BLouis79, ref. your comment at 8:27 am. I don’t see any reason to disagree with your “ .. near everybody uses the blackbody approximation to compute the thermal radiative equilibrium temperature .. ” but my concern is not what happens at thermal equilibrium but what happens when that equilibrium is upset, e.g. by extra CO2 or any other greenhouse gas in the atmosphere taking another bite out of the outgoing radiation flux. That swallowed energy surely must increase the earth/atmosphere system’s temperature (at a rate determined by the response, i.e. heat capacity, of the system until equilibrium is restored.
Does not that extra bite, resulting in “ .. a difference in spectrum.. ” cause an increase in the energy held within the earth/atmosphere system, consequently causing its temperature to rise? In answer to your “ .. can the radiative thermal equilibrium temperature of a blackbody change with chemical composition? .. ” my conclusion is “yes” if that change in composition arises from an increase in greenhouse gases like H2O, CH4 and CO2 (until someone can convince me otherwise).
Ken (Coffman), ref. your comment today at 11:12 am, please would you explain where “ .. We agree that CO2 can delay the escape of outgoing radiation by a few milliseconds, .. ” comes from. I repeat my understanding that CO2 absorbs some radiated energy then passes some of that energy on to the major atmospheric gases (which can’t radiate it) and re-radiates some, possibly for other greenhouse gases to absorb it. BTW, you (and I) may be considered by some to be wacky individuals (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/wacky) but rather that than being considered by most to be venomous.
As for the breaking news from the leader of the charge that was going to slay the sky dragon let’s not forget that by no stretch of anyone’s imagination is John a scientist. John’s response to the analogy of a blanket of greenhouse gases around the earth keeping in some energy says a lot about his level of understanding. On John’s “Top Scientists in Heated Debate over ‘Slaying’ of Greenhouse Gas Theory” thread (http://slayingtheskydragon.com/en/blog/100-top-scientists-in-heated-debate-over-slaying-of-greenhouse-gas-theory) on 27th January at 16:38 I commented QUOTE: Well John, this is going to be interesting, seeing “the Slayers” prove that putting a douvet on the bed does not keep us warm because it doesn’t generate heat. Forgive my simplistic explanation of a complicated scientific principle but, like you John, I’m not a scientist UNQUOTE. As I said on February 1 at 6:01 am on Judith’s “Physics of the atmospheric greenhouse(?) effect” thread (http://judithcurry.com/2010/11/30/physics-of-the-atmospheric-greenhouse-effect/) QUOTE: John’s E-mailed response was “I suggest you answer your own question by imagining putting a duvet over a corpse and measuring how much heat is generated- there’s your answer to that strawman” UNQUOTE. That response of John’s told me enough about his understanding of the Greenhouse theory.
One much more interesting comment that the resident ranter did not mention when referring to John’s “BREAKING NEWS” was “ .. Postma and Nahle join long-standing GHE skeptics, Alan Siddons and Hans Schreuder as they prepare to formally launch a new global research association, Principia Scientific International (PSI) recruiting untold numbers of conscientious scientists sickened by endemic corruption within science. .. ”. John intended launching PSI as a Community Interest Company at the beginning of this year but failed to raise the necessary charitable donations through his gofundme appeal (http://www.gofundme.com/1v39s) but seems still to be determined to try to get his company off the ground. It will be interesting to see if it ever materialises as a private company with the structure proposed in January of Tim Ball (Chairman), John O’Sullivan (CEO), Hans Schroeder (CFO), Rev. Philip Foster (Compliance Officer) and other members of the Board of Directors as Dr. Martin Hertzberg, Dr. Claes Johnson, Joseph A. Olson, Alan Siddons and Dr. Charles Anderson.
It will be just as interesting to see whether or not it attracts interest from any significant number of “conscientious scientists” beyond the group of Slayers, but I don’t expect it to be any more successful at that than it was at attracting charitable donations from outsiders.
The resident ranter may also find enlightening my other comments on both John’s and Judith’s threads (made long before he started ranting about John’s extravagant claims to fame), especially the one on John’s blog on 31st January at 09:20.
tallbloke, I’m sure that I’m not the only one who fully agrees with your comment at 10:22 am, especially the last sentence.
Talking about ranting, sorry if I haven’t been succinct enough for every one here but I just get so carried away. I propose to make my next rant about what those radiation spectra tell us, because I have recently been involved in some very interesting E-mail exchanges with Roger Taguchi and John Nichol on this.
Best regards, Pete Ridley
Pete, the whole point of a scientific simplification is to enable one to calculate a result. If one wants to look at a more complex picture where what is happening is not agreed theoretically, then one has to observe carefully and in great detail to enable one to formulate a real hypothesis to test, then test it experimentally in a lab to figure out if the new hypothesis is supported by experimental observation or not.
Precisely quantified radiative transfer data tells us from a SpectralCalc model that the CO2-doubling temperature rise would be 0.2degK.
If you think “taking a detectable bite out radiation” causes gaseous warming to dominate over reemission (scattering), then please partake in the design of a suitable experiment. (Others have declined the offer.)
Hi BLouis79, I was trying to keep things very simple by just looking at the earth/atmosphere system as an entity in which energy in is greater than energy out for a period dependent upon the heat capacity of the system. Are you suggesting that if greenhouse gases are able to absorb energy and pass it on by collisions to the major atmospheric gases N2, O2 and Ar (which I understand cannot radiate energy to space) then that absorbed and transferred energy cannot increase the temperature of the earth/atmosphere entity. If it cannot then what does it do, just vanish without trace?
I’m puzzled by your QUOTE: .. If you think “taking a detectable bite out radiation” causes gaseous warming to dominate over reemission (scattering) .. UNQUOTE because I don’t recall making any claim to that effect. Would you care to explain why you drew that conclusion.
Best regards, Pete Ridley
Pete, if I have misinterpreted what you mean by “…taking another bite out of the outgoing radiation flux. That swallowed energy surely must increase the earth/atmosphere system’s temperature…”, please clarify.
My understanding is that the disposition of IR radiation absorbed can be:
1. increased atomic bond energy
2. increased temperature
3. reemission in random direction
I haven’t been able to find any particular experimental data clarifying the relative contributions of each.
SpectralCalc computations using precise radiative transfer data gave a result of 0.2degK warming for CO2 doubling in atmosphere.
Hi BLouis79, ref. your comment yesterday at 7:00 pm. I think that you may have misunderstood what I meant “ .. by extra CO2 or any other greenhouse gas in the atmosphere taking another bite out of the outgoing radiation flux .. ” (July 19, 2011 at 2:28 pm). I wasn’t thinking in terms of the CO2 taking a bite then spitting it out again into space (your “ .. 3. reemission in random direction .. ” ?) but in terms of either swallowing it “you 2) and 3?) or feeding it on by collisions to the major gases N2, O2 and Ar, which I understood do not themselves radiate (although one DeWitt Payne claims otherwise – http://scienceofdoom.com/2011/06/21/whats-the-palaver-kiehl-and-trenberth-1997/).
Regarding your items 1), 2), 3) and “ .. SpectralCalc computations using precise radiative transfer data gave a result of 0.2degK warming for CO2 doubling in atmosphere .. ” may I suggest you have a chat with Roger Taguchi and John Nichol (rtaguchi@sympatico.ca and jonicol18@bigpond.com) who will be far more capable than I to explain the science to you.
Best regards, Pete Ridley
Pete Longspinner says, “Talking about ranting, sorry if I haven’t been succinct enough for every one here but I just get so carried away.
“I propose to make my next rant about what those radiation spectra tell us, because I have recently been involved in some very interesting E-mail exchanges with Roger Taguchi and John Nichol on this.”
Pete, I doubt that I’m alone in wishing you would get carried away.
I suspect a few others here might prefer to poke their eyes out with their thermometers than read another of your painfully pointless free-associations.
Hi Andrew, no-one is forced to read any of the rants on this thread, from you, from me or from anyone else, but you could learn something if you bothered to read mine carefully enough. Take off the blinkers and see the light.
Best regards, Pete Ridley
I said yesterday that I’d like to rant a bit about the interpretation of those measurements of radiation looking down from space towards the earth/atmosphere system and from the earth’s surface up towards space. After re-reading Chapter 2 of “Slaying the Sky Dragon” I’m more inclined to rant about my conclusion that it is just a misleading confusion of the concepts of energy, power density and temperature. Let me give an example. Making the assumption that there is a steady incoming solar flux of 240W/m2 he says “ .. Imagine .. a .. blockage .. solar energy enters but some of the terrestrial energy can’t get out .. say 50%. .. 120 terrestrial watts thus escape .. 120 are blocked .. the earth itself remains at 240 because the sun is always shining .. ”. Alan continues in the same confused and misleading manner saying “ .. radiant energy has but one way of exerting an effect: On a region of lesser energy. When a region possesses equal or greater energy, energy cannot flow there, cannot exert an effect .. This answers the question of a 50% radiation blockage. The light cannot transfer its power downwards – miraculously raising the earth to 360W/m2 because the earth below has twice the energy. Without a difference to overcome, energy makes no difference .. ”.
Following on with what to me is just a further offering of misleading and confused gobbledegook, Alan then throws in the irrelevant analogy of a thermos flask. Perhaps that analogy was what inspired John O’Sullivan to use his “corpse under the duvet” analogy and ignore the effect of the electric blanket that can be used to represent the incoming solar energy flux (para 4 of my comment on July 19 at 2:28 pm).
Alan did end with the valid statement that “ .. As it stands the model we are using is insufficient”, but merging fact with fiction is standard practice in the Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change (CACC) war.
Best regards, Pete Ridley
Talking about the climate change war and the distortion of facts in an effort to win support reminds me of the BBC’s 2008 “Climate Wars” series of programmes. In Part 1 of that series staunch supporter of the CACC hypothesis Professor (then Dr) Iain Stewart purported to demonstrate how CO2 affects earth’s climate (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SeYfl45X1wo) but declined to warn his audience that the demonstration had been rigged to grossly exaggerate the extent to which CO2 absorbs IR radiation. On top; of that the demonstration did not do what he claimed at the outset it would achieve. Anyone who is interested in reading more about this could start at my thread “What does Iain Stewart’s CO2 experiment Demonstrate?” (http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=38723.0) on the Science Forum of Cambridge University’s “The Naked Scientists” group. The group’s moderators and administrators, who all appear to be staunch supporters of the CACC hypothesis, chose to lock my several threads before the discussions were completed.
A video of Professor Iain Stewart and his motivations is available (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hrPjddK2t-I&feature=player_embedded#at=256). More comments on this can be found on the “Paul Dennis on Iain Stewart” thread (http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2011/3/25/paul-dennis-on-iain-stewart.html – May 9 at 10:19 PM & May 11, 2011 at 2:56 PM) of Andrew Montford’s “Bishop Hill” blog. Andrew wrote the revealing book “The Hockey Stick Illusion” (also published by Ken Koffman’s Stairway Press but unlike “Slaying the Sky Dragon” that one is worth paying for). It describes the peculiar statistical manipulations used by Michael Mann, the stirling work done by McIntyre and McKittrick to unravel them and the conclusions of the two US enquiries into the topic.
Best regards, Pete Ridley
Please note: I am not the publisher of The Hockey Stick Illusion (that is Stacey International), but I resell it it. While they last, the ones I sell include a bookplate signed by the almighty Bish.
Carry on.
Hi Ken, My apologies. I misinterpreted “promotions” as “publications” when reading this piece of October 2010 trumpet-blowing by the Slayers “ .. The main donor is Ken Coffman, a US based publisher and distributor of outstanding scientific books, one of his latest promotions being the Andrew Montford book “The Hockey Stick Illusion.” In addition Mr O’Sullivan will announce that Stairway Press are proud to soon be publishing the world’s first full-volume refutation of the greenhouse effect entitled “Slaying the Sky Dragon: Death of the Greenhouse Theory”. SMP Ltd will be publishing the book in the UK .. ” (http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=6536).
I see that the proposed PSI CEO (John O’Sullivan), CFO (Hans Schroeder) and Compliance Officer (Rev Philip Foster, who I understand runs St. Matthew Publishing – am I correct Ken?) all get a plug either directly or indirectly. That bulletin said that “Since the beginning of 2004 Mr Schreuder has been an outspoken critic of the pseudo-science that blames harmless carbon dioxide emissions on increasing the global temperature and influencing the climate. The action of atmospheric carbon dioxide has been misunderstood for the past two centuries”. I am inclined to think that Hans depends more upon his “sixth sense” than science when arriving at his conclusions about the CACC hypothesis. You may wonder why I say this.
In early January, when discussions were taking place about the formation of PSI as a CIC and after I had notified the group of my PSI & Due Diligemce “Executive Summary” I was told (not asked if I would like to be) that I had been appointed as Chairman of the “PSI + CIC Committee”. After I responded on this to the group Hans Schroeder commented that he had used his “sixth sense” to come to the conclusion that I was “ .. a spy who has so far very successfully infiltrated the hub of our undertakings .. ”. He threatened that if I remained a member of the group then “ .. I am out of it, simple as that. My sixth sense has yet to be proven wrong .. ”.
You may recall that on 8th January I told the group “ .. I am not in this group as a spy. I am simply a cautious (“once bitten twice shy”) individual who believes in telling it as I see it .. ”. Hans’s sixth sense, which he seems to hold in high regard, had let him down badly over that issue and I suspect that it is the same over the CACC issue.
Best regards, Pete Ridley
Joel Shore | July 21, 2011 at 9:28 pm
the mean height for radiative emission goes up about 150 m from doubling.
Where do you think the energy goes? The total transfer of energy from evaporation-condensation is something like 80 W/m^2 (and this follows directly from an estimate of mean global annual precipitation). And, you’ve got ~330 W/m^2 of back-radiation.
Thanks for the altitude change figure. I’ll come back to that another day.
According to Trenberth and Kiehl 97, there is 324W/m^2 of back radiation hitting the surface of the ocean. There is also 168W/m^2 in shortwave solar for a total of 492W/m^2
The ocean loses 78W/m^2 from evapo-transpiration and also emits 390W/m^2 in longwave and there is another 24W/m^2 lost via thermal convection for a total of 492W/m^2
You ask where the energy goes. You can easily deduce from this that most of the back radiation goes the only way it can go since it can’t get more than a micron nto the water. It goes straight back out of the ocean surface into the atmosphere.
Fred Moolten | July 21, 2011 at 4:55 pm
If we arbitrarily selected a moving water molecule in the ocean and asked where its energy came from, about 2/3 will have come from back radiated IR and 1/3 from absorbed solar radiation. Because of wave action, these two forms are quickly mixed despite the fact that IR is so efficiently absorbed that most absorption occurs in the top micrometer or so of the ocean.
I disagree. If you look at where vortices are formed beneath wave troughs, they are several orders of magnitude deeper down than the depth longwave energy is capable of penetrating to. Please provide evidence that significant amounts of energy from back radiation get absorbed into the ocean to any great depth.
If we subtract downward IR from upward IR, the difference is rather small, and so the net contribution of IR to ocean energy release is relatively small, even compared with latent heat release.
No it isn’t small. the net flux in longwave is around 66W/m^2 from ocean to atmosphere. The flux in evapotranspiration is around 78W/m^2.
The upward contribution by itself, however, is much larger than the latent heat component of total energy loss from the ocean.
This doesn’t prove that any of the longwave energy is mixed down, only that it is re-emitted into the atmosphere. Very promptly in my estimation.
The longwave that the ocean emits is by virtue of having an average temperature of somewhere in the neighborhood of 15 C. It is not because of some new magical mystery phenomenon that “skeptics” like you have invented whereby the ocean absorbs IR radiation so effectively that it can’t absorb it and in some sense effectively reflects it.
It amazes me what intellectual hoops people will jump through in order to get the answer that they want to get!
Stop trying to talk down to me Joel.
The fact that longwave radiation can’t penetrate very far into water is well known physics. I didn’t expect to have to tell a physics graduate that, but there it is. It’s not a matter of how much it emits or at what temperature it emits it at. It’s a matter of where it emits it from, and to what extent the energy was entrained into the upper ocean before it was re-emitted. I notice you didn’t repond the last time I challenged you on this either.
You are trying to obfuscate, and it’s clear to those paying attention.
TB – I assume at this point that you agree that most back radiated energy can’t be accounted for by latent heat transfer and must therefore contribute to energy absorbed in the ocean, contributing to its temperature. I say this because the myth that it all (or mostly all) goes into evaporation still prevails in some Internet circles.
If back radiation is the predominant contributor to ocean temperature, the question arises as to how the absorbed heat is distributed. Even after subtracting latent heat transfer, backradiated energy absorbed in the ocean significantly exceeds absorbed solar energy. Without mixing, the skin layer would therefore have to be considerably hotter than the water immediately beneath, but it is actually slightly cooler (due to evaporation). We also know that few ocean regions are serene enough for wave dimensions not to greatly exceed the dimensions of the IR-absorbing skin layer (a few micrometers at most). We can therefore assume substantial mixing, but not necessarily complete turbulent mixing. As one goes from the warm layer immediately below the skin layer down in depth over the course of meters, temperature in the mixed layer declines, but the slope is fairly gradual. Here, convection plays an important role in the transfer of absorbed solar energy upward from lower depths toward the surface. Any heating of the surface by absorbed IR would of course inhibit the upward transfer and thereby contribute to deeper layer warming even in the absence of turbulence. In essence, then, the relatively shallow gradient tells us that in one way or another, energy absorbed at the surface contributes to temperatures throughout the mixed layer (and ultimately to deeper oceans).
It is of course the surface temperature that dictates the rate of IR emission to the atmosphere via Stefan-Boltzmann. If surface temperature increases due to increased back radiation (e.g., from rising CO2), that increase will be translated into more upward IR and hence atmospheric warming.
Fred,
The skin is not cooler due to evaporation, as it would be cooler even without due to emission of IR alone.
In general I don’t want to attribute effects to specific reasons, when many factors contribute, but it’s most certainly natural to start by netting the absorption and emission of IR, because they are related by Kirchoff’s law and they occur in the same layer.
Evaporation contributes to the cooling. In the complete absence of evaporation, I suspect the skin would often be warmer during the day, although cooler at night, than the layer immediately underneath. This is likely to depend on a variety of other factors, including relative humidity and the water/air temperature differential (which also affects conduction rates). I’m not aware of a complete analysis of the quantitative contribution of individual phenomena to the difference between skin temperature and that of the water immediately below. Do you have a reference?
Figure 2 of Ocean Temperature Variability suggests that as wind speed approaches zero, the “skin effect” tends to disappear.
In normal situations the IR radiation is enough to make the thin skin cooler, when it’s chosen as that layer, which is emitting and absorbing most of the radiation (i.e. a layer of perhaps 0.2 mm). There are some possible special cases where that might not be not true. That requires that the air closest to the surface is significantly warmer than the water. In that case even the balance of IR might be significantly less negative than it’s normally and there might be some conductive heat transfer from air to water. I cannot, however imagine, how these effects could be strong enough to make the balance of the net energy transfer between the skin and the air (and space) positive. If this balance is negative as I think that it would always be in practice, then the thin skin must be cooler than water immediately below as otherwise it would lose energy to both directions, which is impossible.
I’m not sure that an absent or even reversed skin effect always requires the air to be warmer than the skin layer, although I agree that would be true under steady state conditions. What would happen, for example, during rapid evening declines in the solar insolation that warms below-surface water? Might not the skin layer lose energy in both directions? It seems to me that this is a condition that needs to be modeled quantitatively and confirmed observationally rather than deduced from general principles, given the multiple variables involved. Figure 2 in the reference i cited seems consistent with an absent skin effect during certain daytime hours in the absence of wind. It’s an interesting topic, although peripheral to the main discussion about the importance of absorbed back radiation as a contributor to ocean temperature.
The skin is very thin. Thus its heat capacity is extremely small, and it reaches very rapidly the temperature that corresponds to zero net energy flow, when both sides and all components are taken into account.
I don’t believe that there is much empirical data on the top 0.1 mm or 0.2 mm, and that’s what the skin is from the point of view of IR, evaporation, and conduction across the water/air border.
Hi Fred,
Please read and respond to the answer I gave you in the second half of my comment at http://judithcurry.com/2011/01/31/slaying-a-greenhouse-dragon/#comment-89122
Thanks
TB – I thought my previous answers addressed all those points. In particular, a combination of turbulent mixing and convection ensures that IR energy absorbed entirely in the first few micrometers results in heat energy distribution into the entire mixed layer, and ultimately the entire ocean. Indeed, the term “mixed layer” is used to denote the distribution of energy regardless of where it first is absorbed. The mixed layer temperature profile is incompatible with a complete or near-complete separation of energis originating in different sources.
“I thought my previous answers addressed all those points.”
I thought you talked straight past them. ;-)
If what you say was true, the water near the surface of the ocean would be warmer at night when there is still back radiation but no sun than it is.
Back radiation doesn’t warm the ocean. It can’t. because it can’t penetrate into it, and the vortices under wave troughs that mix the mixed layer are orders of magnitude further down in the water than the depth back radiation can penetrate to.
“If what you say was true, the water near the surface of the ocean would be warmer at night when there is still back radiation but no sun than it is.”
This makes no sense, TB. If you remove a source of energy, the ocean cools – both surface and below.
Depth of “penetration” is not a limiting factor for the capacity of back radiation to contribute energy to the entire mixed layer, simply because what happens on top must inevitably affect the water below. Some is due to turbulent mixing, much is due to convection, and some is due to conduction, but in all cases, a warmer skin layer either mixes with lower water or impedes escape of energy from below, thereby increasing the temperature at the lower depths. I can conceive of no physically plausible mechanism by which a skin layer at temperature of, say, 310 K, could have no downward effect on temperature, while at the same time, deeper water absorbing a smaller energy quantity from solar radiation, can find a way for its energy to escape upward and to space. I truly think you will have to abandon the notion that back radiation is not a dominant mode of energy transfer to the entire ocean, but if you have an alternative mechanism you can specify in detail – including all fluxes and their directionality as well as their magnitude – I’ll take a look. In the meantime, you should consider the possibility that dismissing the major role of back radiation will turn out to be a lost cause.
tallbloke: It appears that those who choose to argue with you have never downloaded and plotted satellite-era SST data. If they had, they would not be arguing about a hypothetical impact of GHGs on SST. It’s not there. I’ve been looking for it for years and I can’t find it.
Bob Tisdale- I know this is a different issue, but the correlation between GHG forcing and SST is entirely consistent with the climate record, including short term fluctuations from ENSO and other internal or external perturbations. If I recall correctly,I believe you once suggested that a rising SST can be attributed to an imbalance between El Nino warming and La Nina cooling, such that after each cycle, some additional heat is left over – i.e., SST as simply a series of steps. That was an interesting thought, but I believe it’s almost certainly wrong simply on the basis of the laws of thermodynamics. Of the many climate issues that are unsettled, I don’t think this is one of them. It’s also separate from the phenomenon of back radiation, which is rather well established as a predominant mechanism for energy transfer into the ocean – ultimately at all depths.
Listening to all the jaw wagging of the Slayers and other global warming deniers, who insist no scientific model of global warming is any good unless it includes every feature of earth’s atmosphere, land masses, and oceans, reminds me of Lewis Carroll’s tale of cartographers in his book “Sylvie and Bruno Concluded.” The proud cartographers had achieved the dream of map makers everywhere — they had constructed the perfect, most detailed, and accurate map: It had been made to a scale of 1-inch to 1-inch!
Alas, the proud cartographers were never allowed to display their great achievement. The farmers wouldn’t let them unfold it. “The farmers objected,” Carroll wrote, “They said it would cover the whole country, and shut out the sunlight!
“So now we use the country itself, as its own map, and I assure you it does nearly as well.”
Welcome to the Slayers and Deniers Wonderland, where the only scientifically useful model for studying climate is the earth itself. Nothing valid can be learned about our planet’s climate by studying ANY model that doesn’t include every inch of land, every drop of ocean, and every cloud in the sky.
Lewis Carroll, a theologian, mathematician, and master of turning logic inside out to amuse children — while showing the rest of us the chinks in our reasoning — previously wrote about another “perfect” map in the delightful epic poem, “Hunting of the Snark.” The crew in Carroll’s tale and their Bellman captain are a perfect analogy for John O’Sullivan and his crew of Sky Dragon Slayers. They certainly share the same kind of logic:
The Bellman himself they all praised to the Skies–
Such a carriage, such ease and such grace!
Such solemnity too! One could see he was wise,
The moment one looked in his face!
He had brought a large map representing the sea,
Without the least vestige of land:
And the crew were much pleased when they found it to be
A map they could all understand.
‘What’s the good of Mercator’s North Poles and Equators,
Tropics, Zones and Meridian lines?’
So the Bellman would cry; and the crew would reply,
‘They are merely conventional signs!
‘Other maps are such shapes, with their islands and capes!
But we’ve got our brave captain to thank’
(So the crew would protest) ‘that he’s brought us the best–
A perfect and absolute blank!
Fred Moolten | July 22, 2011 at 9:56 pm |
TB says:
“If what you say was true, the water near the surface of the ocean would be warmer at night when there is still back radiation but no sun than it is.”
This makes no sense, TB. If you remove a source of energy, the ocean cools – both surface and below.
Fred, you ignored the clause in my sentence “than it is”. My point is that if back radiation were being mixed into the ocean day and night, the near surface water would not cool as much as it does at night.
Some is due to turbulent mixing,
Very very little, for the reason I’ve given twice now. The vortices below wave troughs which cause the mixed layer to mix are orders of magnitude deeper in the water than the depth back radiation penetrates to. Try putting small pieces of soaked paper on the sea surface next time you are at the seaside. You’ll notice they don’t get sucked under by turbulent mixing.
much is due to convection,
Warm water molecules are more buoyant than the surrounding colder molecules. Warm water rises, cold water sinks. What ‘special’ kind of convection do you have in mind?
and some is due to conduction,
Very, very little. Water stratifies thermally and is a poor conductor of heat.
but in all cases, a warmer skin layer either mixes with lower water or impedes escape of energy from below, thereby increasing the temperature at the lower depths.
As Pekka already told you, the skin layer is cooler than the water beneath it, due to evaporation and the net flux of radiation being upwards. And anyway, a warmer surface couldn’t increase the temperature of water at lower depths. What with? A blowtorch?
I can conceive of no physically plausible mechanism by which a skin layer at temperature of, say, 310 K, could have no downward effect on temperature, while at the same time, deeper water absorbing a smaller energy quantity from solar radiation, can find a way for its energy to escape upward and to space.
You seem to forget that the net flux of radiation is from the ocean to the atmosphere. And the deeper water isn’t absorbing a smaller quantity of solar radiation, because it isn’t absorbing any back radiation. or so little it hardly counts. Also, you seem to forget that most solar energy is absorbed into the ocean in the tropics, where the insolation is considerably higher than the global average; around 1000W/m^2 near the equator outside the cloudy ITCZ.
The soaked piece of paper is probably a poor experiment for a number of reasons (one being surface tension). Better would be to put a little dye in the surface water and see if it mixes down. I bet it would.
For conduction, what is important is the temperature gradient. Over the very thin layer that you are talking about, there would probably be a significant gradient with a rather small temperature increase above that of the water below it and some fairly significant conduction on these short length scales. (We have to put in some numbers to see how it works out.)
Again, this notion that water is such a good absorber of IR that IR can’t heat the water is just bizarre in the extreme. It just shows the lengths that people will go to get their preferred answer.
People desperate to believe in Angels will never quit debating skeptics about such important matters as the kind of shoes Angels wear when they dance on the head of a pin.
Skeptics who fall for that ploy will help convince the scientifically naive that this must be an important question open to debate.
The more deniers drag scientists into debating how many IR photons can dance on a head of a pin 2 cm. beneath the surface of the ocean, the more they will succeed in deceiving the public that there is no scientific consensus on the greenhouse effect of CO2 on global warming.
Joel,
Even if you saturate the paper and put it slightly below the surface to remove all surface tension, it still doesn’t get mixed down in open water with non-breaking wavetops. I’ve tested it.
For some of the difficulties in modelling the ‘skin’ and measuring the gradients see science of dooms threads on the subject. Best estimate is that the gradient is less than 2C. The gradient from water to air is usually more. Very little energy is going to get conducted down in this way compared with the amount of energy solar shortwave energy directly penetrating up to 100m into the ocean.
The issue isn’t that the water is a good absorber of IR so much as the fact that IR is an extremely poor penetrator of water, and re-emission to air is the only way for molecules carrying IR energy to get rid of it.
Words like bizarre and preferred are just there to insinuate that opposing arguments are not valid without actually providing a rebutting argument. They have no place in scientific debate. Raise your game.
(1) Like I said, repeat your experiment with dye and see what happens. That will be a more realistic model for the mixing of water.
(2) A temperature gradient is a change in temperature divided by the distance over which it changes. A 2C change can produce either a large or small gradient depending on whether it occurs over a large or short distance.
(3) Your restatement that “IR is an extremely poor penetrator of water” is just spin on my statement that it is a good absorber. It doesn’t penetrate far because it gets absorbed, not because it gets reflected. [And, as for the Hoyt paper at Warwick Hughes, how can one possibly take a paper seriously when the author states that an emissivity of 0.9998 implies “only 0.02% of it will ultimately be absorbed in the water”, getting things exactly backwards! And, this is from someone who according to you, “has over 100 publications to his name and is a radiation specialist”? That’s just embarrassing!]
(4) And, yes, I do think that “bizarre” is a good way to describe an argument that tries to use the fact that water is a very good absorber of IR to arrive at the conclusion that IR cannot effectively heat the water. Fred Moolten and others have given you a more detailed explanation of where your reasoning goes wrong…but just looking at the big picture, it would be bizarre indeed if the effect of water being a great absorber of IR was to be that the energy ended up all going back out into space and not heating the water! It speaks of a certain desperation that people would try to make such an argument.
Joel – Here’s an interesting analysis of Upper Ocean Turbulence. It’s clear that waves (including breaking waves) play a significant role at the surface. My estimate is that convective turbulence is more important for some of the deeper mixing – this occurs, for example, when a daytime thermal gradient is dissipated by night-time cooling, so that the surface water sinks, initiating the turbulent regime. Ultimately conduction is important in that a warmer surface will reduce conduction from below until the lower depth temperature rises to the point where sufficient heat can once again rise to the surface for release into the atmosphere.
“And anyway, a warmer surface couldn’t increase the temperature of water at lower depths. What with? A blowtorch?”
To me, TB, this symbolizes your resistance to acknowledging the obvious physical mechanisms responsible for the mixing of back radiated IR energy as well as solar energy absorbed near the surface into the entire mixed layer, with the back radiated energy the predominant contributor to ocean temperature. There are unsettled elements in climate science, but this isn’t one of them. I won’t address the rest of your points because they are already covered by my earlier responses, as well as the linked article. I don’t know how many other readers will see any of this, but if there are some, I expect they will know how to interpret the evidence. In the meantime, you are welcome to your views on the subject because I don’t have the power to persuade you to relinquish them in the face of your strong desire to cling to them. At this point, your war is not with me but with reality, and other readers can decide whom to bet on.
I have had this argument before too, and I think all anyone needs to consider is why in winter lakes are more likely to freeze over under clear skies than cloudy ones. Clouds also produce so-called back radiation, and their effects on water surface are part of common-sense knowledge. CO2 effects are smaller, but measurable, and more permanent.
My instincts told me to resist getting back into this old thread, because many of the individuals now commenting are fairly intransigent in their opinions and I should have known that few minds would be changed by anything I had to offer. My main reason was the opportunity to dispel the notion – still pervasive on the Web – that back radiation doesn’t contribute to ocean temperature because it is almost entirely spent on latent heat transfer. Obviously that’s false, but perhaps I should have left it at that, and avoided the risk of engaging in arguments that are destined never to be settled among the individuals currently commenting here.
Fred,
I didn’t say it doesn’t contribute anything, just a lot less than you believe. Far less than solar shortwave for sure. This is evidenced by cooling rates in night-time near surface water. The fact that you can’t take that on board tells me you are just as intransigent in your opinion as anyone else here. Maybe more so. Anyway, if you are bowing out at this point, I thank you for your contribution to this discussion.
Jim,
cloudy skies keep sensible heat from land in the near surface atmosphere. Thta’s why lakes don’t freeze under cloudy skies as easily as clear ones. In any case, it’s clear that water vapour is playing a much bigger role than co2.
So you think it has nothing to do with the water radiatively cooling faster under clear skies even though radiation would be the biggest term in its energy budget (over sensible and latent heat flux) at night.
I thought bodies were supposed to emit the same amount of radiation at a particular temperature whether or not their surrounding changes temperature? Isn’t that what a lot of the argument on this thread has been about?
Anyway, if the differential in air temperature and water temperature increases a lot when night skies are clear, that will accelerate the cooling by conduction between the air and the water surface won’t it?
The night-time radiation component from the sky could vary by hundreds of W/m2 depending on whether it is cloudy or dry and clear. This difference, for sure, affects what happens to the water temperature.
How is the radiative effect separated out from the conductive effect?
The radiation gained by the surface doesn’t depend on conduction. It is an input.
Jim,
sorry, should have been clearer. I meant the magnitudes of the two effects.
This page is too big to load so lets discuss elsewhere. I’m outta here.
TB- I probably should be “bowing out”, but instead, I responded to a comment further down in the thread.
Fred Moolten | July 22, 2011 at 10:38 pm |
Bob Tisdale- I know this is a different issue, but the correlation between GHG forcing and SST is entirely consistent with the climate record, including short term fluctuations from ENSO and other internal or external perturbations.
No it isn’t. Ocean heat content since 2003 is static (Levitus) or falling (Loehle) while co2 continues to increase. This is more consistent with an active C20th Sun and inactive C21st Sun than constantly rising co2.
If I recall correctly,I believe you once suggested that a rising SST can be attributed to an imbalance between El Nino warming and La Nina cooling, such that after each cycle, some additional heat is left over – i.e., SST as simply a series of steps. That was an interesting thought, but I believe it’s almost certainly wrong simply on the basis of the laws of thermodynamics.
I look forward to your demonstration of just how we go about applying the laws of thermodynamics (including the inability of longwave radiation to penetrate the ocean surface) to the major unknowns of oceanic circulation.
Of the many climate issues that are unsettled, I don’t think this is one of them. It’s also separate from the phenomenon of back radiation, which is rather well established as a predominant mechanism for energy transfer into the ocean – ultimately at all depths
Please cite papers which establish beyond doubt that back radiation warms the ocean. I’d also be interested to know your reasoning for dismissing the ISCCP data which shows a drop in albedo over the tropics 1980-1998 which can account for the warming of the ocean by Solar short wave radiation, which unlike back radiation can penetrate 100 metres into the water.
I don’t like invoking Occams Razor generally, but this does seem a more ‘parsimonious’ explanation.
TB – I already cited the TFK paper above, and you can visit its references for more data. Since most back radiated energy is absorbed, with only a minor part going to latent heat transfer, and since the thermal gradient in the mixed layer is only modest during the day and minimal at night, this means that the absorbed back radiation must contribute to the temperature throughout the mixed layer even though its absorbed in only the top micrometers. This involves a variety of mechanisms – turbulent mixing via wind and waves, convective turbulence (e;g; via the diurnal cycle whereby night-time surface cooling leads to convective mixing), and to a smaller extent conduction. If the absorbed IR stayed only on top, and the solar component (which is much smaller) remained isolated below, it would not only result in a much more abrupt temperature transition, but would also require some mysterious mechanism for the solar energy to find its way out to space (via the surface) without any impediment imposed by the surface temperature. In other words, it would be a physical impossibility.
At the risk of belaboring a point I already made in another comment, tallbloke, how you respond to these observations and physical principles is a matter involving a possible conflict between what you have previously chosen to believe and a desire on your point to arrive at an accurate understanding or reality. How you resolve that conflict, if it exists, is less important to me than it should be to you. I’ll leave it at that.
“would also require some mysterious mechanism for the solar energy to find its way out to space (via the surface) without any impediment imposed by the surface temperature. In other words, it would be a physical impossibility.”
I think this argument is clearly wrong. The net flux is 66W/m^2 from ocean to air, and the surface skin is easily purturbed by even very moderate breezes. Minnett’s ‘skin theory’ never made it to publication anyway.
The question I’d like you to think about is this. If backradiation, having been absorbed in the top 0.3mm Pekka estimates, was mixed down into the ocean as you claim, rather than almost immediately re-emitted to the atmosphere as I think how could we tell?
I maintain this is still an open question and I’m still open to evidence. I rather think the models have made your mind up for you. I want empirical evidence, because the models are inadequate.
I’ll not go more into the arguments of this old thread, but I that I should say that previous experience has shown, that I agree with Fred on essential conclusions on issues like those discussed here recently. In some cases I cannot follow his logic and I think that there are errors in his details, but the main conclusions come usually from valid sources and are correct.
Explaining these points in a different way from that chosen by Fred may be useful a fraction of the readers, and I try to do, when I feel that I have a significant enough point to make.
Much of the recent argumentation is based on insufficiently defined concepts, which allows understanding the same sentences in many different ways. There is only one valid physics, but there are many ways of describing – and misunderstanding it.
” Minnett’s ‘skin theory’ never made it to publication anyway…. The question I’d like you to think about is this. If backradiation, having been absorbed in the top 0.3mm Pekka estimates, was mixed down into the ocean as you claim, rather than almost immediately re-emitted to the atmosphere as I think how could we tell?”
TB – Minnett has at least one recent paper on skin vs bulk temperatures, but maybe that is not what you had in mind.
Absorbed back radiation energizes the molecules in the skin layer, which must release equal amounts of energy in a steady state circumstance. Aside from latent heat, the upward emissions will at all times be a function of skin temperature as given by the Stefan-Boltzmann equation. An average figure is about 400 W/m^2 (see the TFK reference). The question you ask applies to the effect that same temperature (and molecular kinetic energy) will have in a downward direction. For this purpose, I will omit reference to wind/wave driven turbulence (although I cited a reference above), because I haven’t found any quantitative discussion of its relative importance – for the moment, let’s assume it is unimportant, and that we are asking how a given surface temperature (e.g., something in the range of 310 K) would influence temperatures below.
This brings us to the fact that solar energy absorbed below the surface radiating layer must escape to space at a rate equal to its absorption rate in a steady state. That rate is probably about 170 W/m^2 that is absorbed mostly below the surface but must be emitted from the surface. How does it get there?
Its rate of transmission to the surface via convection and conduction (we’ve decided to ignore wave-based mixing) must be a function of both its temperature and the surface temperature. The slightly lower temperature of the skin relative to the subsurface water immediately below plays an important role, because if thermal energy can reach the subsurface, conduction over the short distance to the surface will permit its escape. To reach the subsurface point, energy further down must travel upward. During the day, the thermal gradient inhibits this, but the gradient relaxes at night. Here, convection is important, because cooling can only occur via the surface, which means that surface water must cool sufficiently for some to sink to lower depths and be replaced by water from those depths that is now warm enough relative to the surface to rise.
At this point, we can begin to answer your question more precisely. Both conduction and convection depend on gradients, and so upward energy transfer can be inhibited either by lowering the temperature below or raising the temperature above. An increase in absorbed IR energy at the surface does the latter, and the result is an energy imbalance that leads to ocean energy uptake exceeding release until the balance is restored by an increase in the temperatures at lower levels sufficient to restore a gradient capable of allowing 170 W/m^2 to escape to the atmosphere along with the quantity absorbed at the surface. The important point here is that the temperature at lower depths rises simply because its escape path is narrowed by an increase in surface temperature. If insolation rises so that 171 W/m^2 is absorbed at depths, the water will warm until 171 W/m^2 can escape. If back radiation rises so that net upward IR flux declines from about 55 to 54 W/m^2, and the surface warms accordingly, the water will warm until the 55 W/m^2 flux is approximately restored (neglecting small changes in latent and sensible heat and other atmospheric dynamics).
Because in the latter case, solar absorption hasn’t changed appreciably, 170 W/m^2 must still escape, and the gradient between temperature at depth and the new surface temperature must be restored by matching the change at depth to the change at the surface. I’m not prepared to conclude that the match must be exact, or the temperature profile identical except for an upward shift, since changes in ocean dynamics might alter the relationships, but it should be of similar magnitude for a true steady state to resume. You’ll notice that my last few statements involve approximations due to the complex relationships among variables, but for the magnitude of energy change we’re considering, I believe they convey an accurate picture.
Fred,
sincere thanks for your detailed reply. I’ll ponder on this and come back to you on it on another thread. This page is getting too big for my old lappy to handle constant refreshes.
It seems a bit ridiculous talking about 0.3mm absoprtion with no mixing. Watch some footage of rather large waves up to several meters high in the ocean to see that mixing is a fact of oceans, as are currents.
It also seems a bit silly to talk about the micro-behaviour of physical phenomena that are fairyland tales at supposed equilibrium levels of solar irradiance. We all know the sun shines in the day and not at night. Clearly there are large thermal gradients which create mixing.
I suspect Claes Johnson’s mathematical attempt to describe the phenomena are better than the equilibrium fantasy discussed here.
You may be right, I don’t know about that. What I do know is that energy from sunlight is mixed into the upper ocean a heck of a lot easier than surface water warmed by back radiation gets mixed downwards against the natural buoyancy of heated water molecules.
Fred’s refusal to address the reduction in the low cloud in the last decades of the C20th empirically measured by ISCCP speaks volumes to me.
Solar radiation is penetrating the oceans and heating the uppermost layers. Most of the radiation is absorbed in the top tens of meters, but some penetrates even deeper. In spite of this continuous heating at a rather high power, the oceans do not warm rapidly. That means that the heat from solar SW must come to the surface and be released from there to the atmosphere and to a small part directly to open space. The transfer of energy in the top layers of the oceans occurs largely through the turbulent mixing, but in areas of little mixing there must be also convection induced by the heating of the layers some meters or tens of meters below the surface. Otherwise these layers would just keep on warming as conduction is too weak for maintaining the stability. There are naturally differences between the nighttime and daytime energy flows, but the overall average is of main interest.
From the fact that everything else must largely balance the sizable flux of SW heating, it doesn’t follow that the other major fluxes like the very large flux of IR back radiation would not be essential. More heating or less cooling of the skin influences essentially the upward flux of the energy originating from the solar SW. The only really important thing is the net balance across the water/air boundary. The mixing and convection take care from the rest in a way that’s rather insensitive to the division of the imbalance between various components, when the average net flux of everything except solar SW is up. If the average net flux would be downwards, then the top layers of the ocean could become highly stratified, but the solar SW prevents that.
Hi Pekka,
another nice clear summary thanks for that.
You said:
“There are naturally differences between the nighttime and daytime energy flows, but the overall average is of main interest.”
Can’t we learn something from the difference between the nighttime and daytime energy flows though?
Something about the relative amounts of back radiation and solar radiation which end up as sensible heat n the ocean?
Likewise the seasonal variation in insolation due to orbital eccentricity, which is around 7% of the insolation?
I have discussed in a simple model what can be learned from diurnal
temp variation in the blog post
http://claesjohnson.blogspot.com/2011/05/ipcc-trick-6_05.html
suggesting a climate sensitivity of 0.25 C.
The ratio of SW and IR that ends up as sensible heat is not well defined, and cannot be well defined. Heat is chaotic motion of the molecules maintained by continuous collisions between them. There is no way of really telling, were it comes from, when the issue is looked at the deepest level.
It’s perhaps logical to say that the net IR is always negative in practice and that therefore nothing of IR ends up as sensible heat and the changes in the net flux of IR only affect the net flow of heat of other origin like solar SW.
But it’s equally logical to say that the back radiation provides energy to some molecule and this energy is then shared with other molecules and that in time every absorbed photon of IR contributes it’s small share to the heat everywhere in the oceans.
Fred appears to prefer the second way of looking at the issue. Both ways are equally correct and equally logical. The choice between them or between them and some additional descriptions is just a matter of taste.
The professional physicists prefer mostly formulas and numbers to verbal descriptions, but even the formulas can be written in very different ways. There is often the choice between statistical physics and classical thermodynamics. The equations and the verbal descriptions may be totally different, but both are equally valid assuming that we are looking at a phenomenon in the area of applicability of both theories.
I have noticed that many people, who know physics well from a practical point of view, think that there is only one correct description (the one that they have learned at university), but very often there are many alternative ways of looking at the same phenomena. The word duality is often used to describe such a situation. People have learned about wave-particle duality, but very often they haven’t realized that duality is very common in many other areas of physics as well. That’s true in particular, when one of the alternative ways is most practical in all common applications of the theory, but that may still allow for alternative ways and the alternative ways may turn out as valuable in some new situations.
It’s counterproductive to argue on almost semantic matters of personal taste, when there shouldn’t be any difference between the beliefs about actual physics, when we are looking at issues within the realm of well understood physical phenomena. When we move beyond the boundaries of well known physics, the choice of approach may be essential as expanding the earlier knowledge may succeed in just one of the interpretations.
Claes’ analysis of diurnal temperature variation is interesting. He comes up with a climate sensitiivty of 0.25 degK per CO2 doubling. Interesting since the SpectralCalc model suggests 0.2 degK per CO2 doubling.
Gosh, we have two completely different approaches that come up with a similar answer.
Pekka said “some penetrates deeper” That “some” is a large number compared to the atmosphere. The green spectrum has some penetration to 100 meters or so. While most of the heat transfer action is at or near the surface, thanks to that “some”, the average ocean thermocline is pretty deep. While 90% of the incoming SW is absorbed in the first 10 meters, the 10 percent that makes it deeper is large compared to 1% increase in IR that may be due to doubled CO2. Sticking to classic thermodynamics and using net simplifies the situation until the significance of minor “back radiation” impact is important.
Fred Moolten says: “Bob Tisdale- I know this is a different issue, but the correlation between GHG forcing and SST is entirely consistent with the climate record, including short term fluctuations from ENSO and other internal or external perturbations.”
It is? That’s as far into your reply that I have to read. If the IPCC AR-4 Hindcasts/Projections are a reflection of what you claim to be a “correlation between GHG forcing and SST”, then it is also apparent you have not compared the models to observations. The models have no basis in reality during the satellite era, Fred. None. Zip. Nada. I’ve illustrated this in a number of posts recently, including:
http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2011/04/10/part-1-%e2%80%93-satellite-era-sea-surface-temperature-versus-ipcc-hindcastprojections/
And:
http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2011/04/19/492/
Bob – To some extent, I have to respond to you in a manner similar to my response to Tallbloke above. There are unsettled issues in climate science, but the fact that the correlation between long term GHG forcing and SST is consistent with a major role for the GHGs in ocean warming (principally through back radiation) is not one of them. Other readers (if any are left) can review the evidence from the record of the past hundred years or more to make their own judgments There isn’t space here to review all the evidence (although much has been cited in recent threads in this blog).
The only other point that might interest some readers involves the character of a trend punctuated by periodic up and down fluctuations (from ENSO and other variables), as is true of the long term warming trend. If you consider a hypothetical “trend” that is totally flat – i.e., a horizontal line – and add ups and downs at various times, the result will be a saw tooth pattern during many intervals. If the trend is now raised to have an upward slope, the “saw teeth” will now start to resemble stairs. The “ups” will approach the vertical, while the “downs” will look horizontal, creating a “step” pattern. This may give the illusion that the long term warming trend we’ve observed is a series of steps, but that is simply the effect of having an underlying upward slope punctuated by fluctuations.
A significant warming role for CO2 and other GHGs is not a realistic issue at this point, but the quantitation (expressed as “climate sensitivity”) remains a matter of some dispute. This too has been extensively discussed in other threads, and while I find the evidence persuasive for a sensitivity in the canonical 2 – 4.5 C range, there is certainly room for a diversity of legitimate opinion on this point.
“There are unsettled issues in climate science, but the fact that the correlation between long term GHG forcing and SST is consistent with a major role for the GHGs in ocean warming (principally through back radiation) is not one of them. ”
It’s more consistent with the long term accumulation of solar energy in the ocean than energy derived from increasing back radiation. Once again, I think the models have convinced you. The fact remains, there is no convincing mechanism for the ‘mixing down’ of longwave IR absorbed in the top ~0.3mm of the ocean surface, whereas solar shortwave radiation is readily absorbed down to depths of 100m. The size of increase in ocean heat content only became consistent with additional GHG forcing in 2006, when Sid Levitus got agreement with other GHG afficianados studying to drasticly ‘adjust’ the original XBT data so that ARGO didn’t show such a drastic decline in the warming. Before that, the rise of OHC was far more than extra co2 could account for, which is presumably why the data got ‘adjusted’.
What do you 3 guys think of this?
http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=8073&linkbox=true&position=1
A. C., this is just the latest bogus “news” report by the humbug John O’Sullivan, who is the leader of the Sky Dragon Slayers. I would give it a 9.2 on the Richter scale of O’Sullivan’s earth shaking mendacity.
O’Sullivan is no longer answering any questions about his bogus and dubious professional credentials. But he is still keeping busy writing up “news” of “momentous” findings that he claims will put the final nail in the coffin of the global warming “hoax.” And this is a lulu of one:
The “news” concerns his fellow Sky Slayer’s duplication of a century-old experiment performed by the renowned scientist (and trickster) Robert W. Wood. Wood’s experiment had proven most of the elevated heat in a greenhouse results from the glass preventing heat loss through convection. That was news in 1909.
“Greenhouse gas theory of global warming is refuted in momentous Mexican lab experiment,” his news lede declares. “Results mean epic fail for doomsaying cult and climate taxes.
“The analogy had been that greenhouse gases (e.g. CO2) act like the glass in a greenhouse trapping heat in Earth’s atmosphere and if they build up (due to human industrial emissions) the planet would dangerously overheat.”
What’s actually momentous here is his mendacity and misrepresentation of the greenhouse effect. Every authoritative reference I’ve seen explains why garden greenhouses are not an accurate analogy for the greenhouse effect works. For example, Wikipedia says:
“[The greenhouse effect] is named after the effect of solar radiation passing through glass and warming a greenhouse, but the way it retains heat is fundamentally different as a greenhouse works by reducing airflow, isolating the warm air inside the structure so that heat is not lost by convection.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect
Check any authoritative reference on the greenhouse effect and you will see it described fundamentally different from how a garden greenhouse works.
Is the result from a global warming denier’s reproduction of a famous experiment performed in 1909 “news?” Only in the mind of a Sky Dragon Slayer. One hundred and two years ago, Prof. Wood demonstrated how garden greenhouses are warmed. So why would Mr. O’Sulivan publish this nonsense as a “momentous” “ground breaking” scientific discovery that “refutes” what he calls the global warming “hoax?”
You don’t have to be a rocket scientist to figure it out: A humbug who lies about his professional credentials is even more likely to lie about what he says is “science.”
Andrew, sincere apologies for upsetting you with my choice of adjective to describe a “black body”. I used “ .. unreal .. ” (Concise Oxford Dictionary Definition 1 of “fictitious”) and you prefer “ .. not necessarily real .. ” (Definition 2 for “hypothetical”). NB: I have the English, not American, version of that dictionary. I don’t see an enormous difference between them but if it makes you happy I’ll gladly replace my “fictitious black body” with “not necessarily real black body” but I can’t see enough difference between them to cause any excitement.
Of more interest to you will be the Slayers recently up-dated web-site promoting Principia Scientific International (PSI) as an Association rather than a company. Their great plans back in January to launch PSI as a Community Interest Company (CIC), a private company, look to have been put in the back-burner as a consequence of being unable to attract more than £400 of their target £15000 through their Gofundme appeal (http://www.gofundme.com/1v39s). I’ll be most surprised if their association of private individuals (http://principia-scientific.org/pso/about-us/why-psi-is-a-private-assoc) is any more successful, but I’m sure that John will do his utmost to talk it into a position of international scientific supremacy.
As that page indicates, PSI is a private association rather than a charity and operates with the relative freedom of any start up association. A charity is subject to very careful scrutiny in the UK under the watchful eye of the Charities Commission. As a CIC in the UK there is a Regulator who has the power to appoint directors if consedered appropriate. It appears that the founders of PSI would rather not be subjected to such restrictions. Its Chairman is Dr. Timothy Ball, with John O’Sullivan (CEO), Hans Schreuder (CFO) and Rev. Philip Foster (Compliance Officer). Anyone who wants to become a Member must pay a subscription, but for what? I suspect that most, like those who saw the Gofundme appeal, will consider that there are better things to do with their hard-earned money that join PSI.
Best regards, Pete Ridley.
Fred Moolten says: “The only other point that might interest some readers involves the character of a trend punctuated by periodic up and down fluctuations (from ENSO and other variables), as is true of the long term warming trend…”
Fred, you’re portraying ENSO as noise. ENSO is a process through which the tropical Pacific periodically discharges heat into the atmosphere, redistributes heat within the oceans, and recharges the heat lost through periodic increases in downward shortwave radiation. There are secondary impacts of ENSO in other ocean basins through teleconnections by which ENSO enhances the transport of heat from the tropics to the poles. It’s the redistribution and the secondary effects that are ignored by most. I’ve illustrated, discussed, animated, etc., the processes of ENSO and the multiyear aftereffects. You obviously choose to ignore those processes, since you portray ENSO as noise on a positive trend.
Don’t take it too hard Bob, there’s a lot of other evidence Fred ignores too, not just yours. ;)
Notably ISCCP cloud data, which shows the drop in low level cloud 1980-1998.
Bob – Calling ENSO “noise” is a bit unfair to ENSO and to your detailed knowledge of it, but you’re right that over the long term, the net result of El Nino/La Nina combinations tends to average out, at least to the extent that ENSO is unforced. To the extent it’s forced by anthropogenic or other imposed perturbations, that might not be true, but then we are talking about it as a contributor to a forced trend. In addition, the averaging need not be exact over short intervals, but over the past hundred years, the overall warming trend is attributable mainly to other factors. Solar and perhaps volcanic forcing changes probably contributed to early 20th century warming, along with CO2, whereas CO2 and other GHGs are the more important contributors to the warming trend averaged since 1950. These conclusions, however, can be reached on the basis of our knowledge of these factors themselves, and would be correct regardless of what ENSO was doing – i.e, they are not what is “left over” after ENSO is accounted for. My reluctance to go into further details is based simply on the fact that to justify these conclusions requires us to address almost the entirety of climate science, and that’s a subject that can’t be approached reasonably within a few comments.
Fred Moolten says: “Calling ENSO ‘noise’ is a bit unfair to ENSO and to your detailed knowledge of it, but you’re right that over the long term, the net result of El Nino/La Nina combinations tends to average out, at least to the extent that ENSO is unforced.”
Nice attempt at misdirection, Fred. It didn’t work. I did not call ENSO noise. I said you portrayed ENSO (incorrectly) as noise. And since I have found it a waste of my time to attempt to debate with someone who needs to misrepresent what I have said, this is my last reply to you.
Ultimately, SST data in the satellite era disagrees with your continued conjectures about ENSO.
Goodbye, Fred.
Everyone needs to read Douglas Hoyt’s essay here:
http://www.warwickhughes.com/blog/?p=87
It pretty much confirms what I’ve been saying about the inability of IR from co2 to heat the ocean.
Hoyt has over 100 publications to his name and is a radiation specialist.
Pretty much wraps this one up for me. Thankyou and goodnight. :)
Several problems jump out from that essay. First, an emissivity of .9998 for water means that much is also absorbed, and only 0.0002 is reflected without being absorbed. Second, cooler water on top will be convected down and mixed due to convective instability. I might find more, but I stopped reading at that point.
I’ve already described to tallbloke the nature of the back radiated contribution to the entire ocean, but if anyone else is curious as to why Hoyt is totally confused about the subject, they can respond here or email me regarding specific points. He makes so many mistakes that it’s hard to pick out the worst, but here’s a representative example. He states:
” the implied water emissivity is 0.9998 implying that, of the incident radiation, only 0.02% of it will ultimately be absorbed in the water.”
I would hope individuals familiar with radiative physics could immediately spot the error. In fact, since he is referring to emissivity at particular relevant IR wavelengths, if the emissivity is 0.9998, then the amount absorbed is not 0.02% but ~99.98% at equilibrium (we’ll allow small deviations from this due to wavelength and temperature differences between emission source and sink). Of course, the absorbed energy is 100% returned to the atmosphere (most of it as emitted IR), but only at a temperature sufficient to maintain energy balance, and it is this temperature that regulates the escape of heat from below and thereby ensures that the entire ocean mixed layer warms from increased IR absorption in the top micrometers.
if the emissivity is 0.9998, then the amount absorbed is not 0.02% but ~99.98% at equilibrium
Fred, the question is, how long is at absorbed for, and how much of it is converted to sensible heat before it is re-emitted to the atmosphere.
The figures clearly show that not much of it is converted to sensible heat retained by the ocean.
HTH.
TB – I don’t think “how long” is a very meaningful question, because at any instant, energy is flowing in and out of the ocean (including the skin layer). At equilibrium in any ocean region, the amounts are equal, so for practical purposes, the delay between net absorption and net release to the atmosphere is zero – i.e.,, there is no “retention” at all. If the energy balance changes, there will be a time delay for a new equilibration – this is probably extremely small for quasi-equilibration in the skin layer, but of the order of decades for the mixed layer and centuries for the deeper ocean. In terms of a “how long” question, those are the intervals during which more energy is being absorbed than released.
The changes in ocean temperature at depth due to changes at the surface are due to the process I described above yesterday, which you should probably review. They depend on the temperature change at the surface, which is translated downward by the mechanisms I described, and which are well understood principles of physics. Briefly, if the surface becomes warmer, lower depths must warm for their outgoing energy to once again equal incoming energy as long as there is a reduced gradient due to a warmer surface. The tendency to restore the gradient by warming will happen whether there is direct transport of heat downward by turbulent mixing or impeded transport upward of heat absorbed at the lower depths.
I don’t want to belabor the point, but I don’t believe any of this is really controversial. My suggestion, if you remain puzzled, is to start diagramming what happens at each ocean layer – write out the surface and lower temperature changes and upward energy fluxes, Quantify the gradients. Then change the surface temperature and ask what happens to the escape of energy to space from lower depths if the amount of solar absorbed energy doesn’t appreciably change. I hope it will become apparent that if the absorbed solar energy is constant, but its ability to escape is retarded, the temperature must rise.
Fred, good stuff, now we are getting somewhere. You say it doesn’t matter whether the back radiation is warming the ocean or the release of heat is being inhibited causing the ocean to warm, or as I would more correctly put it, slowing its rate of cooling.
I say it does matter because there is an important conceptual and actual difference which has knock-on effects of how we are to understand the climate system beyond the ocean surface.
You say:
“I hope it will become apparent that if the absorbed solar energy is constant, but its ability to escape is retarded, the temperature must rise.”
Equally, I hope it will become apparent that the drop in albedo empirically measured by the ISCCP caused the ocean temperature to rise in the last decades of the C20th, and that this was responsible for most of the warming, not only of the ocean, but the atmosphere as well.
The oceans are around 260 times heavier than the atmosphere. The heat capacity of water is vastly greater than that of air. The top two metres of the ocean has as much has heat capacity as the entire atmosphere above it. The atmospheric temperature changes lag behind SST changes by several months. The tail does not wag the dog.
The Sun heats the oceans, the oceans heat the air, the air loses heat to space. If the oceans lose heat faster than usual, it doesn’t take long for the air temperature to rise by more than SST falls. This reduces the differential and inhibits oceanic heat release as you said. The water vapour acts as the refrigerant, and there is plenty of capacity for more water vapour to remove heat from the ocean surface, but a balance is established whereby a speeding up of the hydrological cycle soon counteracts the release of ocean heat by laying less dense but cooler water back down on the ocean surface.
It’s a great system and the convection by thermals and evaporation is in full control of it as Nullius says on the Theory/theory thread. As Joel agrees with me above, it’s better to conceive of the greenhouse effect as being operated by the altitude at which radiation to space takes place. He also said that a doubling of co2 would theoretically raise that height by 150m.
Following up something said by a commenter calling himself Isaac Newton, I’ll calculate how much bigger the area of the radiating surface would be for a sphere 300m bigger in diameter than the current ~Earth surface plus 10km and how much extra energy that would lose and report back on whether there is a negative feedback situation here.
Cheers
Nullius beat me to it:
http://judithcurry.com/2011/07/23/theories-vs-theories/#comment-89819
It won’t make much difference.
I wondered what nefarious plots were in hand in the backblocks of climate etc – but was was afraid to look.
I gave found that Fred does ‘evolve’ slowly and with great reluctance but with little grace.
‘If back radiation rises so that net upward IR flux declines from about 55 to 54 W/m^2, and the surface warms accordingly, the water will warm until the 55 W/m^2 flux is approximately restored (neglecting small changes in latent and sensible heat and other atmospheric dynamics).’
This is indeed the way it works – although sensible heat is the net IR up and other ‘atmospheric dynamics’ are not necessary to the conceptual framework. Increased back radiation reduces the rate of heat lost as net IR up.
Heat in the ocean rises to the surface – where it is stored in a layer that is up to 100m deep or a little more. IR energy is lost from the skin as net net IR up. ‘Skin’ has a reality only in that the top hundreds of microns are cooler than the water beneath because it is almost always losing heat to the atmosphere.
The cooler skin is constantly being mixed into the water column because of convection – but also with the rotational energies of waves and turbulence.
ENSO is a complex and dynamic system – with control variables and multiple feedbacks.
‘El Nino Southern Oscillation (ENSO) is the ˜
dominant mode of climate variability in the Pacific, having socio-economic impacts on surrounding regions. ENSO exhibits significant modulation on decadal to inter-decadal time scales which is related to changes in its characteristics (onset, amplitude, frequency, propagation, and predictability). Some of these characteristics tend to be overlooked in ENSO studies, such as its asymmetry (the number and amplitude of warm and cold events are not equal) and the deviation of its statistics from those of the Gaussian distribution.’ http://www.nonlin-processes-geophys.net/16/453/2009/npg-16-453-2009.pdf
If you look at Fig 5 in the study below – we see what is understood to be be significant and unexplained variability in ENSO over 11,000 years.
‘Climate change has been implicated in the success and downfall of several ancient civilizations. Here we present a synthesis of historical, climatic, and geological evidence that supports the hypothesis that climate change may have been responsible for the slow demise of Minoan civilization. Using proxy ENSO and precipitation reconstruction
data in the period 1650–1980 we present empirical and quantitative evidence that El Nino causes drier conditions in the area of Crete. This result is supported by modern data analysis as well as by model simulations. Though not very strong, the ENSO-Mediterranean drying signal appears to be robust, and its overall effect was accentuated by a series of unusually strong and long-lasting El Nino events during the time of the Minoan decline. Indeed, a change in the dynamics of the El
Nino/Southern Oscillation (ENSO) system occurred around 3000 BC, which culminated in a series of strong and frequent El Nino events starting at about 1450 BC and lasting for several centuries. This stressful climatic trend, associated with the gradual demise of the Minoans, is argued to be an important force acting in the downfall of this classic and long-lived civilization.’
http://www.clim-past.net/6/525/2010/cp-6-525-2010.pdf
From an engineering company in Australia.
‘When considering weather trends, it is useful to examine the El Niño and La Niña activities. The black line in Figure 1 depicts the variation in the Southern Oscillation Index (SOI) since 1970, which is one of the measures used to describe the El Niño – Southern Oscillation (ENSO)
phenomenon in the Pacific Ocean. While the relative number of El Niño and La Niña episodes over the past 120 years is similar, there has been a much higher occurrence of El Niño events since 1977. This has produced persistent drought over much of Australia and an absence of tropical cyclones. However, since 2008, La Niña has made a strong return, resulting in record rainfalls and flooding over much of eastern Australia.
The blue line in the graph is the accumulated value of the SOI since 1970. It indicates an initial rise to around 1977 due to the dominance of La Niña, followed by a steady fall to 2008 as El Niño exerts control. Since 2008, it suggests a possible return to La Niña dominance. This 40 year
variability is consistent with the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO), which together with ENSO may indicate a return to the wet and windy periods experienced in the 1970s. This means, stronger than normal winds may cause ocean temperatures to rise above average, thereby increasing
the risk of cyclone and storm tides, particularly on the Queensland coast of Australia.’ http://www.ghd.com/PDF/GHDNews134%20Liftout.pdf
A couple of points – while we have had moderate El Nino activity this century – the biological indices suggest a shift in upwelling after 1998.
The significant issue is not any mooted cancelling out (it is an oscillation isn’t it?) but the accumulation in the SOI index since 1976. It is important for the recent warming – most ‘recent’ warming occurred in 1976/77 and 1997/98 (0.46 degrees C – 1976/77 and 1997/98 are ENSO dragon-kings which are defined as extreme events at times of chaotic bifurcation). Most of the rest occurred as a result of ENSO cloud feedbacks.
“sensible heat is the net IR up”
Sensible heat is ordinarily defined as heat transmitted from surface to atmosphere by conduction (often followed by convective transport). That is how I used the term. Some less common usages may include radiated energy, but even in that case, sensible heat is not synonymous with “net IR up” in that it encompasses the conductive mechanism as well.
Hi Chief Hydrologist, ref. your comment yesterday at 8:10 pm, I am puzzled by your “ .. Heat in the ocean rises to the surface – where it is stored in a layer that is up to 100m deep or a little more .. ”. In my ignorance it looks to me as though there is a lot of energy still stored below that 100m mark (http://www.windows2universe.org/earth/Water/images/sm_temperature_depth.jpg and http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQlV_8fuf2pHI6F21DAB_Sdy5HcnVvciICdHg1WUl3cZnWfUgd4zw).
Best regards, Pete Ridley
G’day Pete,
I didn’t say I was consistent. Energy is stored kinetically at temperatures above -273 degree C – so there is a lot of energy in water below 700m. But if we ignore frozen oceans – most of the heat is above 700m with the most of that in the top 200m in the tropics. The transition to cooler water is called the thermocline. Heres one from wikipedia – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Thermocline.jpg
The depth of the thermocline varies – deepest of the tropics and less in higher latitudes. So I was being fairly imprecise – but warm water rises because of buoyancy.
Chief, I read the thermocline was deeper at the higher latitudes. 1000m or more in the labrador sea in winter. No?
‘Depth at which the rate of decrease of temperature with increase of depth is the largest. In general the sea water temperature decreases from the surface to the deepest levels, except in high latitudes where the configuration can be more complex. There exists in most ocean areas (apart from polar and sub-polar oceans) a zone where the rate of decrease of temperature is much larger compared with that above and below, hence the definition. Depending on the geographical location, the thermocline depth ranges from about 50m to 1000m. A simplified view is to consider the thermocline as the separation zone between the mixed-layer above, much influenced by atmospheric fluxes, and the deep ocean. In the tropics, the thermocline can be quite shallow on average, as in the eastern Pacific (50m), or deeper as in the western part (160-200m). In extra-tropical regions a permanent (or main) thermocline is found between 200m and 1000m. However the thermocline depth varies seasonally, especially in the mid-latitude regions where a secondary and much shallower thermocline (above 50m) occurs in summer. In high latitudes, a thermocline may appear only seasonally. Thermocline can also vary from one year to the next, as in the tropical Pacific where thermocline vertical displacements play a fundamental role during ENSO. As the pycnocline, the thermocline is a prominent feature of the ocean which conditions many physical, chemical and biological processes occurring in the oceanic upper layers. In many situations, the thermocline can be identified with the pycnocline when the vertical contrasts of salinity are small.’
http://www.esr.org/outreach/glossary/thermocline.html
This looks like a useful line of enquiry Tallbloke.
Chief, I’ve been pursuing this promising line of enquiry for three years, and there are as many opinions as there are oceanographers. :)
I’m currently working on the hypothesis that nobody knows how the oceans work. This has led me to concentrate on generalities concerning energy flow and the notion of an ocean equilibrium value where the oceans niether gains nor loses energy. It seems from my empirical analysis of times when temp remained flat to be (by coincidence?) roughly equivalent to the long term average of the sunspot number, about 40SSN.
I have used this as the basis for a simple energy model which I have used to reconstruct surface temp over the last 150 years with greater sucess than people who fiddle with opacity and aerosols to get their data to fit.
Hi Chief, don’t you think that when tryng to advise people about science it is important to be consistent (and precise), especially with terminology. You say “ .. if we ignore frozen oceans – most of the heat is above 700m with the most of that in the top 200m in the tropics .. ” but “frozen water”? “most of the heat”?
Please can you advise the relative amounts of heat above and below those magic 700m and 200m marks.
Best regards, Pete Ridley.
OOooopps, I’ll have Andrew on at me again about distoring quotations if I’m not careful. “frozen water” should be “frozen oceans”
Best regards, Pete Ridley.
The frozen oceans remark is a nod to energies above absolute zero. But practically – oceans below minus a couple of degrees C are frozen and no longer liquid oceans – so this energy is not all that relevant.
There is no magic depth. The ocean is warmed by the Sun mostly in the top 10 metres and is mixed turbulently to 100 to 200m. Some warmth finds a way to deeper depths. But warm water is less dense than cold and thus rises buoyantly.
Hi Chief, you surprise me with your .. oceans below minus a couple of degrees C are frozen and no longer liquid oceans .. ”. Which oceans are you talking about and how deep, because according to the Office of Naval Research’s Science and Technology Focus “Ocean Water: Temperature” page “ .. Water temperature in the deepest parts of the ocean is averages about 36°F (2°C) .. ” (http://www.onr.navy.mil/focus/ocean/water/temp3.htm). According to the NASA JPL CIT, even at high latitudes typical temperatures at below 1500m are still above 1C (http://topex-www.jpl.nasa.gov/files/archive/activities/ts2ssac4.pdf). I’d have thought that these organisations are rather knowledgeable on the subject.
Best regards, Pete Ridley
Pete Longspinner says, “Don’t you think that when trying to advise people about science it is important to be consistent (and precise), especially with terminology.” Talk about the pot calling the kettle (a “fictitious”) black (body)!
Hey Pete, did you find out yet where the Sky Dragon Slayer leader is licensed to practice law, where he earned his law degree, what articles he published in National Review and Forbes magazine, or why he’s lying about being a member of the American Bar Association? You’ve been claiming to be just as eager to find out the truth about John O’Sullivan’s credentials. Tell us, Pete, in your numerous communications with the humbug, did you even bother to ask him?
Sensible heat is the energy exchanged by a thermodynamic system that has as its sole effect a change of temperature. Heat can be exchanged through conduction or radiation. I concede that there are different definitions that differentiate between conduction and radiative flux. Mass transfer is involved in heat transfer as latent heat of course.
‘In a 1847 lecture entitled On Matter, Living Force, and Heat, James Prescott Joule characterized the terms latent heat and sensible heat as components of heat each effecting distinct physical phenomena, namely the potential and kinetic energy of particles, respectively. He described latent energy as the energy of interaction in a given configuration of particles, i.e. a form of potential energy, and the sensible heat as an energy affecting the thermal energy, which he called the living force.
Latent heat is the heat released or absorbed by a chemical substance or a thermodynamic system during a change of state that occurs without a change in temperature. Such a process may be a phase transition, such as the melting of ice or the boiling of water. The term was introduced around 1750 by Joseph Black as derived from the Latin latere (to lie hidden), characterizing its effect as not being directly measurable with a thermometer.
Sensible heat, in contrast to latent heat, is the heat exchanged by a thermodynamic system that has as its sole effect a change of temperature. Sensible heat therefore only increases the thermal energy of a system.’
The oceanic heat loss by conduction is estimated to be about 20 watts per square meter – so perhaps I have underestimated this in assuming that the lower skin temperature inhibited conduction . It is a minor point and makes no difference to the discussion of the net heat flux from the ocean to the atmosphere and avoids substantive discussion of more significant points.
.
There I was about to say that we haven’t heard much recently from Andrew Skolnick then up he pops today at 7:48 am. like the proverbial Jack-in-the-box. I thought he was away doing some more investigating into the Slayers. Andrew told us on 4th June at 6:16 pm that he has “ .. been a science journalist for 30+ years .. ” and one of his “ .. favorite beats includes investigating the claims of pseudoscientists, quacks, and charlatans .. ”. His comments here and elsewhere give me the distinct impression that he places at least one of the Slayers among those. Of course he has provided no substantial evidence in support, depending almost entirely upon the claims made by Slayers leader John O’Sullivan about his status as a science journalist and legal practitioner and there he is today virtually repeating what he has said time and time again.
On several occasions Andrew has accused John of being fraudulent and advised us that “ .. what Mr. O’Sullivan has accomplished by his scurrilous attacks and fraudulent claims on our LinkedIn Science and Technology Writers Group was to paint his face right in the middle of my investigative journalism radar screen”. That must really have terrified John out of his wits! – at least I suspect that Andrew thought so, because of his apparent superiority complex. (I originally intended to use “overblown ego” rather than “superiority complex” but after checking the Medical Dictionary, definition #2 “A psychological defense mechanism in which a person’s feelings of superiority counter or conceal his or her feelings of inferiority.” – http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/superiority+complex) I decided that the latter might be more appropriate. Never mind Andrew, here’s some food for thought.
In my comment of 18th July at 8:29 am I mentioned the Slayers’ “ .. (stillborn?) company Principia Scientific International (PSI) back in December/January .. ” then followed up on 23rd July at 3:35 pm with more about PSI’s reincarnation. I’d found their latest promotional material on their re-hashed web-site when I was seeking some background information in my “PSI & Due Diligence” folder about Slayer Hans Schreuder’s initial involvement with John concerning PSI. It was then that I came across the link to the PSI home page and found that the Slayers are this month promoting PSI as a “private association” (http://principia-scientific.org/pso/ and http://principia-scientific.org/pso/about-us/why-psi-is-a-private-assoc) upholding the virtues of scientific truth and shunning political advocacy. Their new mission is there for all to see (http://principia-scientific.org/pso/about-us/psi-mission-statement).
They also advise us that “Slaying the Sky Dragon” has been endorsed by scientists and respected commentators in the field of climate science (http://principia-scientific.org/pso/support-a-advice) but I was particularly attracted to the final statement concerning funding sources.
After reading all of that new PSI promotional material I almost had my membership application and subscription cheque signed, in the envelope and into the post box, then I remembered that in December/January John was promoting the idea that PSI should be a Community Interest Company (CIC). In December the PSI site was declaring “PSI is a legal entity under British law serving charitable interests for the benefit of the broader community. .. Principia Scientific International is mandated under law to serve the community .. PSI is a Community Interest Company (CIC). The Regulator confirmed that PSI was not registered as a CIC so I drew this mistaken claim to the attention of Hans Schreuder on 21st January and by the 25th the site said only that “This site is down for maintenance”, There it remained until the recent reincarnation of PSI as an Association.
On January 23rd the GlobalWarmingSuperheroes “O’Sullivan’s Selective Myopia” thread (http://globalwarmingsuperheroes.com/osullivans-seletive-myopia/#comment-1657) had a comment from one Jeff Daley claiming that “I was told John Osullivan is going to announce in Janaury the setting up a new science association called Principia Scientific International to sue all your criminal warmist buddies for fraud” (see my comment on http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/01/18/daleo-on-noaa-and-nasa/). I wonder if it is just coincidence that all of the the GlobalWarmingSuperheroes pages, including the “O’Sullivan’s Selective Myopia” thread, now tell us “The domain globalwarmingsuperheroes.com is temporarily offline for maintenance”. Jeff Daley must have obtained that information from someone who was aware of the plans for PSI at that time, but contrary to what Hans Shreuder’s 6th sense told him (my comment July 21 at 6:02 pm), it wasn’t me.
Early in January John said that PSI was more an ethical and generalist international version of the American Physics Association (http://www.aps.org/). I wouldn’t be surprised if Joel Shore puts in his application without further ado. Another scientific association that only requires its members to pay the annual dues is not to be given the cold shoulder, especially this one, targetting to become far more prestigious on the International stage than the APS – but then again, at that time it also targetted raising £15000 by charitable donations and now, over 6 months later, it has only raised £400. Even at that stage, before the “begging bowl” was held out for charitable funds to set up PSI as a CIC (http://www.gofundme.com/1v39s – see also July 10 at 7:57 am) John may have been considering setting up PSI as a “private association” as an alternative to a CIC.
Reading the new PSI blurb by John I was drawn to Bullet 6 of their specific objectives, which includes an item about discouraging inappropriate or unconscionable scientific methods and the ability/willingness to mount legal challenges and, as a last resort, to remedy willful noncompliance – although it seems to me that what has to be complied with is implied, not specified (http://principia-scientific.org/pso/component/content/article/36-frontpage/44-principia-scientific-international-psi)”. Maybe I missed something.
That specific objective reminded me of another comment by John in early January about envisaging an organisation that is both a quasi-science union that advances member interests (book publishing and legal services) and a charitable cause that uses some of its resources to help protect the interests of individual scientist or sub groups being coerced by unprincipled, unscientific practice. It was only a month later that Tim Ball apparently said “ .. Michael Mann at Penn State should be in the State Pen, not Penn State .. ” (http://www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/Mann-Ball%20Libel%20Claim.pdf) then in early May there was John saying that within weeks donors had taken Tim Ball’s fund past $100,000 (http://slayingtheskydragon.com/en/blog/138-authors-update-3-regardting-tim-ball).
Apart from an expressed concern about honest and transparent science the Slayers and PSI seem to put a lot of effort into trying to identify good fund-raising schemes. Perhaps they realise that sales of their books, such as “Slaying the Sky Dragon” might not provide enough funds to cover their publishing costs let alone pay the fees required to retain the involvement of that pool of qualified experts ear-marked to achieve their altruistic goals (http://principia-scientific.org/pso/about-us/why-psi-is-a-private-assoc).
Best regards, Pete Ridley
Pete Longlonglongspinner complains: “There I was about to say that we haven’t heard much recently from Andrew Skolnick then up he pops today at 7:48 am. like the proverbial Jack-in-the-box. I thought he was away doing some more investigating into the Slayers.”
Good Lord, does this guy EVER speak the truth?! Does he EVER check the accuracy of a statement before posting it?
Let’s see just how truthful his latest claim is: On Sunday, I posted one comment. On Saturday, I posted two. Friday I posted four. Thursday I posted three. And Thursday, I posted seven.. That’s a total of 17 comments posted here in the past 5 days.
So no, I haven’t been absent from this discussion. What is absent is Pete’s ability to feel embarrassment whenever he’s caught making false and stupid statements.
I notice that he still won’t answer what John O’Sullivan told him when he asked the Sky Dragon Slayer leader for evidence of his professional and academic credentials — IF he even asked, which I seriously doubt.
Pete stated that he was eager as I am to verify O’Sullivan’s professional and academic credentials. He was no more truthful about that than he was to claim that I haven’t added comments to this discussion for some time.
Good LORD! According to Keith Obermann and other reporters, Rupert Murdoch and his thugs may have been the criminals responsible for stealing and misrepresenting the emails of climate scientists and launching the “Climate-Gate” hoax.
Olberman reports that “the Murdoch Phone-Hacking Scandal may have just metastasized.” Fatally, one can only hope.
“The so-called “Climate-Gate” controversy – in which e-mails about Global Warming were stolen from researchers at Britain’s University of East Anglia in November, 2009 – now turns out to bear the stamp of Neil Wallis, one of the key figures in Murdoch’s hacking of the phones, voicemails, and other electronic communications of thousands of people. …
“And earlier today, PC World Magazine reported that while we’ve all been working with a number of 3,870 hacking victims in the Murdoch Scandal, data released by Britain’s Home Affairs Committee suggests the number may actually be as high as 12,800.
“Only 170 of the victims have yet been notified. If any of the others among the “Hacked 12,000″ turn out to be scientists at the Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia, Rupert Murdoch may be in a lot bigger trouble than he is, even tonight.
“For he may be the man ultimately responsible for the illegal and inaccurate attempt to dismiss Climate Change as a scientific fraud.
http://exopermaculture.com/2011/07/22/keith-olbermann-murdoch-scandal-may-have-just-metastasized/
and when it doesn’t pan out you’ll apologise to everyone for being a gossip hound right?
“Gossip” Dave? Clearly, you’ve not been paying attention. It’s hardly “gossip” when Murdoch’s former editor Neil Wallis has been arrested in connection with the News Corps illegal hacking of voice mails, destruction of evidence in a murder case, bribing Scotland Yard officials, etc.
And it’s NOT gossip that Neil Wallis was simultaneously working for Murdoch AND for Scotland Yard — leaking information about the investigation of News Corp’s voicemail hacking back to Murdoch while persuading Scotland Yard against investigating the crime. And then Wallis got himself hired by University of East Anglia to “help” the university “handle” the adverse PR over the stolen email. This is NOT gossip. These are facts that have been reported in this mushrooming scandal. What remains to be determined is whether Murdoch, Wallis, or other Murdoch goons were the ones who illegally hacked the university’s emails.
Little actual police effort had been put into finding the criminals who hacked into those emails. It’s now a easier to see why — now that we know Wallis was working for Scotland Yard and steering them away from investigating News Corp’s criminal voice mail hacking. So far, the two top Scotland Yard officials were forced to resign. It’s no longer possible for Murdoch to keep the extent of the scandal covered up. He no longer has a single defender in Parliament.
All the evidence now points to Murdoch and his goons as being responsible for the criminal hacking of the University of East Anglia email system in their effort to destroy the reputation of climate scientists. So stay tuned. There’s an increasing cry from both sides of the Atlantic for independent criminal investigations of the Murdoch News Corp Gang. And U.S. law enforcement officials are now investigating suspected criminal hacking of phone and email messages of people in the U.S. by Murdoch’s goons.
Earlier this year, Rolling Stone ranked Rupert Murdoch as the worst of the “12 Politicians and Execs Blocking Progress on Global Warming.” Little did they know how malevolent this gangster may actually be.
weak gossip. Do you know anything about reliable journalism? Check the BBC, they don’t have anything about a Climateggate RMurdoch connection.
“Weak gossip. DaveR says. “Do you know anything about reliable journalism?”
LOL! I’ve got a few shelves full of awards that suggest I do.
Anyone other than a devout global warming denier knows the New York Times — widely known as “The Paper of Record” — is a standard bearer for “reliable journalism.”
DaveR would like you to believe the venerable NY Times was printing “weak gossip” in its report last week on the arrest of 10 of Murdoch’s top lieutenants (so far!) — plus the more than $650 million of hush money News Corp has paid out to “bury” the details of its phone and computer hacking and other illegal activities.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/18/business/media/for-news-corporation-troubles-that-money-cant-dispel.html?pagewanted=all
What has already been reported by leading news media is this: One of Murdoch’s henchman, Neil Wallis — the former News of the World executive editor — is deeply implicated in two hacking scandals, the first pertaining to the News of the World — which Murdoch shut down in a futile attempt to contain and bury the scandal — and the second involving the illegal hacking of computers at the University of East Anglia — which provided Murdoch’s news empire material to fuel its attack on climate scientists in the so-called “Climategate” faux scandal.
We now know that, while still working for Murdoch, Neil Wallis became a “£1,000 a day” consultant to Scotland Yard in October 2009 to help them spin the news of the phone hacking scandal as well as Scotland Yard’s duplicity in having looked the other way. Wallis (plus 9 other Murdoch’s henchman so far) has been arrested and the two top officials at Scotland Yard have resigned. This is not “weak gossip” as DaveR would have us believe. These are reported facts about very serious crimes.
And now we know that Wallis also wormed his way into the University of East Anglia as a consultant to help them do damage control over the stolen email scandal. What he did, apparently, was help them dig themselves deeper into the mess, while keeping News Corp informed of the University’s efforts to handle the scandal.
Can’t wait for tomorrow’s newspapers, can you?
tl;dr
I did check your link and there was nothing in your NYT link about Climate.
Update 2: U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder has ordered the Justice Department to begin a broad investigation of Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp, in light of the disclosures of rampant phone hacking and other illegal activities by News Corp personnel. The FBI has begun a preliminary investigation of allegations that News Corp attempted to illegally access phone records and/or hack into the voicemials of the families of victims who perished in the 9/11 terrorist attacks.
http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/43847056/ns/today-today_news/t/us-looks-alleged-hacking-news-corps-ad-arm/
According to an NBC July 21 news report, US Justice Department prosecutors and the FBI now are also investigating allegations that News Corp’s subsidiary News America illegally hacked into a competitor’s computer more than a dozen times seeking damaging information that could help put the small company out of business. In 2009, the NJ-based competitor Floorgraphic took News Corp to federal court. After hearing a few days of damaging testimony from a former News Corp executive, News Corp settled by agreeing to buy the company — which had less than $1 million in annual sales — for $29.5 million. As part of the settlement, the plaintiff’s agreed not to speak further about the computer hacking allegations.
However, civil agreements cannot bar parties from providing information requested by law enforcement officials or prosecutors. Bill Isaacson, the lawyer for Floorgraphics, told NBC News he was contacted last week by two federal prosecutors and an FBI agent based in New York seeking information about claims that the firm’s computers were hacked by News America Marketing, the advertising division of Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp.
The hacking of Floorgraphics computers 7 years ago is similar to the hacking of University of East Anglia, which provided News Corp with embarrassing emails it used in a campaign to put scientists studying global warming out of business.
And Propublica has an excellent summary of some of the events leading up to three different investigations in the U.S. of News Corp’s alleged criminal misconduct.
http://www.propublica.org/article/whats-the-deal-with-news-corps-other-us-based-hacking-scandal
However, it doesn’t mention how Murdoch’s henchman Neil Wallis has been arrested as a suspect involved in News Corp’s illegal voice mail hacks and for apparently spying on and/or interfering with Scotland Yard’s investigation of the voice mail hacking — and he is now suspected of spying on the University of East Anglia’s efforts to deal with the damage from the hacking of its climate scientists’ emails.
Update 1: On July 20, US Senator Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) sent letters to Attorney General Eric Holder and FBI Director Robert Muller urging them to “examine the recent hacking allegations involving News Corp and its subsidiaries.” Sen. Lautenberg was acting on behalf of a constituent, who 2 years ago sued News Corp in Federal Court, claiming that it had illegally hacked into his company’s computers more than a dozen times seeking propietary information that could be used to put it out of business. The company, Floorgraphics, had been a small competitor doing less than a millions dollars in annual sales. After a former News Corp executive gave very damaging testimony, News Corp settled by agreeing to buy Floorgraphics for $29.5 million, with the stipulation that the plaintiff would no longer discuss News Corp’s alleged computer hackings.
http://lautenberg.senate.gov/newsroom/record.cfm?id=333557
ascolnick says:
“All the evidence now points to Murdoch and his goons as being responsible for the criminal hacking of the University of East Anglia email system in their effort to destroy the reputation of climate scientists.”
Lol. :)
You just can’t do anything with a determined conspiracy theorist.
Anyway, I agree with Joe Romm that there should be a full independent inquiry into the climategate scandal. It should, in the words of our illustrious prime minister in respect of the phone hacking scandal,
“Cover all aspects, and investigate without fear or favour”.
I do hope it will have powers to force people to testify under oath.
I can’t wait to find out why Edward Acton decided to hire Outside Organisation to do PR, instead of disciplining the scientists at his institution for undermining peer review, conspiring to delete email relevant to IPCC AR4, conspiring to prevent disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act and failing to adhere to the scientific method by ensuring their work was replicable.
“Rupert Murdoch and his thugs may have been the criminals responsible for stealing and misrepresenting the emails of climate scientists and launching the “Climate-Gate” hoax.”
Err, how do you mean ‘misrepresenting’? The unedited emails are available for anyone who wishes to examine the behaviour of the scientists involved for themselves. Many people who were recipients of the emails have confirmed their authenticity. There is no ‘hoax’.
Seems to me that if there’s any ‘misrepresenting’ going on around here, it’s being done by you.
“You just can’t do anything with a determined conspiracy theorist,” says Tallspoke. Finally, he gets something right, but then reverts to his normal spinning and misrepresenting.
The authenticity of the stolen emails is NOT disputed; he knows that. What is disputed is the way Murdoch and other oil/gas/coal industry allies deliberately misrepresented parts of the emails that were taken out of context. With his 24/7 false and misleading “news” coverage in the U.S and abroad, Murdoch was chiefly responsible for creating the “Climategate” hoax.
So nice try tossing us that red herring, Tallspoke.
As for your calling for a “full independent inquiry into the Climategate scandal,” we got it. You’re going to keep calling for more inquiries until you get the verdict you want.
You say you “agree with Joe Romm.” Let’s look at what Romm actually said in his Climate Progress article July 19:
“There have been countless independent investigations into the scientists whose e-mails were hacked in November 2009. And the scientists have been (quietly) vindicated every time (see “The first rule of vindicating climate science is you do not talk about vindicating climate science“). …
“In the light of the News Corp phone-hacking scandal, it is clear that Murdoch’s outfit had means, motive, and opportunity for the Climategate email hacking. News Corp certainly has a history of defaming climate scientists and a penchant for hacking. …
“At the same time, we now know things were so cozy between News Corp, Wallis, and Scotland Yard that it is hard to believe News Corp would have been thoroughly investigated for Climategate, if they were investigated at all. …
“In any case, it is time for an independent investigation into the Climategate email hacking. We now know that for four years, Scotland Yard sat on evidence suggesting the phones of “nearly 4,000 celebrities, politicians, sports stars, police officials and crime victims” had been hacked.
“So the Climategate investigation should not involve Scotland Yard, and should investigate whether News Corp had any involvement. It could start by investigating whether News Corp hacked the phone of any climate scientists.
http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/2011/07/21/did-news-corp-hack-the-east-anglia-cru-climate-scientist-e-mails/
So I’ve got news for you Tallspoke, independent investigations ARE indeed coming. But they’re going to be examining Rupert Murdoch and his News Corp goons who believed the friends in power would continue looking the other way as they conducted their crime spree hacking into peoples voice and emails, tampering with evidence, bribing police officials, and other criminal offenses. They were mistaken.
ascolnick quotes Romm:
“There have been countless independent investigations into the scientists whose e-mails were hacked in November 2009. And the scientists have been (quietly) vindicated every time ”
Heh, for a science writer, you’re pretty gullible. Or biased. Or judging by your performance so far, both.
http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=site%3A+climateaudit.org+oxburgh
http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=site%3A+climateaudit.org+russell
By the way, Romm repeats the allegation that the CRU were “hacked” but since the investigation by Norfolk Constabulary hasn’t yet reported, we still don’t know if it was a hack or a leak.
Tallspoke, it’s abundantly clear to anyone who didn’t just fall off the turnip truck this morning that your purpose here is to defend the deniers’ agenda through faslehoods, misrpresentations, and never-ending spin.
Such is your obscenely ridiculous b.s. that “we don’t know if it [the University of East Anglia’s computer system] was a hack or a leak” since the police hasn’t issued its findings yet. That’s as stupid as claiming more than 90 people were not fatally gunned down and blown up in Norway this week because the Norwegian police haven’t issued its final report.
I guessed you must have missed it when the science journal Nature (Nature. 2010: 468 (7322): 362–364) reported last year that the police are no longer considering the possibility that the emails were leaked, rather than stolen.
While the culprits have not yet been identified, much has been learned about how the emails were hacked. Here’s Wikipedia’s account:
“The incident began when someone accessed a server used by the Climatic Research Unit and copied 160 MB of data[5] containing more than 1,000 emails and 3,000 other documents.[16] The University of East Anglia stated that the server from which the data were taken was not one that could easily have been accessed and the data could not have been released inadvertently.[17] The breach was first discovered on 17 November 2009 after the server of the RealClimate website was hacked and a copy of the stolen data was uploaded.[18] RealClimate’s Gavin Schmidt said that he had information that the files were obtained through “a hack into [CRU’s] backup mail server.”[19] At about this time, a cryptic comment appeared on McIntyre’s Climate Audit website: “A miracle has happened.” [20]
“On 19 November an archive file containing the data was uploaded to a server in Tomsk, Russia,[21] before being copied to numerous locations across the Internet.[5] An anonymous post from a Saudi Arabian IP address[22] to the climate-sceptic blog The Air Vent[18] described the material as “a random selection of correspondence, code, and documents” and stated that climate science is “too important to be kept under wraps”.[23] That same day, Stephen McIntyre of Climate Audit was forwarded an internal email sent to UEA staff warning that “climate change sceptics” had obtained a “large volume of files and emails”. Charles Rotter, moderator of the climate-sceptic blog Watts Up With That which had been the first to get a link and download the files, gave a copy to his flatmate Steve Mosher. After Mosher received a posting from the hacker complaining that nothing was happening, he replied: “A lot is happening behind the scenes. It is not being ignored. Much is being coordinated among major players and the media. Thank you very much. You will notice the beginnings of activity on other sites now. Here soon to follow.” Shortly afterwards, the emails began to be widely publicised on climate-sceptic blogs and subsequently in the media.[20]
“The Norfolk police subsequently confirmed that they were “investigating criminal offences in relation to a data breach at the University of East Anglia” with the assistance of the Metropolitan Police’s Central e-Crime unit,[21] the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) and the National Domestic Extremism Team (NDET).[24] Commenting on the involvement of the NDET, a spokesman said: “At present we have two police officers assisting Norfolk with their investigation, and we have also provided computer forensic expertise. While this is not strictly a domestic extremism matter, as a national police unit we had the expertise and resource to assist with this investigation, as well as good background knowledge of climate change issues in relation to criminal investigations.” However, the police cautioned that “major investigations of this nature are of necessity very detailed and as a consequence can take time to reach a conclusion.”[25] The investigation is as yet unresolved. The UEA has confirmed that all of the leaked material was in an archive on a single backup CRU server, available to be copied. [20] According to Nature, however, the police are no longer considering the possibility that the data was leaked, rather than stolen.
Tallspeak, even though you’re incapable of shame, shame on you.
So at the end of all the bloviation we get this:
“However, the police cautioned that “major investigations of this nature are of necessity very detailed and as a consequence can take time to reach a conclusion.”[25] The investigation is as yet unresolved.”
Which is what I said.
“even though you’re incapable of shame, shame on you.”
Hey, I’m not the one dragging unburied Norwegians into this.
No Tallspoke, that’s NOT what you said. You said “we don’t know if [the university’s email] was hacked or leaked.”
That was a lie, you mendacious maroon. They police have stated that the email servers were hacked.
And now you plop another one on us quoting a police statement that the “investigation is as yet unresolved.” No kidding. THEY HAVEN’T IDENTIFIED THE HACKER, you prevaricating putz.
I suspect that may change in the not too distant future and I’ll bet a stein of stout that he works for Rupert Murdoch.
“That was a lie, you mendacious maroon. They police have stated that the email servers were hacked.”
Errr, no, that’s what some commentator in “Nature” magazine INTERPRETED..
“The Norfolk police subsequently confirmed that they were “investigating criminal offences in relation to a data breach at the University of East Anglia”
Data breach is not necessarily a hack from outside. It could be a leak from the inside. UEA have been caught with their breaches down.
You’ve annoyed me now with your ugly accusations, so I’ll publish a few of the juiciest emails for everyone to read next.
Whenever caught in a falsehood, Tallspoke will ALWAYS double down. Here’s what the prestigious journal Nature ACTUALLY reported:
“Although the police and the university say only that the investigation is continuing, Nature understands that evidence has emerged effectively ruling out a leak from inside the CRU, as some have claimed.”
http://www.nature.com/news/2010/101115/full/468362a.html
Nature goes on to say other climate-research organizations “survived hack attempts” around the same time the University of East Anglia email server was hacked.
(News Corp’s goons appear to have been kept quite busy.)
Tallspoke, you are an utterly shameless broker of lies.
“Nature understands that evidence has emerged effectively ruling out a leak”
But they don’t present it.
“Nature goes on to say other climate-research organizations “survived hack attempts” around the same time the University of East Anglia email server was hacked.
(News Corp’s goons appear to have been kept quite busy.)”
It seems Nature’s reporter has the same standards of evidence and inference as yourself.
====================================================
From: Phil Jones
To: “Michael E. Mann”
Subject: IPCC & FOI
Date: Thu May 29 11:04:11 2008
Mike,
Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4?
Keith will do likewise. He’s not in at the moment – minor family crisis.
Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don’t
have his new email address.
We will be getting Caspar to do likewise.
I see that CA claim they discovered the 1945 problem in the Nature paper!!
Cheers
Phil
Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) xxxxxxx
School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) xxxxxxxx
University of East Anglia
Norwich Email p.jones@xxxxxxuk
NR4 7TJ
UK
BTW, Romm also describes a 2009 case in Federal Court in which Murdoch’s goons were accused of hacking into the computer system of a company on their hit list called Floorgraphic. According to the lawsuit, News Corp’s U.S. subsidiary News America illegally broke into the company’s computer system to snatch proprietary information and then “disseminated false, misleading and malicious information about the plaintiff.”
Sounds familiar? Hmmm? Floorgraphicgate seems to have been a bit of practice for Climategate.
News Corp quickly made the Floorgraphicgate scandal go away by settling with Floorgraphics for $29.5 million and then, days later, buying up the company, even though it reportedly had sales of less than $1 million. Caa-ching! News Corp cash register opens and closes. End of story.
Covering up Murdoch’s involvement in Climategate however may cost considerably more than even Murdoch has. To date, just in the U.S., New Corp has paid out more than $650 million dollars to bury these scandals, according to a July 17 report in the New York Times.
Says the NY Times, News America was led by Paul V. Carlucci. According to testimony from a Robert Emmel, a former News America executive, Carlucci used to show the sales staff the scene in “The Untouchables” in which Al Capone beats a man to death with a baseball bat. He did so, he testified, to make it clear to everyone what the company’s guiding corporate philosophy is.
It’s now becoming clear to the rest of us.
I hereby “coin” a phrase that aptly ties together the criminal immorality of two would-be tyrants: “Murdoch’s Plumbers.” As happened to Richard Nixon and his criminal gang, we are witnessing the unraveling of a massive crime operation in which Rupert Murdoch used his “news” and media empire to gather information — both legally and illegally — which he used not just to sell papers and TV ads, but also to blackmail politicians and destroy enemies.
I predict “Climategate” in the end will prove to be an ironically apt name for the break-in that stole thousands of emails of climatologists, which Murdoch used in a false and misleading campaign to destroy the reputation of global warming scientists. Deja vu all over again.
The most crooked president in U.S. history was brought down after his “Whitehouse Plumbers” got caught breaking into the Watergate Democratic Party headquarters looking for dirt to destroy the Democrats. Unfortunately, Republican President Gerald Ford broke his promise to Congress and pardoned Nixon for all of his crimes, known and unknown. There are plenty of right-wing ideologues who continue to deny and defend Nixon’s crimes. I suspect these same Fascerati may soon be coming to the Murdochs’ defense.
I pray Murdoch, his son, and all the Murdoch Plumbers who carried out their illegal break-ins, will see some serious jail time.
The latest news revelation suggests why the British Metropolitan Police did such a scandalously poor job (not)investigating News Corps’ widespread voice mail hacking — or the hacking of the University of East Anglia’s computer servers to steal emails of climate scientists.
The London Evening Standard now reports a key phone-hacking suspect, Neville Thurlbeck, secretly worked for Scotland Yard while he was the chief crime reporter for Murdoch’s scandal sheet, News of the World — at the time the Metropolitan Police claimed there was no need to investigate voice-mail hacking at News of the World.
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23971221-hacking-suspect-worked-as-police-informer.do
Thurlbeck, who was arrested on suspicion of illegally accessing voicemail messages in April, has admitted working as an official police source under the codename “George.”
In the past few weeks, we’ve seen top officials at Scotland Yard hand in resignations. No doubt, we’ll be seeing more walk the plank for employing Murdochs’ hackers and helping them cover up these crimes. The more they dig, the more comes to light showing how Murdoch believed he could get away with his crimes because he had men working in Scotland Yard.
Political leaders and others, both in the UK and in the U.S, are calling for independent investigations of News Corp’s crimes — and the computer hacking of University of East Anglia’s computers, which has Murdoch’s hand prints all over the break-in and campaign to use carefully selected quotes from stolen emails to destroy the reputation of climate scientists.
“the computer hacking of University of East Anglia’s computers, which has Murdoch’s hand prints all over the break-in”
:)
From: Kevin Trenberth
To: Michael Mann
Subject: Re: BBC U-turn on climate
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2009 08:57:37 -0600
Cc: Stephen H Schneider , Myles Allen , peter stott , “Philip D. Jones” , Benjamin Santer , Tom Wigley , Thomas R Karl , Gavin Schmidt , James Hansen , Michael Oppenheimer
Hi all
Well I have my own article on where the heck is global warming? We are asking that here in
Boulder where we have broken records the past two days for the coldest days on record. We
had 4 inches of snow. The high the last 2 days was below 30F and the normal is 69F, and it
smashed the previous records for these days by 10F. The low was about 18F and also a
record low, well below the previous record low. This is January weather (see the Rockies
baseball playoff game was canceled on saturday and then played last night in below freezing
weather).
Trenberth, K. E., 2009: An imperative for climate change planning: tracking Earth’s global
energy. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 1, 19-27,
doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2009.06.001. [1][PDF] (A PDF of the published version can be obtained
from the author.)
The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a
travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008
shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing
system is inadequate.
That said there is a LOT of nonsense about the PDO. People like CPC are tracking PDO on a
monthly basis but it is highly correlated with ENSO. Most of what they are seeing is the
change in ENSO not real PDO. It surely isn’t decadal. The PDO is already reversing with
the switch to El Nino. The PDO index became positive in September for first time since
Sept 2007. see
[2]http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/GODAS/ocean_briefing_gif/global_ocean_monitoring_c
urrent.ppt
Kevin
Michael Mann wrote:
extremely disappointing to see something like this appear on BBC. its particularly odd,
since climate is usually Richard Black’s beat at BBC (and he does a great job). from
what I can tell, this guy was formerly a weather person at the Met Office.
We may do something about this on RealClimate, but meanwhile it might be appropriate for
the Met Office to have a say about this, I might ask Richard Black what’s up here?
mike
On Oct 12, 2009, at 2:32 AM, Stephen H Schneider wrote:
Hi all. Any of you want to explain decadal natural variability and signal to noise and
sampling errors to this new “IPCC Lead Author” from the BBC? As we enter an El Nino year
and as soon, as the sunspots get over their temporary–presumed–vacation worth a few
tenths of a Watt per meter squared reduced forcing, there will likely be another dramatic
upward spike like 1992-2000. I heard someone–Mike Schlesinger maybe??–was willing to bet
alot of money on it happening in next 5 years?? Meanwhile the past 10 years of global mean
temperature trend stasis still saw what, 9 of the warmest in reconstructed 1000 year record
and Greenland and the sea ice of the North in big retreat?? Some of you observational folks
probably do need to straighten this out as my student suggests below. Such “fun”, Cheers,
Steve
Stephen H. Schneider
Melvin and Joan Lane Professor for Interdisciplinary Environmental Studies,
Professor, Department of Biology and
Senior Fellow, Woods Institute for the Environment
Mailing address:
Yang & Yamazaki Environment & Energy Building – MC 4205
473 Via Ortega
Ph: 650 725 9978
F: 650 725 4387
Websites: climatechange.net
patientfromhell.org
—– Forwarded Message —–
From: “Narasimha D. Rao”
To: “Stephen H Schneider”
Sent: Sunday, October 11, 2009 10:25:53 AM GMT -08:00 US/Canada Pacific
Subject: BBC U-turn on climate
Steve,
You may be aware of this already. Paul Hudson, BBC’s reporter on climate change, on Friday
wrote that there’s been no warming since 1998, and that pacific oscillations will force
cooling for the next 20-30 years. It is not outrageously biased in presentation as are
other skeptics’ views.
[5]http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8299079.stm
[6]http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/damianthompson/100013173/the-bbcs-amazing-u-turn-on-cl
imate-change/
BBC has significant influence on public opinion outside the US.
Do you think this merits an op-ed response in the BBC from a scientist?
Narasimha
——————————-
PhD Candidate,
Emmett Interdisciplinary Program in Environment and Resources (E-IPER)
Stanford University
Tallspoke, thanks for illustrating my point.
Hi Tallbloke be careful, you might upset Andrew by drawing his attention to those revealing leaked E-mails (which I doubt he has ever looked at). The one that I found most disgusting was “Hockey Team” member Phil Jones’s reaction in an E-mail he forwarded to team manager Mike Mann on January 29, 2004 (email 1075403821). The E-mail said “It is with deep sadness that the Daly Family have to announce the sudden death of John Daly. Condolences may be sent to John’s email account (daly@john-daly.com).
Reported with great sadness Timo Hameranta, LL.M. Moderator, Climatesceptics”.
Jones commented “In an odd way this is cheering news! .. ”.
Jones had the gall to whine in a BBC interview “”I did think .. About suicide. I thought about it several times, but I think I’ve got past that stage now” (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8502823.stm).
Poor thing, “ .. It’s a travesty .. ”.
Best regards, Pete Ridley.
Hi Andew, you really are a reliable source of misinformation, aren’t you. Having exhausted us all with your rant about John O’Sullivan and his Slayers you now rant about Murdoch and his mythical involvement in the leaking of those Climategate E-mails.
“ .. I hereby “coin” a phrase that aptly ties together the .. immorality of .. would-be .. ” scaremongers who would have us believe that our use of fossil fuels is leading to Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change (CACC) – “Gore’s Propagandists”. When did you join them?
“ .. I predict “Climategate” in the end will prove to be an ironically apt name for the .. ” UEA CRU insider leak that released those revealing emails between a small clique of climatologists (the “Hockey Team”). Sceptics have used these E-mails in an honest and enlightening campaign to advise the general public about the surreptitious activities of that small group of global warming activists determined to suppress open scientific debate about the CACC hypothesis they had been promoting vigorously and dishonestly since the late 1980’s with the encouragement of manipulators like Maurice Strong, Al Gore, Timothy Worth, James Hansen, Stephen Schneider and buddies.
I Googled – “James Hansen” Climategate – and came across an article “Anthony Giddens Rough Guide to Saving the World” on the blog of DDS Hosting (whose Chairman and Creative Director, young entrepreneur Tait Pollack – http://www.linkedin.com/in/taitpollack – is another of those individuals who has jumped on the green bandwagon). Professor Lord Anthony Giddens has no more expertise in climate science than I have yet he presumes to say QUOTE: ..
Climate Change is the most testing issue facing humanity in the 21st Century. It is different from all other problems we have ever faced before, for three reasons:
1. No other civilisation has affected the global environment in the same way we have done in the last 200 years, at least not to the same scale. Therefore, we cannot draw lessons from the past.
2. The evidence is filtered through the findings of specialist scientific groups. There is a vast gap between Climatologists and the lay-public, this gap is bridged by the politics of climate change.
3. Climate Change is different from all other problems, for example global poverty could be solved by 2050 (In fact, the world currently produces enough food to support around 10bn people – Alaric). Climate Change has a cumulative nature (the bad effects add up and up, and won’t be felt until the future), greenhouse gasses have a long-lasting lifespan in the atmosphere and therefore, there is an urgency to this problem that could make it more important than all others. We don’t yet know whether or not it is too difficult ..
Risks of Climate Change: Broadly speaking, there are categories that people could be placed in, when considering the risk of climate change.
1. Climate change skeptics: Who will either deny that Climate Change is happening or they will say that the average increase temperature that we are experiencing (Measuring average temperature is generally agreed to be a proxy an for global warming, i.e. an increase of heat or energy in the global system) is natural or rather, not man-made. In fact, most skeptics are not scientists, of those who are, a minority are climatologists. The political impact of skeptics is huge. The ‘climate gate’ UEA hacked emails demonstrates this. ..
2. Mainstream scientific opinion: IPCC Reports: The IPCC reports concern what is Climate Change, how does it occur and what the dangers of it could be. Simply put, there is a growing body of evidence that links climate change with fossil fuel use (Greenhouse gas emissions) and deforestation ..
3. Climate Change radicals: Heterodox .. figures such as James Lovelock or James Hanson and others ..
UNQUOTE.
Although I wasn’t impressed by anything in his rant I do like his categorisation of Hansen as a Climate Change radical – “Hetadoxal Hansen” – lovely.
A much more worthy read than “Anthony Giddens Rough Guide to Saving the World” is “Scared to Death” by top-tier investigative journalist Christopher Booker and food safety expert Dr Richard North whose similarly titled Chapter 14 “Saving the Planet” talks about the political shenanigans surrounding the CACC doctrine and (unlike Andrew) backs up what it claims with hard evidence. An entertaining radio interview of Booker and North by highly respected “Dennis Prager .. American syndicated radio talk show host, syndicated columnist, author, and public speaker .. ” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dennis_Prager) is available at http://www.stupidvideos.com/video/just_plain_stupid/Scared_to_Death_Dennis_Prager_Christopher_Booker_Richard_North/#142460. The bit on CACC starts at 10 minutes – enjoy.
I see that Fox News had an interesting article on James Hansen back in June “Global Warming Scientist James Hansen Exposed” (http://nation.foxnews.com/climate-change/2011/06/22/global-warming-scientist-james-hansen-exposed#ixzz1Q6kiYVNA). I expect that will keep a mediocre investigative journalist like you jumping up and down again screaming “blue Murdock” as you started doing on July 11. I wonder what other global events you’ll blame on Murdoch. Were you rejected by News Corp. at some stage in your career?
It is noticeable that you have said nothing recently about John O’Sullivan or his Slayers, perhaps because you realise that repeating the same old story has bored the pants off contributors to this thread. What about that comment by Jeff Daley that he “ .. was told John O’Sullivan is going to announce in Janaury the setting up a new science association called Principia Scientific International to sue all your criminal warmist buddies for fraud” (see July 24 at 4:13 pm). That comment of Jeff’s is not now available on the GlobalWarmingSuperheroes “O’Sullivan’s Selective Myopia” thread (http://globalwarmingsuperheroes.com/osullivans-seletive-myopia/#comment-1657) but it certainly was on the 9th January. I made reference to it that day on the Climate Change Dispatch “Global Warming Superheroes” thread (http://climatechangedispatch.com/home/8456-court-orders-university-to-surrender-global-warming-records) and on the “Court Orders University to Surrender Global Warming Records” thread “Written by John O’Sullivan, Suite 101 | January 06 2011” (http://climatechangedispatch.com/home/8456-court-orders-university-to-surrender-global-warming-records). The question is was there any substance to what Jeff Daley claimed and if so, how did he find out about it.
You let us all know about John’s willingness to go to court in New York and provided a link to an October 2008 comment of John’s that ended “ .. We will fight on and never quit. Scum like Justice Garry, Governor Paterson, Justice Cardona and their kind must face a federal trial. .. ” (http://www.courthouseforum.com/forums/thread.php?id=1049351&post=1059291#post1059291) but would he also be prepared to try to sue “warmists” for fraud? After all, “warmists” include some of the most powerful individuals in the world, so it would be a heck of a challenge.
In Feb 2010 John wrote an article about “World’s biggest coal company brings U.S. government to court in climate fraud” (http://www.climategate.com/worlds-biggest-coal-company-brings-us-government-to-court-in-climate-fraud), concluding (enthusiastically?) that “ .. Peabody will lend further weight to the likelihood of criminal charges being brought against those individuals implicated in international fraud on the largest scale ever known .. ”. In October 2010 he was talking about the “Final Phase of Global Warming War and Another Legal Defeat for Doomsayers” (http://simplelifecomplexities.blogspot.com/2010/11/global-warming-war-and-another-legal.html), including a mention “ .. of how astute application of the law had dealt Antipodean warmists a fatal blow .. ”. He went on to say how “ .. Along with other legal analysts I explained that the Kiwi government, in such circumstances, had no choice but to capitulate or face complete courtroom defeat and political suicide. In my speech I urged parliamentarians to heed the implications of this astonishing news. .. ”.
If there are more articles of this nature by John then that would make Jeff Daley’s claim appear more and more plausible, but in his appeal on 17th January for charitable donations to set up Principia Scientific International (PSI) there was no mention of court action (http://johnosullivan.livejournal.com/28963.html), only encouragement to “ .. commit to donating to a worthy new chapter in modern science – the creation of the world’s first open to all, politics-free, generalist science association .. ”. Although on 20th September the PSI web-site made no mention of taking legal action against any person, group or organisation (but it did say that “ .. The directors can be paid .. “ ) there was that 16th December statement that “specific objectives include .. ability and willingness to mount legal challenges, as a last resort, to remedy willful noncompliance .. ”. What else is there than might give substance to Jeff’s statement? Come on Andrew, why not use your investigative journalistic talents to expose the facts behind that.
If anyone here is interested then I’ll continue with my comments on the motivations of the Slayers in setting up PSI by taking a look at those E-mails that were being exchanged between members of the Slayers team, some of their associates and the UK’s CIC Regulator. If there’s no interest then I’ll take it elsewhere. Judith, please would you advise if it is something that you wish to have discussed on this thread, which is about “Slaying a Greenhouse Dragon” and John and his team of Slayers claim to be able to do just that.
Best regards, Pete Ridley.
Hi DaveR, you have asked a very pertinent question of Andrew with your “ .. Do you know anything about reliable journalism? .. ” (July 25 at 11:32 am). I’d just like to extend it with “reliable investigative journalism”. Andrew’s Linked In entry (http://www.linkedin.com/pub/andrew-skolnick/4/602/691) declares “ .. investigative reporting .. ” to be among his specialities and interests but his efforts over the past 3 months of investigating John O’Sullivan have demonstrated very mediocre capabilities. Virtually all that he has unearthed (and has made more that a meal of on this thread) about John’s penchant for self-praise and his legal status is freely available on the Internet to anyone who has the inclination to research it. After reading the article “So many lies – and the liar who tells them” (http://hot-topic.co.nz/so-many-lies-and-the-liar-who-tells-them/#identifier_9_8189) about John by Andrew’s associate, truffle, olive and grape farmer Gareth Renowden, it seems that it was Gareth who did most of the research, not Andrew.
Gareth’s account indicates that Andrew’s contribution did not amount to much. The first contribution mentioned was “ .. In posts at Linked-In, Sky Dragon O’Sullivan suggested that he had obtained his LLB at the University of Cork in Ireland. Research by Andrew Skolnick discovered that a John O’Sullivan does appear to have obtained a law degree from that august institution, but it’s not Sky Dragon O’Sullivan7”. The second was “Pearlman Lindholm are indeed acting for Ball, and they confirmed to Skolnick that Sky Dragon O’Sullivan is acting as some kind of consultant on the case”. These hardly demonstrate top-tier investigative skills. I get the distinct impression from the little that I have learned about Andrew during the past four weeks that he is in many ways just an older version of John in the sense that both give the impression of having ambitions that far outweigh their talents.
tallbloke said (July 25 at 12:09 pm) “ .. for a science writer, you’re pretty gullible. Or biased. Or judging by your performance so far, both .. ”. Again I agree with what was said but would like to add my two-bits worth – “blinkered or blind”.
Andrew’s latest rants have nothing whatever to do with the topic of Judith’s thread, so don’t you think that we owe her the courtesy of getting back to the point, which as Judith moted at the end of her article “please keep your comments focused on Johnson’s arguments, or other aspects of Slaying the Sky Dragon”. An important aspect of “Slaying the Sky Dragon” is what motivated the authors to write it. Andrew had an opportunity on 1st July to learn a significant amount about this but refused to remove his blinkers and squandered it within a week.
In my comment on July 24 at 4:13 pm I referred to Jeff Daley’s ““I was told John O’Sullivan is going to announce in Janaury the setting up a new science association called Principia Scientific International to sue all your criminal warmist buddies for fraud”. Andrew, despite his claim to having investigative reporting skills, hasn’t said a word about this significant comment (does anyone know who that particular Jeff Daley is because I’d love to know where he picked up that bit of information. There was no Jeff Ward included in the circulation of the PSI & Due Diligence E-mails that I was privy to during crucial discussions in December/January about whether PSI should be a charity under the scrutiny of the UK’s Charities Commission or a CIC under the less-onerous scrutiny of the CIC Regulator.
More on this tomorrow.
Best regards, Pete Ridley
Before Andrew jumps in and asks who Jeff Ward is, that should read Jeff Daley
Yet more news of global warming denier corruption:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/jun/28/climate-change-sceptic-willie-soon
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/06/28/us-usa-climate-skeptic-idUSTRE75R2HD20110628
One of the world’s most prominent scientific skeptics of climate warming finally admits that he has been paid more than $1 million since 2001 by major US oil and coal companies — despite previous claims to the contrary.
Dr Willie Soon, an astrophysicist at Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, is one of the relatively few critics of global warming who actually publishes in peer-reviewed science journals. “His most famous work challenged the ‘hockey stick’ graph of temperature records published by Michael Mann, which showed a relatively sharp rise in temperatures during the second half of the 20th century,” the Guardian reported.
“As one of very few scientists to publish in peer-reviewed literature denying climate change, Soon is widely regarded as one of the leading sceptical voices. His scientific position and the vehemence of his views has made him a central figure in a heated political debate that has informed the US right wing and helped to undermine public trust in the science of global warming and UN negotiations.”
Thanks to records obtained by Greenpeace through the Freedom of Information Act, we now know that, contrary his previous statements, Dr. Soon’s major source funding since 2002 has come from ExxonMobil, the American Petroleum Institute, Koch Industries, and other oil and coal companies that have supported his “research” disputing the work of scientists studying global warming.
Yet, in 2003, Dr. Soon testified at a “US senate hearing that he had ‘not knowingly been hired by, nor employed by, nor received grants from any organization that had taken advocacy positions with respect to the Kyoto protocol or the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change,'” the Guardian reported.
According to documents uncovered in the FOIA request reviewed by Reuters, Dr. Soon received some funding from NASA and other goverment agencies. However, starting in 2002, most of the global warming denier’s funding came from Exxon Mobil and other oil, the American Petroleum Institute, and Southern Co, one of the largest coal burners in the United States. Dr. Soon is also a major author of articles disputing any significant public health risks caused by the release of more than 50 tons of highly toxic mercury into the environment each year in the U.S. by coal burning plants.
Reuters goes on to say that Dr. Soon authored a “May 25 opinion piece in The Wall Street Journal called ‘The Myth of Killer Mercury.’ In the piece, Soon was identified as a natural scientist from Harvard, but the newspaper did not disclose that he receives most of his funding from the energy industry.” The WSJ, one of Rupert Murdoch’s most climate science-bashing newspapers — did not return Reuter’s request for comment.
People who remember the goons who defended the Chisso chemical company’s right to pollute Minimata Bay with mercury in the 1960s should find Dr. Soon’s defense of mercury emissions stomach turning — especially if they recall LIFE’s renowned photographer Eugene Smith’s heart wrenching photographs of some of the thousands of victims of “Minimata Disease” — the name given to methylmercury poisoning. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Tomokos_hand.gif
Sky Dragon Slayer co-author Tim Ball, John O’Sullivan’s sidekick (or is it the other way around?), has a penchant for lying about his academic and professional credentials — and a whole lot more — second only to John’s.
The two Slayers are now dealing with two libel suits filed against Ball by Dr. Michael Mann and Dr. Andrew Weaver in the Supreme Court of British Columbia.
Here’s what Desmogblog reported earlier this year following CanadaFreePress’ complete retraction and apologies for publishing Ball’s defamatory attack on Dr. Weaver:
(Anyone who reads this and still thinks the Sky Dragon Slayer authors have any credibility has a brain that would be best examined by a geologist.)
21 January 11
http://www.desmogblog.com/canadafreepress-apology-weaver
The website Canada Free Press has issued a retraction and apology (full text below) to University of Victoria climate modeller Dr. Andrew Weaver for the content of an article written by Dr. Tim Ball.
Ball, whose own unspectacular academic tenure ended with a fizzle in 1996, has found a second career pretending to be a world-renowned climatologist (he once wrote to then-Prime Minister Paul Martin that he was “one of the first climatology PhDs in the world” – a statement that is purest fiction). In addition to signing on as a “science advisor” to energy industry front groups such as the Friends of Science or the Natural Resources Stewardship Project, Ball has written and spoken extensively, seldom passing up the opportunity to libel real scientists. (Though, when the going gets tough, the dishonest get going.)
One of Ball’s favorite targets has been Weaver, the Canada Research Chair in Climate Modelling and Analysis at the University of Victoria in Ball’s B.C. hometown. On occasion, Ball has even had the nerve to show his face at UVic, only to run into an audience who was capable of fact-checking his claptrap on their laptops. Most recently, he gave a lecture in which he made the outrageous claim that climate models don’t include water vapour or Milankovic cycles, only to have a student in the audience politely tell him he was wrong.
Now, clearly, Ball has staggered beyond the pale, saying a bunch of things that are so obviously, demonstrably and categorically false that Canada Free Press has done the right thing. As the CFP correction says:
“Contrary to what was stated in Dr. Ball’s article, Dr. Weaver: (1) never announced he will not participate in the next IPCC; (2) never said that the IPCC chairman should resign; (3) never called for the IPCC’s approach to science to be overhauled; and (4) did not begin withdrawing from the IPCC in January 2010.
“As a result of a nomination process that began in January, 2010, Dr. Weaver became a Lead Author for Chapter 12: “Long-term Climate Change: Projections, Commitments and Irreversibility” of the Working Group I contribution to the Fifth Assessment Report of the IPCC.” That work began in May, 2010. Dr. Ball’s article failed to mention these facts although they are publicly-available.”
The line that may be most important for Weaver, however, is this:
“CFP also wishes to dissociate itself from any suggestion that Dr. Weaver ‘knows very little about climate science.’ We entirely accept that he has a well-deserved international reputation as a climate scientist and that Dr. Ball’s attack on his credentials is unjustified.”
In fact, Weaver has a Nobel Peace Prize plaque hanging on his wall, in honour of his previous work on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
But Ball is still on the lecture circuit, still saying that climate science is a fiction. You have to hope, though, that before paying $50 a plate, his audience has an opportunity to ponder who, in this discussion, has a record of accuracy and integrity, and who has been caught out, time and again, lying about everything from the extent of his own credentials to the elements of other people’s Nobel quality work.
Since posting the apology last week, Canada Free Press has stripped it from their website along with Ball’s biography and virtually everything he ever wrote for the site. The full text of the retraction is as follows:
On January 10, 2011, Canada Free Press began publishing on this website an article by Dr. Tim Ball entitled “Corruption of Climate Change Has Created 30 Lost Years” which contained untrue and disparaging statements about Dr. Andrew Weaver, who is a professor in the School of Earth and Ocean Sciences at the University of Victoria, British Columbia.
Contrary to what was stated in Dr. Ball’s article, Dr. Weaver: (1) never announced he will not participate in the next IPCC; (2) never said that the IPCC chairman should resign; (3) never called for the IPCC’s approach to science to be overhauled; and (4) did not begin withdrawing from the IPCC in January 2010.
As a result of a nomination process that began in January, 2010, Dr. Weaver became a Lead Author for Chapter 12: “Long-term Climate Change: Projections, Commitments and Irreversibility” of the Working Group I contribution to the Fifth Assessment Report of the IPCC.” That work began in May, 2010. Dr. Ball’s article failed to mention these facts although they are publicly-available.
Dr. Tim Ball also wrongly suggested that Dr. Weaver tried to interfere with his presentation at the University of Victoria by having his students deter people from attending and heckling him during the talk. CFP accepts without reservation there is no basis for such allegations.
CFP also wishes to dissociate itself from any suggestion that Dr. Weaver “knows very little about climate science.” We entirely accept that he has a well-deserved international reputation as a climate scientist and that Dr. Ball’s attack on his credentials is unjustified.
CFP sincerely apologizes to Dr. Weaver and expresses regret for the embarrassment and distress caused by the unfounded allegations in the article by Dr. Ball.
The only way to stop these craps – stop funding. The world will be at peace.
Anybody have a secret decoder ring I can borrow to decode Sam’s babbling?
Secret decoder is “stop funding” for both alarmists and deniers. The world does not need all these craps to pollute the internet.
As I suspected, decoding Sam’s comment makes even less sense. He says in the interest of not “polluting the Internet,” climate research should no longer be funded.
Well, there’s actually a bit of logic here, though quite twisted logic: Sam wants to stop the “pollution of the Internet” so the oil, coal, and gas industry can continue polluting our planet utterly unhindered.
Andrew, am I being unfair in thinking that you might be a hypocrite? You said “ .. Sam wants to stop the “pollution of the Internet” so the oil, coal, and gas industry can continue polluting our planet utterly unhindered. .. ”. SNIP I doubt very much if you walk or take your bicycle.
I bet that it gets rather cold in winter and rather hot in summer in Amherst and I would be most surprised if the energy used to power your central heating and air conditioning comes from renewable sources. I also doubt if the clothes you wear or the house that you live in are all natural materials that have not used fossil fuels during manufacture.
If I am being unfair then please let me know and I’ll apologise.
Best regards, Pete Ridley
Your logic is non-existent. All because one uses fossil fuels, it does not follow that one believes that the fossil fuel industry should dictate public policy or that the fossil fuel industry is an unbiased source of scientific information…or those that they fund are unbiased source of scientific information.
I don’t think that you would want Greenpeace to be the arbiter of science, just as we don’t want Western Fuels Association to be the arbiter of science. The scientific community themselves should be the arbiter, through the various mechanisms that we have set up to have the scientific community inform public policy-making by summarizing the current state of the science for the public and policymakers. In the case of climate change in particular, one such mechanism is through the IPCC. In the case of scientific issues in general, the mechanisms tend to be through the scientific academies of the various nations. Scientific societies (like AGU, AMS, and AAAS in the U.S.) can also play a role. All of these organizations have reached the same basic conclusions in regards to climate change.
Joel, I think you missed Pete Ridley’s actual point. Of course that argument was nonsensical. What Ridley was saying is that he’s going to cyberstalk me as long as I keep posting information he doesn’t want posted. He’s going to dig up all the personal information he can about me and keep posting it until I quit. I hope Dr. Curry will put a stop to his egregious misconduct.
Pan, Kettle, Black!
Pete Ridley, don’t cross the line again by digging up and posting personal information, like where I live and ride my bicycle or you will find yourself in serious trouble.
Joel, please enlighten me with your powers of logical deduction. What has your “ .. the fossil fuel industry should dictate public policy or that the fossil fuel industry is an unbiased source of scientific information…or those that they fund are unbiased source of scientific information. .. ” of Greenpeace to do with Andrew’s apparent hypocrisy through his use of fossil fuels, which encourages “ .. the oil, coal, and gas industry .. continue polluting our planet utterly unhindered .. ”?
Best regards, Pete Ridley
COMING TO THE SCREEN NEXT WEEK —
Tim Ball is expected to file his answers (defense) to Dr. Michael Mann’s amended claim with the Supreme Court of British Columbia. This of course should be entertaining reading. I’m looking forward to sharing it with you all.
John O’Sullivan, please note that it’s the Supreme Court of British Columbia — not the “Vancouver Supreme Court.” (The poor guy gets lost without someone more knowledgeable about law to guide him.)
So, Ball says, “Michael Mann at Penn State should be in the State Pen, not Penn State,” and, the court is going to have a problem with that as Canadians look forward to the prospect of returning to an economy based on the trapping of fur bearing animals as the current global cooling trend continues for the next 3 to 7 decades as some predict?
When Pete Ridley posted where I live, where I go, and what I do in my private life, I’m surprised he didn’t include that I’m a Jew. In his mind, it might explain why I attack dishonest global warming deniers like John O’Sullivan and Tim Ball. Ridely appears to agree with kooks who claim the “global warming hoax” is part of the Rothschilds’ vast international Jewish banking conspiracy to take over the world. Last year, Ridley blogged about the “scary” possibility that the CO2 global warming hoax is part of the Rothschild banking conspiracy to enslave the world:
“For any of you who are interested in a genuine scare try this article ‘How Edmund de Rothschild Managed to Let 179 Governments Pay Him for Grasping Up to 30% of the Earth’ on the Euro-Med site. It is all about global government, just like the UN’s dangerous/catastrophic human-made global climate change propaganda. It covers the subject of implementation strategies for developing a global government starting with 4th World Wilderness Congress in 1987, that CO2 is the cause of a non-existent global warming – and that combating it needs money (our money), he founded the World Conservation Bank for this reason.”
The article Ridley cites “explains” how the “global warming hoax” is being perpetrated for “the ultimate goal of [establishing] Rothschild’s New World Order.” “Rothschild’s New World Order” is a well-known euphemism for the International Jewish Banking Conspiracy to Control the World.
According to Wikipedia, “The common theme in conspiracy theories about a New World Order is that a secretive power elite with a globalist agenda is conspiring to eventually rule the world through an authoritarian world government—which replaces sovereign nation-states—and an all-encompassing propaganda that ideologizes its establishment as the culmination of history’s progress. Significant occurrences in politics and finance are speculated to be orchestrated by an unduly influential cabal operating through many front organizations. Numerous historical and current events are seen as steps in an on-going plot to achieve world domination through secret political gatherings and decision-making processes.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_World_Order_%28conspiracy_theory%29
“Rothschild’s New World Order” is a feature of the Judeo-Masonic conspiracy so popular with Neo-Nazis, skin heads, Klan members, John Birchers, and other anti-Semitic groups. According to Wikipedia, the conspiracy alleges an “international Jewish banking cabal” masterminded by the Rothschild family, who supposedly have “been plotting from the late 19th century on to impose an oligarchic new world order through a global financial system. Anti-globalist conspiracy theorists therefore fear that international bankers are planning to eventually subvert the independence of the U.S. by subordinating national sovereignty to a strengthened Bank for International Settlements.”
Welcome to Pete Ridley’s world. Grab a barf bag and read on:
http://globalpoliticalshenanigans.blogspot.com/2010/03/much-more-scary-than-human-made-global.html
Not content to “explain” how the “global warming hoax” is a plot of the International Jewish Bankers, Pete Ridley also compares the global warming hoaxers to Adolph Hitler and Nazi propagandists.
“The structure of Al Gore’s climate change organisation bears a lot of similarities with Hitler’s NAZI party,” Ridley blogs.
“Hitler set up his ‘Hitler Youth’ organisation. Gore set up his ‘An Inconvenient Youth’ organisation. The recruits to Hitler’s organisation were so brainwashed that they were prepared to die for him. Similar brainwashing is being attempted by Gore through his ‘The Climate Project’ and subsidiaries.
“I was 7 when the war in Europe ended and only knew about the horrors of Hitler’s regime through later Pathe News items seen at the cinema. It was much later (1974) that I started taking a real interest in the subject, after reading ‘The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich’ by William L. Shirer. Since then I have collected numerous video cassettes of recordings from BBC and other TV programmes dedicated to educating us about the evils that can spring from a blind acceptance of state propaganda. The BBC has a lot of articles on this one of which says ‘Initially, Hitler saw himself as a political evangelist…rather than as a political leader.’ In August 2007 The Huffington Post published an article ‘A Nobel Prize for an Environmental Evangelist – Al Gore.’ It is clear that I am not the only one to recognise the similarities between Hitler and Gore.”
As if that last mind-numbingly stupid statement wasn’t godawful enough, Ridley then tries to equate Al Gore with the notorious Nazi film director and Holocaust denier Leni Riefenstahl — because in his mind the Oscar-winning documentary, ‘An Inconvenient Truth,’ is equivalent to Riefenstahl’s propaganda films that helped to bring about the Holocaust and the destruction of much of Europe.
http://globalpoliticalshenanigans.blogspot.com/2010_05_01_archive.html
Only someone insane and full of hate can believe this stuff let alone publish it..
Hi Andrew, your use of the anti-Semite card in this discussion came as a surprise to me because in looking into your background I had not come across anything about your religious leanings or ethnic origins and had no interest in them. You made quite a meal out of the single mention of “Rothschild’s New World Order” in the article that I talked about on my blog (http://globalpoliticalshenanigans.blogspot.com/2010/03/much-more-scary-than-human-made-global.html) but until your comment (July 30 at 9:31 am ) I had no idea that QUOTE: .. “Rothschild’s New World Order” is a well-known euphemism for the International Jewish Banking Conspiracy to Control the World .. UNQUOTE. It may be of interest to you that on the right hand side of that page to which I linked in my blog article there are videos of speeches made by global political and financial leaders, including President Sarcozi, Gordon Brown, David Rockefeller, George Bush, Dick Cheney, van Rompuy, all talking about a new world or global order , government and governance, with the UN playing a lead role.
I don’t know (or care) what their ethnic origins or religious leanings are, only the extent of their enthusiasm for global government. That is what interested me in that thread, not anti-Semetism, but it apears that you are particularly sensitive about that issue. Following your comment I googled – “Andrew Skolnick” Antisemiticism – and came across your involvement in that area going back to 1997. There are numerous examples of exchanges you were involved in, including these from Nov 16 & 17 1999 QUOTE:
I regret to have to post this. I have been trying for two weeks to get the investors bulletin board Raging Bull to
remove a libelous post containing one of the many forgeries that were posted on alt.revisionism by Neo-Nazi hate
mongers. These forgeries were posted in an effort to prevent discussion of Holocaust revisionist and anti-Semitic lies.
Their campaign failed. However, one of those Nazi posts has been reposted to Raging Bull in an attempt to defame me. ..
Raging Bull has become a cesspool of posters who use a variety of false names to post disinformation, libel, and
fraudulent investment information. And now, it seems that it is even willing to host forgeries from Neo-Nazis .. ”
David E Michael wrote: “… Maybe Skolnick should apply for a job with Radio Beijing . . .” In case anyone forgot who this Neo-Nazi is, here are some of his fascist beliefs in his own insane words .. UNQUOTE http://groups.google.com/group/alt.revisionism/browse_thread/thread/16ab244f64659b14/8d1d5db29539d8c2).
Those words of Michael’s that you quoted later in that diatribe of yours were in my humble opinion very much about a similar kind of new world order but his being neo-Nazi, not Jewish. I dislike the idea of any kind of “New World Order/Government” no matter who dominates it.
Best regards, Pete Ridley
Pete,
You put that card into play.
Hi Hunter, you said of the anti-Semite card that Andrew is playing that “Pete, you put that card into play. .. ”. No, I made no mention of racism of any kind on this thread or anywhere else. On my blog, which has the title “Global Political Shenanigans” I linked to an article that discussed an agenda for the establishment of a new world order, AKA Global Government. That is a valid topic for a blog set up to discus political shenanigans. Racism is not a subject that I discuss on my blog and anti-Semitism is not something that I have discussed on anyones blog as far as I can remember. Being an agnostic I have discussed the doctrines that claim that a benevolent super-power created the universe(s) and has an interest in how humans treat each other. I reject those doctrines just as I reject the CACC doctrine.
Best regards, Pete Ridley
Pete Ridley, whose blog recommends the anti-Semitic conspiracy theories of another global warming denier, says, “You made quite a meal out of the single mention of ‘Rothschild’s New World Order’ in the article that I talked about on my blog.”
Ridley now says he “had no idea that ‘Rothschild’s New World Order’ is a well-known euphemism for the International Jewish Banking Conspiracy to Control the World.'”
Well, now that he knows, he is still continuing to endorse Anders Bruun Laursen’s anti-Semitic rant blaming the global warming “hoax” on the international Jewish banking conspiracy for world domination!!!
Actions speak louder than words and the fact that Ridley didn’t remove his endorsement from his blog tell us exactly what kind of person he is. He’s willing to use the most vile and hateful crap he can find to attack scientists studying global warming.
Now that he knows he’s been pushing the vile crackpot claim that global warming scientists are pawns in the Worldwide Conspiracy of Jewish Bankers, he’s apparently o.k. with it. Rather than apologize and remove his endorsement from his blog, he’s decided that the real problem is that I’ve got “a problem” with anti-Semitism.
Hi Andrew, had I not been acclimatised to your invective and unsubstantiated accusations due to exposure here during the past couple of months I would have been disgusted by your suggestion on July 30 at 9:31 am that I was sympathetic to anti-Semetism. Despite the fact that I touched another of your raw wounds (quite apparent from the exchanges you had back in the late 1990s) your insinuation was despicable and if you were a decent human then you’d apologise for it. An apology is not something that I expect from you so won’t be disappointed if you continue your rant about anti-Semitism on this thread.
What is worth discussing is the ambitions of the power-hungry to impose a new world order and the CACC doctrine scare-mongering is an important part of their campaign.
I thought it might be interesting to try an experiment on you Andrew to see what your twisted mind would make of some other contentious issue. I wondered what topic might get you going again on another speculative personal attack devoid of convincing evidence. Possibilities were the linking of racism (obviously an irritant for you) with homosexuality (http://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=7&article=1495), terrorism (http://www.alef.net/ALEFTexts/ALEFTexts.Asp?Work=David%20Livingston%20-%20Terrorism%20and%20the%20Illuminati), animal rights (http://www.animalsuffering.com/resources/articles/Animal-Rights-and-Racism/), etc. All of those would give your well-honed journalistic skill of distorting the facts fodder for further unfounded accusations.
Instead I decided to stick with that article on my blog that you distorted in your gutter-press style. I know that you’ll find it difficult but just for once try to stick to what I said, not what I quoted or your deliberate distortion of what I said. “For any of you who are interested in a genuine scare try this article .. (Note 1) on the Euro-Med site. It is all about global government, just like the UN’s dangerous/catastrophic human-made global climate change propaganda .. Powers that be .. such as Rothschild, Maurice Strong, David Rockefeller, William Pizer, James A Baker III, Oleg Deripaska, George Soros, Obama, even The Devil, are all mentioned in the article”.
Nothing in my words suggests that I agree with anything said in the article however it does talk about a subject that had been drawn to my attention in 2009 while I was exchanging opinions about CACC on the blog of Australian sceptic Senator Steve Fielding (before you start distorting that and shouting that I agree with Steve about his God creating the universe about 6000 years ago, don’t bother, I’m an agnostic verging on atheist). That topic is Global Government/Governance/New World Order, which is worth discussing and is tied in with the CACC doctrine.
Most of the reports about Edmund de Rothschild suggest that he was worthy of the accolades that he earned during his long and life. I had and have no particular interest in him as far as the CACC doctrine is concerned. On the other hand, Maurice Strong is a totally different individual and warrants closer attention. I first became aware of Strong after reading Professor Zbiniew Jaworowski’s March 2007 paper “CO2: The Greatest Scientific Scandal of Our Time” (http://www.warwickhughes.com/icecore/zjmar07.pdf) in which he talked about QUOTE: ..
Maurice Strong .. helped produce the 1987 Brundtland Report, which ignited today’s Green movement. He later become senior advisor to Kofi Annan, UN Secretary-General, and chaired the gigantic (40,000 participants) “UN Conference on Environment and Development” in Rio de Janeiro in 1992. Strong, who was responsible for putting together the Kyoto Protocol with thousands of bureaucrats, diplomats, and politicians, stated: “We may get to the point where the only way of saving the world will be for industrial civilization to collapse”. Strong elaborated on the idea of sustainable development, which, he said, can be implemented by deliberate “quest of poverty . . . reduced resource consumption . . . and set levels of mortality control”.
Timothy Wirth, U.S. Undersecretary of State for Global Issues, seconded Strong’s statement: “We have got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic policy and environmental policy”.
Richard Benedick, a deputy assistant secretary of state who headed policy divisions of the U.S. State Department, stated: “A global warming treaty must be implemented even if there is no scientific evidence to back the [enhanced] greenhouse effect”. UNQUOTE.
All very interesting people of significance regarding the CACC doctrine, well worth putting “right in the middle of (your) investigative journalism radar screen” (June 4 at 6:16 pm) rather than focussing on inconsequential individuals like the Slayers leader John O’Sullivan.
On reflection I’m pleased that you referred to my Global Political Shenanigans article about the real catastrophe that we need to be concerned about, Global Government, which is one of the real reasons for the power-hungry to keep pushing the CACC doctrine with such fervour. Now that’s a real conspiracy – thanks Andrew for introducing it here. We can have a good old investigation into what really motivates Strong, Firth, Gore, Soros and there fellows.
Best regards, Pete Ridley
Pete Ridley is sticking to his guns:
“What is worth discussing is the ambitions of the power-hungry to impose a new world order and the CACC doctrine scare-mongering is an important part of their campaign.”
Who are these “power-hungry” villains who are trying to “impose a new world order on us” through this “global warming hoax?” According to the vile screed endorsed in Ridley’s blog, they are the insidious cabal of Jewish bankers led by the Rothschild family:
http://globalpoliticalshenanigans.blogspot.com/2010/03/much-more-scary-than-human-made-global.html
He insists he’s no anti-Semite and we’ll have to take his word for it. He just likes to promote the anti-Semitic slur that dates back to the Russian pogroms in the 19th century and led to Nazi Holocaust, in order to smear climate scientists.
He says he’s pushing this guy’s conspiracy theory that evil Jewish bankers are behind the global warming plot, not because he hates Jews, but because he hates their plot.
What a guy. He’s the poster child for global denying lunacy.
Hi Andrew, I have just been reading some more of your exchanges in the 1990s/2000s with those you considered as anti-Semites. I can understand now why you don’t want people to know where you live, exercise your dogs and cycle. There must be lot of those you have ranted at who are looking forward to carrying out that demonstration you proposed to carry out on David E Michael on 9th Jan 2000. I have to agree with David when he said then QUOTE: Mr Skolnick, since you have a track record of hurling abuse at anyone who voices any opinion, however mild, with which you happen to disagree, I put it to you that any ‘testimony’ offered by you would be regarded by any sane jury as the bigoted ravings of an unsavoury, but very nutty, fruitcake UNQUOTE. Please note, that is not to say that I agree with everything that he says or stands for so please don’t distort it in that way.
The more I investigate your background and connections with The Nizcor Project (http://www.nizkor.org/), Yale Edeiken, Scott Bradbury, B’nai B’rith, etc. the more interesting it becomes – and the choice language your use tells us a lot about the state of your mind.
You haven’t changed a bit in those 11.5 years, have you. Older but not wiser and there is so much room for improvement.
BTW, please don’t distort any of this comment in your usual Fashion. Until yesterday I had no idea that The Nizcor Project, B’nai B’rith, Edeiken or Bradbury existed.
Best regards, Pete Ridley
First Ridley promotes Anders Bruun Laursen’s rant about the worldwide Jewish conspiracy he says is behind the global warming “hoax,” and now he’s defending Holocaust-denier David E. Michael, who was an organizer for the racist, neo-Nazi British National Party!
But he’s not anti-Jew, Ridley wants us to know. No way, he likes them, he says. Like David E. Michael, he just doesn’t like their evil scheme to take over the world.
That’s what I love about Pete. When he stumbles into a cesspit, toss him a shovel and he’ll dig himself deeper.
Not having a clue why Ridley brought David E Michael into this discussion – an utterly irrelevant name I barely remembered from more than a decade ago. I took a look at the neo-Nazi British National Party, for which the Holocaust denier Micheal is or was an organizer. Sure enough, the racist and fascist group is a major player in global warming denial movement in the UK.
Apparently, Ridley is upset that more than a decade ago, what he calls my “problem” with holocaust deniers and neo-Nazis, caused me to offend one of his people.
It’s mind boggling that he actually thinks he’s helping to defend the credibility of global warming deniers.
Pete Ridley says he agrees with what Holocaust denier David E. Michael said about me more than a decade ago. I think readers should see what kind of monster he agrees with. Here is a sample of what this organizer of the global warming/Holocaust denying British National Party preached: http://groups.google.com/group/alt.revisionism/msg/42ae775350e2ed05?
“National Socialism [Nazism] was a revolutionary movement that was based upon a wonderful dream. Forget the stories of corpses for a moment and imagine a world very different from the world we inhabit today. …
“The Nazis had an excellent record of dealing appropriately with communists. They hanged them, shot them, strung them up from lamp-posts. And in so doing they have my complete support. …
“I tend to strongly dislike most Jews whom I meet — they are arrogant, aggressive, dishonest people. … I can see how the concerns about Jewish influence may have arisen, and from my own fairly recent encounter with the Jewish community, I must say that I am struck by how true-to-life the Nazi stereotype of the Jews seems to be. …
“Mr Hitler was not infallible. The fact that he managed to lose the most important war of all time is clear evidence of this.”
Ridley’s fellow denier wants to make sure that National Socialists will not lose the next war. Unfortunately, he says the way “so-called leaders of the [neo-Nazi] movement today conduct themseleves … indulging in public squabbling in the face of the enemy is unforgivable… Sixty years ago, such quarrels between brothers would have been settled in
private, if necessary with the assistance of a well-placed bullet.”
Welcome to Pete Ridley’s world.
Ridley badly needs to adjust his medication. No one not having a mental meltdown would dare to post this outside of a blog for Klan members.
He says the comments made by neo-Nazi David Michael are “very much about a similar kind of new world order but his being neo-Nazi, not Jewish. I dislike the ideal of any kind of ‘New World Order/Government’ no matter who dominates it.
So he is standing by the crackpot anti-Semetic rant he endorsed on his blog that claims the global warming “hoax” is a plot perpetrated on us by the “international Jewish banker conspiracy” to dominate the world.
And he tells us he’s just as opposed to the Nazi’s World Order as he is to the global warming “hoax” being perpetrated by Rothschild’s cabal of Jewish bankers.
This small sample of what you will read if visit the link Ridley provides should show you what he finds equivalent to the opinions of climate scientists:
“the Nazis had an excellent record of dealing
appropriately with communists. They hanged them,
shot them, strung them up from lamp-posts. And
in so doing they have my complete support.”
“I must say that I am struck by how true-to-life the
Nazi stereotype of the Jews seems to be. I think the
problem, however, is cultural rather than genetic.
Anyone who thinks this is anti-Semitic has a problem. So he says.
Joel and Askolnick,
You are both either have shallow energy and radiation concepts or purposely misinformed the internet public with the gravy train.
Joel’s energy in from the Sun = energy out from the Earth is oversimplying the Earth energy system like all junk models from the alarmists or the pseudoscientists. As many experts have pointed out, the Earth Energy system is never in equilibrium at any instance over any periods due to different physical properties of materials (gaseous, liquid and solid forms) on Earth. You have different materials with different absortivities, emissitivites, chemical reactions, organic natural growths (oceans and land flora and fauna) and natural decays or human consumptions (food and energy), volcano eruptions, earthquakes, tornados, typhoons, hurricanes, evaporations, clouds, rain, ocean natural water flows, the Earth’s position relative to the Sun, the Earth’s rotation and change of axis. They are all constantly changing. The Earth’s billion years of history, no 2 days energy content were identical and energy in has never been equal to energy out. Human’s contribution to the warming (burning of fossil fuels and consumption of foods) of the Earth is minimal (trivial) compared with the wide vast of the whole Earth energy system of dissipations.
The contribution of the CO2 is even less. 0.04% CO2 in atmosphere is nothing when compared with air quantity and air mass quantity in the atmosphere is nothing with the Earth’s masses of oceans and lands. A lot of alarmists peseudoscientists claimed that CO2 has very good long wave (LW) 15um radiation absorption. They misled the internet public 15um is extremely narrow band of the E-M and the portion of long wave radiation energy is minimal no matter how effective CO2 absorbs 15um LW radiation. The total LW radiation CO2 absorbed is laughable small in the LW radiation spectrum.
Sam NC, ref. your comment today at 12:01 pm your “ .. A lot of alarmists peseudoscientists claimed that CO2 has very good long wave (LW) 15um radiation absorption. They misled the internet public 15um is extremely narrow band of the E-M and the portion of long wave radiation energy is minimal no matter how effective CO2 absorbs 15um LW radiation. The total LW radiation CO2 absorbed is laughable small in the LW radiation spectrum ..” relates to a thread that I started on the Science Forum of Cambridge University’s “The Naked Scientists”.
In 2008 the BBC ran a series “The Climate Wars” which featured Professor (then Dr) Iain Stewart as presenter. Part 1 “The Battle Begins” included a demonstration (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ot5n9m4whaw) by Professor Stewart at the start of which he claims to “ .. show you how carbon dioxide affects earth’s climate .. ”. This is the misleading demonstration that I started discussing in my thread “What does Iain Stewart’s “CO2 experiment” Demonstrate” (http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=38723.0). The demonstration doesn’t show how CO2 affects the different global climates, as claimed, but worse, it was deliberately set up to grossly exaggerate how much heat CO2 absorbs. Details of how the experiment was rigged were disclosed by the designer, Dr. Jonathan Hare (http://www.creative-science.org.uk/hollywood15.html).
You can get more information about what motivates Professor Stewart to push the CACC doctrine in my comments on the “Paul Dennis on Iain Stewart” thread (http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2011/3/25/paul-dennis-on-iain-stewart.htm) on the blog of Andrew Montford, author of the excellent exposé “The Hockey Stick Illusion”.
Best regards, Pete Ridley.
Shorter Sam NC: “The earth’s climate system is very complicated, but despite this I have managed to understand it much better than the scientists who actually study it and I can make broad pronouncements about the influence of greenhouse gases on the basis of my own intuition.”
There is really nothing in your post worthy of a response. It is just an example of how people will vent their own ignorance when science actually disagrees with what their ideological blinders makes them want to believe.
Just to point out a few of the problems: (1) As Andrew has pointed out, the fact that energy in = energy out to a very good approximation over a reasonable timescale is in fact quite necessary if you don’t want the earth to burn up or freeze. (2) The fact that CO2 is a small component of the atmosphere does not tell you that it cannot have a significant effect on climate. There are plenty of substances that will kill you at much smaller doses. And, the mass of CO2 is not what is relevant. (3) The absorption bands of CO2 are indeed significant. The effect it has is actually measured…and modeled…by scientists. The radiative effect of CO2 is a settled scientific question and your qualitative statements about how important you think it is are thus completely irrelevant.
Sam, no climate scientist claims the solar energy absorbed by earth and energy emitted into space is kept in constant equilibrium. Fortunately for us, the earth’s energy system has a equilibrium range which allowed life to evolve and “be fruitful and multiply.” The energy flow has remained in the range supportive of life for some 4 billion years — even though it has fluctuated enough in the past to cause extinctions of many species.
Your statement “energy in has never been equal to energy out” is nonsensical. Throughout the 4 billion year history of life on our planet, solar energy absorbed HAS equaled infrared energy out. That’s why we have a viable planet rather than a ball of molten magma or a ball of frozen air and water. No scientist argues that energy in equals energy out every microsecond of every day. That’s a stupid, red herring argument.
Andrew, once again you demonstrate your hypocrisy. You consider yourself to be quite entitled to dig up as much about people like John O’Sullivan and Tim Ball as you like yet object to others using all of the information about yourself that can be found on the Internet. It doesn’t work that way, no matter how hard you huff and you puff.
I’m puzzled as to why my comment yesterday at 5:34 pm was given the “SNIP”. SNIPPED AGAIN. PROVIDING PERSONAL INFORMATION ABOUT COMMENTERS (EVEN IF IT IS PUBLICLY AVAILABLE) IS NOT RELEVANT TO ANY CONCEIVABLE DISCUSSION HERE. DISCUSSING THE CREDENTIALS OF PUBLIC FIGURES IN THE CLIMATE DEBATE IS RELEVANT.
I think that I must have touched on a nerve with my snipped comment. Perhaps I was close “askolnick’s heel”. There’s plenty more about Andrew out there and when I have time I’ll do some more investigating to see what skeletons he has hidden in the cupboard. At present there are far more important people to investigate, such as the Slayers.
In his comment yesterday at 9:14 am Andrew mentioned Professor Andrew Weaver’s Nobel Peace Prize plaque. What he forgot to mention was that it was political appointees rather than scientists who chose Weaver and the other members of the IPCC to share with Al Gore the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize. They were chosen not for their ability as scientists but for “their efforts to build up and disseminate greater knowledge about man-made climate change, and to lay the foundations for the measures that are needed to counteract such change”. “ .. The Norwegian Nobel Committee is responsible for the selection of eligible candidates and the choice of the Nobel Peace Prize Laureates. The Committee is composed of five members appointed by the Storting (Norwegian parliament) .. ” (http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/nomination/) – enough said.
Regarding Mann’s libel action against Tim Ball, it puzzled me until quite recently why on earth Ball did not simply apologise for his silly comment about Mann and the State Penn. Ball and O’Sullivan may be lots of things but they are not fools and a simple apology would have resolved the matter without any loss of face for anyone. I became less puzzled after John made this comment on 27th May to his fellow PSI executives and other memebers of the group “ .. I’ve had no time to pursue PSI further because I’m deeply involved in representing Dr. Tim Ball in his two libel cases .. Part of helping Tim defend himself .. has been in raising funds via public donations. In this regards, Dr. Ball’s supporters have been fantastic and donated well over $100,000 CAD already in just a few weeks. Thus I’m filled with confidence for the future of PSI when I see such grassroots support for what we envision will be an organization that has high principles in the defense of honest science. As we are witnessing here, such an organization must have some teeth to defend it’s members if they are attacked for merely expressing their professional opinions on matters of great public concern. I hope once we have defeated these frivolous lawsuits and won substantial damages for Dr. Ball we will be well placed to resume work on PSI on the back of proven successes here. .. ”.
Well, with all of that money in the begging bowl they have now re-launched PSI as a “private association” but will it be pursuing the objectives that were hotly debated back in Dec/January?
More on this shortly.
Best regards, Pete Ridley.
Ridley says he’s “puzzled as to why my comment yesterday at 5:34 pm was given the “SNIP.” That’s because he’s a sociopathic putz. He acts as if he doesn’t understand the difference between criticizing a person for what he or she publishes or does professionally and posting personal information about a person in order to threaten their security. But even he can’t be this stupid. That morally bankrupt, yes, that stupid, no.
Andrew, if you feel threatened by people who read and use the “personal” information that you voluntarily post on the Internet about yourself there is a very simple solution. Stop posting any more and have all that is out there removed. Of course, once something is on the Internet it can be very very hard to remove it. The best advice for those who feel insecure is to keep off the Internet – or hide behind a false name, but even hiding behind a false name is not always as secure as it might at first appear. The reason is that people afflicted with a superiority complex can’t resist bragging about their achievements so they let important details slip out.
Best regards, Pete Ridley
Pete, personal information about Askolnick (and any other commenters here) is irrelevant to this blog, Any such information that the commenters do not personally wish to disclose here in some relevant context will be deleted.
Hi Judith, am I correct in interpreting your comment to mean that personal information will be deleted if anyone who has had personal information disclosed here objects to it. For example, if John O’Sullivan, Tim Ball or any other Slayer raised an objection about what Andrw Skolnick or anyone else has disclosed here would it be deleted, even if they had themselves voluntarily disclosed that information elsewhere on the Internet?
Best regards, Pete Ridley
No. the distinction is this. If someone is a public person in the climate debate, writing books and giving interviews or whatever, then discussing their credentials is fair game (e.g. Tim Ball, John O’Sullivan). In this case, the subject should be their credentials, previous public statements, and sourcewatch type material. Personal details such as where they live and which dog club they belong to are completely irrelevant. The personal lives of commenters who are not public figures in the climate debate (particularly anonymous ones or ones that have not posted any personal links either with their comments or on the Denizens site) is way out of bounds and not relevant to the discussion.
Dr. Curry,
It does seem a bit odd that askolnick is free to dig into anyone’s life, make huge extrapolations from it and obsessively repeat that information and his inflammatory assertions and conclusions, but his public information is off limits?
If you can provide me with links to askolnick’s posts that go beyond discussing credentials, public statements and sourcewatch type information, email me the links of the offending posts and I will take a look.
Hunter, I do not — and never would — post absolutely IRRELEVANT private information about people that could threaten their safety — such as where they live, where they can be found “bicycling,” where they show dogs. If you can’t see the difference, you’re either an idiot or a mendacious scoundrel.
I’ve never posted any such information about anyone in this discussion or who are involved in the global warming debate. To post such irrelevant information is CLEARLY an effort to intimidate people into silence.
If you have an example where I ever posted anything here other than information and opinions related to the Sky Dragon Slayer’s publications, academic and professional credentials, or record of litigation, please provide it or withdraw.
If anyone else fails to see why posting the location and activities of a person involved in a public debate is not just irrelevant but clearly unethical, they should ask themselves how knowing where I live and bicycle or when and when I show my dogs, adds ANYTHING to this discussion.
Considering the kinds of right-wing fanatics Ridley likes to quote and associate with, I have good reason to object to this clear attempt at intimidation.
For example, just look at how Ridley is promoting the views of this anti-Semitic global warmer denier — who blames the global warming “hoax” on the the “International Jewish Banking Conspiracy” to bring about “Rothschild’s New World Order”:
http://globalpoliticalshenanigans.blogspot.com/2010/03/much-more-scary-than-human-made-global.html
I really don’t want to have to ride my bicycle or show my dogs looking over my shoulder for their skinhead followers.
For those who have trouble following along, Ridley’s title “Much More Scary Than Human-Made Global Climate Change Shenanigans” refers to the worldwide conspiracy of Jewish bankers to take over the world.
Ridely has replied that not only some of his best friends are Jewish, but that he is married to one.
If that’s true Pete, would you explain to her — and to us — what you meant when you wrote that the worldwide conspiracy of Jewish bankers led by the Rothschilds is “Much More Scary Than Human-Made Global Climate Change Shenanigans”?
These are YOUR words, which you use to describe the so-called Rothschild International Bankers Conspiracy for world domination — a threat that you claim in the title of your blog is much scarier than human-caused global warming “shenanigans”:
http://globalpoliticalshenanigans.blogspot.com/2010/03/much-more-scary-than-human-made-global.html
Pete, I think many readers really would like to know. So explain to Jews and gentiles alike, what is this evil thing you claim is a scarier threat than global warming “shenanigans”? Your article concerns the so-called International Jewish Conspiracy to enslave the world. If it’s not that, then what is it you want us to be really scared about?
Ridley now explains that his blog ranting against the International Conspiracy of Jewish bankers led by the Rothschilds — who are using the global warming “hoax” to gain world domination — is not about being anti-Semitic but about being “anti-political propaganda.”
“None of my comments have anything to do with anti-Semitism, only my being anti political propaganda,” he insists.
In other words, he was informing readers about the worldwide conspiracy of Jewish bankers to use the global warming “hoax” in their insidious plan to control the world, not because he is “anti-Semitic,” but because he is opposed to their “political propaganda.”
And he says this presumably with a straight face.
Hi Hunter, you make a fair point in your comment today at 2:27 pm.
Hi Judith, I do find your comment today at 2:31 pm somewhat biased. It seems that you are saying that it is OK to post as much as you want about those who reject the CACC doctrine but must be careful when posting about those who accuse them of being fraudsters, etc. as Andrew and Joel have done of members of the Slayers. If it is relevant to debate the alleged criminality of the Slayers then surely it is acceptable to debate the hypocrisy of their detractors and provide evidence of it.
I find this hard to believe of you because as far as I know you have never before tried to gag those of us who reject the CACC doctrine so I must be misunderstanding what you are saying. Andrew and Joel have made some vile and unsubstantiated accusations about John O’Sullivan and other Slayers without you “snipping” any of it, so why have you allowed that to continue with impunity yet snip my evidence about Andrew’s hypocrisy? If I had used devious means to obtain this information, such as tapping his ‘phone or hacking into his E-mails then I could understand your reaction but I have said nothing that Andrew himself has not put into the public domain.
Hi Andrew, ref. your comments today at 3:29 pm. and 3:38 pm, you seem to be rather concerned about anti-Semitism and maybe you have experienced it personally. If so then I can sympathise with your worries. I totally reject ideology of that sort and am disgusted by those who support it, so please don’t twist what I say to suit your own personal insecurities. I must say that I am very happy to be married to a Jewish lady and find all of her Jewish family and friends to be wonderful people, even those who have fallen fo rthe CACC doctrine nonsense. Maybe you have another problem in addition to your superiority complex.
Best regards, Pete Ridley
Pete, you are missing my main points. There is a distinction between public persons (who court publicity) versus commenters at a blog. There is also a distinction between discussing someone’s credentials, public statements and sources of funding, versus where they live and where they take their dog. My points have nothing to do with who supports or opposes CAGW.
Oh dear Andrew, reference your comment today at 6:01, you really must stop trying so hard to distort what people say in order to suit your own agenda. I think that many would agree that the threat of “ .. global government ..” is far more scary that the UN’s CACC nonsense, which has nothing to do with trying to take over Nature’s job of controlling those different global climates.
Anyone who is interested can find plenty more of my comments about the UN’s scam to help pursue its agenda of:
– redistribution of wealth from developed to underdeveloped economies,
– establishment of a framework for global government,
– enhancement of the finances of a privileged few.
None of my comments have anything to do with anti-Semitism, only my being anti political propaganda. Of course, you may well be happy to see the implementation of an unified global government but not many of us are convinced of its merits.
Having googled – “Andrew Skolnick” “anti-semitic” 1997 – I suspect that we have identified “askolnick’s heel”.
Best regards, Pete Ridley.
Pete,
If I were running a blog, I would simply not use sources that are as prejudicial and inflammatory as the one referred to at the Shenanigans blog.
It makes it very difficult to separate yourself from charges like askolnick is invoking.
Frankly I am staying out of further involvement with your long winded debate. I said at the time this dragon thread started that arguing against the ghg/greenhouse is a dead end end way to show AGW is false.
With all that is going on, my time is limited and my choices of where to dispute AGW are going to be limited to those areas where I think there is reason to dispute.
Hunter, I withdraw my suggestion that you are either an idiot or a mendacious scoundrel. Unlike Ridley, you have the good sense and character to see how vile that anti-Semitic rant against the “Rothschilds’ worldwide Jewish banking conspiracy” is that he has been pushing on his blog.
I suspect you also see the difference between investigating and exposing details about an “authority’s” publications and professional and academic credentials and exposing personal details about their lives — such as where they live, where they bicycle, where and when they show their dogs, etc.
The latter has absolutely no relevance to anything whatsoever related to this debate. It is being posted solely to intimidate. It’s Ridley’s utterly stupid way of saying, “you better shut up because we know where to find you.”
I agree with you that the attempt to disprove the greenhouse effect of CO2 and other greenhouse gases is a waste of time (much like the ongoing attempts to disprove the germ theory of disease!)
There are many important questions about the forces that control earth’s climate that science needs to settle. The greenhouse effect, established around the same time the germ theory of disease was firmly proven in the late 19th century, is not one of them no matter how many Sky Dragon Slayers claim to dance on the head of a pin.
askolnick,
Thank you for taking the time to see the distinction.
I agree with your closing paragraph.
You welcome Hunter. I hope you will continue to contribute to this discussion. AGW skeptics with integrity are greatly outnumbered by the likes of the O’Sullivan’s and Ridley’s,
askolnick,
I appreciate the kind words, but I would also suggest you look at the book sales of the book in question. The sales numbers are tiny. The book has no real traction. Even here most skeptics dismissed the book early. Even at WUWT, where a very large range of skeptics, from well informed to uninformed post, that book failed to get very far if recall correctly.
Skeptics are generally going to have integrity as part of their tool kit. It is hard to be a skeptic if you are ethically challenged on what you are applying the skepticism to.
That said, I do see AGW as a social movement that uses climate science.
But not a conspiracy. Social movements are not conspiracies.
Especially some ancient conspiracy that happens to fit in with some nasty historical bigotry and well disproven crap like the Protocols.
Basically I am a luke warmer on the science, but opposed strongly to the social movement.
What you say is true, their book is a joke.
In a year or two or three, I expect the publisher Ken Coffman will put out another press release announcing that his publishing house has sold its 6000th book! (Last year, he put out a press release announcing the sale of their 5000th book! http://www.stairwaypress.com/press-release-stairway-press-commemorates-5000th-book-sold-with-a-very-special-delivery/)
On the other hand — and it’s a very important matter — people who turn to the Internet for information about the global warming debate are confronted with thousands of links to the ridiculous and dishonest nonsense O’Sullivan and his partners have been putting out. That’s why I think Judith Curry is doing a great service by hosting this discussion.
You make a really good point, that social movements are not conspiracies. They really are quite distinct entities. And I would agree AGW involves a social movement. Modern science itself is a social movement (and not one appreciated by everyone throughout history — or even now).
I’m glad to see a AGW skeptic posting here whose integrity and intellect I respect. I hope you will continue. We’ll disagree about some things, I’m sure. But there’s nothing wrong with honest disagreements.
Hi Judith, ref. your (or your moderator’s) comment yesterday at 12:53 pm, “PROVIDING PERSONAL INFORMATION ABOUT COMMENTERS (EVEN IF IT IS PUBLICLY AVAILABLE) IS NOT RELEVANT TO ANY CONCEIVABLE DISCUSSION HERE. DISCUSSING THE CREDENTIALS OF PUBLIC FIGURES IN THE CLIMATE DEBATE IS RELEVANT” – message received loud and clear, to have ones credentials discussed here a candidate must be a public figure” and “in the climate debate”.
I turned to Wikipedia for a definition of “Public Figure” and it says QUOTE: .. U.S. law ..
* a public figure, either a public official or any other person pervasively involved in public affairs, or
* a limited purpose public figure, meaning those who have “thrust themselves to the forefront of particular public controversies in order to influence the resolution of the issues involved.” .. A “particularized determination” is required to decide whether a person is a limited purpose public figure, which can be variously interpreted.
.. A person can also become a “limited public figure” by engaging in actions which generate publicity within a narrow area of interest .. UNQUOTE (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_figure).
I’d be surprised if John O’Sullivan really fits that category, despite his repeated efforts to achieve it. A google of – “John O’Sullivan” Wikepedia – brough up several John O’Sullivans but not the Slayer (although I am sure that I have seen one somewhere). John seems to be considered by Wikipedia not to be of sufficient public interest to warrant inclusion in its pages.
I googled – tim ball wikipedia – with with the following results:
“Timothy F. Ball .. This page has been deleted. The deletion and move log for the page are provided below for reference .. ” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_F._Ball) and
“ .. Articles for deletion/Timothy Ball .. The fact that he is a professor who has won several teaching awards is not sufficient to make someone notable. .. ” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Timothy_Ball)
I tried the same for Hans Schreuder and Claes Johnson with equal lack of success, So none of these Slayers or their Principia Scientific International seem to be considered by Wikipedia to be of sufficient public interest to be included – ouch, that must prick their collective pride! It seems that not every Tom, Dick and Harry who seek fame and fortune get their details on Wikipedia – but maybe I simply missed a few entries.
On June 4 at 6:16 pm. askolnick claimed on this thread to have been “ .. a science journalist for 30+ years and one of my favorite beats includes investigating the claims of pseudoscientists, quacks, and charlatans .. ”. I had never heard of any askolnick so, as I usually do, I checked up on his claims and that led me to his Wikipedia entry, which did indeed suggest that his claims in his résumé (http://aaskolnick.com/new/resume.pdf) were valid. He appears to have been a “public figure” in the USA for 30+ years (before someone jumps in and says it, I know that it is prudent to consider what is offered in Wikipedia with great caution).
From what Andrew has said of himself surely he fared better. I googled “Andrew Skolnick” Wikipedia – and sure enough, Wikipedia thinks that he does fit that category (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_A._Skolnick). Andrew is recognised as a public figure so that’s one of Judith’s requirements satisfied.
What about the second requirement of being “in the climate debate”?
For almost 2 months now public figure Andrew (and Joel Shore, who isn’t mentioned on Wikipedia either) has been allowed to hurl insults at the Slayers and others on this thread without a single snip, but his involvement in debating John O’Sullivan in the context of the climate debate appear to have started back in May with exchanges on the LinkedIn’s Science and Technology Writers Group. That satisfies me that Andrew qualifies as being one of the “public figures in the climate debate” and, as Judith or her moderator screamed “ .. DISCUSSING THE CREDENTIALS OF PUBLIC FIGURES IN THE CLIMATE DEBATE IS RELEVANT”.
Maybe Hunter’s implication is correct and this thread should be closed
Best regards, Pete Ridley
Ridley, what part of this directive from Dr. Curry did you NOT understand:
“Personal details such as where they live and which dog club they belong to are completely irrelevant. The personal lives of commenters who are not public figures in the climate debate (particularly anonymous ones or ones that have not posted any personal links either with their comments or on the Denizens site) is way out of bounds and not relevant to the discussion.”
Since you’re so interested in my work with dogs, I’d be happy to ask around the service dog community to see if I can get you a thinking brain dog to help you understand what people are trying to tell you.
If you don’t like the discussion rules here, perhaps you would be happier posting comments over on Anders Bruun Laursen’s web site for believers in the worldwide conspiracy of Jewish bankers who are using the global warming “hoax” to rule the world.
It seems Ridley’s only competence is in cutting and pasting — as he does here quoting Wikipedia’s article on “public figures.” Once he goes off on his own, he inevitably posts nonsense — like claiming here the test of whether someone is a “public figure” is whether Wikipedia has an article on that person!
What Wikipedia says about public figures is both clear and correct. What Ridley says is knuckleheaded nonsense. O’Sullivan, a co-author of a book and countless screeds attacking climate scientists, is a public figure. His co-author Ball is also a public figure — especially given that he’s currently being sued for libel by two of the scientists they’ve attacked.
I too am considered “a limited purpose public figure.” Matters concerning what I’ve written about, the lectures and public talks I’ve given, my work for the Journal of the American Medical Association, the University of Illinois, the March of Dimes, etc. can be considered matters of public interest. However, personal information not related to those matters of public interest are by law considered private. And courts have come down hard on reporters who couldn’t — or wouldn’t — recognize the difference.
One of most important cases I studied in J-school involved a news article on a divorce agreement between two wealthy celebrities. The US Supreme Court found that the details of their divorce agreement was a private matter and, though the couple had been public figures, the newspaper and reporter had violated their right to privacy. The court decision helped to established the principle that when a person becomes a public figure, he or she does NOT loose all rights to privacy.
I have commented on Andrew Askolnick’s attempt on Youtube to disprove my derivation of Planck’s Law of radiation, in the following post on my blog:
http://claesjohnson.blogspot.com/2011/07/sky-dragon-strikes-back.html
Thank’s for the clip Andrew!
You’re welcome Dr. Johnson. However your commentary did not fairly address the argument in my kitchen science video nor my argument earlier in this discussion.
I had a much less lofty goal than disproving your entire “new derivation of Planck’s law of blackbody radiation showing that the basic postulate of CO2 alarmism of backradiation is fiction.”
I’m utterly untrained to be able to review and discuss the complex mathematics upon which you base your revolutionary view of physics. However, I’m quite qualified as an editor and interpreter of scientific writing — which is just what I examined in my analysis and simple experiment.
I simply put one of your claims in Slaying the Sky Dragon a test (emphasis added):
“A cold body can heat up by eating/absorbing high-frequency high temperature coheren waves in a catabolic process of destruction of coherent waves into incoherent heat energy. A WARM BODY CANNOT HEAT UP by eating/absorbing LOW-FREQUENCY, LOW-TEMPERATURE WAVES, because catabolism involves destruction of structure. Anabolism builds structure, but a blackbody is only capable of destructive catabolism (the metabolism of a living cell consists of catabolism and constructive anabolism).”
Stripping out all the mumbo-jumbo confuddling theoretical blackbodies of physics with biological mechanisms of living cells, we have a prediction that can be tested with a needle and a microwave oven.
And when I did, I demonstrated — quite contrary to your statement — that you CAN heat up a warm body using low-frequency, low-energy electromagnetic waves. In fact, the low-energy microwave photons heated the steel needle to white-hot heat, melting both the needle tip and a hole in the glass.
I suppose you could argue that the only reason I was able to heat the needle hot enough for it to radiate light thousands of times more energetic than the photons that had warmed it was because I didn’t include “living cells” in my experiment model.
If you want to, go right ahead. But that would be ridiculous.
Finally admitting you made that claim in error would be a whole lot smarter.
No Andrew: Your microwave oven acts like an amplified blackbody, not a real one, while the beef in the oven is a blackbody unable to re-emit the amplified forcing hitting it and thus heating up (until it will start to burn unless you stop the amplified forcing).
You state that “I’m utterly untrained to be able to review and discuss the complex mathematics upon which you base your revolutionary view of physic”. With this self insight, don’t you think that you should back off and stop ridiculing my math and person?
What utter nonsense. In your chapters of Slaying the Sky Dragon, you say you can’t heat a warm body warmer with less energetic photons. Which of course is simply not true and easy for anyone to demonstrate with a microwave oven.
Your comment about the microwave oven not being “a real blackbody” is a silly red herring. Your ridiculous claim wasn’t about “real blackbodies” since there are no “real blackbodies.” Blackbodies are a hypothetical construct that helps us to understand how actual matter behaves.
You continue to avoid discussion your actual statement in Slaying the Sky Dragon. I hardly blame you considering how asinine it is.
Again, you are as wrong as you can be to write that a warm body cannot be heated with low-temperature photons. How much and how fast you can heat a body depends and the quantity of photons, as much as their energy — which is what I demonstrated in my video.
Your statement that the microwave oven “acts like an amplified blackbody” is utter nonsense. The oven’s magnetron does NOT emit radiation like a blackbody. It emits a very narrow range of photons around 2.54 GHz. That’s around the wavelength of photons emitted by a blackbody not that much above absolute zero — yet everyone can see those photons heat a steel needle to more than 5000 degrees F.!
You now suggest I should back off and stop ridiculing your math and your person. Stop ridiculing your math? I never ridiculed your math because I don’t understand it. Stop ridiculing you? Never gonna happen.
As long as you continue to publish such false and ridiculous statements about the greenhouse effect you better get use to public ridicule.
You imagine yourself as someone more revolutionary than Einstein. Einstein did not rise to great renown by publishing equations few people could understand. He became renowned because his equations predicted how the universe and matter will behave when tested. Tests of those predictions confirmed Einstein was right, right, right, right, right, right, and right. (We’re still for technology to advance enough to see if he is also right, right, and right.)
Fortunately, everyone with a microwave oven in the kitchen can test how right your predictions are. If you can’t stand the ridicule, you best out of the global warming kitchen.
You ridicule something you don’t understand and deliberately misinterpret a parable, like the devil reading the bible. But ridicule based on ignorance is not effective in the long run.
Askolnick,
umm, I hate to break it to you, and Einstein would have told you something similar, but, Einstein was wrong.
As far as your silly microwave example, we are talking about black bodies right?? Exactly where in the theory is there any mention of black bodies being self powered?? Where in the microwave emitter do you see the equation absorptivity equals emissivity?? A black body emits a range of radiation. Microwaves emit a very narrow range under a powerful and specific stimulus and temperatures much higher than a blackbody could. Does even the sun emit enough microwave radiation from such a small area to heat the needle??
How many photons normally come from an emitter the size of the microwave’s, that is at the correct temperature to create the microwave radiation like a blackbody, in two minutes? How many photons come from the microwave oven’s emitter in two minutes? You are a silly person. No, I do not need the exact number as we both know that materials, undriven will NOT emit enough radiation at that wavelength to warm your wet nailpolish. Next you will be trying to tell us that the earth and its atmosphere operates like a CO2 laser.
The issue is energy density. Atmospheric CO2 has little energy density. If you concentrated the energy from a large area onto one square inch of the earth THEN you would get a microwave like situation and could heat that small area to a higher temp. Using a magnifying glass to concentrate the sun’s rays would be similar. Of course, this means that there is NO, or less, energy going to the areas from which the energy was taken. In other words a passive system will never exceed the density of the driving system over the same area. The average temp will still be the same. Since over half the IR is not going toward the ground you are then stuck with the fact that the passive emitters do not even have half of the energy density of the driver to heat the driver. You must also consider that most of the energy is going to heat the non-ghg gasses through collisions in the atmosphere so you have very little energy density.
Oh, and one little point. If CO2 acts similar to a microwave, exactly why can’t it emit all the heat that is supposed to stack up in the upper troposphere to cause that nasty heating up of the earth?? If it can’t be emitted then you have just proven that Claes is more correct than you are. If it can be emitted I think you just disproved AGW.
Sometimes there is really nothing to say about a post than “What a load of utter and complete nonsense.” This is one of those times. If we randomly re-arranged the words in your post, it could only get more sensible and less wrong.
Damn, Joel, you’re absolutely right! I tried it with just the first couple of Johnson’s paragraphs and it actually makes more sense:
“As needle far the heat as your silly microwave example, for such a small area, we are talking about black earth bodies right?? Does even the sun emit any mention of black bodies? Where in the microwave emitter do you see Einstein in wet nailpolish?
“Exactly where in the theory is there any mention of Einstein emitting a very narrow range under a powerful stimulus of absorptivity emissivity?
“How many photons normally come from an emitter the size of the microwave’s and how many times must a cannon ball fly before they are forever banned?
“You are a silly person. Next you will be trying to tell us that the earth and its atmosphere come from the microwave oven in two minutes. I do not need nailpolish.”
Hey, Ken Coffman, I think we have the beginnings of your next best seller.
The secret of the Sky Dragon Slayer’s “success” is that their audience don’t understand science, they’re just impressed by lots of big words jumbled together.
Andrew,
I apologize for overestimating your level of understanding. I will try to reduce to your level next time.
ROTFL! There is simply no “level” you can reduce mind-boggling mumblings like this that will make any sense:
“How many photons normally come from an emitter the size of the microwave’s, that is at the correct temperature to create the microwave radiation like a blackbody, in two minutes?”
But we do appreciate the comic relief since this discussion gets a bit too serious at times.
Here’s clue that even a moron might get: The object in the sewing needle experiment that is standing in for a hypothetical black body IS the NEEDLE — NOT the Microwave oven!
Here’s another clue, Kuhnkat, so that you don’t get lost: When you go outside and look up in the sky and see that big bright emitter, that’s the sun. The earth is the object you’re standing on.
Jesus spoke in parables. Claes, you are not Jesus.
And you’re certainly no Einstein.
And you are not the devil Andrew, not even his good advocat. Your argument is falling to pieces, and you should now remove your silly clip on Youtube. Understand?
Understand? Understand what?
How there is a discussion on these issues still being raised on this thread is beyond me. If Dr. Johnson is not willing to accept that either his theory violates the first law of thermodynamics (and 100% of experimental far IR and depolarized Rayleigh scattering measurements) or is just flat out incorrect, we should be able to move on with our lives.
It was pointed out to him that one can very easily use the classical form of the Maxwell-Bloch equations to analytically derive the frequency dependent absorption of far IR light waves by a body whose emission spectrum is peaked to higher energy. I would imagine some more challenging graduate programs might even ask such a question on a exam/homework assignment for a classical E&M class. It’s straightforward, yet difficult to get through all the steps correctly.
After grappling with his ‘theory’ when this post was first presented, it seemed to me that he’d rather wallow in it alone, which I was, and still am, willing accept. Meanwhile, more and more traffic on this site is getting steered back to this garbage because as comments are added, they show up in the feed.
Some things are just incorrect and if particular individuals are willing to be incorrect, so be it. But clearly the history of this thread shows fairly emphatically that no amount of common sense or proof of principle experiment is going to change Dr. Johnson’s mind.
It’s time to move on.
Maxwell: I have not seen any comment indicating that anybody has read my mathematics and even less understood it. Why should I change my math if there is no substantial criticism of it? Screaming that it violates 1st Law is nonsensical and incorrect.
I think many of us understood your math. and what was wrong with it.
You are the incorrect one and nothing I have read from you or your supporters indicates otherwise
So Steven, what is wrong with my math? Could you please repeat it, since it has not reached me.
Didn’t Pekka point out the errors up above? (i.e. up before the juvenile commentary by Joel Shore and Askolnick)
Dr. Johnson,
I am not screaming. I am stating a fact of reality concerning your theory, as I have already. If you are unable to handle this criticism, you have chosen the wrong field.
Maxwell: I base my study on Maxwell’s equations. What is so wrong with that?
Dr. Johnson,
Can you explain to me in words how one can determine the frequency response of a medium based on its temperature from Maxwell’s equation?
The main point of contention concerns a simple assumptions you make about the emissions of two separated blackbodies. The warmer blackbody can heat the cooler, but not vice versa. Given that temperature is no where in the use of Maxwell’s equations, I have a hard time understanding how you can say that you use Maxwell’s equations to determine that a cooler blackbody cannot transfer energy to a warmer blackbody.
Because temperature does not appear in Maxwell’s equations, one would presume that the EM waves do not ‘care’ about the temperature of any body and as long as whatever material we are discussing is a true blackbody (absorbs all frequencies of light). As long as the frequency of the EM wave falls in the range of the frequency response of the material, absorption of the wave should occur, transferring energy to the material irrespective of its temperature. For a true blackbody (a material that absorbs ALL frequencies) this would be true of light of any frequency.
So to an optical physicist like myself, it seems rather odd to make a claim that you are determining this physics ‘from Maxwell’s equation’. On its face value, the physical picture does not add up.
Maxwell: I consider a wave model in the spirit of Planck as a set of oscillators representing matter, subject to incoming forcing and outgoing dissipative loss representing electromagnetics waves. The model thus includes matter capable of storing energy as heat measured as temperature in interaction with electromagnetic waves carrying energy
measured by frequency and amplitude. The model shows how high-frequency radiative forcing emitted by a hot blackbody is absorbed and stored as heat by a colder blackbody, while low-frequency radiation
of a cold body is re-emitted by the warmer body without heating effect.
If you read my article you find the mathematics showing that this makes real sense and is not just hand-waving and words.
Dr. Johnson,
You didn’t mention Maxwell’s equations in that description, so I am still confused as to why you say you ‘use Maxwell’s equations’.
More confounding is that you are saying that a blackbody, which by definition ABSORBS ALL FREQUENCIES OF LIGHT, will not absorb specific waves emitted by a colder blackbody. That’s anti-thetical to the definition of blackbody and totally devoid of any physical mechanism by which such a situation would come to be.
And even more confounding is that you claim that the warmer blackbody can emit MORE low frequency radiation WITHOUT INCREASING IN TEMPERATURE (ie no transfer of heat). It’s a perpetual radiation machine.
…and now I am engaged in exactly what I have been telling others is useless. You’re using contradictory physical explanations to describe a theory that is observationally incorrect, all the while throwing in phrases like ‘Maxwell’s equations’ and ‘Planck’s method’ which are enough to fool some readers. To no end, at that.
I have tried several times to get you to admit that what you are purporting here is just wrong, but if you will resist at all costs under the guise of ‘correct mathematics’, then so be it. Again, the physics of reality cares not.
Maxwell says, regarding Claes Johnson’s hope to convince the world that he is a bigger Einstein than was Einstein: “Again, the physics of reality cares not.”
Ah, but we have here an interesting symmetry; Johnson’s delusion cares not about the physics of reality.
Maxwell, I agree. The way this discussion can move on is by people posting new comments that don’t beat a dead (and rabidly crazy) horse.
Got any?
Oh, oh. Global warming deniers like Tim Ball and Harvard’s Willie Soon — whose wheels are greased by coal, gas, and oil money — are probably not going to like this.
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has just published a draft of its proposed regulations to ensure that policy decisions are fully informed by the best available scientific information.
http://www.noaa.gov/scientificintegrity/PDFs/DRAFT_NAO_202-735_FINAL.pdf
Among other things, the strengthened rules makes clear that “researchers” who double-dip — get paid by corporate interests to publish the “science” they want — are not going to be tolerated.
Well, they’ll always have Ken Coffman to publish their work.
askolnick,
Will this include scientists who get paid nice fees and honoraria by environmental NGO’s and foundations?
If not, it is useless.
If you bothered to review it, you would see that it applies to:
“All NOAA employees, political and career, who are engaged in, supervise, or manage scientific activities, analyze and/or publicly communicate information resulting from scientific activities, or use scientific information or analyses in making bureau or office policy, management, or regulatory decisions; and
b. All contractors who engage in or assist with activities identified in Section 2.01a.
And that it requires that the work of all of the above to fully disclose:
“any apparent, potential, or actual conflicts of interest or non-financial conflicts of interest of their own and others.”
And here is how it defines financial and non-financial interests:
“Any financial or non-financial interest which conflicts with the actions or judgments of an individual when conducting scientific activities because it:
1. Could impair the individual’s objectivity; or
2. Could create an unfair competitive advantage for any person or organization; or
3. Could create the appearance of either (1) or (2).”
And here is how it defines Conflict of Interest:
“Any matter affecting a personal financial interest or a financial interest imputed to the individual (including, but not limited to, the individual’s spouse and any entity for which the individual serves in a personal capacity as an officer or board member, such as due to fiduciary duties to the organization under state law).”
And Non-Financial Conflict of Interest:
“Individual participation in a matter where one of the parties is or is represented by someone with whom the individual has a covered relationship (including, but not limited to, a spouse’s employer and any entity for which the individual is actively involved in a personal capacity).”
Srengthened rules mean nothing if there is not a serious enforcement ability built into the system AND the WILL to enforce them. I would point out that several Presdients have taken actions blatantly outside of the powers of their office and nothing was done even though there ARE remedies available. Only when a large number of people were in disagreement with the actions was anything attempted. This seems to be the standard for gubmint employees and contractors. If they like you you are home free. If they don’t like you, they will make stuff up. if they have to.
How are these rules and restrictions going to be enforced?? Or are they going to be recognized in the breech.
I notice you were going after personal shots at one of the slayers. Can you tell me what evidence has been presented to have him indicted? Has he been convicted of anything? Do the charges indicate that there may be something wrong with his work??
Many people have been accused of strange things. I believe J. Edgar Hoover has been accused of being a cross dresser, if not worse, and it has become an article of faith among his many detractors that it is a fact. I decided to look into it and found an interesting situation. He was alledged to have been seen at a party in a womans dress by ONE woman. No one else at the party saw him in a dress. It is crafted Mythology to damage a persons reputation and interfere with their work.
I have no idea whether the slayer is guilty or not. I wish to warn people that spreading this type of story damages our society whether it ultimately turns out true or not. We are supposed to treat people as innocent until proven guilty. It is rare. It is all too common to descend to unproven slams and ad homs rather than arguing the actual case. When I see someone stooping to this type of activity I wonder whether they KNOW their case is faulty and that is why they do it.
Why are you doing it??
Kuhnkat writes: “I notice you were going after personal shots at one of the slayers. Can you tell me what evidence has been presented to have him indicted? Has he been convicted of anything? Do the charges indicate that there may be something wrong with his work??”
What the hell are you talking about? Indicted? Have you been paying any attention to the information here? Obviously not, if you say “have him indicted.”
If you bother to actually read the information I provided on John O’Sullivan and Tim Ball and their bogus credentials, I’ll reply to your questions. I won’t waste my time talking about the nonsense you “notice.”
Sorry about this double post. The first one apparently was blocked or delayed by the website’s filter (it apparently doesn’t like words like “H” “E” Double “L”). So I replaced the offending word and reposted it.
Kuhnkat writes: “I notice you were going after personal shots at one of the slayers. Can you tell me what evidence has been presented to have him indicted? Has he been convicted of anything? Do the charges indicate that there may be something wrong with his work??”
What in the world are you talking about? Indicted? Have you been paying any attention to the information I posted? Obviously not, if you ask about having him “indicted.”
If you bother to actually read the information I provided on John O’Sullivan and Tim Ball and their bogus credentials, I’ll reply to your questions. I won’t waste my time talking about the nonsense you “notice.”
Askolnick,
so basically you are just spreading ad homs?
Kuhnkat, stop playing the idiot. An ad hominem argument is an IRRELEVANT attack on a person rather than a person’s argument.
LOOK IT UP and stop making such ignorant comments. You’re really getting annoying.
The integrity — or dishonesty — of a scientist (or science writer) is ALWAYS relevant. If a scientist falsifies research, lies about his credentials, conceals conflicts of interests, etc. that would be important and RELEVANT information the public should know. PROVIDING that information is NOT making an ad hominem argument!
Take for example Sky Dragon Slayer John O’Sullivan. He claims on his resumes that he’s a legal expert, successful litigator, science writer, and “member of the American Bar Association.” Members of the ABA have to be lawyers licensed to practice in the U.S. O’Sullivan is lying. He is NOT an ABA member. (He recently joined the ABA as an associate — an affiliation open to anyone, anywhere, regardless of legal training.)
In no way is it an ad hominem argument to inform the public that he’s lying about his ABA membership. Similarly, no evidence can be found that he was ever a license lawyer anywhere or earned a law degree as he claims. He claims to have published more than 150 “major articles” worldwide, including in National Review and Forbes Magazine. That’s another lie. He cited links to two articles in National Review that he claimed he wrote. That too was a lie. The articles were written by John O’Sullivan, the National Review’s editor-at-large!
These facts are documented and you can find links to the documentation in my previous posts. So stop posting your drivel long enough to learn something. Look it up!
From the “Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy: A Peer-Reviewed Academic Resource”:
“You commit [an ad hominem] fallacy if you make an IRRELEVANT attack on the arguer and suggest that this attack undermines the argument itself. … The major difficulty with labeling a piece of reasoning as an ad hominem fallacy is deciding whether the personal attack is RELEVANT.” [emphasis added]
http://www.iep.utm.edu/fallacy/#Ad%20Hominem
You are now making it up as you go along. Please show us where John O’Sullivan has claimed to be a scientist of any kind much less a climate scientist. You are a pitiful tiny example of the intellect I am beginning to identify with Journos. you are a journo you said? I wouldn’t want to slander them based on my experience with you if you aren’t.
Or, maybe you are just pretending to be the journo and we don’t know who you are?? Your extremist hyperventilating mode is more like a sock puppet.
Well said, especially about “innocent until proven guilty” but you should not really have to point this out to Andrew. The Torah, with which he should have some familiarity, makes the same points, nicely explained by Rabbi Amy Scheinerman, Columbia, Maryland, in her article “An eye for an eye / Parshat Mishpatim” (http://taste-of-torah.blogspot.com/2010/02/eye-for-eye-parshat-mishpatim.html). Rabbi Amy concluded with a pertinent comment QUOTE: .. Far from testifying to a “cruel God” or sanctioning vigilante justice and violent retribution, the biblical law of Lex Talionis is the law of a compassionate God who seeks to mitigate the human propensity for vengeance and violence. Recourse and compensation are found in the courts, a place of justice and peace .. ”.
Andrew appears to have been filled with vengeful and violent emotions for a very long time, demonstrated not only on this thread but on others recording his thoughts going back over 11 years or more. Rabbi Amy’s last sentence is something that Andrew needs to read then discuss with his own Rabbi in order that he can understand what it means. It is the very reason that the Nuremberg Trials took place rather than the Andrew A Skolnick style of “justice” that on 10th Jan 2000 Andrew said he would like to have rendered to “ .. David E Michael .. David .. We’ll have you stand up against a wall and I’ll stand 10 feet away with a rifle aimed at you. I’ll then fire a bullet at you .. And I know there will be a lot of people .. who would love to see this — Andrew Skolnick”. Although journalists love to subject to trial- by-media those with whom they disagree and Andrew seems to love the combined role of accuser, jury, judge and executioner, that is not how civilised people act.
Andrew appears to believe that Dr. David E Michael is a Neo-Nazi and anti-Semite so I googled and was led to the Nizcor Project web-site (http://www2.ca.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/people/m/michael.david/Open-and-Honest.020613) and the National Anarchist site. Since when did anarchist = neo-Nazi=anti-Semite??!! That thread presents David Michael’s 2002 “letter of resignation from the BNP” and the closest it gets to being anti-Semitic is “I was in Leeds a few months ago. I saw what Islam has done to that city. I saw street after street of young foreign people, dressed in alien clothes, worshipping a religion alien to our land. I saw the mosques. .. I saw, too, how part of our country and our English heritage had died in that city. Yes, I can understand the resentment that our people feel. But the resentment is misdirected. Our enemies are not these young foreigners .. I want no part of this ‘anti-Islam’ campaign. Islam is not our enemy”.
As I understand it a Semite is “..a member of any of various ancient and modern peoples originating in southwestern Asia, including the Akkadians, Canaanites, Phoenicians, Hebrews, and Arabs .. ” (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Semite) so it appears that at least in 2002 Dr Michaels was not anti-Semitic. I’m sure that, true to his investigative journalistic background, Andrew will dig up some statement of Dr. Michael’s which he can distort sufficiently to “prove” at least a suspicion of anti-Semitism that justifies him dealing out his “rough justice” with that rifle. Even he cannot be so stupid as to think that it was a reasonable reaction to the following honestly expressed opinion by Dr. Michael (which I fully agree with in this instance) that QUOTE: Mr Skolnick, since you have a track record of hurling abuse at anyone who voices any opinion, however mild, with which you happen to disagree, I put it to you that any ‘testimony’ offered by you would be regarded by any sane jury as the bigoted ravings of an unsavoury, but very nutty, fruitcake UNQUOTE.
Please again note, that just because many of us agree with what Dr. Michael said in that comment about Andrew does not imply that we agree with everything that he says or stands for.
Best regards, Pete Ridley
In defense of his neo-Nazi, British National Party comrades, Ridley is now making up quotes. Notice that he doesn’t provide either a link or source for the quote he attributes to me: ” David E Michael .. David .. We’ll have you stand up against a wall and I’ll stand 10 feet away with a rifle aimed at you. I’ll then fire a bullet at you .. And I know there will be a lot of people .. who would love to see this.”
Ridley, you are a piece of foul, foul work.
I’ve Googled a variety of sections of that “quote” Ridley says he found during his Google searching. I’ve found nothing. The quote doesn’t exist on the Internet. It appears he’s made it up whole cloth — a cloth I suspect was made from David Michael’s armband.
I’m now wondering if he contacted the notorious Neo-Nazi seeking dirt to throw at me — as he did earlier in this discussion involving another cyberstalker from Brazil he had found during his own stalking efforts. He said he invited the stalker to join him in this discussion. I wouldn’t be surprised to learn Ridley reached out to Michael and asked him to goosestep over here.
Good Lord! I just took a look at the web site Ridley is quoting. If anybody hasn’t realized what a dangerous lunatic he is, they should take a look at the letter he’s touting from the notorious Holocaust denier and Neo-Nazi, Daniel E. Michael.
In the letter, Michael announces his resignation from the Neo-Nazi British National Party — in part for its refusal to endorse the Islamic terrorist war on the United States. I urge readers to see for themselves how Michael and Ridley are two monsters cut from the same cloth.
http://www2.ca.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/people/m/michael.david/Open-and-Honest.020613
THIS is how Ridley’s ally signed his letter:
“America is our enemy. We should be fighting shoulder-to-shoulder with our Islamic friends under the slogan ‘death to America!’ …
You may rest assured that, using whatever resources I can command, I shall continue to fight resolutely and defiantly against the enemies of our
people, and for a better future for our children.
Death to America!
“Death to the New World Order!
Yours sincerely
(Dr) David E Michael”
I didn’t follow Michael’s “career” beyond 1999. I had no idea he had become a supporter of Islamic terrorists. A Neo-Nazi, a Holocaust denier, an anti-Semite, yes, but a cheerleader for Osama bin Laden? Not a clue until reading this.
For reasons only clear to Pete Ridley’s twisted brain, he has brought the rants of this violent, hate mongering Nazi into our discussion.
Kuhnkat, just so no one can say I never tried, here is a link to my post above where I documented many of O’Sullivan’s lies about his credentials. It’s clear that you’re incapable of finding it in the discussion above.
It is also now clear that you will not understand any of it. But at least I can say that I did try.
http://judithcurry.com/2011/01/31/slaying-a-greenhouse-dragon/#comment-87000
O’Sullivan says these documents are “fake.” If they were, the highly “successful litigator” would likely take me to court as well as notify LinkedIn’s lawyers that I’m forging LinkedIn emails.
Askolnick,
Is John paying you to do this?? You are making it look like someone is trying to shut him down. You are giving him some GREAT publicity.
You need something more than proving he is a shameless self promoter willing to cross the line, which, incidentally I am unsure you have actually proven the line crossing bit.
In court he might offer the excuse that he used claims of publication to gain entry to the board to gather information which he would not have had access to otherwise.
Come on Askolnick, can’t you do better than this slop for a man who claimed to be a Legal Consultant and Book Publisher who has “litigated” a number of cases? The misrepresentation on the Board does not show attempts to harm or gain illegal profit from the situation.
Dig harder man!!!
Here’s a brilliantly clear explanation of how a couple dozen oil and coal industry supported scientists have been able to drown out the voices of hundreds of independent scientists throughout the world.
Money makes the world go around and the Koch Brothers, Rupert Murdoch, and Exxon-Mobile sure have plenty to share.
The video looks very outdated as polar bears drowning due to ice melt was a hoax and under investigation.
The Administration hates unknown thats why billions of dollars spent on climate research for the past decades to get better informed. Unfortunately, these tax funding were wasted.
The Big Oils and the Big Coals also hated unknowns with their investments (carbons and non-carbons). Don’t you see these big oils also invested in renewable energies. They spent a little money (compared with the Administration’s or their non-carbon or renewable energy invest ments) to get better informed. Funding does not automatically equal to corruption. These big companies do care their companies get labeled and every dollar was spent cautiously unlike the Administration. CEOs of these big companies are humans as well and much more human and ecological concerns than most of the greenies. They have no intention to destroy the future of the Earth by their non-renewables for profits. They will also grab every opportunity to make profits out of the renewables if they are worthwhile of investments.
askolnick,
A goofy youtube on the vrwc behind denialist scum is not really going to move a substantive, civil or reality based discussion along.
Hi Hunter your use (yesterday at 5:06 pm) of the vrwc for “Vast right-wing conspiracy” is the first time I’ve seen it – must be exclusive to the USA. Regarding NOAA’s proposed “Regulations” (yesterday at 5:08 pm), it’s one thing proposing regulations of any sort and quite another enforcing them. “Nelson’s Eye” is often brought into play by those in positions of authority who wish to push their own particular agenda. Facts and regulations often become irrelevant, particularly in politics and journalism (as Andrew has demonstrated over and over again in his rants here and elsewhere for at least the past 12 years). UK politicians imposed their own regulations on expense claims and look how they abused those. Self-regulation is effectively “do as you like”.
Best regards, Pete Ridley
Hi Andrew, looking into your past it appears that anyone who dares to disagree with your opinion is talking nonsense and gets labelled, often as being a neo-Nazi sympathiser or a racist, particularly anti-Semitic. This draws into question what extremist, racist or religious tendencies you may have. Having been subjected to your vile invective for the past couple of months, “ .. in essence, what (you) accomplished by (your) scurrilous attacks .. was to paint (your) face right in the middle of my investigative .. radar screen”.
This is only fair, isn’t it – What’s good for the goose is good for the gAndrew or “ayin tachat ayin”.
In accordance with The Golden Rule (ethic of reciprocity) QUOTE:
Hadith: A Bedouin came to the prophet, grabbed the stirrup of his camel and said: O the messenger of God! Teach me something to go to heaven with it. Prophet said: “As you would have people do to you, do to them; and what you dislike to be done to you, don’t do to them. Now let the stirrup go! [This maxim is enough for you; go and act in accordance with it!]” – Kitab al-Kafi, vol. 2, p. 146
Ali ibn Abi Talib (4th Caliph in Sunni Islam, and first Imam in Shia Islam) says: “O’ my child, make yourself the measure (for dealings) between you and others. Thus, you should desire for others what you desire for yourself and hate for others what you hate for yourself. Do not oppress as you do not like to be oppressed. Do good to others as you would like good to be done to you. Regard bad for yourself whatever you regard bad for others. Accept that (treatment) from others which you would like others to accept from you… Do not say to others what you do not like to be said to you.” – Nahjul Balaghah, Letter 31 [53]
UNQUOTE (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Golden_Rule).
Best regards, Pete Ridley
I shouldn’t be surprised that I’m not the first person Pete Ridley tried to intimidate into silence by digging up and posting personal information utterly unrelated to anything in these discussions — such as where I live and where and when I can be found.
It appears, he’ll even stoop to stalking and posting the names and photos of children. I just came across this post from a previous target of Ridley’s intimidation attempts: http://act.libdems.org.uk/group/globalwarmingpolicyfoundation
Monty Comment by Monty on February 15, 2010 at 2:22am
IMPORTANT
Mr Pete Ridley willingly admitted (http://bloodwoodtree.org/2009/12/16/not-so-wonderful-copenhagen/) that he spent four hours on the net hunting down my last name ALONG WITH THE NAMES OF MY WIFE AND CHILDREN, PHOTOS OF THEM AND THEIR ACTIVITIES. [emphasis added] He also made it clear that he had contacts close to where I live. All of this was presented in a friendly “be more careful” kind of tone and was about as comforting as finding that someone had broken into your house and left a note in your child’s bedroom saying “you should check the kids more often”.
People will find photos of your kids if there are any out there in newspapers, on Facebook etc. But when someone deliberately searches for them because they are angry and use it to win an argument, that person is demonstrating sociopathic behaviour. I encourage you to report immediately to the administrator if Pete Ridley starts pushing you for more information about yourself or using this to argue with. Don’t fall for the con “I want to understand you to debate you”. Debate with facts and use reason, that’s all that’s needed.
Hi Andrew, (ref. your comment today at 1:29 pm) please post the evidence substantiating your allegation that I’ll “ .. even stoop to stalking and posting the names and photos of children .. ”. I eagerly await your response – but only expect further lies.
Best regards, Pete Ridley
Ridley, are you saying that you tracked down the names of Monty’s wife and children, found their photos, threatened to post them — but didn’t? That you were just trying to scare him?
If that’s the case, it means you’re a slightly smaller putz than I thought.
And if that is the case, I want to correct my statement:
It appears, Ridley will even stoop to stalking, obtaining the names and photos of someone’s wife and children, and then threaten to post them.
Hi Andrew, you obviously don’t understand English. I asked QUOTE: Hi Andrew, (ref. your comment today at 1:29 pm) please post the evidence substantiating your allegation that I’ll “ .. even stoop to stalking and posting the names and photos of children .. ” UNQUOTE. I don’t know how I can help you understand that word “evidence”.so I suggest that you ask a friend. Try Gareth, he might know.
While you are thinking about that please would you tell me who Monty is. Here’s an opportunity for you to demonstrate if you really do have any worthwhle investigative skills. If you get stuck just come back and ask for a hint. I’m always happy to help enlighten others.
Hi Judith (or your moderator, yesterday I posted another comment about “asklnick’s heel” but it still hasn’t appeared. Please would you advise if there is some problem with it.
Best regard, Pete Ridley.
Pete,
Sometimes, the site acts funny in reply. I am sure that Dr. Curry has no intention to delete any modest replies and she won’t care on a non-current thread. Post your reply again and I am sure it will appear.
Ridley, the reason you can’t help me understand the word “evidence” is that you haven’t a clue. So let me help you:
” A thing or things helpful in forming a conclusion or judgment; Something indicative; an outward sign: evidence of grief on a mourner’s face.” http://www.thefreedictionary.com/evidence
http://act.libdems.org.uk/group/globalwarmingpolicyfoundation
The above published testimony — especially with the similar misconduct you’ve demonstrated here — is compelling evidence that you stalk people to obtain details about their personal lives in order to intimidate them and make them feel unsafe.
Ridley, you’ve left a lot of evidence of unethical and even despicable conduct around on the Internet. In this discussion alone, you’ve added a whole lot more.
Hi Andrew, once again you steer well clear of providing worthwhile evidence to support your wild accusations. I invite you once again to respond to my comment today at 3:15 am – but you can’t give a straight response can you. That is a good demonstration of your competence as an investigative science journalist. Try again – third time lucky.
Best regards, Pete Ridley.
Judith
I recommend that you delete every comment made on this post since 1st July. Despite all the words that have been written, there has been no value added whatsoever. It’s dross.
If this was a current thread, I wouldn’t allow this exchange, although in all honesty I am not paying much attention to it (and I think most people are not paying attention to it). The resumption of the dragon thread is of some relevance in that a quasi-civil exchange is occurring among people on different ends of the spectrum. This discussion has very little science content but is perhaps of some sociological relevance in the debate.
Nicely stated.
I agree Dr. Curry. These folks are worthy of study.
Hi David (E?) Wojick, I certainly agree that Andrew is worthy of study but be careful of you’ll place yourself right in the middle of his scientific investigative journalists radar screen alongside John O’Sullivan. I suspect that thought will terrify you as much as it has done John, after all, I suspect that you’ve been on plenty other radar screens ( http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=).
Best regards, Pete Ridley.
Here’s another option: Delete everything RobB has posted so that he’ll know what censorship feels like.
Hi Sam NC, thanks for the help in your comment today at 4:05 am. I see that my final comment yesterday has still not yet appeared and Judith is well respected for her reluctance to sensor submissions in a biased manner so perhaps it was simply too long. I’ll resubmit it in smaller chunks. Here’s the first of four QUOTE:
Hi Andrew, you may recall my comment on 30th July (the second of mine to be snipped by the moderator) when I said “ .. I think that I must have touched on a nerve with my snipped comment. Perhaps I was close (to) “askolnick’s heel”. There’s plenty more about Andrew out there and when I have time I’ll do some more investigating to see what skeletons he has hidden in the cupboard“. And my follow-up comment that “ .. Having googled – “Andrew Skolnick” “anti-semitic” 1997 – I suspect that we have identified “askolnick’s heel .. ”.
Let’s poke around a bit more in the vicinity of “askolnick’s heel” and try to identify what has caused you to appear so filled with vengeful and violent emotions.
On 4th June at 6:16 pm you proudly trumpeted here that you have “ .. been a science journalist for 30+ years .. ” which takes us back to at least 1981, so what in the way of significant investigative scientific journalism have you achieved? If your long-winded résumé (http://aaskolnick.com/new/resume.pdf) is factual (and we all know how some people tend to inflate them and there is no reason to think that you are any less boastful than people like John O’Sullivan) then do we see anything note-worthy?
In fact there is little evidence of it in the entire period covered (1974 – 2006). Parsing out the trivia in your résumé we are left with very little – Associate News Editor at the Journal of the American Medical Association from 1989 to 1998 and Executive Director at the Commission for Scientific Medicine and Mental Health .. from 2004 to 2006.
UNQUOTE.
It is worthwhile probing behind why your involvement with JAMA came to such an abrupt end and I’ll come back to that after commenting on the rest of what you say about your career.
Best regards, Pete Ridley.
Hi again Andrew, following on with my unpublished comment from yesterday QUOTE:
It is noticeable that the minor “published works” to which you link at your web-site (http://www.aaskolnick.com/) are all 2005 or earlier and the majority (11) were for the regional St. Louis Post-Dispatch and all between 1998 and 2000. Other than one minor article in the New York Times in 1989 none of the remaining publications are ones that I recognise. Has anyone else here heard of them?
In 2005 you had a minor article in Sceptical Inquirer, three minor articles in the NASW Newsletter (1991, 1994 & 2002), one in Medhunters, one in 21st Century, one in Hippocrates (1999) and a short joint authorship (2000) in “Improbable Research – Research that makes people LAUGH and then THINK” (http://improbable.com/airchives/paperair/volume6/v6i3/appendix-2000-06.html).
Although you lists 242 articles as published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (http://www.aaskolnick.com/jama.htm) nothing there was published after 1999.
It appears that you tried to get your career going again in 2005 with “The Dangers of Alternative Medicine” (http://www.pointofinquiry.org/andrew_skolnick_the_dangers_of_alternative_medicine), a forum/blog run by the charity the “The Center for Inquiry .. a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization, ..” (http://www.centerforinquiry.net/about). Does anyone know if this charity or Point of Enquiry have done anything noteworthy?
The standing of your position as director of the nondescript organisation the self-styled Commission for Scientific Medicine and Mental Health, about which I can find only that “csmmh.org This domain name has just been registered” (http://www.csmmh.org/) is unclear to me. It is claimed (http://www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk/~bdj10/propaganda/) that this organisation is not an official body as one might think from its title Commission, but rather a collection of people interested in “the scientific examination of unproven alternative medicine and mental health therapies”.
I can find nothing of significance that you have achieved during the past ten years, which makes me wonder what occurred around 10 years ago that appears to have interrupted your career as a science journalist. More on that shortly after I have looked more closely at what I have picked up on my investigative layman’s radar screen.
UNQUOTE.
The noticeable feature here is that after an apparently successful period at JAMA and an apparently failed attempt to make a name for yourself at the St. Louis Post-Dispatch your career ground to a halt and appears to have remained there since. What was it that ended your sourjourn (define) at JAMA? Well, that’s an interesting part of the “askolnick’s heel” story which I will return to later after posting the next part of yesterday’s unposted comment.
Best regards, Pete Ridley
ROTFL! Pete Ridley’s buffoonery is a gift that just keeps on giving. In his ongoing effort to belittle my 30+ year career as a science/medical journalist, for which I’ve earned a Pulitzer Prize nomination, an Amnesty International award, and many other honors from humanitarian and journalist organizations, the clown has once again exposed his inerrant ability to make a fool of himself.
He wrongly attributes to me “a joint authorship” for an article I published in the Annals of Improbable Research. Not only did he get the name of the publication completely wrong, he didn’t notice that the it is the well-known spoof of science that is responsible for the hilarious “Ig Nobel Award Ceremony” held at Harvard University each year. The dolt failed to see that it is a satire on the need for organ transplantation centers to drum up increasing business. The name of the lead “faux-author” — not “co-author” is “Max U. Sage.” Like, duh!
Only an idiot would read the title and the affiliation and not get that it’s a spoof on making use of the many thousands of healthy appendixes that are removed each year: “Waste Not Want Not: Appendix Transplantation”
by Max U. Sage, MD, MBA, Elias A. J. Alsabti, MD, Andrew A. Skolnick, MS
Livermore Transplantation Unit
Canker Treatment Center of America, Omaha, Nebraska
http://improbable.com/airchives/paperair/volume6/v6i3/appendix-2000-06.html
That article generated a lot of laughs among surgeons a decade ago. And it now appears to be generating some more chuckles thanks to the obliviousness of this buffoon.
Hi again Andrew, here’s more from my unposted comment of yesterday QUOTE:
In your comment yesterday at 11:37 pm you complained about me not providing a link. You must have a very poor memory Andrew, which is not helpful for anyone who repeatedly distorts the facts. Here’s more of it to help jog your memory QUOTE: Andrew Skolnick .. Jan 9 2000, 9:00 am .. David Oh, goodie. I like a challenge. O.K. Cuddles .. We’ll have you stand up against a wall and I’ll stand 10 feet away with a rifle aimed at you. I’ll then fire a bullet at you. If the bullet doesn’t exist, you get to declare my demonstration a failure. Name the time and place you would like to see my demonstration and I will be there. And I know there will be a lot of people on these newsgroups who would love to see this .. too. — Andrew Skolnick”.
How about another QUOTE: .. 19 Oct 1999 17:34:21 EDT .. ” Andrew A. Skolnick” wrote: .. And I want your address and phone number, Mr. Nazi. I want to know where to send a Hanukkah card. I also have friends who no doubt would want to wish you a happy Kwanza. So either post it here or send it to me privately. I promise I won’t give it to anyone who doesn’t want to send you a Hanukkah or Kwanza card. BTW, my address and phone number are in the phone book .. ” (http://www.nizkor.org/ but use your investigative journalistic skills to get to the exact page).
UNQUOTE.
Best regards, Pete Ridley
Hi again Andrew, for some reason my intended 4th chunk was again rejected twice more, despite making changes. I try again with only references to things you need to read and conclude my unposted comment from yesterday QUOTE:
I draw your attention once again to the teachings of the Tora that I quoted on August 2 at 6:12 pm (http://taste-of-torah.blogspot.com/2010/02/eye-for-eye-parshat-mishpatim.html). When did you last talk to your Rabbi about your problems?
Before you go for a chat please reflect on these wise words from Rabbi Bradley Shavit Artson (http://judaism.ajula.edu/Content/ContentUnit.asp?CID=936&u=3294&t=0). UNQUOTE.
Now I can start posting those interesting events that have appeared on my radar screen relating to your time with JAMA.
Best regards, Pete Ridley
Hi again Andrew, for some reason my intended 4th chunk was again rejected twice more then “snippeed”, despite making changes. I try again with only references to things you need to read rather than posting quotations from them in conclusion of my unposted comment from yesterday QUOTE:
I draw your attention once again to the teachings of the Tora that I quoted on August 2 at 6:12 pm (http://taste-of-torah.blogspot.com/2010/02/eye-for-eye-parshat-mishpatim.html).
Please also reflect on these wise words from QUOTE: Shabbat Parashat Pinchas, 19 Tammuz 5763 – Turn the Other Cheek; Get Slapped Twice By Rabbi Bradley Shavit Artson (http://judaism.ajula.edu/Content/ContentUnit.asp?CID=936&u=3294&t=0).
UNQUOTE.
Now I can start posting those interesting events that have appeared on my radar screen relating to your time with JAMA.
Best regards, Pete Ridley
Ridley, you better make your statement clearer. Are you defying Dr. Curry’s directive to stop this misconduct and daring her to put all your future posts on automatic hold for screening?
Unbelievable you say “for some reason” your disruptive and intimidating comment was removed — immediately below Dr. Curry’s very clear reason and her warning not to do it again.
You’ve been blocked from other websites for the very same misconduct. You’re really making a name for yourself.
Sorry, my comment today at 12:10 pm. can be erased. This one this is a modifed version of my third “snipped” comment on this thread, while Andrew carries on his invective with impunity.
Hi Andrew, am I correct to interpret your comment today at 10:55 am. that “..The quote doesn’t exist on the Internet. It appears he’s made it up .. ” to be accusing me of lying? If I provide the direct link to it and you and everyone else here sees it and reads what I say is to be found there will you then acknowledge that it is you who makes things up? I repeat parts of what will be found at the link that I can provide (and will, when the time is right) QUOTE: Andrew Skolnick .. Jan 9 2000, 9:00 am .. “David E Michael wrote: .. David”
Oh, goodie. I like a challenge. O.K. Cuddles, .. We’ll have you stand up against a wall and I’ll stand 10 feet away with a rifle aimed at you. I’ll then fire a bullet at you. .. Name the time and place .. and I will be there. And I know there will be a lot of people on these newsgroups who would love to see this .. too — Andrew Skolnick UNQUOTE (LINK NOT PROVIDED – yet).
Please note that for clarity I have taken the liberty of adding “ ” around any section that is stated to be a quote from others within that comment that is signed off by “Andrew Skolnick”. Of course if that Andrew Skolnick is not you Andrew then you have a doppelganger, Mien Herr.
Now back to more interesting things about your time at and departure from the Journal of the American Medical Association. According to your Web-site (http://www.aaskolnick.com) you wrote some interesting articles criticising the Transcendental Meditation (TM) movement:
– “Maharishi Ayur-Veda: guru’s marketing scheme promises the world eternal ‘perfect health'” in JAMA’s Medical News & Perspectives, 1991,
– “The Maharishi Caper: Or How to Hoodwink Top Medical Journals” in the 1991 Fall issue of the NASW Newsletter
In those articles you had quite a lot of unpleasant things to say about Deepak Chopra MD (http://www.answers.com/topic/deepak-chopra), Hari M. Sharma, MD, FRCPC, and Brihaspati Dev Triguna and apparently in the summer of 1992, Deepak Chopra and two TM associations filed a $194 million libel suit against the AMA, JAMA’s editor, and you (http://www.aaskolnick.com/naswmav.htm). You seemed to survive that one but not for long. As you described it, in 1998 your exploding career crashed, following your involvement in an investigation involving CMS (Correctional Medical Services?) (http://www.wrongfuldeathinstitute.com/links/sickontheinside.htm). That article also says that you were subsequently fired. I understand that editor George Lundberg left in the 1998 reorganisation of the JAMA editorial team, with the AMA CEO E. Ratcliffe Anderson Jr. apparently explaining Lundberg’s removal was for “inappropriately and inexcusably interjecting JAMA into a major political debate that has nothing to do with science or medicine…. JAMA’s hard-earned reputation is based on its editorial independence and integrity, and we intend to keep it that way” (http://www.columbia.edu/cu/21stC/issue-4.2/skolnick.html).
Didn’t JAMA do an U-turn on TM in 1998, but you never did, did you? I expect that in your Universe Skolnick is always right.
More to follow.
Best regards, Pete Ridley.
Pete Ridley whines, “This one this is a modifed version of my third ‘snipped’ comment on this thread, while Andrew carries on his invective with impunity.”
There’s no mystery here, Pete, as to why my posts aren’t repeatedly deleted or snipped. Although I know your wife’s name and where you live, I’m not a dirt bag. I understand how utterly irrelevant that information is and that to post it would be a Neo-Nazi like tactic of intimidation.
To Joel on feedbacks:
You cannot separate feedback from forcing: Already the fundamental postulate of CO2 alarmism of backradiation concerns a form of feedback. If you look into the literature you find that this effect is not described, documented and analyzed by physicists in physics books. It is an invented fictional phenomenon without scientific basis. So Joel which is the basic scientific reference documenting backradiation?
Claes:
Any basic introductory physics book will talk about what, in the context of the greenhouse effect, is called backradiation. It is where they talk about the exchange of radiation between two objects at different temperatures or the exchange of radiation between an object and its surroundings.
The fact that you don’t interpret the equation as implying that there is radiation from the colder object to the warmer one (with your nutty, completely unsubstantiated alternate derivation of the law based on a completely unsupported axiom of how nature works that flies in the face of more than a century of physics) doesn’t mean that there isn’t actually such radiation. Actual empirical measurements, as well as basic logic, show that it does in fact exist.
Besides which, as I have pointed out and you have basically admitted, whether or not you call that term in the equation “back-radiation” does not change whether there is a greenhouse effect, since this comes out of the equation and not the interpretation of the term in the equation.
As for your claim that the distinction between feedbacks and forcings is a bit artificial and that “backradiation concerns a form of feedback”, I will not really disagree with that. Yes, one can think of the Stefan-Boltmann Equation as already expressing a sort of feedback, although in the climate science community it is standardly taken to be the zeroth order effect. Science is built on definitions and there are different ways one can define things and it changes some of the words used but you still get the same scientific results.
If that is the case Joel, you should have no difficulty quoting paragraphs that describe backradiation and showing how to compute its influence on the ground and rest of the atmosphere. Since I haven’t read those texts it would be good for me to be exposed to them.
PS: I have 2 physics texts written in 1988 and 1995 and neither of them mention backradiation. No I have not read them, just checked for backradiation.
The reason you can’t find that term is that it is not generally used in physics. Actually, I am not convinced it is used that much in climate science. I think it is used a lot more by “skeptics” because apparently they have discovered that it is easy to confuse people about it.
Just look in the section about radiation and look at the equation that they give for the heat transfer for an object interacting with its surroundings, for example here: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/stefan.html The second term in that equation is what is sometimes called “back-radiation”. If you don’t want to call it that, it doesn’t change the physics and the facts that
(1) The radiation from the colder surroundings (or object) to the hotter object can actually be measured.
(2) The greenhouse effect follows from that equation whether or not one interprets it as radiation going in both directions or not. The important thing is simply that the heat transfer away from the hot object decreases as the temperature of the colder surroundings increases.
By the way, while you are looking in physics textbooks, you might want to check out the 13th edition of Young and Freedman http://www.amazon.com/University-Physics-Modern-13th/dp/0321696867/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1312595621&sr=1-2 (which I believe claims to be the top selling calculus-based physics textbook, for what its worth) which now has the greenhouse effect and global warming as its primary example in the radiative heat transfer section. The book that we use for the non-calculus based physics sequence, Knight, Jones, and Field also talks about the greenhouse effect and global warming.
Yup, there are two terms for RADIATION being emitted by the two objects. Nothing about backradiation or back radiation. You also end up with a NET flow and more advanced computations I understand also can give the VECTOR for the flow. These I also understand are just a tad complex for using on the whole atmosphere due to the number of components and vectors.
I would be happy to accept that textbook as a gift!! 8>)
Oh, I notice you say NOW has. Put in rather recently eh?
PS to Joel on feedback: Read and comment my recent blog post
http://claesjohnson.blogspot.com/2011/07/stefan-boltzmanns-law-folklore-or.html
Claes,
That blog post has to be one of the most mind-numbingly ridiculous things that I have ever seen on the internet…and that is saying something! How can you possibly make the claim that a simple mathematical difference on whether or not the sigma is distributed across both terms or multiplies each term independently implies a different physical interpretation!?!
That’s just embarrassing. I think anybody who thinks you are making serious scientific arguments should read that post and if they still think that is the case, they are beyond hope.
Quite embarrassing indeed, Joel. However, with the help of the oil and coal industry funding, the Sky Dragon Slayers have perfected an embarrassment vaccine. Some, perhaps all, are fully immune.
I asked you about the original reference documenting backradiation.
Which is it? Does it exist or is it just fiction?
Could be the K. Trenberth’s 1997 Global Annual Mean Radiation Budget published by the ignorants of the AMS. It said backradiation was 324W/m2 whereas the Sun radiation raeches the Earth is only 168W/m2. You can see how absurd it is. Only ignorants at AMS could publish the manufactured 324W/m2 without querying it and poison the minds of more than a decade of gullibles such as Joel and Andrew if they were without an agenda.
In physics, you have to consider the actual known laws of the universe, not laws of your own invention. There is in fact no law that says that the power of the backradiation cannot exceed the amount of power the earth absorbs from the sun. (The law that must be satisfied, over times long enough that energy in = energy out, is that the total power absorbed from all sources has to equal the total power emitted.)
In fact, the only reason that the law that you have manufactured seems plausible is that on earth, the backradiation and the power from the sun are of the same order of magnitude. On Venus, the backradiation completely swamps the amount of solar radiation that makes it to the surface.
“On Venus, the backradiation completely swamps the amount of solar radiation that makes it to the surface.”
And how! Although Venus is almost twice as far from the sun as Mercury — where it receives only 29% as much solar energy — its average surface temperature is 1.75 times hotter than Mercury’s (773 deg. K vs. 440 deg. K).
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/venusfact.html
The difference is that the mass of Mercury’s near-vacuum atmosphere is an estimated 1000 kg. compared with the 520 million billion tons of atmosphere that keeps Venus at a balmy lead-zinc-bismuth-magnesium-tin-melting temperature.
“In physics, you have to consider the actual known laws of the universe, ” What laws? Don’t be so wisy wasy.
“not laws of your own invention. ” I don’t have any, Trenberth fabricated one that could generate 324W/m2 back radiation and you are a gullible don’t even know how he got it.
“There is in fact no law that says that the power of the backradiation cannot exceed the amount of power the earth absorbs from the sun. ”
So people like you and Trenberth could manufacture whatever data your agenda wanted and self proclaimed as climate scientists?
“(The law that must be satisfied, over times long enough that energy in = energy out, is that the total power absorbed from all sources has to equal the total power emitted.)” You have extreme shallow understanding of energy. You even mixed up the Earth energy flow is so dynamic that energy in never equals energy out over anytime. Your energy concept is built on shallow superficial energy knowledge or an agenda like most alarmists on the gravy train.
“In fact, the only reason that the law that you have manufactured seems plausible is that on earth, the backradiation and the power from the sun are of the same order of magnitude.” No you manufactured this sentence.
“On Venus, the backradiation completely swamps the amount of solar radiation that makes it to the surface.” Venus has no water, it does not apply here on Earth. Water on Earth absorbs huge amount of Sun energy that makes the Earth habitable within a narrow range of temperatures. Just look at the specific heats and other physical properties of water and water vapor, you can perhaps grasp a little energy magnitudes and know a little better about the Earth energy. If Venus has the same proportional amount of water, it will be as good as Earth and then you can make sense to compare with Earth. Wake up. Don’t confine yourself to the small world of CO2 which you are only misled and then you misinform the general public if you are not on the gravy train.
That’s the point. You seem to believe there is some physical law that says that the power of the back-radiation can’t possibly be larger than the power of the radiation absorbed from the sun. There is no such law.
Trenberth did not fabricate any physical laws or data. He obtained that number on the basis of empirical data. And, that number is not in conflict with any physical laws.
Just because that number doesn’t fit with your agenda does not mean it is fabricated.
Over reasonable periods of time, the energy in and energy out are, indeed, to a quite good approximation, equal. This is a consequence of the fact that the physics of the situation tends to drive one back toward this situation: If the energy in exceeds the energy out, then the earth warms and the energy out increases by the Stefan-Boltzmann Law. If the energy out exceeds the energy in, then the earth cools and the energy out decreases by the Stefan-Boltzmann Law. In this way, the earth tries to maintain a balance between the energy in and the energy out.
…which is utterly and completely irrelevant to my point, which is that there is no law of physics that says that back-radiation can’t exceed the radiation received from the sun and Venus in fact is an example where, at the surface of the planet, back-radiation vastly exceeds the radiation received from the sun.
Joel,
” If the energy in exceeds the energy out, then the earth warms and the energy out increases by the Stefan-Boltzmann Law.” No. I have repeated that the Earth’s energy ‘in’ does not equal to the Earth’s energy ‘out’, because the Earth has the capability of storing energy. Sometimes ‘in’ is greater than out and sometimes ‘out’ is greater than ‘in’ and it happens daily, weekly, monthly, annually, hundres of years, thousands of years, millions of years, billions of years. Once or twice daily there might be an instantaneous energy ‘in’ equals ‘out’. Most of the time energy ‘in’ does not equal energy ‘out’.
Trenberth misled the general public that backradiation 324W/m2 was from GHG see his 1997 radiation budget. LW heat flux radiation from high air or gas temperature (such as in furnace) may exceed the SW heat flux from the Sun. GHG’s 324W/m2 backradiation is absurd higher than the Sun’s SW radiation of 168W/m2. Venus atmosphere temperature is dominated by CO2, Sun atmosphere temperature is dominated by hydrogen and helium and Earth atmosphere temperature dominated by air and water. You are comparing the Earth’s 0.04% CO2 heat content (so little heat content) heating up 99.96% air (so big heat content) with Venus majority of 96.5% CO2 heat content. I don’t see any better than comparing apples with oranges.
I agree that air absorbs SW radiation heat from the Sun, LW radiation from the ground, convection heating from the ground and amongst air molecules and store energy per the heat capacity of the air. Since air on Earth has a temperature greater than 0K, it radiates LW energy in all directions, higher air temepratures radiates more LW energy and lower air temperature radiates less LW energy. Heating or cooling by radiations depends on temperature differences of the bodies in exchanging energies, and convections also taken place simultaneously. What happen when a lower temperature body radiates its LW energy to the hotter body? The hotter body also radiates higher LW energy towards the lower temperature body? If you look at them as waves, interference happen, the lower radiation waves get absorbed by the higher energy waves and when the even higher energy waves hit the lower temperature body and got heat up. The interference of waves slow down the propagation of higher temperature body radiation. So lower temperature body can never get any energy from the lower temperature body’s radiation. Similarly, if you believe in photons, lower temperature body emits out weaker energy photons in all directions but facing the higher energy photons from the hotter body, bombards by the higher energy photons, got absorbed or bullied by the higher energy photon got pushed back towards its own radiating body and got heat up, or deflected. The bombardment of the photons slow down the radiation from the hotter body.
Sam NC: Some posts are simply so ridiculous and incomprehensible that they are not even worth responding to. Yours falls into that category. If you want to believe the nonsense that came from your keyboard (although if I were you, I would attribute it to someone hijacking my computer), be my guest. You guys should just be allowed to wallow in your own ignorance.
Joel,
Too bad. You are stuck inside the ivory tower of CO2 like all alarmists on the gravy train.
Sammy says to Joel, “Too bad. You are stuck inside the ivory tower of CO2 like all alarmists on the gravy train.”
Yeah, Joel, you should hop off and get on the far richer gravy train of the right-wing fanatics, whose wheels are underhandedly being greased by the oil and coal industry.
Thirty years ago, the great debunker of paranormal charlatans James Randi told me that debunking the superstitious nonsense of quacks and frauds is like “shoveling water uphill.” I think if he would comment on debunking the nonsense of global warming deniers like Sammy and the Sky Demon Slayers, he might say its like shoveling sewage up hill. While just as impossible to accomplish, it stinks a whole lot more.
Whoops! I meant “Dragon” not “Demon.” I must have been been thinking of Ridley.
There were experiments conducted by the alarmist to measure the backradiation by pyjometer which actually measured the nearby air temperature radiation and falsified as a measurement of the backradiation. I almost believed the measurements!
I meant “actually measured the nearby air temperature radiation, AND CONVECTION, and falsified …”
Answered here: http://judithcurry.com/2011/01/31/slaying-a-greenhouse-dragon/#comment-94390
No Joel, you did not answer my question: Which is the original reference documenting, describing and analyzing backradiation? Which is it? Does it exist or is it only fantasy? If you intend to stay in the game, you have to come up with a precise answer. Handwaving with reference to consensus is not science. So give the reference or quit.
Claes: I have no intent to play your silly word games. The fact that objects radiate and that radiation from a colder object is absorbed by a warmer object as well as vice versa is a well-established fact of physics. If you want to dig up the original references, be my guest.
It is you who are trying to overturn much of modern physics on the basis of desperate nonsensical assumptions. Nobody takes you seriously except for those who desperately want to such nonsense. You have reduced yourself from an apparently very competent applied mathematician with expertise in numerical analysis to a purveyor of pseudo-scientific garbage in the service of an ideological crusade. I hope that makes you proud.
It is not a silly word game. It is a real game. I asked you about the original
reference to backradiation and you did not come up with anything. Game over, Joel. Good by Joel, and have a good day.
Since “backradiation” is just “radiation”, the original reference would be the same as the original reference to “radiation.”
Hope that helps.
Claes,
Not all of us have the “original reference” handy for cell theory, that stars burn hydrogen, for the existence of electrons, or for the presence of back-radiation. If you spend an hour going through google scholar or journal databases you can probably track the historical aspect of the problem that you seem to be looking for. I am sure Joel has better things to do with his time than do homework for you.
The request is a distraction though. There are everyday measurements of “back radiation” that you can find and hundreds upon hundreds of papers on it in the literature. It is a standard measurement, just like launching a weather balloon in the air, and the physics is very simple to understand. Why not spend your time arguing worthwhile things?
Irving Langmuir uses the term in exactly the modern context in a 1916 paper in the Physical Review (Series II):
Phys. Rev. 7, 302 (1916) – Published March 1, 1916
“Characteristics of Tungsten Filaments”
In Eq. 16 he has to correct the energy loss from a filament by subtracting the “back radiation” from the surrounding room. It was such an obvious concept even then that no citation was needed; I’m sure there are much earlier uses of the term in this context in the literature.
I admit I’m new to this thread, and this argument. But seriously, who cares about the word “backradiation” (or is it two words, “back radiation”)? If someone doesn’t like that word, don’t use it. It’s all just radiation.
A radiates in all directions, including towards B. Meanwhile, B radiates in all directions, including towards A.
Which is “front”? Which is “back”? It’s all just the same.
The atmosphere emits radiation towards the earth. The earth emits radiation towards the atmosphere. Only difference is wavelength.
I would suggest that the difference between radiation and backradiation is the way it is computed. In normal radiation you would compute the net flow taking into account the absorptivity and emissivity of both objects. In backradiation the Climate Scientists compute the energy flow as if the object is radiating to a vacuum even when it is not.
Arthur Smith, I would also suggest that it is not BACKRADIATION but radiation that has to be taken into account. The output from the tungsten filament is quite small and has little effect on the amount of radiation being emitted by the local objects. The ir radiation from a room or any other objects will need to be included in his computations and, unless the light is particularly powerful, will far exceed the amount of radiation from the filament sent back to the filmanent.
A good example of this is the work with very efficient solar ovens. With the collector pointing at a night sky with no occlusions, water can be frozen simply by the negative radiative balance. If a tree, building, cloud… occludes the collectors “view” of the sky it receives enough radiation to prevent the freezing. Note that the gas in the atmosphere is not enough to do this at about 40F surface temps, it requires solid objects or clouds to radiate enough to warm it and prevent the freezing.
I may be wrong, but, all my encounters with backradiation before this reference have been in reference to objects reradiating energy back to the source of the energy causing an increase in temp of the system. As J suggests, it is all radiation, not forward or back. Backradiation is when strange computational methods are used to determine its magnitude or effect.
kuhnkat says:
Complete nonsense. Nothing of the sort is done. You are just speaking from profound ignorance here. (Albeit, the absorptivity & emissivity of the earth’s surface in the infrared is very close to 1, so making the approximation that it is exactly 1 is accurate enough for many calculations.)
Joel,
“Albeit, the absorptivity & emissivity of the earth’s surface in the infrared is very close to 1, so making the approximation that it is exactly 1 is accurate enough for many calculations”
Ok Joel, I am ignorant or stupid, maybe both. Show me how to compute 390w/m2 for surface emissions.
Kuhnkat: The rough way to get that number would be to put the average surface temperature in Kelvin into the Stefan-Boltzmann Equation with the emissivity equal to 1, which I noted it is basically for most land / ocean / ice surfaces over the mid- and far-infrared.
The more precise way would be to take the average of T^4 instead of doing the average of T and then taking the 4th power…and correct for the fact that the emissivity is not exactly 1. [If you wanted to be precisely correct, you would average the quantity emissivity*T^4 over the earth’s surface.] The corrections due to these factors are pretty small though and also go in opposite directions…i.e., the emissivity factor lowers the emission a bit and averaging T^4 rather than T raises the emission a bit. Trenberth and Kiehl talk about (both of?) these corrections in their more recent paper with the earth’s energy budget.
Joel,
and where do you put the emissivity of the atmosphere it is radiating against?
For a gas (or a non-opaque object in general), you can’t really talk about a single emissivity as it depends on how much gas the radiation is passing through…The gas has a certain (strongly-wavelength-dependent) optical density and hence a certain probability of being absorbed per meter. That is why radiative transfer through the atmosphere is a more complicated problem than radiative exchange between opaque objects.
So, the statement is that the earth emits about 390 W/m^2. Some of this will be absorbed by the atmosphere and some of that energy will eventually find its way back to the earth on subsequent emission (with some of it finding its way out into space).
Exactly Joel. There isn’t really an emissivity we can determine that can be assigned for the correct equation to be used so they compute a transfer to space and play games with the result. Turn it around and how do you compute the amount of radiation from a parcel of air to the ground?? Again the equation with our current abilities isn’t well defined. Until we reach the strat where emission IS to space we really can’t compute what is happening directly. Even there, when you consider GHG’s emit in 3d, what do we use for emissivity? The ground, space, the air to the sides?? The formulas are tested for specific purposes. If used differently there is no “proof” that the results are reasonable.
kuhnkat: All because you don’t understand the equations, it does not mean they are not well-defined. The equations are more complicated because they are differential equations and, except for some simplified cases, they must be solved numerically. This is no different than in many other parts of the physical sciences.
Of course, those other parts do not have societal implications that go against the ideology of you and the other “skeptics” so that are not subject to the “special treatment” that climate science gets. Hence, we return to the main point, which is that this is really not a debate about science any more than the argument over evolutionary theory is a debate about science. It is really about people attacking science when they don’t like its conclusions.
Joel,
where did you get the idea that I don’t have a general understanding of the equations??
You just explained that you cannot correctly compute the SB formula for the earth emitting against the atmosphere. Yet, you seem to accept the arm waving by the so called EXPERTS who also cannot compute this. What do they do to cover? They bury that fact in GCM’s that are somewhat plausible based on their temperature output, but, for some other planet based on virtually every other output parameter. Then they make declarations that are not backed by any real observations and expect us to bow down.
How much is the earth alledgedly warming by?? 50w/m2? 25? 5? 1? How the heck do they know when they can’t correctly quantify some of the most important parameters in this huge system yet they can claim they KNOW we are warming by this tiny amount!?!?!?!?!
No HOT Spot
No increasing humidity
No cooling strat
No acceleration of ocean rise
No acceleration of ice loss
No empirical measurements for their free parameters, otherwise known as aerosols
Poor cloud and precipitation understanding
“It is really about people attacking science when they don’t like its conclusions.”
Yup. The alarmists don’t like sceptical science so they continually attack them!!
From the incorrect statements that you have made.
No…I did not say that. And, I do not accept arm waving. I read and understand textbooks that discuss the computations in detail, such as Ray Pierrehumbert’s book. What you apparently do (on the basis of what you say below) is read nonsense on the internet.
Doubling CO2 increases the radiative forcing at the top of the atmosphere by about 4 W/m^2. There is no serious dispute on this in the scientific community any more than there is dispute about whether the earth is 4.6 billion years old or 6000 years old. Even Lindzen and Spencer and Christy agree with this number.
Where there is still some disagreement and uncertainty is in regards to feedbacks and hence how this radiative forcing translates into a temperature rise (although there is less uncertainty on this than some try to claim).
This list is pure hooey. It shows that you, like a Young Earther, will believe any nonsense data that supports your point of view and reject the overwhelming data in the other direction. For example, the satellite data in fact show that humidity does increase as temperatures increase; there is some radiosonde data that shows this too over the short term, although not for the long term trend but it is well-understood that the instrumentation issues over the long term make deducing the long term trend completely unreliable.
No…Just as in the case of evolution, there is the opinion of the scientific community, as expressed through the IPCC, the NAS and other academies in other countries, and the scientific societies. On the other side, there is the opinion of a few scientists, most with scant publication records in the field, plus a lot of people who are not scientists at all. Interestingly, most of these have strong libertarian / conservative ideologies and there are plenty of connections to right-wing think-tanks, often with funding streams provided by fossil fuel interests.
Why should we believe that all the scientific societies and academies have been corrupted by ideology while the Heritage and Heartland Foundations remains pure? That is ridiculous on the face of it and even more ridiculous once one actually studies the science.
Joel,
lest the thought get lost in my general rant, you were unable to show me how to correctly compute the emissions of the surface against the atmosphere with the accepted SB form for 2 or more body problems.
The claim by Alarmists is that they always use well understood physics and methods. If you can’t compute it using the standard method I can only conclude this is an ad hoc method that needs to be shown that it provides a useable result. Do you have any links for me that explains and provides “proof” for the alternative methodology? That you attempted to explain to me. (probably my fault for not understanding)
kuhnkat: Books that deal with the subject include “Principles of Planetary Climate” by Raymond T. Pierrehumbert, “A First Course in Atmospheric Radiation” by Grant W. Petty, “Radiative Transfer” by Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar, “Fundamentals of Atmospheric Radiation” by Craig Bohren and Eugene Clothiaux.
Joel,
while I am hunting around for one of those or another source I would like you to consider how I look at the problem. The basic facts we think we know about Venus.
Venus receives approximately 170w/m2 at the surface.
Venus has a cloud layer that significantly reflects IR.
Y’all claim the Greenhouse is very strong.
Venus radiates only a little more than it receives. Some claim it is heating, some stable.
Now, with just that data, how hot would Venus have to be, or for a heat source have to be, to maintain its surface temperature for 1 million years?
You see what the problem breaks down to? The surface receives 170w/m2 so if we have a flux past the cloud of 170w/m2 it is exactly in balance. The rest of the radiation comes from reflection and atmospheric absorption of solar radiation above the clouds. Since CO2 is transparent to visible wavelengths and N2 only absorbs UV significantly this is limited and with the cloud albedo it mostly is reflected. So, there would be nothing ridiculous about Venus staying hot for indefinite periods. In fact, the question is, if Greenhouse is so strong with the density below the clouds, why isn’t it heating up with the additional reflection of IR from the clouds?
Another issue we haven’t considered is the compression from gravity of such a massive atmosphere. Pekka is always happy to tell us that the heat generated by the initial compression would radiate away. We just described a system where there isn’t much, if any, energy getting away in excess of the incoming. We have the generation of the temperature and the maintenance based on quite straightforward concepts. Again, I wonder if we even need a Greenhouse as opposed to straightforward SB (net energy flow) to explain it.
The problem as I understand it is that everyone tries to figure out how it got so hot. How the atmosphere got there… I see it is there, I see the basic physics, I see that it is close to equilibrium, I see that without something to perturb it it probably won’t change significantly very quickly unless there are processes we do not know about.
It is great that scientists will speculate and measure and try to intuit how it came to be, but, that speculation cannot change the reality of the planet and its physics that we are observing.
No…The clouds do not reflect IR. Clouds absorb IR. (The absorptivity & emissivity of most substances in the IR is very close to 1.) This energy is subsequently re-radiated. This is part of the greenhouse effect.
Yes…Pekka is exactly right. Unless the planet is undergoing continual gravitational collapse, there is not a net generation of thermal energy from the fact that the gas at the surface is compressed.
First of all, if you had described it correctly, you would have attributed the effect of clouds to the greenhouse effect, not “reflection”. Second of
all, you’d need a really close balance in order to have the leftover energy from gravitational collapse still contributing to the surface
temperature.
kuhnkat: Do you think you are more brilliant than Einstein or something? Because unless you are extraordinarily brilliant, you are not going to be able to understand Venus better than the scientists who have dedicated their careers to it…especially without bothering to come up to speed at all with the scientific work to date. Democracy and free societies may mean that everyone is entitled to express their opinion but it does not mean that all opinions are equally worthy.
Joel,
the cloud bit is something you are willing to argue over at Real Climate?? That is where I got it.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/03/venus-unveiled/
maybe they are still stuck on confusing reflection with absorbing and emitting?
Here is another source:
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1976KosIs..14…97S
depending on the amount of water, and I think the lower figure is closer, they have the clouds reflecting up to 60%. Doesn’t sound like absorption/emission is possible.
I would suggest that there is a significant amount of unidentified material in the cloud layer that may account for the reflectivity.
Here is a fun link.
http://theendofthemystery.blogspot.com/2010/11/venus-no-greenhouse-effect.html
Don’t read it or you will probably yell at me!! 8>)
Oh well, out of time.
Joel,
“Because unless you are extraordinarily brilliant, you are not going to be able to understand Venus better than the scientists who have dedicated their careers to it…”
Do you think those people, who mostly did NOT spend their careers on atmospheric physics, are more brilliant than Velikovsky, who was a friend of Einstein, and any number of brilliant people who are not allowed into the consensus because they disagree with a few points??
Where did Einstein ever compute “backradiation?” Langmuir was talking about IR from the environment that he measured with the filament off to compensate his measurement of the filament on.
If you haven’t noticed, the disagreement on reflective clouds I lifted from Real Climate. The intensity of the 4-5 micron insolation was from NASA. The reflective clouds are required due to the large OLR just below the clouds which is not showing above the clouds. If the clouds were absorbing their temperature would be a lot higher and there would be more OLR above them. The reflectivity is FORCED by the observations, geometry, and physics.
Almost forgot, I remembered the peak output of the Venus ground wrong. It is 4micron from spectralcalc. Right on top of the CO2 secondary band.
By the way, I simply glean the best ideas from other people. I don’t claim any personal brilliance other than a pretty good BS detector, and that isn’t perfect either.
Kuhnkat:
Well, I’ll be damned. It seems you are right on the point about the clouds on Venus reflecting a significant amount of the IR. I stand corrected on that point.
Still, on the larger point though, that same Real Climate piece that you quote from says, “Radiation model calculations demonstrate that the clouds have a pronounced net cooling effect on the planet, when both factors are taken into account.” This means that one still has to invoke the greenhouse effect to account for the high surface temperature, since that temperature is far higher than a planet at Venus’s orbit with an albedo of zero and a non-IR-absorbing atmosphere would have. (By “greenhouse effect”, I mean the more traditional way we think of it as an atmosphere absorbing and emitting IR. By contrast, I notice that the RealClimate folks count the reflection of IR as part of the greenhouse effect, which is certainly reasonable but wouldn’t do much to convince someone like you who might be willing to believe that we can warm the surface by reflection but somehow not by absorption and re-emission.)
Kuhnkat says, “Do you think those people, who mostly did NOT spend their careers on atmospheric physics, are more brilliant than Velikovsky, who was a friend of Einstein, and any number of brilliant people who are not allowed into the consensus because they disagree with a few points??”
Hooboy. On nearly every page of his books, Velikovsky demonstrated an profound ignorance of both astrophysics and basic science. For example, in just the first pages of his “Worlds in Collision, he explains how planets are pulled toward the sun by gravity, which is balanced by forces that “push” (his word) it outward — which of course is blatantly absurd. What balances the sun’s gravitational pull is the planet’s inertia. If you could switch off the sun’s gravity, the planet’s inertia would send it, not outward, but in a straight line perpendicular to the gravitational pull.
Velikovsky’s predictions about Venus are so hilariously off that it’s a wonder why Kunhkat isn’t rolling in laughter himself instead of holding the kook up as a “brilliant” authority. Take for example Velikovsky’s prediction that Venus’ atmosphere is rich in hydrocarbons — which he “deduced” by his “discovery” that our planet’s wealth in oil and natural gasses came from collision with Venus’ “tail” several thousand years ago!!!!
Velikovsky’s ignorance was so profound it provided considerable amusement to even his friends — of which he had many who found him charming. Unfortunately, his followers — as well as many of today’s supporters of crackpot science — use his friendship with Albert Einstein as evidence that he was a credible scientist instead of a crackpot. Alas, Einstein’s letters, tell a different story:
July 8, 1946
Dr. Immanuel Velikovsky
526 West 113 Str.
New York City
Dear Mr. Velikovsky:
I have read the whole book about the planet Venus.
There is much of interest in the book which proves that
in fact catastrophes have taken place which must be
attributed to extraterrestrial causes. However it is
evident to every sensible physicist that these catast-
rophes can have nothing to do with the planet Venus and
that also the direction of the inclination of the
terrestrial axis towards the ecliptic could not have under-
gone a considerable change without the total destruction
of the earth’s entire crust. It were best in my opinion
if you would in this way revise your books, which contain
truly valuable material. If you cannot decide on this,
then what is valuable in your deliberations will become
ineffective, and it would be difficult finding a sensible
publisher who would take the risk of such a heavy setback
upon himself.
I tell you this in writing and return to you your manu-
script, since I will not be free on the considered days.
With friendly greetings, also to your daughter,
Your
Albert Einstein
After claiming Velikovsky as his “brilliant” authority on the planet Venus, Kuhnkat concludes with an obvious understatement:
“I simply glean the best ideas from other people. I don’t claim any personal brilliance other than a pretty good BS detector, and that isn’t perfect either.”
Anyone who has a BS detector so utterly worthless should return it to the store and then shut up. LOL!
Joel,
I didn’t make my point very well. I am not suggesting that the atmospheric heating from gravity could raise the temp of the surface significantly. I was trying to point out that gravity would heat the atmosphere and the energy flux would simply maintain it. I am not making the mistake of trying to explain how things got the way they are. There are plenty of very smart people speculating and they all have one or more problems with their models.
So far I have been talking about a relatively balanced energy flux. Here is a paper on the obs from Venera 9 and 10. it is especially good as it talks about the issues they had to overcome for satellite sensing. Remember this was in 1976 before it had become relatively SETTLED.
http://www.researchgate.net/publication/4660415_Infrared_radiation_of_Venusian_clouds
(it is free but you may have to register)
I wouldn’t have included the following paper, but, I am having no luck finding the measurements, not computations, of the incoming and outgoing radiation for Venus. A different view of Venus comes from evaluating the sulfur chemistry that my drive it similar to water vapor here on earth. Whether his speculation that Sulfur is the most common element in th lower atmosphere is true or not the rest of his description of the sulfur cycles is important. This is John Ackerman’s interpretation in case you know his work.
http//www.firmament-chaos.com/papers/fvenuspaper.pdf
So, it would appear that Venus is significantly out of balance. The work you suggested I read does NOT have this assumption so are not relevant. We had a disagreement on whether Venus’ cloud layer REFLECTED IR. I would suggest that the Sulfur compound crystals may do just that.
You are probably screaming at me for being so stupid to believe anything Ackerman says. I want you to THINK again about 1 item. The guys building the instruments and flying the birds are very knowledgeable and talented. FIVE times they built radiometers that recorded effectively the same flux readings. FIVE times the scientists declared there was a problem with the readings. They investigated, found a problem, made an adjustment, and didn’t significantly change the results. An experiment repeated five times with the same results sounds like a repeatable experiment that should be telling them something. Why aren’t they listening.
The other possibility is that they are ASSuming a particular range and have designed the instrument for that range. They are wrong and their bias prevents them from seeing it.
You keep ad homing Postma who is trying to improve the very poor Climate computations for atmospheres. Here is another gentleman who approached planets in general and designed a computational tool for atmospheres. You may find his method interesting to compare against what Postma and Climate Science use. There are others with similar work who just aren’t convinced that dividing the energy by four and using AVERAGE temps is useful.
http://cosy.com/Science/TemperatureOfGrayBalls.htm
The big deal about the 4th power is due to the averaging. Take a plate that is 1 meter square. One side is 290k and the other side is 260k. The average temperature is 275c. Now let’s get the 4th power, 290^4=7072810000, 275^4=5719140625, 260^4=4569760000. The total for the two sides if using the average is 11438281250. The total for the two sides with the actual temps is 11642570000 with a difference due to using an average instead of separating the night and day sides of 204288750. It would seem a significant error for such a simple computation that would be multiplied don’t you think??
kuhnkat: Now let’s get the 4th power, 290^4=7072810000, 275^4=5719140625, 260^4=4569760000.
If instead of working with degrees like 290 K one works with hundreds of degrees, this simplifies to 2.9 HK (hectokelvins). Raising 2.9 to the fourth power gives 70.7, while 3^4 doesn’t even need a calculator. In hectokelvin units the Stefan-Boltzmann constant is 5.67 (5.670400 to be more precise).
Multiplying 70.7 by 5.67 then gives 401 W/m2, the same answer as when multiplying 7072810000 by 0.0000000567 but with the decimal points more conveniently located. I use this trick all the time.
The question is what are you going to do with it later. Do you need the precision??
Of course, any way you do it is painful for me. Even with the calculators in my computers!! 8>)
Well…then they misunderstand things the same way that Postma misunderstands…or misrepresents…them. It is not like these are unsettleable questions. Anyone who understands averaging and how it is done can do the computation. Postma is just a con-man pure and simple, preying on people who don’t have the mathematical and scientific skills to question him. (“Preying on…” might be sort of strong since he is appealing to people who want to be fooled.)
I have already said that one has to average T^4, not T, in cases where there is significant temperature variability across the surface. However, your example in fact shows that for the case you give (which is probably a pretty realistic case for the earth), the difference is not that large. If you average T for those two sides of the plate, you get 275K. If you average T^4 and then take the fourth root (which you do by taking your 11642570000 number, dividing by 2 and taking the fourth root, you get 276.2K. So, the difference is a little more than 1 K.
And, no, there errors aren’t going to get multiplied of you divide it into more pieces unless you make the range larger. (In fact, if you choose a bunch of numbers all between 260 K and 290 K and average them together, the difference in the two ways of computing the average temperature will be smaller than this 1.2 K difference that we got here.) I would say the 1 K difference number is probably pretty realistic as a rough estimate for the earth. (You might think there is a greater range between extremes than 30 K, and surely there is, but 30 K seems like a reasonable “average range”. In fact, given that 70% of the world is ocean and that there is considerably less temperature variability over the ocean than over land, it might be a bit on the high side.)
You wrote a rather long response to my averaging T^4 argument. Wouldn’t it be more effective to simply compute it both ways and show me it is not an issue?
Of course, Joe did and he got a significantly different answer which trashes ASSumptions made by Climate Scientists sloppy work. Where has he made errors in geometry or physics?
Mr. Glassman’s complaint is valid, except, isn’t that the same problem the Climate Scientists have? Maybe I missed it and only Postma did it?
That is exactly what I did. I used your example, which I think is a reasonably good example for the temperature ranges of the earth. And, where it does matter, one can always do the calculation more correctly.
I have no clue what you are even referring to here. I did notice that you linked to this page in a previous post http://cosy.com/Science/TemperatureOfGrayBalls.htm , which is a nonsensical piece by Bob Armstrong illustrating that if we have a “gray ball” then changing the absorptivity doesn’t change the equilibrium temperature it comes to. He has just rediscovered something that is well-known…and which is why you have to go beyond “gray balls”. The whole point of the greenhouse effect is that the atmosphere has a very different behavior for radiation from the sun and infrared terrestrial radiation because of the difference in the spectrum of the radiation.
kuhnkat: I think you are not really being honest with us and with yourself. The fact is that you will never believe in AGW or the greenhouse effect and such, but it has nothing to do with the science. It is because it conflicts with what you want to believe. Most people who look at the science of a particular issue will conclude that the science supports their pre-existing bias, particularly if that bias is strong. That is why few creationists look at the science of evolution and get converted. It takes intense hard study of the science to actually come to a more informed opinion.
Joel,
Sorry, I did not make myself clear. I meant redo the -18c model with at least the improvement of splitting the hemispheres.
Not being good at math I will accept you did what you did correctly and concede that there is little difference based on it. Or are you saying that WAS the recomputation??
kuhnkat: Yeah…I think your two plate model, which as I noted, has about the right range of temperatures across it to stand in for earth, shows how small the effect is.
I can’t redo the entire -18 C calculation for the earth rigorously without knowing the temperature distribution of the earth (and technically, the emissivity of the surfaces across the earth too, although as I noted most are very close to 1 in the infrared).
One important point that I should have made but have neglected to so far: Note that for the two-sided plate, the estimate you get for the temperature by averaging T^4 and then taking the fourth root gives a higher temperature than the estimate you get by just averaging the temperature. This can be actually be proven mathematically to be true for any distribution of temperatures. The -18 C estimate is derived from averaging T^4 (since it is based on the total power received from the sun and equating that to the power then emitted by the earth), so the average temperature will actually be a little bit LOWER than this. Hence, it cannot account for any of the warming attributed to the greenhouse effect…because it goes the wrong way! I.e., when we observe that the actual average temperature of the earth is ~15 C, it would be more appropriate to compare to that to the expected average temperature predicted by energy balance considerations that is a bit below -18 C, maybe -19 C. Of course, this doesn’t make a lot of difference…but it can make a lot of difference for bodies that have much more dramatic temperature variations across the surface, like the moon, and is in fact responsible for some of the confusion ones sees across the internet regarding the moon.
Holy cow, this Pete Ridley character is one creepy cyber-stalker.
J, did you see where Ridley brought into this conversation attacks made against me 13 years ago by a British Holocaust denier named David E. Michael? In defense of the Neo-Nazi, Ridley had the audacity to quote from Michael’s letter in which the former British National Party organizer declares his support for his Islamic terrorist brothers’ jihad against the United States, signing it, “Death To America!”
“Creepy cyber-stalker” barely begins to describe the thug.
Andrew, so, you don’t like getting the treatment that you dish out to others – tut tut.
Best regards, Pete Ridley
I am declaring this blog closed to any further personal investigations regarding askolnick, John O’Sullivan, etc. I will keep the thread open for scientific discussion with Claes Johnson.
Hi Judy, congrats – if you stick to it.
Good decision Judy. The argument on backradiation, the pillar of CO2 alarmism, is also closed since no original reference has been presented.
A search on the web gives many hits to my blog but no original source, because there is none. Backradiation is fiction, pure fiction.
Well, Claes, by your “logic” the sun and moon must be fiction since you’d be hard put to find the “original source.”
(Oh puleeeeze, don’t tell us the Bible, since Gen. 1 and Gen. 2 can’t seem to agree on the sequence of events ;-)
Actually a Google Scholar search on “back radiation” yields only about 4,000 article hits going back to the 1950s, which is a very small number, and most of these refer to antennas. Restricting the search to physics, astronomy and planetary science gives just around 1,000 articles, a tiny number. Contrast this with “carbon cycle” which yields about 135,000 scholarly article hits. In short there seems to be little research on back radiation in climate over the last 60 years.
I should mention that even in the 1,000 articles many are about antennas.
Reposting my note from above (this is a rather long thread):
Irving Langmuir uses the term in exactly the modern context in a 1916 paper in the Physical Review (Series II):
Phys. Rev. 7, 302 (1916) – Published March 1, 1916
“Characteristics of Tungsten Filaments”
In Eq. 16 he has to correct the energy loss from a filament by subtracting the “back radiation” from the surrounding room. It was such an obvious concept even then that no citation was needed; I’m sure there are much earlier uses of the term in this context in the literature.
How ironic that I find Irving Langmuir being quoted in this discussion. Tucked away in one of my filing cabinets is a treasured copy of a paper Dr. Langmuir presented at the Knolls Research Laboratory on December 18, 1953.
I should have said, how fitting instead of ironic, because the title of Dr. Langmuir’s colloquium was “Pathological Science,” and in it he presented observations as relevant to the pathological “science” being cooked up today by the Sky Dragon Slayers as it was to the pathological science he discussed almost 60 years ago.
The paper was given to me in 1982 by the great physicist and champion of scientific integrity, Dr. Heinz Pagels. He was president of the New York Academy of Science then, a few years before he lost his life in a rock climbing accident. I was ghost writing his annual report for the academy’s magazine, The Sciences, and we got to chatting about pseudoscience. He pulled out one of his copies of Dr. Langmuir’s papers and gave it to me.
The paper contains Dr. Langmuir’s insightful observations of some the major pathological “sciences” of his day — including N-rays, flying saucers, ESP, and the Davis Barnes Effect. Obviously, human kind is still plagued by some of those very same crackpot “sciences,” but others lost their appeal to the uneducated masses and are largely forgotten. Most valuable in this paper is Dr. Langmuir’s chapter on the “Characteristic Symptoms of Pathological Science,” which he could have written with the Sky Dragon Slayers in mind if he lived long enough to be cursed like the rest of us.
Once I reread this treasure, I will share parts that might help to explain the pathology behind this strange group of kooks.
I’
By the way, the more formal technical term for “back radiation” in the atmospheric context is “downward longwave radiation” – you will find over 1600 Google Scholar hits for that phrase. It’s the same physical phenomenon.
“downward longwave radiation” is not “back radiation”. Trenberth’s “back radiation” is GHG radiation which is minimal, whereas “downward longwave radiation” is the radiation due to atmospheric air radiation going downward which is orders of magnitude bigger.
You are as confused as Trenberth who purposely misled the general public in his 1997 Global Annual Mean Radiation Budget published by ignorant AMS.
Trenberth’s “back radiation” is GHG radiation which is minimal, whereas “downward longwave radiation” is the radiation due to atmospheric air radiation going downward which is orders of magnitude bigger.
Er, what? That appears to be gibberish.
“Er, what? That appears to be gibberish.
Obviously, handwaving, J!
No, it really is gibberish. If you meant to communicate something meaningful, please try harder.
Trenberth’s “back radiation” is GHG radiation which is minimal, whereas “downward longwave radiation” is the radiation due to atmospheric air radiation going downward which is orders of magnitude bigger.
I won’t call this gibberish because that would be rude. Instead let me ask the following questions. Straight answers would be preferred if possible, if not then I’ll settle for a handwaving answer.
(i) In units of watts per square meter, what is the magnitude of Trenberth’s back radiation?
(ii) In what sense is that amount minimal?
(iii) By how many orders of magnitude is DLR greater than GHG radiation?
(i) 324W/m2
(ii) 324W/m2 is not minimal. CO2 accounted for is only 0.0004×324/m2 which is minimal.
(iii) if 324W/m2 is assuming correct then DLR is accounted for 3 to 4 orders of magnitude greater than CO2.
(ii) 324W/m2 is not minimal. CO2 accounted for is only 0.0004×324/m2 which is minimal.
Thank you, much appreciated.
Where does the figure 0.0004 come from?
Obviously from CO2. If you have a pyjeometer designed to measure CO2 radiation, you would need a filter to filter off all radiation spectra non-specific to CO2’s emission spectra.
Oh right, I forgot, O2, N2, and CO2 all radiate in proportion only to their amount. (People believe so many different things on this blog, it’s hard to keep track of who believes what.)
So I take it you don’t accept the line strengths for each of O2, N2, and CO2 as listed in the HITRAN tables of spectral lines. Fine, but then what are the values for those quantities that make it true that O2, N2, and CO2 all absorb and radiate in proportion to their amount? And where did you obtain those values? By calculation, from some other set of tables, somewhere else?
Trenberth’s 324W/m2 “back radiation” should be corrected as “downward longwave radiation” of atmospheric air radiation not GHG radiation which is -> 0W/m2. His deliberated misinformation in his 1997 Global Annual Mean Radiation Budget was obvious and AMS could not spotted this major flaw poison millions of minds since 1997.
First of all, 1600 papers is a tiny effort at best. There are only about 1000 in the last ten years or so (2000-2011). Many are about modeling, not physical reality. Moreover, this 1000 is every paper that simply mentions the term, many of which are minor references. A better measure is papers with the term in the title, as this shows that the term is the focus of the research. The number of papers with downward longwave radiation in the title between 2000-2011 is just 18. In short there is basically no research at all on this supposedly central phenomenon. This looks like a gaping hole in the research.
Even a single observation of something that is claimed not to exist refutes that claim. ScienceOfDoom has a sample of these measurements here:
http://scienceofdoom.com/2010/07/17/the-amazing-case-of-back-radiation/
The burden of proof is on Claes Johnson and anybody else claiming this does not exist to demonstrate why these measurements are wrong.
The instrument was measuring the air Downward LW Radiation at the point of instrument sensor facing upwards, not just the GHGs backradiation which is very small and CO2’s contribution is ->0W/m2.
If the instrument is pointing downward at the same instant, it will measure the ground radiation higher W/m2.
Actually Arthur, DLR can also be direct from the Sun or some other source which tends to detract from the idea of BACK.
Now, could you provide a source that actually defines backradiation in the literature?
I find it especially interesting that Wikipedia, the home of Climate Science partisans, does not have it listed. Trying a search for “definition backradiation” lists blogs and similar sources. I didn’t take too much time but thefreedictionary was the only listing for “back radiation” for communications, backscattered radiation, and geophysics, counterradiation: The downward flux of atmospheric radiation passing through a given level surface, usually taken as the earth’s surface. Also known as back radiation.
So, in geophysics they have a vague term correlated with back radiation that is kinda like some peoples definition of BR.
Another term is back scattered radiation, but, this would not match back radiation as scatter and emission are two discrete processes.
Basically it would appear that there has never been an attempt to formally introduce or define this term so we are all floundering with differing understandings of what it is when trying to discuss it.
DLR can also be direct from the Sun
Kuhnkat, this is an excellent point. What would you estimate as the ratio of longwave radiation from the Sun to longwave radiation from the atmosphere? If more than one then you are clearly on to something important. If less than one in a hundred then you are barking up the wrong tree.
I believe the solar and earth spectra cross in the 4-5 micron area.
Vaughan, do you have access to spectra looking up from the tropics or temperate zones, clear sky, at night, with details of the equipment that took it that we can look at and discuss? Assuming that all the stuff that is thrown around here and in the literature is absolute truth does not make me comfortable.
A high quality paper should have all this, but, I have no acess behind the pay walls and can’t seem to find much outside that is in a form I can understand. I have seen the up and down spectra for the Antarctica and it leaves as many questions as it might have answered due to little H2O in the mix. I also wonder about the actual emissions from ice. Are they really a reasonable black body curve?
We see the “holes” in the spectra due to absorption. That IR is then more often transferred to other particles in the atmosphere then reradatied. I assume that if it heats the earth it comes out spread over the BB curve, or does it get reemitted in the same band?
I hope you see what I am saying. Convection is moving a lot of the absorbed energy up rather than direct radiation. Over half the earth emitted IR is changed to atmospheric energy in the first level and is not avaiable to be emitted down or up. Next level same thang, So, if the IR is “heating” the atmosphere, and heated atmosphere convects up, what happens to that energy after it convects up?? We aren’t seeing it at TOA in the CO2 bands and we are told this is Greenhouse, except it would seem the hole in the spectra is a lot more energy than is “missing” according to Trenberth.
What am I garbling or misunderstanding?
Vaughan, do you have access to spectra looking up from the tropics or temperate zones, clear sky, at night, with details of the equipment that took it that we can look at and discuss? Assuming that all the stuff that is thrown around here and in the literature is absolute truth does not make me comfortable.
You’ll be delighted to know that I have not just one but two very different answers.
===================
First answer.
Kuhnkat, do you have access to the data from which Heisenberg and Schroedinger deduced the modern theory of quantum mechanics, with details of the equipment that took it? If not then to be consistent you should be denying not only global warming but also quantum mechanics.
Likewise unless you have access to the data from which Darwin deduced evolution, with details of the equipment that collected it, then again to be consistent you should be denying evolution.
If you have to set the bar at such an absurdly high level then it sounds like you’re running out of reasonable objections to the arguments against your position.
============
Second answer.
Although I don’t have access to the spectra you request, I would have thought it would be clear from the spectra at
http://www.geog.ucsb.edu/ideas/Insolation.html#solarspectrum
that the amount of DLR from the Sun is many orders of magnitude less than the 200-400 W/m2 of DLR from the atmosphere. Airports may complain if my carry-on luggage is 10 kg above their limit, but they sure aren’t going to complain if I have seven dimes in my pocket instead of six.
If you believe that in order to establish to everyone’s satisfaction that the DLR from the Sun is less than 1 W/m2 you have to calibrate a boatload of equipment and take it to the tropics, then I can’t imagine any research expedition wanting to have you on its boat.
Please convince us that you still have a shred of perspective.
Vaughn, you and Joel shouldn’t waste anymore of your time answering this clown — it only encourages him to keep throwing his verbal cow flow.
I wouldn’t give Cumquat the time of day until he stops BSing and gives us a plausible alternative explanation why Venus is more than 530 deg. F hotter than Mercury, even though it is almost twice as far from the Sun and has an albedo that is almost 5 times more reflective,
Virtually every physicist, astronomer, and climatologist in the world — who actually publish their work in science journals — knows Venus’ enormously hotter temperature results from the greenhouse effect of its dense carbon dioxide atmosphere.
By contrast, there’s just a few dozen self-publishing oil and coal-industry backed “experts” and their echobots who appear to believe Venus is heated by fairy dust and bottle rockets.
Excuse the typo; that should have been “cow flop.”
Vaughn, you and Joel shouldn’t waste anymore of your time answering this clown.
Much obliged, happy to let you be the Mike Rowe for this job. Clear your calendar, it may be pretty labor-intensive.
It doesn’t take much labor to point out how utterly worthless Cumquat’s “contributions” are. Anyone who would cite Velikovsky as a “brilliant” authority on Venus is a virtual tar baby for ridicule and fun poking. Now that we know Cumquat’s view of our solar system has been shaped by the “brilliance” of that kook, it’s our civic duty to mock his foolishness and utter disregard for reality.
It helps us to know that Cumquat’s inspiration for his “scientific” insights comes from the crank who claimed Venus was spit out of Jupiter as a comet about 5500 years ago by a mysterious force. The comet then careened around the solar system for a while, pushing earth out of its orbit, flipping it around on its axis, shoved Mars out of its orbit into earth’s path and wrecking additional havoc on our ancestors, while pouring trillions of tons of oil and other hydrocarbons from its tail onto them so that their descendants could fuel their trains, ships, planes and automobiles. And then the comet settled itself peacefully in the most circular orbit in all the solar system to become the planet Venus.
To explain how Venus overcame all the laws of Newtonian physics to accomplish these feats, Velikovsky proposed a mysterious electromagnetic force for which there is absolutely no evidence.
The great Carl Sagan said of the Velikovsky, “There is not one case where [Velikovsky’s] ideas are simultaneously original and consistent with simple physical theory and observation.” Indeed, few of his ideas turned out to be either original or consistent with physical theory and observation.
To be wrong is bad enough, but to be Velikovskian wrong is an honor for which Cumquat needs to be earnestly recognized.
Vaughan,
I want to apologize. I obviously left you with the impression that I believe that the solar DLR might have a significant contribution in comparison to the DLR generated by the atmosphere. My response saying that solar and eath CROSSES in the 4-5 micron range I believe is correct. That would suggest that above 5micron the solar would be down the tail and minimal in the earth generated range. I had been having a discussion with Chris Colose about this range as SOD makes general statements like NONE and that type of thing irritates me and I point it out.
My asking if you had data available was more for a current mania of mine. I see the absorption spectra of OLR and DLR. It would appear to me that a lot of energy is being sbsorbed and NOT going out the bandwidths it originates in. I am actually wondering if that energy is being shifted to other bands by being absorbed by the earth and reemitted spread over the black body spectrum or whether it is being shifted in the atmosphere by other GHG’s colliding with warmer particles and emitting it or…?
Last night I tried another educational trip trying to find what the actual spectra emitted by ice is to see what it would say about the OLR spectra taken in the Antarctica. Haven’t found very good data similar to what you linked specifically for ice yet. I found one link referring to astrospectography looking at, I think it was about 5 micron, hot band characteristic for ice, but am still assuming that ice has a BB type emission also. The fact that Antarctica would have snow and other surface conditions, and some contamination of the ice should broaden the spectra somewhat also.
Oh, I don’t believe quantum mechanics is the last word and neither does any one else who seriously considers the issue. It may be the best we can do at the moment or it may only be the most popular idea at the moment. The only thing I believe about it is that it seems to provide useful tools that people can use to compute things. Until we get past it we won’t know whether it has helped us along the way or, because it seemed to work so well, actually hurt our progress by making people too comfortable with it.
Kuhnkat,
I suspect you’ll find it easier to persuade laypeople of the fallacy of AGW than of the fallacy of quantum mechanics, and that you’ll have much more positive results focusing your efforts on the former. As you’ve no doubt realized by now I consider such efforts misguided. May the best arguments win. Good luck with your mission.
Vaughan
Actually, all I need to do is somewhat explain the impacts of the statistical nature of Quantum Mechanics to have most lay people thinking it is witchcraft. The fact the scientists are working with proven models and mathematics will simply equate to spells and encantations!!
Remember the old saying, any technology advanced enough past your level of knowledge will look like magic to you? (poor paraphrase)
The lay person is not often swayed by Scientific FACTS as they do not know them and do not understand them. The people were convinced of AGW because that is what they were told and there were no voices of dissent given a soap box for them to hear to provide them a reason to question it. The Internet will hopefully be the age of the Sceptic. It may stop good things along with bad things, but, my belief is that is a good thing. Rather than the elite being able to shove things down our throats everyone has a slight chance of getting their ideas into the pool to be considered.
Just look at the snake oil Al “the inconvenient moron” Gore was selling. That kind of garbage is good for NOBODY!!! All it did was empower a group of snake oil salesmen to steal money from unaware people. It did NOTHING about the alledged problem. The fact that this tyope of Lemming activity can be short circuited is a GOOD thing. Reality will eventually make its way to the fore on its own.
Actually, all I need to do is somewhat explain the impacts of the statistical nature of Quantum Mechanics to have most lay people thinking it is witchcraft. The fact the scientists are working with proven models and mathematics will simply equate to spells and encantations!!
Sounds like a plan, kuhnkat. I think we’d already guessed that was your m.o., nice to have confirmation though. There’s one customer for such shenanigans born every minute so you’ll have your hands full. :)
Vaughan,
no reason for yu to listen to me and my complaints. Here is the latest from Dr. pielke Sr.
http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2011/08/15/a-new-agu-eos-article-titled-guidelines-for-constructing-climate-scenarios-by-mote-et-al-2011-which-inadvertantly-highlights-this-flawed-climate-science-approach/
Pretty much specifically addresses your narrow range meter in ways I never could.
I have made a sum up of the debate on my blog
http://claesjohnson.blogspot.com/2011/08/result-of-debate-on-fiction-of.html
where I also ask Judy to do the same.
Thank’s for the match, Claes.
Here is my summary in response to your summary.
What is “fiction” is your summary of the discussions.
There’s a formatting mistake in my post above but I trust that people can still easily identify what are Claes statements and what are my responses.
Apologies for butting in here.
You said in part:
“…in disagreement with empirical data.”
Well, the experiment I suggested MIGHT provide the experimental data you claim it is in disagreement with. Unless you can link me to papers where something similar has been done??
Arthur Smith has linked to ScienceOfDoom’s posts about measurements of back-radiation: http://scienceofdoom.com/2010/07/17/the-amazing-case-of-back-radiation/
Joel Shore said:
That “particulars” should be “particles”.
Just to expand on this a little more: Claes seems to mix together some very real strangenesses of quantum mechanics (which are, nonetheless, experimentally verified now to quite a large degree) with things about statistical mechanics that really are not that mysterious. The notion that when you have, say, 10^20 particles, you have to look at how they behave statistically is not at all mysterious; it is simply a practical fact.
And, the Second Law within the framework of statistical physics is no great mystery either. There are quite elementary explanations of it in terms of balls in bins that make it very easy to understand. (One quite good explanation is given in the algebra-based introductory physics textbook “College Physics: A Strategic Approach” by Knight, Jones, and Field.) There is really no excuse for even an undergraduate who take s such an algebra-based course (as opposed to the calculus-based course taken by the physical scientists, mathematicians, and engineers) not to be able to have a basic understanding of how the Second Law arises naturally in large collections of elementary particles.
People like Claes, while they may see themselves as some sort of Einstein or Galileo, are nothing of the sort. Those people may have challenged the general views of the time, but they did so with brilliant insight, elegance, and by showing how their new ideas helped explain experimental data that could not be explained and help resolve paradoxes and conundrums. Claes does exactly the opposite: He comes crashing into quite an elegant field with over a century of scientific structure and replaces this elegance with one frankly crackpot idea that he seems to be the only one on the planet who thinks is reasonable and intuitive and that (supposedly at least) leads to a conclusion (about thermal radiation between two bodies) that flies in the face of mountains of empirical data. He is the proverbial bull in a China shop. People like Dr. Curry have bent over backwards to generously allow Claes to expound at length here about his notions…and I think it should be apparent to anyone with any sort of basic capacity to reason that he has utterly failed to even begin to make a case for any of his nonsense claims.
I agree with everything Joel writes, with the exception of comparing Claes Johnson and his crackpot science with the proverbial “bull in a china shop.” Johnson has no power to smash anything on his own. He’s acting more like a fly in the face of a driver — bugging and bugging him to distraction until he drives off the road and into a tree.
Remember, as revealed in documents from the tobacco industry, the purpose of tobacco industry-funded “science” was to produce the highly profitable commodity that allowed them to do business unrestricted for half a century: “Doubt.” Clive Hamilton reported in “Requiem for a Species”:
“As one tobacco company memo noted: ‘Doubt is our product’ since it is the best means of competing with the ‘body of fact’ that exists in the mind of the general public. It is also the means of establishing a controversy.’ As the 1990s progressed … TASSC [the industry-funded front group The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition]. began receiving donations from Exxon (among other oil companies) and its ‘junk science’ website began to carry material attacking climate change science.”
I highly recommend reading “Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming,” by Naomi Oreskes, professor of history and science studies at UC-San Diego, and science writer Erik M. Conway. It is a virtual genealogy of denialism, showing how right-wing, corporate-funded “think tanks” were set up, front groups were created, and PR firms were hired to fight against government regulation of the tobacco industry. It turned into a highly lucrative business of denialism, which employs a few scores of scientists, front groups, and PR companies selling doubt in any area of science that threatens the profits of any industry with deep pockets.
Again, if you don’t like the term “backradiation” don’t use it. As Arthur says, it’s the same as “downward longwave radiation”.
It’s all just radiation. The surface radiates, the atmosphere radiates. It’s all the same, just slightly different wavelengths.
If you stand on the surface and measure DLR / backradiation / longwave radiation coming from the upper hemisphere, what you’re measuring is virtually all coming from the atmosphere — the solar component is minuscule (due to the sun’s distance and the inverse square law). It’s even smaller if you make the measurement at night.
I think a good analogy would be how a Muslim woman covered from head to toe by a chadri or burqa is warmed by the sun. Virtually NONE of the sun’s energy reaches her skin. Instead, she is warmed by her coverings, by downward radiation and by direct conduction.
J wrote Again, if you don’t like the term “backradiation” don’t use it. As Arthur says, it’s the same as “downward longwave radiation”. You are unable to distinguish between GHG radiation and atmospheric air radiation. Your knowledge of radiation is obviously very shallow.
“It’s all just radiation. The surface radiates, the atmosphere radiates. It’s all the same, just slightly different wavelengths. ” The energy contents or fluxes are very much different from these radiations and again your statements show you have very low level of understanding of radiations.
“If you stand on the surface and measure DLR / backradiation / longwave radiation coming from the upper hemisphere,” You have very sloppy definitions these radiations. Can you distinguish between them? Do you really know what you are talking about?
Okay, Sam. I’ll bite. What is the difference between “GHG radiation” and “atmospheric air radiation”?
Since you ask, let me ask do you know the compositions of GHGs and Air? Do you know the heat fluxes or energy contents differences in their radiations? If you don’t know or don’t think, I will give you direct answers.
Sam, there is no term “atmospheric air radiation” used in physics or meteorology, at least not in the English language. See, for example, Google Scholar.
If English is not your first language, perhaps you’re translating something idiosyncratically.
So you are a denier of radiations from gases including GHGs in the atmosphere. Now you have made no sense.
Okay, now I see why non-insane people stay away from this thread. I’ve had enough.
Shallow! Don’t forget your tail.
Ah…That’s what is so amusing about people like Sam NC who speak utter nonsense. When intelligent people finally give up in disgust on trying to enlighten them, they take this as evidence that their arguments must be so good that people can’t refute them, rather than as evidence that people don’t especially like talking to brick walls.
Joel,
You are too shallow to discuss further.
J, that would be a reason for staying away from
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQFKtI6gn9Y
Which would be a good reason except that it’s a relaxing change of pace from more serious matters.
And who knows, maybe Sam will turn out not to be a troll after all. Though at this stage it seems pretty unlikely.
I liked the comment “And so Monty Python accurately predicts what it’s like to argue with people on the Internet. Except on the Internet, both sides act like John Cleese.”
Vaughan,
Like J, you are incapable of thinking of my statements made regarding enrgy and radiation and in return your best in responding to my statemenst is only “a troll”. You are also a misinformer of CO2 AGW too shallow to discuss. Dont forget your tail as well.
Sam, the problem you face in teaching us your theory of atmospheric physics is that we’re still using old-fashioned 20th century logic. Your 23rd century logic is so advanced we can’t distinguish it from magic. If you expect to convince us of anything you’ll need to downgrade to old-fashioned logic for a moment.
Sammy says, “Vaughan, Like J, you are incapable of thinking of my statements made regarding enrgy and radiation and in return your best in responding to my statemenst is only ‘a troll’. You are also a misinformer of CO2 AGW too shallow to discuss. Dont forget your tail as well.”
To that one can only reply:
Sam, are thinking J Vaughn statemenst forget CO2 misinformer your tail regarding enrgy you as well radiation in return incapable your best my made only also ‘a troll.’
Bet you all wish you had a Secret Sammy Decoder Ring like mine ;-)
Sam, we’re all eagerly awaiting the distinction between “GHG radiation” and “atmospheric air radiation” – please do explain!
But “back radiation” or DLR is not defined by what emits it, it is defined by what is measured, from whatever source it comes from. Since it is “longwave” it must come from some entity in the atmosphere that emits long-wave (infrared) radiation. GHG’s do so, which is why they’re GHG’s. But so do clouds (which are part of the “greenhouse effect” even though not greenhouse gases) and some aerosols or dust particles suspended in the air.
Of course there is a small component of DLR that comes from the sun during day time; measuring at night helps filter that component out. Just pointing your measuring instrument away from the sun in day time does the same. Or subtracting the well-measured solar spectrum is an option too. Science of Doom has a great collection of posts on these measurements here:
http://scienceofdoom.com/2010/07/17/the-amazing-case-of-back-radiation/
Arthur,
Lets start with Trenberth’s 1997 Global Annual Mean Radiation Budget. See his Fig 7. His GHGs radiation is backradiation = 324W/m2. GHGs (major component is water vapor which has about 10~20x or higher ppms than CO2) are part of atmospheric air (Major components N2 and O2 total about 99%). GHGs absorb and radiate energy and so is the O2 and N2. All gases absorb and radiate with their respective wavelengths and frequencies. Downward LW Radiation is part of the atmospheric air radiation which also included the GHGs radiation portion. OK, clear?
The problem with the AGWers including you Arthur and Trenberth have the misconception of DLR=backradiation which is wrong as explained above.
Since Dr Curry started this thread, I went to Scienceofdoom’s website and thoroughly studied its contents. It has a lot of misconceptions and missing calculations that I decided to stay out of the website and never post a comment there. Bear in mind that the DLR measurment was not backradiation measurement, i.e. not a GHGs radiation measurement, its an atmospheric air radiation due to its dynamic temperatures.
I meant due to its dynamic energy for the last sentence!
Sam – you write “All gases absorb and radiate with their respective wavelengths and frequencies.” That indeed is true. CO2 has a major absorption peak close to 15 microns wavelength in the middle of the longwave spectral region we’re talking about, for example.
So tell me, what are the “respective wavelengths and frequences” that O2 and N2 absorb and radiate at, within the longwave spectral region?
O2 has a wide range of wavelengths within IR spectrums whereas N2 is unknown as science has not yet fully uncovered about N2’s wavelengths in absorbptions and emissions of IR energy in order to raise and lower its temperatures with the rest of the gases.
Sam, spectroscopy has been around for at least a couple of hundred years, I think oxygen and nitrogen’s absorption spectra have been rather well studied. You give no numbers – do you actually believe that O2 and N2 at atmospheric pressures have one or more strong absorption features in the thermal region, at a wavelength longer than 4 microns?
Different materials have different characteristic interactions with radiation. Some are transparent, some are opaque (absorbing), over particular ranges of electromagnetic radiation wavelengths. In the Stefan-Boltzmann radiation law this is characterized by a lumped emissivity value between 0 and 1; more precisely at every wavelength the Planck law is multiplied by the spectral emissive power at that wavelength. For a multi-km column of O2 and N2 at normal atmospheric pressures, that emissive power in the thermal (longwave, greater than 4 micron) region is very close to zero.
Any gas with high emissive power in that spectral region is, by definition, a greenhouse gas. O2 and N2 are not greenhouse gases, but CO2 and H2O are.
Arthur,
OK I have missed mentioning the convection (mixing) part of raising and lowering of N2 amongst the atmosphere but somehow N2 has to follow radiation laws as it has temperature above 0K. So it should radiate in the IR spectrum.
Do you or any AGWers or any skeptics know the missing link of wavelengths of N2 in radiation law?
The issue of “downward longwave radiation” vs “back-radiation” seems mostly like semantics.
The Earth is surrounded by space, and the solar contribution to the total downwelling flux becomes small in the far infrared limit (and as Arthur mentioned, falls to zero at nighttime); we can also see the spectral signatures associated with known greenhouse gases in measuring downwelling IR, so it is difficult to imagine what the issue here is with respect to what is causing the downwelling IR. Perhaps Martians?
O2 and N2 do not interact with the infrared radiation field, but do help to pressure broaden the lines of the GHG’s present in the atmosphere. By Kirchoff’s law, poor absorbers are poor emitters. Further, the radiant intensity that emerges from the atmosphere is the transmitted component of the radiation entering the atmosphere from the opposite side plus the weighted sum of the contributions of emission from each level z in the atmosphere. In the optically thin limit, the downward radiation falls to the ~2 K background radiation of space. The DLR or “back-radiation” therefore depends on the greenhouse content of the atmosphere- which determines its emissivity- as well as the vertical temperature profile.
Arguing all of this with people like Claes Johnson seems only to be an exercise in futility.
Chris,
“The Earth is surrounded by space, and the solar contribution to the total downwelling flux becomes small in the far infrared limit (and as Arthur mentioned, falls to zero at nighttime); we can also see the spectral signatures associated with known greenhouse gases in measuring downwelling IR, so it is difficult to imagine what the issue here is with respect to what is causing the downwelling IR. Perhaps Martians?”
N2 has the majority contents (both energy and mass) in the atmosphere. Lowering or raising air temperature, N2 should play a major role not Martians. N2 should also follow radiation law.
“O2 and N2 do not interact with the infrared radiation field” I have much doubt about your statement here. O2 has a wide range of wavelengths in infrared radiation, but for N2 I don’t know. Perhaps, the present instrument is not good enough to measure N2 in infrared radiation signaturing as N2 must obey radiation law in order to have gain or loss of energy (specific heat capacity) with the rest of the atmospheric gases.
“The DLR or “back-radiation” therefore depends on the greenhouse content of the atmosphere” Obviously you are unable to distinguish the differences between ‘DLR’ and ‘backradiation’.
Sorry, you are simply wrong about O2 and N2. Back when Dr. Andy Lacis used to comment here periodically, he left a comment which will help address your confusion:
http://judithcurry.com/2010/12/02/best-of-the-greenhouse/#comment-18109
Chris,
1st of all, thanks for the link to Dr. Andy Lacis’ comment which widened my knowledge about his radiation. But Dr. Andy does not seem to clarify your point “Sorry, you are simply wrong about O2 and N2” will you enlighten me?
He did say “Another aspect of atmospheric radiation that seems to produce misunderstanding is the nature of gaseous absorption. The GHGs only absorb (and emit) radiation at their characteristic spectral line positions. Thus N2 and O2 don’t directly interact with thermal radiation. (They do produce line broadening by colliding with H2O and CO2 molecules while they are trying to radiate. “. The reasons were very unpersuasive as it appeared to me he is denying that O2 and N2 could not obey radiation laws. He obviously had an agenda to down play the N2 and O2 radiation.
“Why then does an air parcel at a higher temperature radiate more energy than an air parcel at a lower temperature if they both have the same number of GHG molecules, and these GHG molecules can only radiate at their fixed wavelengths?” He then wrote “This question does not have a simple answer. The answer is related to the population of the different rotational and vibrational energy states of the GHGs as a result of collisions incurred with other molecules in local thermodynamic equilibrium at the local temperature T of the air parcel.” He was unable to explain in radiation wave theory so he had to resort to particle theory which was fine as we all know that sunlight has dual properties. So N2 and O2 (assuming the warmists are correct in O2 has weak wavelengths of radiation which of course I doubted with its big spectrum of O2 than CO2) do not do well in waves properties, but they must do very well in particle theory as they have enormous energy contents and enormous amount mass content compared with GHGs. But the warmists downplayed the N2 and O2 in this particle aspects in order to comply with their hidden agenda!
Sam NC: The only way that radiation and matter can interact is if the matter has excitations (e.g., vibrational, translational, or rotational) that have electric dipole moments. For solid and liquid matter, there is a continuous spectrum of such excitation modes and the emission and absorption spectra are continuous.
For gases, however, this is not the case and the spectrum is basically discrete (with some broadening of the lines due to molecular collisions). And, in particular, for diatomic gases, the molecule and its vibrational and rotational excitations do not have a dipole moment and hence they cannot emit or absorb electromagnetic radiation. This is all very basic understood science and has nothing to do with “warmists”, whatever that means.
A good way to learn the basics of the science that you seem not to have a grasp of is to watch the series of videos of David Archer’s class at University of Chicago. This is the first lecture: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uHXpkoE0G3A and this is the 6th lecture, which I believes deals with the particular issue that you are confused about: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3gQiMQGtvVM
By the way, one last technical point. You quote Andy Lacis as saying, “Why then does an air parcel at a higher temperature radiate more energy than an air parcel at a lower temperature if they both have the same number of GHG molecules, and these GHG molecules can only radiate at their fixed wavelengths?” and then say that he uses the particle (photon) theory of light to explain it. Actually, his question as posed could be answered even within the wave theory of light. The problem with the wave theory, however, is that it fails to explain why the spectrum of emission falls off at short wavelengths (high frequencies). This is referred to as the “ultraviolet catastrophe” ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultraviolet_catastrophe ) and is one of the famous paradoxes that the photon theory provided a solution to.
Joel,
” The only way that radiation and matter can interact is if the matter has excitations (e.g., vibrational, translational, or rotational) that have electric dipole moments. For solid and liquid matter, there is a continuous spectrum of such excitation modes and the emission and absorption spectra are continuous.”
Yes agreed.
“For gases, however, this is not the case and the spectrum is basically discrete (with some broadening of the lines due to molecular collisions). And, in particular, for diatomic gases, the molecule and its vibrational and rotational excitations do not have a dipole moment and hence they cannot emit or absorb electromagnetic radiation.” This is flawed as N2 and O2 which have a temperature T and obeys the radiation laws on the Earth.
” This is all very basic understood science” by warmists
” and has nothing to do with “warmists”, whatever that means.” That means the warmists conveniently ignored that huge mass and heat content of N2 and O2 which have to obey radiation laws. Warmists deny these laws apply to N2 and O2. Any papers denied N2 and O2 obeying radiations were lawed.
“A good way to learn the basics of the science that you seem not to have a grasp of is to watch the series of videos of David Archer’s class at University of Chicago.” I have not gone thru this David Archer’s writing, but if he ignored/denied that O2 and N2 obey radiation laws, his writings were simply flawed and not worthy to spend time with him.
Sam NC,
Have fun wallowing in your own ignorance! It is hopeless for us to try to cure someone who does not want to be cured!
SamNC, a clue for you is that gases are not black bodies. Just because a gas contains heat doesn’t mean it has to radiate it. This is why O2 and N2 can’t radiate their internal energy, only conduct and convect it.
Jim D,
So you are effectively telling me and whole world that N2 and O2 Does not obey any radiation laws on Earth. In this case all radiation laws need to be modified to suit GHGs and not all body/matter having a temperature higher than 0K. I am sure Pekka, Trenberth and James Hansen agree with you. You need theories and hypothesis to back you up and then experimenting it.
Joel,
Told you you are too shallow not worthy of my time responding you.
SamNC, maybe you need to define your “radiation laws”. Clearly the rules of IR emission and absorption are not part of your laws, so they are incomplete at best.
Jim D,
“SamNC, a clue for you is that gases are not black bodies. Just because a gas contains heat doesn’t mean it has to radiate it. This is why O2 and N2 can’t radiate their internal energy, only conduct and convect it.”
So now you realize that the atmospheric (mainly 99% of N2 and O2) heat (99% due to O2 and N2) transfer is basically conduction and convection and atmosperic heat transfer due to radiation is minimal less than 1%. Congratulations, you have just lived outside of the CO2 ivory tower.
Your 1% number is wrong. CO2 and H2O account for a lot of radiative flux, and importantly that part of the flux accounts for 100% of the flux lost to space by clear air, and for most of the flux from the ground absorbed by the atmosphere, exceeding convective flux.
Jim D,
“Your 1% number is wrong.” Yes I had been too generous to give them 1%, CO2 is at best 0.04% at 15um.
“CO2 and H2O account for a lot of radiative flux,” account them if you are capable of doing that to make me to believe them.
” and importantly that part of the flux accounts for 100% of the flux lost to space by clear air,” Yes you are right 100% of the flux lost to space is by air which makes up by 99% of O2 and N2 and CO2’s contribution is at best 0.04%.
” and for most of the flux from the ground absorbed by the atmosphere,” Yes absorbed by air which has 99% O2 and N2 in composition.
” exceeding convective flux”? Real energy figures please! Assuming warming of 1C of air with 5×10^18 kg of air mass compared with CO2’s mass 44×0.04x5x10^18/29/100, after googling specific heat capacities for the CO2 and air, now you can do the mathe and appreciate the enormous energy involved that cannot be posibily provided by CO2’s IR radiation of 15um.
Jim D,
You are only counting on CO2’s 15um wavelength radiation to heat up the atmosphere. Have you ever wonder what happened to the rest of the LW spectrum radiated from the ground and the oceans? According to your GHG theory, any other Earth surface radiative wavelengths other than 15um and those by the other GHGs will radiate directly back to space. These amounts are also huge compared with CO2’s 15um radiation.
SamNC, only 10% or so is unaffected by greenhouse gases, the rest are affected by H2O and CO2, and all are affected by clouds.
On your other question, check out the Kiehl and Trenberth energy diagram (Google image search) for global budget numbers. It is posted everywhere these days. You seem a bit out of touch, so just digest that for a while.
Jim D,
You lazy to do mathe even though I have all the hints for you.
Your figures are never substantiated.
Kiehl and Trenberth’s were flawed, I blame AMS’s ignorant to publish their 1997 Global Annual Mean Radiation Budget which then widespread like virus attacking young innocent brains and planted deep root misinformation about CO2.
There is little point in arguing with people like Sam who refuse to even open up a basic radiation textbook, won’t listen to anyone, and have caught a bad case of Dunning-Kruger.
For example, upon opening any book that treats atmospheric radiative transfer at a quantitative (upper undergrad or grad) level, you’d learn that CO2 does not *only* absorb at 15 microns. The flux reduction associated with just this single wavelength point would be zero. Instead, CO2 absorbs over a rather large range between roughly 13 to 17 microns (with varying degrees of opacity and the strongest absorption near the line center). Sam gives the impression this area is small relative to the total IR emission, but for a body at 300 K, the 13 to 17 micron intensity is about 27 W/m2/sr, about 20% of the total intensity. This is hardly negligible. There is, as other pointed out, also substantial opacity from water vapor, clouds, and a bit from other trace gases (methane, ozone, etc).
You’d also learn that N2 and O2 do not possess the molecular properties to become greenhouse gases, at least not at Earth-like pressures, when the lack of an induced dipole moment forbids IR interaction. I have a very basic post on the greenhouse effect addressing some of the issues in the thread.
http://blog.timesunion.com/weather/understanding-global-warming-how-to-build-a-greenhouse-effect/1196/
This stuff is not hard to understand. The much harder question is why people like Sam and Claes continue to believe in dumb things in the face of repeated correction. It is also quite clear that no argument or line of evidence, theoretical or observation, will sway them from their ideas. They are conspiracy theorists and not acting as scientists.
SamNC, if it looked like you would learn, I would show more numbers and even some equations, but if you don’t even understand what Kiehl and Trenberth are showing in pictures no less, which is not under dispute (except by your dragonslayer friends who don’t seem to understand basic physics and measurement techniques), I will not bother.
Jim,
Let me ask you if you appreciate the quantity of 390 ppm CO2 and meaning of 0.04% of CO2 in air composition in atmosphere. If thats too difficult for you to grasp, let me tell you if all the sunlight absorb by the Earth radiated 100% CO2 (you warmists loved 15um), the best that CO2 can catch that 15um is rarely approach to 0.04% of the Earth surface radiated. In fact, sand, stone, asphalt, you name it radiated all sorts of LW wavelengths that are not 15um and cannot be absorbed by CO2. Its so simple. I don’t understand why you guys drilled on minute quantity of CO2’s radiation. My conclusion is that perhaps you warmists including alarmists (including Trenberth, James Hansen, Michael Mann …) are too dump to realize to appreciate heat/energy magnitudes CO2, O2, N2, land materals and ocean matters or you guys have a lot of invetsments in those so call non-carbon business or politically driven or academia living on the Government Grant and cannot leave the gravy train.
SamNC, I see you have invented your own radiation theory. I would invite you to go to Claes and compare it with his, and also John O’Sullivan and Ken Coffmann. Feel free to ask as many questions as you want of them, and don’t stop until you are satisfied. I think their theory may be a little difficult to follow for you, but keep asking if you are not sure of something.
N absorbs at 100nm or Ultraviolet. It drives nitrogen reactivity in the atmosphere and cannot be ignored in climatology. Not quite what SamNC is saying, but, not what YOU are saying either.
Oxygen is shown in most normal climatology spectra so I am not clear what problem you have with O2 being an absorber and emitter in the atmosphere?? O2 also absorbs Ultraviolet. This is what drives ozone creation and destruction with a steady change between O, O2, and O3 while the sun is shining. Not hard to figure out why we lose O3 over the Antarctic at night as there is no ozone creation for months and the circumpolar circulation tends to reduce exchange of atmosphere between the region and more northern areas.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Atmosfaerisk_spredning.gif
Notice that the largest absorption is between 5.5-7.5 microns and is by water. This is why Venus does NOT have a large Greenhouse effect. Even with the line broadening there is still a huge hole that it doesn’t cover. At the temp of Venus the center of the window is about 7microns leaving CO2 low on the shoulders at each end!!! Yes Chris, CO2 also absorbs at about 4.5microns, but that is much narrower than the 14-15micron band. It is also almost off the shoulder so accounts for little energy on earth.
kuhnkat– I look forward to reading your seminal paper in which you describe your radiative transfer model that accounts for the high Venus temperature without CO2. Good luck.
kuhnkat, I don’t see where you get any N2 absorption in the UV from, and it is irrelevant to IR anyway. Likewise O2 has no IR effect, while O3 has one that has to be taken into account. The 15 micron absorption is mostly important because the thermal IR’s peak is not far from there. As I mentioned, even Tyndall knew all this from direct measurement, and that was before quantum mechanics came along and explained why. I won’t get into Venus, but from what I have seen of that, the main advocate fails to account for its high albedo of 0.7.
Chris,
Don’t hold your breath. You will be waiting as long as I will for the Alarmists paper that proves it was greenhouse that heated Venus!!
JimD,
http://www.theenergylibrary.com/node/417
Here is another fun one:
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1989Icar…80..361M
It claims significant absorption by N2 of 2 micron IR. Oh, it is at temps found in the atmosphere of Triton.
N actually does emit IR, but, it is magnitudes smaller than GHG’s!! Apparently Sam hasn’t actually looked up the references for the reality of “everything over 0k absorbs and emits!” Yes it does, but, it isn’t particularly relevant to what we are discussing due to the
miniscule amount. Being a denier I still wonder if collisional emission might be higher, but, I have found no evidence of it so must pine for the lost possibility!
Jim D,
“SamNC, I see you have invented your own radiation theory.”
All I have learnt about radiation and applied here are from classical Planck’s & Kirchhoff’s radiation laws not the AGWers’ version of radiation – denying all classical radiation to suit GHG radiation. Denying that O2 and N2 that have temperatures above zero does not radiate. You AGWers are true deniers of classical radiation laws. Jim, you are a bad boy putting your imagination into my mouth, too dirty!
How about Arrhenius, did you learn anything from him? Or maybe Tyndall?
No. Never heard of their names in my classical radiation lessons when I was in the college/polytechnic/university decades ago. Are they the ones denied O2 and N2 have radiation properties and denied classical thermodynamics energy contents in them and said O2 and N2 have only particle properties with diminized heat content less or equal to GHGs’? If they believe so, then don’t bother link them to me or I will tease them after reading their works.
John Tyndall in the 19th century measured the radiative properties of gases including O2 and N2, and concluded that H2O has the biggest effect by far in the air.
Svante Arrhenius also in the 19th century made a calculation that doubling CO2 would have a significant warming effect.
These ideas have been supported and refined since then.
Check out their contributions to science on Wikipedia or in any good encyclopedia.
Arthur,
do you have a link to a wavelength and energy graph of DLR at night? I have heard there is quite a bit of radiation in the window. How do we explain down welling window energy at night?? (probably part of my general ignorance here) SOD’s presentation apparently uses studies that did not differentiate whether it was window or GHG bandwidths they were measureing or which carried the most IR.
SOD’s first graph shows there is significant DLR at 4-5microns overlapping one of CO2’s bands. Don’t forget that Solar curve ss 1/10 of actual to fit the graph!! So, past this area his statement that we know it is just ground rad is probably reasonable, except for the window bandwidth. (funny how his stuff gets nibbled away over time)
Give me a break. SOD’s graph shows almost no overlap between solar and atmospheric radiation. If the tiny overlap at the tails of the two spectrums bothers you, you are way off base.
RN,
then why does his graph TELL YOU that the solar curve has been reduced by a factor of 10 to fit?? Y’all have been getting fooled by not READING the details for years.
By the way, can you explain all the DLR in the WINDOW or show me measurements that shows it isn’t there? I have heard both ways and would like to find out with relative certainty.
Another question you might answer for me is what happens to the IR that we see absorbed in the spectra. If ALL of it stayed in the atmosphere or the ground seems like we wouldn’t have had the flat temps over the last 12 years? How does it get shifted to other wavelengths??
Ah…kuhnkat…It actually says it was multiplied by a factor of 10-(^6) to fit. But before you get too excited, you might want to consider the fact that the numbers given are in W/m^2 of the body’s surface. Only a miniscule fraction of the radiation from the sun is actually intercepted by the earth.
In fact, to within about a W/m^2, the amount of radiation absorbed by the earth from the sun and the emit that the earth emits back out into space are equal.
As usual, the only one being fooled is you.
I made another mistake Joel? Oh darn. I guess that tail that shows is real and is greater at 4 micron than earth emissions!! HAHAHAHAHA
Ron White is correct…
Chris,
“stupid is forever”
Please don’t be so hard on yourself.
Especially since Joel came back with this:
“It actually says it was multiplied by a factor of 10-(^6) to fit. But before you get too excited, you might want to consider the fact that the numbers given are in W/m^2 of the body’s surface. Only a miniscule fraction of the radiation from the sun is actually intercepted by the earth.”
So, about what the earth emits between 4-5 micron IS miniscule compared to 10^6. Of course, it does have to be reduced by that sneaky inverse power law so, since I am not literate in math, y’all want to do that and tell me whether it is about equal at 4 micron??
Joel, not sure about why w/m2 makes a difference. If he scaled it correctly it should be fine. If the w/m2 is for solar local it is totally wrong.
If you will go back and look at SOD’s claim, it was that the sun did not cause any interference in the primary OLR area. My claim was that between 4-5 microns there was enough radiation to cause an issue but I did not disagree with that statement for the rest of the range.
So, who is going to do the math to settle the issue?
Oh heck, maybe we can agree with this:
“Notice that now, the emission from the Earth is larger than the energy received from the Sun, for wavelengths longer than about 5 microns (a micron is 1.e-6 meters, or one thousandth of a meter) The exact cross-over point depends on the Earth’s emission temperature. The average surface temperature is a bit warmer than the emission temperature shown in this graph, so the cross-over point for surface emission occurs at a shorter wavelength.”
http://mynasadata.larc.nasa.gov/Radiation_Explanation.html
This is conceivably a good lesson in flux vs. intensity.
No, Joel, I don’t think so. It’s pretty clear that Kuhnkat knows what he’s doing. He’s not trying to convince you or anyone who studies climatology that you’re wrong. He’s only trying to convince the uneducated that there’s great controversy in the scientific community over global warming and that nothing global warming researchers say should be trusted.
Kuhnkat is one on of the foot soldiers of the denier industry, whose sole product is doubt. You can find him on page 182 in “Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming,” by Naomi Oreskes, professor of history and science studies at UC-San Diego, and science writer Erik M. Conway.
O.K., I made that up. Whatever Kuhnkat and his ilk have appears to be catching…
kuhnkat:
Here is an applet to calculate blackbody radiation in a particular wavelength range: http://v5.sdsu.edu/testhome/javaapplets/planckRadiation/blackbody.html . (The fraction of the total energy radiated in that range is given by “F”.) Using it, for example, one finds that the percentage of the radiated energy for a 5900K blackbody (a good approximation for the sun) that is at a wavelength of 4 microns and less than 6 microns is ~0.62%, with an additional 0.3% between 6 microns and 100 microns.
A blackbody at the earth’s average surface temperature of 288 K emits only 3.0% of its energy at 4-6 microns and less than 0.15% of its energy at less than 4 microns.
So, we can see that the overlap in the spectra is very small.
4micron has more energy than 5micron than 6micron right?? And I am disagreeing with SOD about the Solar insolation in the 4-5micron range which carries more energy per photon/wave than the 6-15 range.
Joel, I used a similar applet figuring out that peak power is about 7micron for Venus surface leaving the wide CO2 14-16 micron ranges far down on the shoulder carrying little energy and the 4.5 micron narrow range low on the shoulder. There would have to be a heap’o line broadening to make a major difference in the window in the lower atmosphere. As you go up you lose more power in the 4.5 than gain in the 14-16 until you are past the clouds. On earth we have H2O to catch some of the window, but, not on Venus.
Oh, OK. You are saying that the total energy that is emitted on that tail is small. Yeah, I agree with that. it is not a major contributor for Solar or Earth. As I said, just bits and pieces that aren’t right.
So, let’s get to the root of why we are arguing over “backradiation” and whether it matters whether the surface is heated by it or not. According to RealClimate it is not about the surface it is about the strat, tropopause, and upper troposphere.
RealClimate posted this explanation of the real Greenhouse effect:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/06/a-saturated-gassy-argument/
It is about the BOTTLENECK that gets created in the strat-trop. What is strange is that this bottleneck is due to more CO2 which supposedly blocks direct radiation from lower levels in the atmosphere increasing the average radiation altitude and lowering the average radiation temperature meaning we are limited in how much we can radiate..
In a realistic scenario the CO2 will heat the atmosphere from bottom up and cause the atmosphere to rise and spread out slightly offsetting the alledged blocking by the extra CO2. (notice I am not arguing over whether the temp increase is caused by more insolation, the backradiation ground effect, or some other forcing)
To try and see what empirical data there might be I did a small search. Here is the first good hit I found:
http://www.ann-geophys.net/19/1001/2001/angeo-19-1001-2001.pdf
A quick summary is that it found on a daily basis the atmosphere heats from the bottom up and causes the trop and tropopause to vary in height. That is, during the heating cycle the profile showed heating to the tropopause. The tropopause appears to narrow. This is what I would expect based on my rudimentary physics knowledge. Of course, the actual amounts and when is interesting but not something I can evaluate.
So, when the Alarmists talk about a bottleneck due to a higher density of GHG’s I tend to doubt as I see the atmosphere react as I would expect, rising and thinning. The GHG’s appear to speed the warming through the profile. At night, we see what the Alarmists claim, a lower cooler tropopause and troposphere that would slow its radiation rate due to a cooler average radiation temperature. During the day we see a higher warmer profile emitting more radiation.
So, as usual, this goes back to the computations by the models that tell us of a specific atmospheric profile that should already be happening for there to be GHG caused warming. We don’t see that profile so I doubt it is real. I figure it is an artifact of the issues with large grid sizes that are not able to emulate realistic transfers, not to mention the problems with magnitudes and signs in respect to the clouds and aerosols.
kuhnkat: That the lower wavelength photons are higher in energy is irrelevant since it has already been accounted for in the calculations that I gave you, which give you the fraction of the total radiative energy that fall into certain bands. I.e., they take the photon energy into account.
What matters in determining how much energy goes into certain wavelengths is the ratio of that wavelength to the wavelength of the blackbody peak. The 14-16 micron band is only at a wavelength that is about twice as large as the 7micron peak wavelength. That is a far cry from the situation of terrestrial vs solar radiation where the peaks differ in wavelength by a factor of ~20. (And, for example, 4microns is already somewhere around 8 times the peak wavelength for the solar radiation.)
Of course, none of the qualitative analysis is a substitute for the real quantitative analysis that is done to determine the effect of these bands for both the Earth and Venus.
I can’t make heads-or-tails about what you are even trying to say in the rest of your post.
Joel,
“I can’t make heads-or-tails about what you are even trying to say in the rest of your post.”
Uh yeah, that is the problem with a lot of y’all that can do the math. You don’t have the concepts.
I would suggest you go back and actually read the Real Climate post until you understand that it isn’t the “backradiation” that causes Greenhouse. It is the BOTTLENECK of OLR at altitude that causes Greenhouse. At least that is what the modelers believe and that is what they put in their models as shown by the missing “fingerprints.”
That is not to say “backradiation” is missing from their concept, only that it is not the driver. It is the idea that extra CO2 will will raise the average emission altitude faster than the increase in temperature raises the average emissions temperature.
You keep talking about the radiation bands in directions I did not go. Let me repeat since you appear to be having difficulties understanding what the discussion started on. I claimed that solar insolation between 4-5 microns was high enough to interfere with getting clean observations of “backradiation” at those wavelengths on earth. I also made the mistake of misinterpreting what was printed on the graphic making my claim sound ludicrous. You corrected me, but, did not finish the computation showing what the actual level of solar IR in the 4-5micron band at TOA was. I found and posted a NASA blurb that actually claimed they were similar at 4.5-5micron. So, not just enough solar to contaminate the observations, but, enough to be at least half of the DLR in this band. And no, this is not significant due to how little energy this represents. Except the actual difference that the models claim we are warming by each year isn’t much larger that this. (snicker)
I declare my original claim was correct with the caveat that I supported it incorrectly. If you want to continue trying to give me lessons in the concepts and particulars of the earth’s emissions band go right ahead. Who knows, maybe I do have an incorrect idea in that area somewhere and you will eventually hit on it.
My comment on Venus was only an OT since you threw in the applet.
“The 14-16 micron band is only at a wavelength that is about twice as large as the 7micron peak wavelength. That is a far cry from the situation of terrestrial vs solar radiation where the peaks differ in wavelength by a factor of ~20. (And, for example, 4microns is already somewhere around 8 times the peak wavelength for the solar radiation.)”
Are you trying to tell me that the emission bands on earth are “cooler” than the bands on Venus??
What is the point of whatever you are trying to tell me?
kuhnkat, we understand the concepts, but I agree that you really are not making much sense. The greater than 4 micron flux is extremely small (some ~1% of the total solar radiation) and cannot possibly be confused with the much higher DLR from the atmospheric emission. Keep in mind the difference between flux and intensity.
Really, you are talking like what one of those know-it-all high schoolers that just obtained his expertise by watching a youtube video. And I really have no idea how you conclude the GHE is small on Venus.
Please stop. It is embarrassing.
Chris,
here is an argument from authority.
Go argue with the people who created the link I posted from NASA who disagree with your feelings.
Unless you wish to put your computations up here so we can compare them with what their observations found??
I am working at NASA right now. Who should I talk to? I probably should not bother them with textbook questions I already know the answer to though.
Well Chris, since you apparently refuse to read the link, here it is again:
http://mynasadata.larc.nasa.gov/Radiation_Explanation.html
Curator: Daniel H. Oostra mailto:daniel.h.oostra@nasa.gov
NASA Responsible Official:
Dr. Lin Chambers mailto:Lin.H.Chambers@nasa.gov
I note that you did NOT post your estimation of the actual solar energy at TOA from 4-5 microns.
Askolnick | August 6, 2011 at 9:48 am | Reply
“I think a good analogy would be how a Muslim woman covered from head to toe by a chadri or burqa is warmed by the sun. Virtually NONE of the sun’s energy reaches her skin. Instead, she is warmed by her coverings, by downward radiation and by direct conduction.”
Warmists only think warming, unable to think the Muslim woman at a higher body temperature than the surrounding air doing the just the opposite! Pity warmists like putting their minds in ivory towers.
O.K. I seem to have misplaced my Secret Sammy Decoder Ring. Anyone got one to spare?
Pitty deniers like putting heads … never mind.
Don’t forget that not everyone who thinks CO2 causes massive warming believes in the unphysical “backradiation”. Some believe in “CO2 insulation” and some in “CO2 IR absorption”.
In any case, none of these supposed warming phenomena have been quantified in any laboratory experiments.
These are all consequences of the same thing. It is not an either/or with these. “Massive warming” is about 3 degrees per doubling in most people’s opinions.
Just to be a smart A$$:
“Massive warming” is about 3 degrees per doubling in most people’s opinions.”
So, most of the uneducated people in third world countries and the poorly educated people in 2nd and first world countries think there is about 3c warming per doubling of CO2??
Your statement is foolish on the face of it and even if we DID limit it to scientists would probably still be incorrect as there are a number who believe it is OVER 3c and a number who believe it is UNDER 3c leaving substantially less than MOST believing in 3c.
How much CO2 do you need to start? What is the upper limit?? In our earth system is it reasonable to believe that it will be this monotonic 3c as the system heats and changes? Y’all don’t have reliable answers because there haven’t been enough experiments to gather appropriate data to even start answering all the questions surrounding this hypothesis. Basic physical relationships are fine until they meet the complex interactions of the real world.
When I say most people, I mean most people who have the climate science background knowledge of where the number comes from, which are the only ones I listen to. If you are disagreeing that most climate scientists would consider 3 degrees a reasonable magnitude based on evidence, while they would say 1 degree is not reasonable, you should say that.
“When I say most people, I mean most people who have the climate science background knowledge of where the number comes from, which are the only ones I listen to.”
Most of the rest of the people have the good sense to think that climate scientists probably know more than they do about climate sensitivity. That is why 76% of Americans trust climate scientist as a source of information about global warming (compared to 38% who trust the news media, and 36% who trust their congressperson.)
Denying the basics of climate science requires two cognitive malfunctions, one common and excusable and the other less so:
1. Ignorance of the science
2. Lack of the common sense to use the expertise of those that have it in an area in which they are ignorant.
Most people do not have a firm grasp on science, but most people do, in a manner of which Socrates would improve, have an understanding that they do not know, and defer to those that do.
Except a poll out last week says 69% of Americans believe the scientist falsified or made up data.
http://toryaardvark.com/2011/08/04/69-us-adults-belive-climate-scientists-made-up-the-data/
Apparently the Can’t Fool All of the People All of the Time is kicking in.
Excuse me Cumquat, but recent Gallup polls also show that:
1 in 5 Americans think the sun revolves around the earth.
1 in 4 Americans believe the positions of the planets and stars can control our lives (astrology).
And about 3 out of 4 Americans believe in at least one nonsensical psychic belief — such as the existence of ghosts, haunted houses, possession by spirits, mental telepathy, and the powers of fortune tellers to see the future.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/16915/three-four-americans-believe-paranormal.aspx
So it’s a proven — not just apparent — fact that you can fool enough of the American people all of the time to make a very good — if not honest — living.
When people get their “news” from Fox News, NY Post, Wall St. Journal. etc. — all of which are run by Murdoch’s 24/7 anti-science propaganda machine — what else can we expect.
The debate continues, even when it is over: The alarmists continue to insist that there is backradiation or Downwelling Longwave Radiation DLR from the atmosphere to the Earth surface, because if you point an IR camera to the sky it may give a reading in W/m2. Does this show the reality of DLR?
No it does not, as I have already shown in the post
http://claesjohnson.blogspot.com/2011/02/judy-curry-and-backradiation.html
asking Judy for a response. Can you please now answer my question Judy:
Does the measurement of an IR camera show that there is massive DLR?
Hint 1: To understand the reading of an instrument one must understand how the instrument is constructed.
Hint 2: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermographic_camera
At this point, arguing with Claes seems like arguing with a flat earther about the interpretation of satellite images of the planet to space. The existence of back-radiation is well rooted in theory and in standard measurements… for example see Figure 3 of
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CBwQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.atmos.washington.edu%2F~ackerman%2FArticles%2FAckerman_ARM_Phys_Today.pdf&rct=j&q=www.atmos.washington.edu%2F~ackerman%2F…%2FAcker
This is a very standard measurement. For some references that I can think of offhand see work by David Turner (e.g., Turner et al.,: The QME AERI LBLRTM: A Closure Experiment for Downwelling High Spectral Resolution Infrared Radiance. 2004) but he has many others on his homepage, including field missions in the Polar Regions or the Great Plains…I only advertise this since he taught me radiation at undergrad level, but many people do this. Dan Lubin has some measurements with the FTIR measurement. Really, google scholar will turn up hundreds of papers. Grant Petty has some textbook images that have been thrown around the internet too which are good, and are available online via the Sundog publishing site for his radiation book. There is no need for an “original reference” unless only for historical curiosity, but this is all standard field campaign and measurement stuff, with endless papers on it. Claes has in fact read none of it or said anything on his site which challenges this work, except a distraction about Stefan-Boltzmann not readily applicable to emission by atmospheric gases (we known this…undergrad level stuff really), and some magic about how the atmosphere won’t radiate toward the surface, as if zillions of photons suddenly knew they were heading “downward” and decided to teleport away, perhaps to Mars. It is too stupid to be taken seriously, and aside from maybe one or two commenters here, I don’t think anyone finds this a point of contention so perhaps it is time to move on to something more interesting.
One point lost in all this back-radiation stuff is the implications for increased CO2 from anthropogenic global warming. One thing to keep in mind is that the surface temperature responds primarily to the TOA forcing, not the surface forcing. This is because the atmosphere (not just the surface) helps balance TOA perturbations by adjusting its OLR, and most terrestrial radiation to space originates in the upper troposphere (owing to its IR opacity). For an atmosphere that is fully opaque to longwave radiation from the surface, all OLR originates in the atmosphere– the atmospheric temperature adjusts to balance the forcing at TOA and is entirely controlled by the forcing at this level; further, because the atmosphere is well-stirred by convection, upper level temperatures lead to corresponding adjustments of the surface air temperature. The surface budget is balanced by adjustment of the difference between the surface and the overlying air temperature, and in equilibrium both the top and bottom of the atmosphere energy budgets should be satisfied.
The surface fluxes not only include increased ¨back radiation” but changes in surface IR radiation, as well as evaporation and sensible heating fluxes. These fluxes tend to to keep the SST close to the surface air temperature so that at equilibrium, TOA forcing has a primary influence on SST. The surface fluxes eventually bring SST and the atmospheric temperature into equilibrium with forcing at TOA. There are some exceptions– if you threw in an evaporation source in a hot desert, you could cool the surface even with a positive TOA forcing (e.g., increased CO2).
Or a moon landing denier about the Apollo photos. Or anti-vaccine nuts about mortality from childhood diseases pre-vaccine. And so on (http://xkcd.com/258/).
Lots of conspiracy theorists believe ridiculous things. There’s no reason to treat each delusion as though it were its own disorder. Rather, we should look at the political and social conditions that allow these delusions to affect public policy, as well as the elements in people’s personalities and their preexisting belief systems that make them vulnerable to these cognitive dead ends. And we should let those delusions air in all their silliness and self-contradiction, so that sensible people will be ashamed to be found repeating nonsense, not try to somehow force them into a rational track, which is unfortunately impossible.
Amen. Robert has hit the nail more solidly on the head than anyone else in this discussion.
Trying to convince a liar that he’s lying or trying to convince a schizophrenic that his delusions are not real is utterly futile. The liar intentionally rejects the truth and the schizophrenic is incapable of recognizing it.
Trying to convince any form of a Denier is just as much a waste of time, because their key strategy of coping with information that contradicts their fictional world view is to simply deny it, like a Fundamentalist denying the Devil.
As Robert mentions, the deniers of vaccine safety and efficacy are a perfect example. When the British General Medical Counsel found the deniers’ chief guru, Andrew Wakefield, guilty of fraud and dozens of counts of other serious misconduct, other ethical violations, they not only stood by the monster — they began accusing the General Medical Counsel with being part of the world-wide pharmaceutical conspiracy. If you switch “pharmaceutical” with “greenie” you would get almost the exact same speeches and arguments we hear from global warming deniers.
The GMC and the world-wide scientific community has found that Wakefield made up the data he reported in his discredited Lancet study linking measles-mumps-rubella vaccine to autism in children. Wakefield’s fraudulent study ignited an epidemic of fear leading to millions of parents around the world not vaccinating their children. And that led to a resurgence of measles, mumps, and rubella outbreaks in many countries killing thousands of children to date.
Wakefield was secretly being paid by a law firm representing parents who were suing vaccine manufacturers. In addition, he was secretly pursuing patents on a vaccine and other products he hoped to market once he got the current vaccines withdrawn with the help of his fraudulent study.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/24/magazine/mag-24Autism-t.html?pagewanted=all
It’s a sad testimony to how impossible it is to change the mind of a denier. Among the deniers, support for Wakefield remains the same as it was before the GMC verdict 19 months ago. Confronted by the GMC findings, they simply deny they’re true by claiming the scientists, physicians, and lawyers of the GMC are all part of the drug company-supported conspiracy.
I wouldn’t be surprised to see some global warming deniers chime in with a defense of Andrew Wakefield. The pathological mechanism of denial is the same no matter what is being denied. And deniers often use the same mechanism to deny anything they do not want to be true.
In short, don’t use a camera, that has a limited response window, use spectroscopy to quantify what all the wavelengths are doing. This is what scientists do, and the value is hundreds of W/m2.
I have written a new post on measuring DLR:
http://claesjohnson.blogspot.com/2011/08/how-to-fool-world-by-measuring-masive.html
Hi Claes.
I wish you well in your project to return physics to the rational days of Maxwell.
Pekka on Judy’s blog made the all to true comment that most physicists do not worry about philosophy.
This is unfortunate, but quantum mechanics gives them a ready toolbox to get the “right answers” and to them, that all that matters.
The sad fact is that even if you are totally successful and can duplicate all QMs answers there will be no reason for them to switch from the “consensus” orthodox QM world view back to Maxwell and rationality.
Thomas Kuhn points out that to get them to switch you need to address successfully some problem that quantum mechanics cannot solve.
Looking over your posts on this site its apparent that you are very well read.
I wonder if you have read any of the work of David Bohm?
He was a sceptic about quantum mechanics and yet wrote the best textbook on the topic.
As ever the sceptical “warts and all” view gives the clearest statement.
Good Luck
Bryan.
Brilliant! We have Claes basing his whole argument on the idea that if someone writes an equation in the form D = C*(B-A), it means something entirely different than if they write it as D = C*B – C*A. It is clear that Claes is not writing his posts for anyone with any amount of scientific or mathematical knowledge; he is only appealing to people who are ignorant enough to buy such nonsense.
Of course, his argument makes no sense anyway. If the separation that he claims were impossible were impossible, then how would the instruments even measure the “frequency spectrum” associated with the certain temperature?
And, of course, a thread of this type isn’t complete without Bryan stopping by to cheerlead for this pseudoscientific nonsense!
Yes Joel, it is the same algebraically but not physically. To understand this one has to understand both math and physics. As I said, IR cameras measure frequency spectrum but the translation to DLR is ad hoc and freely invented. I think you will be able to understand this, if you give it a try.
Claes,
Such a trivial rewriting is without physical significance. The reason physics books tend to write it in the form D = C*(B-A) is that it looks cleaner to put the common terms in a factor out front. It does not mean that they support your crazy interpretation.
In regards to the IR cameras: How exactly do they measure the frequency spectrum of something which (according to you) doesn’t even exist? Do they just “look” at it and intuit the frequency spectrum by magic?
No, there is a reason it is written D = C*(B-A), a good reason. If you derive the law from basic principles this becomes clear. If you just pull it from the shelf, it is less clear. You have to look at the proof to properly understand a theorem or law.
The IR camera can record the frequency of incoming light, in principle through oscillators of different frequencies, or sensors sensitive to different frequencies if you like. But the sensors are not blackbodies and
the incoming light is focussed and amplified so that it can be sensed. From the measured spectrum a DLR is associated by an ad hoc SB law
which is a fake SB law without support. Is this clear?
Claes,
It is not clear because it is nonsense. You are just throwing out irrelevant objections to any empirical data to avoid the fact that the empirical data shows your physical interpretation of the SB Law (which is, as we have noted, irrelevant to the existence of the greenhouse effect anyway) is incorrect. Frankly, you are no better than the Young Earthers who find reasons to doubt any empirical data that the earth is more than 6000 years old. At some point, it just becomes impossible to argue because you are not arguing from empirical data but really on the basis of your “religious” beliefs. (In your case, it is not a religion in the classical sense, although it might as well be.)
Do you really expect any serious scientist to examine your work and be convinced by it? Can you name even one who has?
(at the very real risk of pointlessly prolonging the agony here…)
Joel – it’s not even that. We have actual, real observational measurements of downward radiation from the atmosphere, let’s call them DLR(lambda) (lambda = wavelength, which can be treated perfectly classically). These can be taken with any chilled device that accumulates energy behind a diffraction grating at close to 0 K, so we know to a certain precision the numerical values of lambda and DLR for each measurement, giving the spectral curves shown for example on ScienceOfDoom’s page.
Claes however lumps all these thousands of DLR(lambda) measurements into one number – A. He then says this is really part of “B – A”, and that this proves that A doesn’t exist. And therefore DLR(lambda) doesn’t exist. Or something like that – despite the fact that it is a directly measured quantity!!
….But you have no original reference for A…therefore A doesn’t exist.
Duh
Of course, he will never believe any empirical measurement of A. He always has some excuse…The measurement apparatus isn’t a perfect blackbody (hardly surprising since no object truly is) or whatever. The only interesting question in all this is whether he is really completely deluded himself or whether he knows he is spewing nonsense and, if the latter is true, what motivates him to do this…Is there money involved or does he think his deceit is somehow in the service of some greater good?
Mr. Smith,
your problem is that the DLR is minimal without the OLR. You do understand that don’t you?? Since they will both exist concurrently, or not, then saying we measure a downward flux of y is meaningless when the upward flux is larger than y. It is the epitome of the circular argument. It really doesn’t matter the mechanism, the fabled 390w/m2 is simply adding energy going up and down. The fabled 324w/m2 is the same. Meaningless abstractions even if we can measure the frequencies. Potentials that will not be doing work.
Let’s try and explain it this way. I have 1 sensor station in a river measuring the volume and speed of the flow. I take observations at 5 minute intervals. Can I add 3 of those observations together to determine how large of a turbine I can spin without building a dam to store water? Of course not. If I set up three stations and measure at different locations along the river, can I add those three measurements together? Again, of course not!! I am measuring one flow not three. The DLR is part of the radiation you measured going up. You are counting part of this flux more than once in the 390w/m2 measurement!! You are measuring part of the OLR when you get your 324w/m2 measurement. It is the same energy displaced in time and space!!! If you use part of that OLR to drive a chemical reaction it will not be available to be measured in the DLR. Using only part of the SB formulae when computing the flux from an object radiating against another is just this type of fallacy.
Another possibility would be an oxbow in a river where the ground is fairly flat. If the geometry was right the pressure of the flow could push some of the water over the banks to a point “upstream” ending up with some of the flow traversing the same section of the river two or more times. Does this add to the total flow past this point in the river?? NO!! Yet, your empirical observation would show an increased flow through this one short section!
What has to be remembered is that loop had to fill at some point and won’t empty completely until the source runs dry. In the atmosphere it never completely empties either because of the thermal mass of the earth and the atmosphere, neither of which are good conductors, providing the energy to the GHG’s. The level generally just rises and falls.
kuhnkat:
Since Arthur hasn’t been back for a while to respond, I’ll just say this:
Analogies are only useful if they are at all analogous…and the way to know if they are at all analogous is to understand the physics first at a level that is beyond the analogy. What you write here is such complete utter nonsense that it hard to believe that even you are not writing it in utter desperation to come up with any sort of argument that you can think of in order to believe what you want to believe.
You really need to learn physics before you try and discuss it. For heaven’s sake, please, please, read this and try to comprehend just how relevant it is to you: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
Joel,
yup, I am really ignorant. That is why it is so fun to watch people like you who DO think you are pretty good blow it so badly consistently. I can’t wait to hear more on the Postmas paper.
Thanks Bryan. I have browsed Bohm but I have not been triggered. In any case QM clearly needs to be upgraded.
Claes
Joel Shore Chris Colose and Arthur Smith are all part of the warmista Taliban.
They are incapable of independent thought.
They enter discussions as a propaganda exercise.
All that can be expected of them is a catechism of shallow half digested IPCC propaganda.
If the going gets too tough for them then they resort to crude insults.
I love the odor of hypocrisy in the morning…
Our pundit Bryan has a convincing technique for rebutting people’s arguments. He has a mirror set up next to his computer screen and, when disputing people, he glances as his own image and begins typing.
I have commented on David Archer’s explanation of the greenhouse effect in a class for non-scientists at the University of Chicago, on
http://claesjohnson.blogspot.com/2011/08/how-to-fool-class-with-greenhouse.html
Claes
As I predicted the warmista Taliban have appeared on cue.
Now had your project of revisiting the Maxwell Planck departure not involved comment about global warming they would not be here.
They are not interested in teasing out the reasons why mainstream physics followed a particular direction.
They will not give you a fair hearing.
For some it is because they cannot understand, but others have a closed mind.
For myself I regard the photon exchange model the best current explanation but as ever if QM fails to address a critical problem and you come up with a better solution then your efforts will be widely appreciated.
If there’s any subject that can get global warming deniers gyrating and gibber-jabbing, it’s Venus’ hellish climate. That planet is the 5.366 million million billion ton elephant in the room that Sky Dragon Slayers and other deniers of CO2’s greenhouse effect would prefer to ignore. Because it makes them so uncomfortable and gets them gibber-jabbing, let’s discuss Venus.
Dante in his Inferno did not describe a more hellish place than the surface of Venus where, on a balmy day, the temperature is hot enough to melt lead, zinc, selenium, cadmium, bismuth, tin and turn all organic substances to charcoal.
With the exception of a handful of self-styled geniuses like the Sky Dragon Slaying “scientists,” the entire scientific community recognizes how the greenhouse effect of Venus’ massive CO2 atmosphere is the cause of the planet’s aberrant temperature, which is more than 800 degrees hotter than earth’s average temperature — 867 degrees F vs. 59 degrees F.
But no! the Sky Dragon Slayer geniuses jibber. Venus is so much hotter because it’s a little closer to the sun. And it’s also heated by the enormous pressure of its atmosphere heats, they jabber. Let’s examine those idiotic claims.
Venus is roughly 67 million miles from the sun and earth is 93 million miles away. That means the solar energy shining on earth is about half the amount shining on Venus. However, because of its thick cloud cover, Venus has an enormous albedo that’s almost twice as high as earth’s (.67 vs. .37). As a result, Venus is NOT ABSORBING a substantially greater amount of solar energy than earth.
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/venusfact.html
So it must be the all that squeezing by its 520 million billion ton atmosphere that keeps it toasty. Or so Sky Dragon Slayer leader John O’Sullivan argued on LinkedIn’s Science and Engineering Writers Group discussion he started in May, where he ridiculed scientists who believe there’s a greenhouse effect on Venus:
“Since Climategate a swath of physicists and astrophysicists and other specialists have begun to look closely at what those generalists in the infant science of Climatology have been up to. One of many errors they have been quick to point out is that climatologists are entirely wrong about Venus. These experts will tell you there is no greenhouse effect at all, and you can prove it for yourself.”
It’s easy to bamboozle the scientifically ignorant about pressure causing heat — since most people know that when you compress something like the air in your car tire, it heats up. But it’s not pressure that causes heat, it’s compression. When the pressure stops increasing, the heat from compression will disperse and the temperature of the compressed gas will fall to ambient temperature.
Anybody who has ever held a carbon dioxide fire extinguisher or touched a tank of compressed CO2 should realize this. Although the pressure inside a full tank of CO2 is about 900 psi — nearly 2/3 of the atmospheric pressure on the surface of Venus (about 1360 psi) — it’s no warmer than the temperature of the room!
Apparently neither O’Sullivan or his “swath of physicists and astrophysicists” understand the difference between pressure and compression. Who is the Sky Dragon Slayer leader’s chief authority on Venus? One Harry Dale Huffman, who I’ll discuss in the next comment.
Is Venus rotating? Friction within the boundary layer?
You know, Mark, I supplied you with the link to look up the answer to your question. If you had bothered to look you would have seen it’s an absurd explanation for why Venus is more than 800 degrees F hotter than earth.
If “friction within the boundary layer” is heating Venus to nearly 900 degrees F, then it would turn earth into a giant ball of molten magma and steam since our planet rotates 116.75 times faster than Venus!
Which leads me to wonder what the next denier “theory” will be proffered to explain Venus’ metal-melting temperature. A broken thermostat? An invisible giant magnifying glass being held in space between Venus and the sun by those “god-like” aliens Harry Dale Huffman likes to write about?
Venus rotates slower than Earth. Its day is longer than its year.
116.75 times slower.
So who are these experts that have exposed the greenhouse effect on Venus hoax? The only one the Sky Dragon Slayer leader John O’Sullivan named in the LinkedIn discussion is Harry Dale Huffman, who he claims “is a highly-respected physicist who has worked in both in academe and high-tech industry.”
In another dimension maybe, but not in ours. Huffman is a crank who self-publishes bizarre alternative theories on things like plate tectonics, the building of the pyramids, and why Australia looks like a sheepdog if you hold a map upside down! (No, I’m not making this up.)
Huffman holds no PhD in any field. He self-publishes his “science” via Amazon.com, where his books rank among the 4 millionth to 6 millionth lowest in sales! Though they were published 7 years ago, they still have no reviews or reader comments. He complains that most science journal editors won’t even reply to his letters. So of course he has to self-publish his revolutionary discoveries. And this is what in O’Sullivan’s bizzaro world is classified as “a highly respected physicist.”
Among the revolutionary discoveries proclaimed in Huffman’s self-published books is his surprising revelation how the earth was actually shaped — not by natural forces over billions of years — but by “gods” who came to earth aboard UFOs to reshape its land masses a mere 15,000 to 20,000 years ago. And after that, they taught the Egyptians how to build the pyramids.
http://www.amazon.com/Mystery-Harry-Dale-Huffman-Sciences/dp/B004QFKNN4/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1312896143&sr=1-1
http://www.amazon.com/Run-Mystery-Harry-Dale-Huffman/dp/1440465509/ref=pd_rhf_p_t_2
http://www.amazon.com/Run-Mystery-Harry-Dale-Huffman/dp/1440493960/ref=pd_rhf_p_t_3
Huffman claims all the geologists of the world who study plate tectonics are “incompetent,” since he has shown beyond a doubt that the plate tectonic theory is childish fiction. He has proven, he says, that 15,000 to 20,000 years ago, the entire face of our planet was reshaped not by continental drift but by the work of “advanced people” from outer space, whom our ancient ancestors called “gods.” At the same time, the alien visitors rearranged the stars in the heavens to leave us a message — a “message stored for mankind” he says, that he alone has been able to decipher.
Huffman claims to have unraveled many of the great mysteries that baffle scientists — whom he claims are too closed-minded to see the truths that he has been revealed. He alone has been able to tease out the messages left by those “gods.” For example, he has discovered the lost continent of Atlantis — which has been hiding under everyone’s noses! It seems the flying saucer gods moved it up to the Arctic Circle where it is now known as “Greenland.”
http://newsblaze.com/story/20090704165433zzzz.nb/topstory.html
Perhaps his funniest bit of crackpottery is his “evidence” of the alien’s “Grand Design,” which is is the “abundance of creature-like shapes” on the globe that are “generally incomplete or otherwise ambiguous, but many quite stunning.” For example, if you turn the globe upside down, Australia looks to him “like a sheep dog,” he says. Woof!
http://www.lulu.com/items/volume_37/576000/576552/1/print/independent_confirmation2.pdf
For an idea just how kooky Mr. O’Sullivan’s leading “astrophysicist” authority on Venus is, see if you can recognize the “sheep dog” in an upside map of Australia: http://aaskolnick.com/hold/australia.jpg
Putting aside sheep dogs, Egyptian pyramids, and the rediscovered continent of Atlantis, what does the Sky Dragon Slayer leader’s “highly respected physicist” have to say about Venus? See the following comment.
The Sky Dragon Slayer leader’s expert doesn’t seem to think much of Dr. Judith Curry. It might be due to Phd-envy — or more likely, the fact that he’s a raving loon.
“The ‘debate’ put forth by Judith Curry and other believers in the greenhouse effect is incompetent in the face of the Venus/Earth evidence,” Harry Dale Huffman proclaims.” When it comes to incompetence, Harry is an authority.
For example, he says, “The temperature difference between the atmospheres of Venus and Earth is entirely and precisely due to their different distances from the Sun, nothing else — not to the planetary albedo (Venus is covered by dense clouds that reflect much of the visible solar radiation, while Earth is not), not to the IR absorptive properties of the surface (Earth is 70% covered by deep ocean, Venus is solid crust), and above all not to the concentration of CO2 or any other IR-absorbing gas in the atmospheres.” http://objectivistindividualist.blogspot.com/2011/01/blackbody-radiation-and-consensus.html
If the discoverer of the lost continent of Atlantis is right about this, then Mercury, which is half of Venus’s distance to the sun, should be 4 times as hot! Alas, Mercury is not a subject Huffman, O’Sullivan, and the other Sky Dragon Slayers would like to talk about for good reasons.
While earth is 1.4 times further from the sun than Venus (93 million miles vs. 67 million), Venus is TWICE as far from the sun as Mercury (36 million miles). At about twice the distance, Venus is exposed to only 29 percent of the solar radiation that shines on Mercury. In addition, Venus’ enormous albedo is almost 5 times as high as Mercury’s — that is, it reflects 67% of sun light vs. 14% of the sun light that shines on Mercury.
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/mercuryfact.html
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/venusfact.html
Because Venus is 1.86 times further from the sun, solar radiation at Mercury’s orbit is more than 3.46 times greater than at Venus’ orbit. And Venus reflects 67% of that radiation, compared with 14% reflected by Mercury. So, if X is the strength of solar radiation that shines on Venus:
Solar radiation adsorbed by Venus = 1/3 X
Solar radiation adsorbed by Mercury = .86 x (3.46 X)
Which means Mercury adsorbs 8.9 times as much solar energy as Venus adsorbs.
By Huffman’s and O’Sullivan’s “logic,” Mercury should be much, much hotter than Venus — which of course is utter nonsense. The innermost planet’s average temperature is 333 deg F (440 deg. K ) vs. Venus’ metal-melting 867 deg. F (773 deg. K). Venus is 1.75 HOTTER than the innermost planet — not colder.
I have to laugh out loud when O’Sullivan’s authority calls Dr. Curry “incompetent.” The discoverer of the lost continent of Atlantis says, “The temperature difference between the atmospheres of Venus and Earth is entirely and precisely due to their different distances from the Sun, nothing else.”
It that were true either Mercury would be so hot that it would glow visibly like a red dwarf sun or Venus would be a frozen planet. What can possibly make Venus 1.75 times hotter than the planet that is half as far from the sun? If I say the greenhouse effect, it would make the Sky Dragon Slayers boiling mad.
The greenhouse effect.
The only difference between Mercury and Venus that can account for Venus being nearly twice as hot as a planet half the distance from the sun is its massive carbon dioxide atmosphere. Mercury’s near-vacuum atmosphere is estimated to weight less than 2200 lbs! Venus is encased in an atmosphere composed of 97% CO2 that weighs 520 million billion tons (which is approximately 100 times greater than earth’s.)
O’Sullivan and his “highly respected physicist” should stick to finding the shapes of animals in maps of land masses. I myself have been studying a map of Sky Dragon Slayerland, where every body looks remarkably like a dodo.
(This was meant to the beginning of my 3 posts on Venus, but it got lost.)
If there’s any subject that can get global warming deniers gyrating and gibber-jabbing, it’s Venus’ Hades-like climate. That planet is the 5.366 million million billion ton elephant in the room that Sky Dragon Slayers and other deniers of CO2’s greenhouse effect would prefer to ignore. So, because it makes them so uncomfortable and gets them gibber-jabbing, let’s discuss Venus.
Dante in his Inferno did not describe a more hellish place than the surface of Venus where, on a balmy day, the temperature is hot enough to melt lead, zinc, selenium, cadmium, bismuth, tin and turn all organic substances to charcoal.
With the exception of a handful of self-styled geniuses like the Sky Dragon Slaying “scientists,” the entire scientific community recognizes how the massive greenhouse effect of Venus’ massive CO2 atmosphere is the cause of Venus’ aberrant temperature — which is more than 800 degrees hotter than earth’s average temperature — 867 degrees F vs. 59 degrees F.
But no, the Sky Dragon Slayer geniuses jibber. Venus is so much hotter because it’s a bit closer to the sun. Oh, and it’s also heated up by the enormous pressure of its atmosphere heats it up too, they jabber. Let’s examine those idiotic claims.
Venus is roughly 67 million miles from the sun and earth is 93 million miles away. That means the solar energy shining on earth is about half the amount shining on Venus.
However, because of its thick cloud cover, Venus has an enormous albedo that’s almost twice as high as earth’s (.67 vs. .37). As a result, Venus is NOT ABSORBING a significantly greater amount of solar energy than earth.
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/venusfact.html
So it must be the all that squeezing by its 520 million billion ton atmosphere that keeps it toasty. Or so Sky Dragon Slayer leader John O’Sullivan argued on LinkedIn’s Science and Engineering Writers Group discussion he started in May, where he denied there is any greenhouse effect on Venus:
“Since Climategate a swath of physicists and astrophysicists and other specialists have begun to look closely at what those generalists in the infant science of Climatology have been up to. One of many errors they have been quick to point out is that climatologists are entirely wrong about Venus. These experts will tell you there is no greenhouse effect at all, and you can prove it for yourself.”
It’s easy to bamboozle the scientifically ignorant about pressure causing heat — since most people know that when you compress something like the air in your car tire, it heats up. But it’s not pressure that causes heat, it’s compression. When the pressure stops increasing, the heat from compression will disperse and the temperature of the compressed gas will fall to ambient temperature.
Anybody who has ever held a carbon dioxide fire extinguisher or touched a tank of compressed CO2 should realize this. Although the pressure inside a full tank of CO2 is about 900 psi — nearly 2/3 of the atmospheric pressure on the surface of Venus (about
1360 psi) — it’s no warmer than the temperature of the room!
Apparently neither O’Sullivan or his “swath of physicists and astrophysicists” understand the difference between pressure and compression. Who is the Sky Dragon Slayer leader’s chief authority on Venus? One Harry Dale Huffman, who I’ll discuss in the next comment.
Askolnick
Whatever is responsible for the hot climate of Venus, it has nothing to do with the ficticious so called Greenhouse Theory.
Give this paper a careful read then comeback and discuss it.
http://www.tech-know.eu/uploads/The_Model_Atmosphere.pdf
I think you will agree, Joseph Postmas paper leaves no room for a rational belief of theGreenhouse Theory
LMAO! Show me where in all that double-talk Sky Dragon Slayer Postmas explains why Mercury — which is much less reflective and twice as close to the sun than Venus — is more than 300 deg. C colder!
Huh? Where does he explain this very inconvenient fact?
I was expecting to find something about space gods holding an invisible magnifying glass between the sun and venus, but no. Postmas decided to go with the “say nothing and hope the rubes don’t notice” strategy.
You really think you can get away with such blatant cowflop?
I made a few points regarding Postma´s ridiculously flawed paper at
http://www.realclimate.org/?comments_popup=8405#comment-212557
Be skeptical of your skepticism…
Chris Colose says
“1) The author seems to have a huge issue with the factor of “4″ used in the radiative balance equation S(1-a)=4sigma*T^4 in deriving the emission temperature”.
There Is no problem with the 4, its schoolboy mathematics.
” The diurnal temperature range is relatively smooth over Earth ”
That includes the deserts then, I suppose?
” he attempts to use a single-layer atmosphere in order to derive this result, which itself is absurd.”
The reason for a simple one layer is to see if there is ANY effect.
If so, it can then be scaled up.
” For a single layer atmosphere, the surface temperature is constrained to be no greater than (2^0.25)*Te, where Te is ~255 K on Earth ”
(see his equation 8)
His equation 8 is the 255K part where did the 2^.25 come from?
Postma points out on page 19 that the parallel plate geometry(PPG) has been copied mindlessly from solar type situations.
For a star all points at equal distance from the centre will have the same temperature so PPG is justified.
For Earth this its completely absurd to use this model as the temperatures over the globe vary widely from the same distance from the Earth centre.
On page 24 he sums up this point.
The KT97 energy balance diagram tries to model theEarth with 4 Suns emitting 342W/m2 insteadof a real day/night Earth with 1370W/m2 on the Sun facing side.
Totally unreal.
“3) You can poke a lot of holes in the simple textbook explanations”
Yes as far as the Greenhouse Theory is concerned.
“4) The author seems to imply that a constant lapse rate fixed over defined depth of the atmosphere forbids “back radiation” to increase the temperature differential between the top and bottom of the atmosphere.”
There is no connection between adiabatic lapse rate and radiation( ask SoD).
“On Earth, the higher tropopause (in the tropics for example)
is instead largely a result of the lower lapse rate.”
Most scientists think that this is due to the Latent Heat of Condensation of Water
..” but I’m sure others can have fun poking jabs at some more”…..
Looks like the jokes on you Chris!
Bryan,
Read the paper then you can understand my criticisms.
Chris
I have obviously read the paper and your vacuous comments.
Yes…In absolute temperature, the range is not that dramatic. And, of course, more realistic models account for this. (See Arthur Smith’s paper in response to G&T for some exactly-solved intermediate-complexity cases: http://arxiv.org/abs/0802.4324 ) Simple models just illustrating the basic principles of the greenhouse effect don’t…That is why they are simple models.
See his Equation 14 with f = 1. Speaking of which, this might be as good a time as any to note that, while it may exist somewhere, I actually haven’t seen the model that Postma wrote down exactly in the form in which he wrote it. And I am a bit uncomfortable about a model that pretty explicitly violates Kirchkoff’s Law for the atmospheric layer. I.e., it has an absorptivity of of [1-f] for the radiation from the ground but an emissivity of 1; technically, the fact that the spectra are different for the absorbed and emitted radiation could allow for some difference in emissivity, since it is wavelength-dependent, but the spectral difference is probably not great enough to justify such a difference, especially if f is not kept small (much less than 1). Probably better to use gray-body layers.
Of course, his taking f to 2 is simply ridiculous. He is taking that model beyond where it makes any sense whatsoever. He rationalizes it by needing to choose that value to reproduce the temperature on Venus…but the real point is that Venus can’t be modeled by a one-layer model at all because you are too far into the high optical depth limit, so most radiation will suffer many absorptions and re-emissions before finding its way out into space.
Pushing a simple model until it breaks and then implying that this illustrates a breakdown of the whole phenomenon is pseudoscience not science, particularly when he knows or ought to know there are plenty of better models out there.
It’s not a model…It’s data. And, it comes from a very complex technique called “taking an average”, which is in fact completely justified (modulo issue of making sure you average the right quantities…like T^4 instead of T when there is considerable variation in temperature over the surface), especially when one is considering something like the effective blackbody temperature.
Again, this is more pseudoscientific claptrap from Postma. Intelligent people will talk intelligently about the virtues of looking at average values vs looking at the entire global distribution (as is done in full climate models). Pseudoscientists do what Postma does.
As far as anything is concerned. The point of simple models is not to get all the details right but to illustrate the basic effect. It is a sign of extreme scientific immaturity (and that one is peddling pseudoscience) to criticize a simple model as being too simple when that is its purpose and one knows (or should know) that more complex models are used for more quantitative calculations.
I won’t nitpick on whether that statement is a too strong…but it is a complete strawman. There are plenty of things that can change, such as the atmospheric height…or simply the height up to the tropopause and the temperature at the tropopause. (Postma seems to ignore these details perhaps because he doesn’t want readers to start to ask too many inconvenient questions.)
The latest Postma paper is nothing more than some more fodder for pseudoscientists and anybody who takes it seriously is telling the scientific community that they are clowns.
Joel, I agree with your concern about the emissivity in Postma´s layer, but it turns out he gets the right answer because he did not include two emissivities (one in his equ. 12 and one in equation 11), and those two mistakes cancel.
It is when he starts to get into ´Fictions in the Boundary conditions´ though that he really reveals that he has no idea what is going on…
Chris, I have to admit I have lost you on that.
Joel, if I understood your concern correctly (because I noticed the same thing), it is that the RHS of his eq. 11 should read (1-f)σTs^4 + fσTa^4 (instead of (1-f)σTs^4 + σTa^4)
You are correct. However, his equation 12 is also wrong and should be fσTs^4=2fσTa^4
So he makes two mistakes. But when you substitute eq 12 into 11 to get his eq. 14, those mistakes cancel and he gets the right answer.
The emissivity question you raise only illustrates how fair Postma has been.
To give the theory the best chance of showing some “effect” he has given the atmospheric slab the maximum emissivity of 1.
But even after bending over backwords to help give the theory “a fair wind” it has not helped.
Bryan,
thanks for explaining the emissivity question. I was wondering what the heck the 1 was. I was expecting something smaller.
Of course, it would appear that some alarmists actually expect the emissivity to BE 1!!
Chris,
Okay…I see it now. I guess the point is that he consistently used “Ta^4” for what should have been “f*Ta^4”, so the answer he got for Ts after eliminating Ta was unaffected. So, his Ts result should agree with the known result for a 1-layer graybody atmosphere.
(Although I do believe that what he gets for Ta will not be correct…except for when f=1.)
Joel
Postma points out on page 19 that the parallel plate geometry(PPG) has been copied mindlessly from solar type situations.
For a star all points at equal distance from the centre will have the same temperature so PPG is justified.
For Earth this its completely absurd to use this model as the temperatures over the globe vary widely from the same distance from the Earth centre.
However you seem to disagree.
You think that if we put them on the Kelvin Scale then there is very little difference.
Very well then, the range in Kelvin units over the planet surface is from 185K to 330K at the same distance from Earth centre.
Now that might seem the same to a greenhouse thoery enthusiast but only pseado scientists would tollerate tripe like that.
On page 24 Postma sums up this point.
The KT97 energy balance diagram tries to model the Earth with 4 Suns emitting 342W/m2 instead of a real day/night Earth with 1370W/m2 on the Sun facing side.
Totally unreal.
Very good, Bryan. You have successfully parroted the nonsense that Postma has written. Do you want a cracker for that?
Please Joel, don’t. If you give this loud squawking bird a cracker he’ll only poop here more.
Joel says
” I actually haven’t seen the model that Postma wrote down exactly in the form in which he wrote it. And I am a bit uncomfortable about a model that pretty explicitly violates Kirchkoff’s Law for the atmospheric layer. I.e., it has an absorptivity of of [1-f] for the radiation from the ground but an emissivity of 1;”
Well as a frequent visitor to SoD site of pseudoscience I can assure you that this is standard greenhouse theory.
Then “twin peaks” graphs of solar and earth thermal radiation are shown with their different emissivities and the reason given is the wide difference in wavelengths.
Postma being fair minded presents the standard greenhouse theory.
He obviously does not agree with it but he represents it without distortion.
I am not talking about the solar vs earth thermal radiation. They are over different parts of the spectrum and do have very different emissivities. I am talking about the emissivity of the atmospheric layer (which he assumes to be 1) vs. the absorptivity for terrestrial radiation of the atmospheric layer (which he assumes to be f). However, Chris has pointed out that his assumption does not change Postma’s result for the surface temperature from what he would have gotten if he used f for both emissivity and absorptivity. (I do think it changes the result for the temperature of the atmospheric layer.)
That still leaves the big problem with how he tries to apply the model to a case where we know this 1-layer approximation is inadequate, which is Venus. And, how he trues to take f greater than 1.
And, by the way, this is not “the standard greenhouse theory”. It is one simplified model of the greenhouse theory, useful for understanding the basic qualitative effects.
Joel
I said
There is no connection between adiabatic lapse rate and radiation( ask SoD).
You said
…..”I won’t nitpick on whether that statement is a too strong”…
But that’s exactly what you’re doing.
The are several textbook derivations of the adiabatic lapse rate and none of them involve radiation.
Talk about pseudoscience.
You are simply lying about (or unable to comprehend) what I am talking about. I did not mention again anything about whether that statement was too strong.
The simple point I made is that the adiabatic lapse rate determines how the temperature decreases with height (the slope of a line) but it does not determine the intercept. If you have the line y = mx + b and you only know the slope m, you can’t say that you can tell me y for a particular value of x. Is this fact too complicated for you to understand?
The adiabatic lapse rate is determined by convection only, but without the greenhouse effect there would not be any part of atmosphere, where the adiabatic lapse rate would exist.
Radiation and GH effect are the reasons of existence of large temperature gradients, convection prevents them from being even larger.
Joel
You said
…..”I won’t nitpick on whether that statement is a too strong”…
This implies you could nitpick which you know you cant a typical meele mouth tactic
Pekka,
“Radiation and GH effect are the reasons of existence of large temperature gradients, convection prevents them from being even larger.”
Radiation is instaneous heat transfer but convection is a slow process heat transfer in the atmosphere and the oceans that maintained large temperature gradients between the Earth and the space. Ocean is the large heat sink and convection in the ocean keeps the Earth warm and cold not like any other planets which do not have oceans of water. CO2 can best only absorb 0.04% of the Earth surfaces radiation. The magnitude of CO2 GH effect is less than 0.04% of the Earth surfaces’ LW radiation.
Pekka
The adiabatic lapse rate does not even depend on convection.
It is derived from the formula for hydrostatic equilibrium .
If you remember I gave you a link to Rodrego Cabellera where it is worked out.
Of course it’s almost impossible to isolate the atmosphere from the convection process.
Sorry that I meant the Earth’s oceans keep the Earth warm and cool, not ‘cold’.
I always found the line that the ¨adiabatic lapse rate does not depend on radiation¨ amusing, because by definition, the derivation assumes that it is ADIABATIC (i.e., radiation is set to zero). voila!
I knew that it’s useless to try to tell correct physics to Bryan and Sam NC. They’ll never stop denying it.
.
Pekka
If you think the dry adiabatic lapse rate is determined by convection you are wrong.
Several textbooks make this point.
I am very curious as to which textbooks Bryan read…actually convectiion relaxes the atmosphere onto the adiabatic lapse rate. It is not observed in the stratosphere for instance, where the lapse rate is set by solar absorption. Bryan has not read any textbooks in atmospheric science.
ChrisColose says
…..”I am very curious as to which textbooks Bryan read…actually convectiion relaxes the atmosphere onto the adiabatic lapse rate.”……
This should also be of interest to Pekka.
Particularly pges 5,6,7
paoc.mit.edu/labweb/notes/chap4.pdf
Bryan,
I guess you refer to some publication of Rodrigo Caballero, but I don’t remember, what it would be. He is a atmospheric physicist who has published with Pierrehumbert. Thus I’m sure he agrees with Pierrehumbert and me on the mechanism that produces the adiabatic lapse rate. You must have misinterpreted his text.
Bryan,
The fact that you don’t know, what convection is, does not make your claims correct.
Pekka says
…”The fact that you don’t know, what convection is, does not make your claims correct.”…..
Comments like that do not deserve a reply!
Brian, if you claim his comment doesn’t deserve a reply, why did you reply? Idiot.
Bryan,
There is really nothing more to say about your rant other than it illustrates exactly what I have been saying: You have no ability to distinguish between science and pseudoscience, so you simply peddle the latter. In your case, it may be a little more excusable in that you may honestly not have the background to know the difference; the same cannot be said for G&T, Postma, and (at least some of) the Slayers.
Bryan,
From the first paragraph of your most recent reference:
This refers exactly to the same issue that I wrote above. The radiation alone would lead to so strong temperature gradient that it’s unstable with respect to convection. Therefore convection enters and continues until the gradient is brought down to adiabatic lapse rate. This is the way the convection works. It doesn’t start, when the gradient is less than the adiabatic lapse rate.
I found also graduate level course material on Physical Meteorolgy by Caballero. That is of course in full agreement with what I have told all the time.
Pekka
On page 4 the forces acting on a particular level are discussed.
The conditions for hydrostatic equilibrim are then set out.
The dry adiabatic lapse rate is derived from the formula for hydrostatic equilibrium.
Remember hydroSTATIC means at rest or moving with constant velocity
Although it is almost impossible to isolate convection in the atmosphere it is possible for other fluids and examples are given of stationary levels.
So convection plays no part in the derivation of the rate.
No it isn´t, but think about what convection is and why it occurs.
Chris Colose answered already, but I repeat. That hydrostatic condition is precisely the condition for the onset of convection. The movement of air parcels is convection.
Or, in other words (just to put it in as many ways as possible since Bryan seems to have so much trouble comprehending this simple concept): The adiabatic lapse rate is a stability limit. An actual lapse rate less steep than the adiabatic lapse rate is stable, i.e., convection is suppressed. A lapse rate steeper than the adiabatic lapse rate is unstable, i.e., convection will occur and reduce the lapse rate until it gets down to the adiabatic lapse rate.
Joel
I said
” convection plays no part in the derivation of the rate.”
Look at Postma pages 15 and 16.
Then tell me what part convection plays in the derivation of the dry adiabatic lapse rate formula.
http://www.tech-know.eu/uploads/The_Model_Atmosphere.pdf
The new paper of Postma is nonsense. His description of the atmosphere is totally wrong as it assumes one constant temperature for the atmosphere, not something based on a lapse rate.
There is some discussion of this error on page 41, but that doesn’t make any more sense than the rest of the paper.
Bryan,
The adiabatic lapse rate tells you how a parcel of air cools with a change in height under adiabatic conditions. Since this is the situation faced by a parcel of air rising by convection, the adiabatic lapse rate gives the stability limit on the actual lapse rate…i.e., it tells you the maximum lapse rate that is stable against convection.
To explain this in more detail: If the lapse rate is greater than the adiabatic lapse rate, then a parcel of air rising will be warmer (and hence less dense) than the surrounding air since the air around it is decreasing in temperature more rapidly with height than the parcel of air is decreasing in temperature as it rises. This means it will continue to rise and such a lapse rate is unstable to convection.
If the lapse rate is less than the adiabatic lapse rate, then a parcel of air rising will be colder (and hence more dense) than the surrounding air since the air around it is decreasing in temperature less rapidly with height than it is decreasing with temperature as it rises. This means it will stop rising and such a lapse rate is stable to convection.
Read that over several times until you comprehend it. If you can’t, there is not much else we can do.
Joel
I always knew you did not understand thermodynamics.
Now it seems you fail to understand hydrostatics and mechanics,
When a parcel of air is exactly at the dry adiabatic lapse rate(DALR) the forces on it are balanced.
This is the hydroSTATIC equilibrium state.
The parcel will either be at rest or moving at constant velocity.
If it moves up then the molecules will lose KE and gain GPE and the temperature drops all energy gains and losses matching.
If it moves down then the molecules will gain KE and lose GPE and the temperature rises all energy gains and losses matching.
I hope that this simplified explanation is enough for you.
Even a slow learner like yourself can manage if you take your time.
Several textbooks will confirm that convection is not assumed or used for the derivation of the formula for the DALR
I think I let the things rest at this point just so everyone can see how dense Bryan actually is. He understands the adiabatic lapse rate and hydrostatic equilibrium (or at least can parrot it from some source). However, he then can’t see how the notion generalizes to tell us how there will be a net force on a rising parcel of air (up if the actual lapse rate exceeds the adiabatic lapse rate and down if the actual lapse rate in less than the adiabatic lapse rate)…and how this then gives us the criterion as to whether the atmosphere is stable or unstable to convection.
Joel
What a pathetic specimen you are.
Instead of thanking me for instructing you in elements of hydrostatics you pretend thatin some way you were half right.
Anyone who can be bothered to follow this exchange knows that I have been correct in everything Ive written .
All the textbooks agree with me.
Convection is not required or involved with the derivation of the adiabatic lapse rate.
At least have the humility to acknowledge that you were wrong in this instance and gain some respect for being honest.
Self deception hurts only yourself.
I have marked down this link and will refer others to the full exchange to show what a fraud you are.
No…I was completely correct, not half right.
Link to it all you want. It will just show the world how Pekka, Chris, and myself were all saying the same thing and you were…and apparently still are…failing to comprehend it!
Bryan,
I actually realize now that I gave you too much credit on your last post, which is not even correct. The hydrostatic equilibrium condition is what determines the pressure vs. height relationship. (See, e.g., http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrostatic_equilibrium )
The atmospheric lapse rate does not have to be equal to the adiabatic lapse rate in order for the atmosphere to be in hydrostatic equilibrium. The question answered by the lapse rate is one of stability of the equilibrium condition: i.e., if the lapse rate exceeds the adiabatic lapse rate, then perturbing an air parcel results in a growth of the perturbation and leads to convection. If the lapse rate is less than the adiabatic lapse rate, then perturbing an air parcel results in a restoring force and convection is suppressed.
The derivation of the formula for the dry adiabatic lapse rate makes use of the hydrostatic equilibrium condition (the dependence of pressure on height) but it is not equivalent to it. I apologize for not realizing your error sooner.
Joel
What an equivocating creep you have turned out to be.
You now admit that convection is neither assumed or used in the derivation of the dry adiabatic lapse rate.
This was the point I made right at the beginning of the thread.
However instead of apologizing and thanking me for putting you right you claim it was your position.
Anyone who wants to find out how much of an equivocating creep you are need only read through this thread from the beginning.
Bryan: I don’t really know what you mean by “convection is neither assumed or used in the derivation of the dry adiabatic lapse rate”. That is sort of an ambiguous statement since the derivation of the adiabatic lapse rate is indeed looking at a perturbation from hydrostatic equilibrium and seeing if the atmosphere is stable or unstable. If they latter is the case, you get convection.
I think Pekka, Chris, and I have all been clear in our response to you about the relation between the adiabatic lapse rate and convection but you have been refusing to listen. And it is that the adiabatic lapse rate represents the stability boundary between lapse rates where convection does and does not occur. That is what I have consistently maintained.
Joel says
Bryan: I don’t really know what you mean by “convection is neither assumed or used in the derivation of the dry adiabatic lapse rate”.
That doesn’t surprise me!
My original comment to Pekka was;
The adiabatic lapse rate does not even depend on convection.
It is derived from the formula for hydrostatic equilibrium.
Pekka had said
“The adiabatic lapse rate is determined by convection only”
My statement was absolutely correct.
A typical question on this topic to a student might be as follows, assuming they had an introduction to thermodynamics.
(A) Describe the conditions for hydrostatic equilibrium in air.
(B) Derive the formula for the dry adiabatic lapse rate.
To say that there must be convection before this equation is derived is PLAIN WRONG
Nobody has said that. In response to your statement, “So convection plays no part in the derivation of the rate,” Chris, Pekka, and I all tried to explain to you what the relationship between the adiabatic lapse rate and convection is. (Well, okay, Chris did it in a rather Socratic manner while Pekka and I told you explicitly.)
Pekka said: “Chris Colose answered already, but I repeat. That hydrostatic condition is precisely the condition for the onset of convection. The movement of air parcels is convection.”
I said: “Or, in other words (just to put it in as many ways as possible since Bryan seems to have so much trouble comprehending this simple concept): The adiabatic lapse rate is a stability limit. An actual lapse rate less steep than the adiabatic lapse rate is stable, i.e., convection is suppressed. A lapse rate steeper than the adiabatic lapse rate is unstable, i.e., convection will occur and reduce the lapse rate until it gets down to the adiabatic lapse rate.”
In other words, we both took your rather ambiguous statement regarding how convection and the adiabatic lapse rate are related and explained to you exactly what the relationship is.
Frankly, I don’t know what the statement “So convection plays no part in the derivation of the rate” really means. In some sense, if you mean that one assumes that there must be convection happening in order to derive the equation, then no. But, the derivation is intimately related to convection in the sense that you are deriving the condition that gives the stability boundary between when convection does or does not occur.
Just as with arguments over whether the greenhouse effect violates the 2nd Law, you seem to thrive on ambiguous statements which you can argue are technically correct but then misuse. There, you loved to make a statement like “The atmosphere cannot heat the earth by backradiation”, which is true in the sense that the heat flow is from the earth to the atmosphere. But then, you and G&T were trying to trade on the ambiguity of that statement in order to imply that an increase in the backradiation (e.g., due to an increase in greenhouse gases) cannot cause the temperature of the earth to be higher than it was before, which is completely incorrect…because the temperature of the earth is determined by the balance between what it receives from the sun and what it radiates back out into space.
That is why when you make ambiguous statements that one might be able to argue are technically true but which are open to misinterpretation, I prefer to reply with statements which are unambiguous and illuminate rather than obfuscate. It is the difference between trying to enlighten people with science and trying to confuse them by peddling pseudoscience.
Joel
I said
To say that there must be convection before this equation is derived is PLAIN WRONG
Pekka said
“The adiabatic lapse rate is determined by convection only”
These statements cannot be reconciled
Pekka later said: ” That hydrostatic condition is precisely the condition for the onset of convection.”
I say that the hydrostatic equilibrium condition can also apply to still (no convection) air as well as to constant velocity parcels of air.
You say
Frankly, I don’t know what the statement “So convection plays no part in the derivation of the rate” really means.
In some sense, if you mean that one assumes that there must be convection happening in order to derive the equation, then no.
I say
At last a grudging acceptance of what I have been saying in plain English all along
You say
Just as with arguments over whether the greenhouse effect violates the 2nd Law, you seem to thrive on ambiguous statements which you can argue are technically correct but then misuse. There, you loved to make a statement like “The atmosphere cannot heat the earth by backradiation”, which is true in the sense that the heat flow is from the earth to the atmosphere. But then, you and G&T were trying to trade on
..statements that are technically true but which are open to misinterpretation,
I say
I am not responsible for your misinterpretation
You say
I prefer to reply with statements which are unambiguous and illuminate rather than obfuscate.
I say
If what you say is not technically correct how can it illuminate.
It is the difference between trying to enlighten people with technically correct physics or condescending colloquialisms
You are the one trying confuse them by peddling pseudoscience.
I did not think that when I made my initial statement above that there was any controversy in it.
There are however some people who think that the DALR is derived directly from convection(usually ascending) parcels of air.
Its a common misconception.
It has nothing at all to do with whether or not there is a greenhouse effect.
I get the feeling however that if a GW sceptic makes any point certain people object in principle thinking that some diabolical conspiracy is underway
Bryan says:
It is not me that was misinterpreting it. It was you and G&T who were using the ambiguity in the statement to support the idea that the greenhouse effect somehow violated the Second Law. Without this purposeful ambiguity, G&T’s arguments that the Second Law is violated completely fall apart.
Bryan,
I should give up, but I try once more.
The hydrostatic condition is the limit for onset of convection. When the temperature gradient is even very little less than the adiabatic lapse rate, no convection occurs. When the gradient is even slightly larger, convection starts. At precisely the adiabatic lapse rate the the any slightest disturbance may lead to convective movement as the hydrostatics doesn’t either start it or stop it.
In real atmosphere the gradient is essentially the adiabatic lapse rate, because there is indeed convection. There is a continuous energy flux that maintains it under typical tropospheric conditions at low and medium latitudes. At high latitudes the temperature gradient is commonly less as it’s always in stratosphere.
Because there is this strong relationship between the convection and the adiabatic lapse rate and because it’s indeed defined as the limiting temperature gradient for the onset of convection, all we three insist that adiabatic lapse rate is related to convection. The hydrostatic balance cannot break without convection, but the atmosphere is stable with smaller temperature gradients. Thus the stability of the atmosphere doesn’t determine uniquely the lapse rate.
Oh, and I should comment on this…
Again, you make statements that may be true but are beside the point (and seem intended to obfuscate). Nobody is claiming that the greenhouse effect determines the adiabatic lapse rate. What is being said is that the greenhouse effect determines the effective radiating level in the atmosphere where the temperature must be equal to the effective blackbody radiating temperature of the earth (~255 K). Then this, along with the actual lapse rate (which is generally about equal to the appropriate adiabatic lapse rate as long as you are in a region of the atmosphere, in the earth’s case, the troposphere where it is heated from below to the point where it is unstable to convection) then determines what the surface temperature is. [What the greenhouse effect can also have some influence on is what part of the atmosphere is in that unstable regime,but that is a somewhat tangential point.]
Just to put things one more way, in order to be clear here: If you have a purely radiative model of the greenhouse effect, you could end up with a situation where the lapse rate in part of the atmosphere exceeds the appropriate (moist or dry) adiabatic lapse rate. In the real world, this will not happen because convection will occur in such a case and the result of the convection will be to bring the lapse rate back down to the adiabatic lapse rate. That is why you need a convective-radiative model to accurately quantitatively model the greenhouse effect although a purely radiative model is fine to illustrate the effect qualitatively.
Also, in those parts of the atmosphere where the lapse rate is less than the adiabatic lapse rate, convection is suppressed and the lapse rate will tend to remain at this value. I.e., there is nothing forcing the lapse rate to be equal to the adiabatic lapse rate…There is just something forcing the lapse rate not to exceed the adiabatic lapse rate…and that something is an instability that leads to convection.
Joel
I said
I am not responsible for your misinterpretation
You said
It is not me that was misinterpreting it. It was you and G&T
I say
You seem to be prone to misinterpretations.
The mother of all misinterpretations was when you and the gang of six(Halpern et al) said that G&T stated that colder surfaces could not radiate to warmer surfaces.
Since G&T said no such thing (and two way photon interaction diagrams litter their paper) where did that “misinterpretation” come from?
I also suppose G&T were to blame for the six of you putting diagrams showing labels with “heat” moving from colder to warmer surfaces.
G&T did not need to bother replying to your “comment” paper even though they did.
You managed to shoot yourselves in the foot because your diagrams support the idea that the greenhouse effect somehow violated the Second Law.
All six of you suffering from multiple misinterpretations
Its a classic!
G&T’s arguments that the Second Law is violated was magnificently illustrated by your comment paper.
Bryan,
We did not say that G&T stated that colder surfaces could not radiate to warmer surfaces; we said that they seemed to ignore this fact in talking about the fact that the Second Law was being violated. In particular, there is no way to make a coherent argument for the Second Law being violated without somehow ignoring this fact or making some other error.
That this is the case is verified by the fact that I have repeatedly invited you to make a coherent statement of why the Second Law is violated by the greenhouse effect as G&T claim. You have steadfastly refused to do so. Instead, all you will do is continue to harp on the fact that we were sloppy with the terminology for “heat” in a few places, even though that is easily remedied by changing a few words in the paper.
This is the sign of someone peddling pseudoscience: They (you) use any excuse to purposely misconstrue what you are saying, refuse to accept any correction that you make, By contrast, a real scientist would say, “Halperin et al. were a bit sloppy in their terminology in a few places but that is easily corrected and they are right that G&T’s claim that the Second Law is violated by the greenhouse effect is fallacious.”
It is interesting that all those who make ridiculous arguments around here, be they G&T, Postma, yourself, or Claes Johnson, eventually end up adopted the same sort of techniques of peddling pseudoscience. It is a sign that they have lost their argument on its merits and their only hope is to obfuscate and confuse people. It is also a sign of extremely low moral character.
Joel said
“We did not say that G&T stated that colder surfaces could not radiate to warmer surfaces;”
I say
On page 8 of your final draft you said that if heat did not flow from cold to warm then there was no radiative flow.
G&T never claimed that ALL greenhouse theories violated the second law.
My opinion is that you and Arthur Smith spent almost no time in looking at the G&T paper.
This is the most charitable conclusion I can draw.
Most intelligent critics of G&T now say they did not say anything that was wrong.
However they say G&T failed to prove their case particularly in regard to the TOA.
G&T would say in reply that they never set out to supply their own climate model.
Their modest aim was to falsify the CO2 AGW catastrophe theory.
You allowed your names to be added to a very flawed document because you felt it was “the right thing to do”.
Here you turn into propaganda mode and
You say
“This is the sign of someone peddling pseudoscience: They (you) use any excuse to purposely misconstrue what you are saying,”
I say
Are you not embarressed by such statements?
If someone is concerned that poor people in the world are needlessly being disadvantaged by very questionable science should they be branded as frauds and pseudoscientists?
Here you are again
It is interesting that all those who make ridiculous arguments around here, be they G&T, Postma, yourself, or Claes Johnson, eventually end up adopted the same sort of techniques of peddling pseudoscience. It is a sign that they have lost their argument on its merits and their only hope is to obfuscate and confuse people. It is also a sign of extremely low moral character
I say;
Now its interesting that I think YOU have lost the intellectual argument yet I don’t make assumptions about your moral character.
Why for instance do you think that Claes put himself out on the line here.
Was it for money from “big oil” or that he was concerned about the loss of causality after Maxwell.
You should be thoroughly ashamed of the language you used to address a very well respected scientist whose only “crime” was to try to reexamine the basis of the Maxwell/Planck departure.
Would you really like to “shut him up”?
For myself I am well to the left of you but I respect science.
I feel the free expression of conflicting ideas is progress.
I find the “bully boy” invective that tries to shut up dissenting opinion despicable.
Further it is counterproductive.
If you switch to extreme invective you only harden the resolve of fair minded people who will not be silenced by insult and invective.
Then why does the abstract say: “The atmospheric greenhouse e ffect, an idea that many authors trace back to the traditional works of Fourier (1824), Tyndall (1861), and Arrhenius (1896), and which is still supported in global climatology, essentially describes a fictitious mechanism, in which a planetary atmosphere acts as a heat pump driven by an environment that is radiatively interacting with but radiatively equilibrated to the atmospheric system. According to the second law of thermodynamics such a planetary machine can never exist.”?
Besides which, there are not different greenhouse theories. There are different models with different degrees of fidelity but all of them that I have ever seen obey the Second Law. You don’t find whether things obey or disobey the Second Law by nitpicking people’s terminology. It is fine to be a stickler about terminology, as this fellow is: http://www.ems.psu.edu/~fraser/Bad/BadGreenhouse.html (and, in retrospect, I wish we were more careful about it in our paper), but it is taking it over the line when you purposely misconstrue what people say to find something wrong with their theory / model. That is simply NOT how science is done.
That is frankly a laughably ridiculous statement. I don’t know what else to say.
If they engage in the tactics of fraud and pseudoscience, then yes, they have to be called out on it. I don’t care about your motives. You may think it is “the right thing to do” (which was, by the way, I think some projection on your part to attribute that to me) but sacrificing science on the alter of whatever political or ideological beliefs you might have is never the right thing to do.
I don’t know what his motives are. But what I do find hard to believe is anyone with his intelligence and background in mathematics can truly believe much of the nonsense that he writes. Frankly, in some ways I do hope he is getting well-paid to do this because I don’t see why one would otherwise be so self-destructive with their scientific credibility. If almost any mathematician or scientist sees some of the nonsense that Claes writes [like on whether or not the sigma is distributed across the equation for the interaction between two blackbodies], they are certainly never going to take him seriously again. Such nonsense simply can’t be justified.
No…If he wants to do that, he should do it with intellectual honesty about what you are doing, what he has or hasn’t shown, what the assumptions are, and an honest assessment of the conclusions. He has not done that…not even close.
Bryan, you may not be able to distinguish between real science and pseudoscience, but some of us can. And, this is not real science. Claes is not trying to convince scientists of his opinion or he would not go about doing it the way he has; he is trying to convince people who don’t know any better.
Bryan, I have tried to have an honest conversation with you but you are not interested in that. You are interested in accusing of us of not understanding G&T but you then won’t even explain what you think they have said. (You actually went a bit further in this last post than I have seen you do before, but still extremely vague.) All you do is nitpick about terminology…Yes, I have admitted that we were somewhat sloppy with terminology in a few places, so the mistake has been acknowledged and we should move on to discuss the science. That is how science is carried out; it is not a game of “gotcha”.
But there is really no science in G&T and Postma and the Slayers work. These are not scientific works. You may think they are when you are embedded in a small community of like-minded people, but out in the real scientific universe, nobody takes this nonsense seriously because we see it for the nonsense that it is. The only thing my scientific colleagues find it hard to understand is why I even waste my time with such nonsense (a fair question).
I am sorry if that harsh judgement offends you, but it is just the way it is. And, it is not just my opinion. Look at Roy Spencer, look at Willis Eschenbach. They know this stuff is garbage and, to their credit, they have tried to get their fellow “skeptics” to realize this.
And, by the way, despite your attempt to play the victim and have us be the bullies, that is not the way it is. G&T, for example, say:
To accuse other scientists of scientific misconduct, at least you better be damn sure that you are right on the scientific point, which G&T most assuredly are not. They also have a section entitled “Scientific Error versus Scientific Fraud.” The G&T paper is simply a disgrace.
And, just as a final word, you may think that I throw around the term “pseudoscience” lightly but I do not. I may not think that highly of some of the work, for example, of Spencer and Lindzen and so forth, but at least what they are doing is science. We can argue about the quality of the science, but I would not characterize it as pseudoscience.
This stuff from G&T, Postma, and the Slayers really is pseudoscience, which is why you won’t find any “skeptics” who want to be taken at all seriously by the scientific community endorsing it (and many pretty bluntly rejecting it).
Most intelligent critics of G&T now say they did not say anything that was wrong.
This is a great example of a statement that is not falsifiable because it is a tautology. Anyone who says G&T is wrong is clearly not an intelligent critic. Whenever I see climate skeptics discussing criticisms of G&T they dismiss the critics as not intelligent.
Joel
I said
I am not responsible for your misinterpretation. You continually get things wrong.
I have no respect for your ability to present a clear scientific case.
However its good that you acknowledge that you often get things wrong.
I would have a bit more sympathy for you but for your arrogant offensive posts
You said
” It is not me that was misinterpreting it. It was you and G&T”
Blaming others for your poor powers of comprehension is all to typical of today’s half educated inadequates.
Its always someone else’s fault.
When folk like myself try to help you all we get is gross abuse.
The mother of all misinterpretations was when you and the gang of six(Halpern et al) said that G&T stated that colder surfaces could not radiate to warmer surfaces.
Since G&T said no such thing (and two way photon interaction diagrams litter their paper) where did that “misinterpretation” come from?
You replied
“We did not say that G&T stated that colder surfaces could not radiate to warmer surfaces;”
I said
On page 8 of your final draft you said that if heat did not flow from cold to warm then there was no radiative flow.
I also suppose G&T were to blame for the six of you putting diagrams showing labels with “heat” moving from colder to warmer surfaces.
G&T did not need to bother replying to your “comment” paper even though they did.
You managed to shoot yourselves in the foot because your diagrams support the idea that the greenhouse effect somehow violated the Second Law.
All six of you suffering from multiple misinterpretations
Its a classic!
G&T’s arguments that the Second Law is violated was magnificently illustrated by your comment paper.
And yet instead of realising the absurdity of your position you continue to rabbit on.
“Instead, all you will do is continue to harp on the fact that we were sloppy with the terminology for “heat” in a few places”
In other word you expect the reader to make allowances for your incompetence.
How is the reader to know that you don’t mean what you have written?
Look as the kind of response you give.
For instance Postma you accuse of….
…..”It is also a sign of extremely low moral character.”
Do you have any evidence for this wild and despicable accusation?
Most intelligent critics of G&T now say they did not say anything that they wrote was wrong.
You have only raised the 2nd Law (which you stupidly proved G&Ts case for them).
What other errors are you prattling on about?
G&T say that they never set out to supply their own climate model.
Their modest aim was to falsify the CO2 AGW catastrophe theory.
You repeat
It is interesting that all those who make ridiculous arguments around here, be they G&T, Postma, yourself, or Claes Johnson, …. It is also a sign of extremely low moral character
I say;
Now its interesting that YOU have lost the intellectual argument yet I don’t make any judgements about your moral character
Are you not embarressed by your blatant incompetence?
Have you no sense of shame?
You should be thoroughly ashamed of the language you use.
I feel the free expression of conflicting ideas is progress.
You don’t!
The climategate exposure showed the moral character of your hero’s.
Talking joy at the death of someone who opposed their ideas.
Conspiring to exclude from all outlets anyone who is able to expose their incompetence.
Where is your criticism of the Mann hockey stick fraud?
I find the “bully boy” invective that tries to shut up dissenting opinion despicable.
Further it is counterproductive.
If you switch to extreme invective you only harden the resolve of fair minded people who will not be silenced by insult and threats.
I will include links to show other readers the intellectual bankruptcy of Joel and his other warmist Taliban
[1] “Falsification Of the atmospheric CO2 greenhouse effects within the frame Of Physics” by Gerhard Gerlich and Ralf D. Tscheuschner; International Journal of Modern Physics B, Vol. 23, No. 3 (2009) pages 275-364.
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0707/0707.1161v4.pdf
[2] “Proof of the atmospheric greenhouse effect” by Arthur P. Smith; arXiv:0802.4324v1 [physics.ao-ph]
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0802/0802.4324v1.pdf
In this paper Arthur Smith defends the current IPCC position and has the merit of taking issue with G&T for something that they did say.
[3] “Comments on the “Proof of the atmospheric greenhouse effect” by Arthur P. Smith” by Gerhard Kramm, Ralph Dlugi, and Michael Zelger; arXiv:0904.2767v3 [physics.ao-ph]
http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0904/0904.2767.pdf
Takes issue with Arthur Smith
[4] Comment on ‘Falsification Of the atmospheric CO2 greenhouse effects within the frame Of Physics’ by Joshua B. Halpern, Chistopher M. Colose, Chris Ho-Stuart, Joel D. Shore, Arthur P. Smith, Jorg Zimmermann.
http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/upload/2010/05/halpern_etal_2010.pdf
This must be the most embarrassing paper in history as it attacks G&T for things they didn’t say.
5] “Reply to ‘Comment on ‘Falsification Of the atmospheric CO2 greenhouse effects within the frame Of Physics’ by Joshua B. Halpern, Chistopher M. Colose, Chris Ho-Stuart, Joel D. Shore, Arthur P. Smith, Jorg Zimmermann” by Gerhard Gerlich and Ralf D. Tscheuschner, International Journal of Modern Physics B, Vol. 24, No. 10 (2010) pages 1333–1359.
http://www.skyfall.fr/wp-content/gerlich-reply-to-halpern.pdf
G&Ts reply to the absurd [4]
6] Gerhard Kramm and others with a broader look at current climate science including the “greenhouse effect”
http://www.benthamscience.com/open/toascj/articles/V004/137TOASCJ.pdf
Bryan (to Joel): I have no respect for your ability to present a clear scientific case.
“When I was a boy of 14, my father was so ignorant I could hardly stand to have the old man around. But when I got to be 21, I was astonished at how much the old man had learned in seven years.” –Mark Twain (trad.)
I must admit that I hadn’t read the whole Postma paper yet (having reached pseudoscience overload) and as I am getting deeper, it is going from bad to worse. At least the beginning where he talked about the “standard model” had a lot of correct calculations mixed in with the few fundamental fatal errors. But, now I’m in a section where just about every sentence is a howler!
Having finished my first read of Postma’s paper, I am left with one very profound question: Just how totally stupid and nonsensical does something have to be before Bryan and his ilk would not speak approvingly of it?!?!
I can just picture Postma laughing as he wrote some of those sentences…I wonder if he almost gets some strange satisfaction out of seeing what nonsense he can put over on people who want to believe what he writes. In many ways, it makes the Sokal hoax ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokal_affair ) look mild by comparison! I do wonder if in the future any of these guys is going to come clean and fess up to the hoax they are perpetrating.
Joel
(My reply will mirror your style of comment.)
Over at WUWT you withdrew your previously stated position that namely, heat can move spontaneously from a colder to a higher temperature surface.
You said that this was an error on your part.
You might even be drummed out of the warmest Taliban for such heresy.
This is very welcome, but will come as a bit of a shock to ChrisColose who signed the same document and perhaps still believes such rubbish.
Now Clausius and the rest of the physics community are quite clear about the matter and have been for a very long time.
So who was spouting pseudo-scientific nonsense in a physics journal?
Postma in his two papers has shown that from the point of view of radiative physics there is no room for a rationally based greenhouse theory.
Postma went well out of his way to include allowances for any factor that could give the theory a rational basis
Now whether this theory was just a stupid mistake or an elaborate hoax will be no doubt of interest to the history of science record.
That such crude mistakes and reckless assumptions could be considered “a theory” is hard to believe.
When this is combined with the fact that there is no experimental evidence to support the hoax it is not too far fetched to question the financial motives of believes in such tripe.
Hedge funds and their “dark pools of liquid capital” are currently manipulating the world markets.
Several such as the Soros funds have taken positions that will lose billions if the hoax is rumbled too soon.
Bryan:
You just can’t stay away from the pseudoscience, can you Bryan? It is just too tempting. I have consistently said that heat goes from hotter to colder and that all models of the greenhouse effect show this.
For those who have not followed Bryan, I will give a little explanation of what he is on about: There were just a few places in our long comment on Gerlich & Tscheuschner’s [G&T] paper (that Chris, I and others were authors on) where we use the term “heat” or “heat flow” when we should have used “energy flow”. It is not a big deal and is easily remedied by just substituting in the correct word…unless your goal is to peddle pseudoscience, like Bryan and G&T do. See, if you peddle pseudoscience, then the goal is not to interpret a paper you are attacking in the way that it makes sense but to purposely misinterpret it if you possibly can and then attack that misinterpretation.
Of course, Bryan could claim we are doing the same thing to G&T’s original paper. So, I have in fact invited Bryan to enlighten us and explain how we should interpret G&T’s claim that the greenhouse effect violates the 2nd Law. Alas, he has never taken me up on this…and for good reason…because there is absolutely no way to interpret that claim in a way that makes sense because it is nonsense.
I have also noted to Bryan that I have found several typos or incorrect uses of terminology in G&T’s paper and therefore by his standards it can now be completely dismissed. Of course, that is not what we do: We dismiss it because it is fundamentally flawed, not because we can nitpick small errors.
All Postma has done is fooled people who want to be fooled like you. Every thinking person knows that Postma is nonsense. That includes many who are otherwise AGW “skeptics” like Roy Spencer and Willis Eschenbach. As I have noted, even some of the real nutty ones like Monckton don’t buy this nonsense.
Joel says
…..”For those who have not followed Bryan, I will give a little explanation of what he is on about: There were just a few places in our long comment on Gerlich & Tscheuschner’s [G&T] paper (that Chris, I and others were authors on) where we use the term “heat” or “heat flow” when we should have used “energy flow”. It is not a big deal “…….
Well to greenhouse enthusiasts the direction of heat flow might not be as you say “a big deal” but to real scientists it is fundamental.
Yet you say Postma peddles pseudoscience.
How bizarre!
Joel,
“Every thinking person knows that Postma is nonsense.”
1) every thinking person is not aware of Postma
2) every thinking person is not an expert in physics
3) there are apparently a few thinking persons who are aware of Postma, are expert in physics, and do NOT think he is nonsense
Which brings us back to your blatantly false statement. Why make broad, generalizations when they are patently false?? They tend to detract from your veracity.
Bryan: I have explained why what you are engaging in is pseudoscience. If you can’t understand it, I am sure others can.
Chris,
The introduction states “A new starting-point model is introduced with physically accurate boundary conditions, and this will be
understood to physically negate the requirement for a postulation of a radiative atmospheric greenhouse effect.”
It in no way is meant to replace the GCM’s, only correct some basic errors in their geometry and, especially show what the silly -18c model should have shown.
Yes, I read it. Working on a more in-depth post about it now…
To Judy: I have posed some questions to you on my blog
http://claesjohnson.blogspot.com/2011/08/why-judy-curry-says-nothing.html
which I hope you will answer.
Claes
I very rarely defend Judith Curry, but I completely agree that she should ignore wingnut views.
Claes, as a reminder, here is some of my text from part I and III, I don’t have anything further to say on your paper, but encourage you to continue to discuss it with others that are interested.
“I suspect that many undergrad physics or atmospheric science majors at Georgia Tech could effectively refute these chapters. ”
“Rather than critique the papers myself (I merely provided an opinion, rather than a substantive critique), I decided to see if “crowd sourcing” the critique would work. This would only work if very knowledgeable experts showed up and made substantive contributions. In Part I, the contributions of experts such as maxwell, Pekka Perilla, Tomas Milanovic, Dave N., Eli, and several others were particularly illuminating, and they did a much better job that I would have been able to do myself. Lets see how Part II turns out.
Claes Johnson engaged in Part I with a large number of comments, although nearly everyone whom he replied to seemed to think that his comments were not responsive to the criticisms (some of which were quite devastating to his argument).”
As Monckton put it: “I do not propose to contribute further to this . . .: it is not a sensible deployment of my time.”
Judy, I have commented your silence on
http://claesjohnson.blogspot.com/2011/08/why-judy-curry-says-nothing.html
Trust us Claes, we’d all like to comment on YOUR silence. And most gratefully so.
Speaking of Sky Dragon Slayer leader John O’Sullivan, it seems he may have gotten himself and Tim Ball’s lawyer into a bit of a pickle. Last week, Ball’s attorney Michael Scherr filed a response to Dr. Mann’s amended libel suit complaint against Sky Dragon Slayer Tim Ball. In it, they made a very eye-brow raising statement:
“31. In or about February 2011 the defendant Ball entered into a contract whereby John O’Sullivan provided legal services pro bono for Ball.
32. On or about April 26, 2011, the defendant Ball entered into a contract whereby John O’Sullivan provided legal services pro bono for Ball.
33. The defendant Ball does not waive privilege over these contracts for legal services in this action.”
http://www.aaskolnick.com/public_html/global_deniers/Ball_reply_Aug3.pdf
What’s so eye-brow raising is that Ball’s attorney Micheal Scherr is under investigation for employing O’Sullivan as a legal counsel. O’Sullivan has been widely claiming to be a lawyer representing fellow Sky Dragon Slayer Tim Ball in this and another libel suit. However, according to the Law Society of British Columbia’s Office of Unauthorized Practice, O’Sullivan is NOT licensed to practice law in British Columbia (he may not even be a lawyer licensed to practice anywhere).
And yet, Mr. Scherr just filed a response in the Supreme Court of British Columbia asserting a lawyer-client privilege between Ball and his unlicensed “lawyer” John O’Sullivan. Whoops! That’s gonna come back to bite him.
Asko
“Huh? Where does he explain this very inconvenient fact?”
Well in the paper I linked for you, obviously!
There is no point in asking chriscolose to read it as it is a physics based paper and he would not understand it.
Chris also has difficulty reading.
But perhaps if he has been to an optivcian he can give it a go.
The reason I’m so furious with Bryan is when I pointed out to him that Postma does NOT discuss Mercury, he chose to lie through his teeth and insist that he does.
It’s what the crackpot deniers do. As long as they keep making false claims and outright lies, they can confuse the public about the “scientific controversy.” There is NO scientific controversy about the greenhouse effect. There are just prevaricators like Bryan, John O’Sullivan, Cleas Johnson, and Tim Ball who will keep spewing claptrap and falsehoods which they label “science.”
Askolnick
You are truely one demented dude.
If you had even a shred of credibility remaining Bryan, I’d might be insulted.
We’re still waiting for you to show us where Postma explains why Venus os so much hotter than Mercury even though it’s twice as far from the sun.
You insist that it’s in 45 pages of nonsense. So show us where or take your prevaricating posterior elsewhere.
And your preferred modus operandi appears to be to take perfectly reasonable comments completely out of context, so as to turn them around and make them look ridiculous.
If you’re going to quote someone, kindly include enough of the context as is necessary to preserve the meaning.
don’t know how my comment ended up here, it was intended as a reply to askolnick
Peter, give us an example of what I took out of context and your concise explanation how it is out of context.
Or shut up. This discussion doesn’t need more baseless and blatantly false allegations.
OK, here’s an example. You wrote:
What he actually wrote was:
(my bold)
Can you see how you’ve quoted him out of context, effectively turning it around to appear ridiculous?
As for the rest of your ramblings about Huffman, well it’s completely irrelevant whether he believes in Atlantis, the Tooth Fairy, or that the moon is made of green cheese, but he’s not wrong on this.
Peter317 | August 10, 2011 at 11:18 am | Reply
Practically every text you read on a Google search for Venus talks about Runaway Greenhouse affects, none of them mention the simple fact that it has an atmosphere under fantastic pressure the nearer the surface you get.
None of them talk about Corresponding Pressures/Altitudes, just Surface Temperatures and all blamed on CO2.
Isn’t it sad how Science is being corrupted.
Because those arguments are wrong.
Since A.C. Osbornr is so much smarter than all the scientists in the world who teach astrophysicsts and climatology and write the textbooks, perhaps he will enlighten us how he thinks it’s the pressure of Venus’ 95 bar atmosphere that makes Venus 534 degrees F. hotter than Mercury, which receives 9 times as much solar energy as Venus.
Hmmm A.C.? How does that extra pressure heat Venus almost to the point of glowing in the visible spectrum?
Pete, that is an underhanded lie, which is apparently your favorite kind.
Here is what I quoted:
“The temperature difference between the atmospheres of Venus and Earth is entirely and precisely due to their different distances from the Sun, nothing else — not to the planetary albedo (Venus is covered by dense clouds that reflect much of the visible solar radiation, while Earth is not), not to the IR absorptive properties of the surface (Earth is 70% covered by deep ocean, Venus is solid crust), and above all not to the concentration of CO2 or any other IR-absorbing gas in the atmospheres.”
And here is Huffman’s ENTIRE post, showing NOTHING was taking out of context. Indeed, you’re lying through your in your defamatory post. NOTHING of what you say he “actually wrote” is in his statement:
“Harry Dale Huffman said:
“When there are competing theories in science, the first recourse should always be to experimental evidence that can decide the issue. See Venus: No Greenhouse Effect
“The temperature difference between the atmospheres of Venus and Earth is entirely and precisely due to their different distances from the Sun, nothing else–not to the planetary albedo (Venus is covered by dense clouds that reflect much of the visible solar radiation, while Earth is not), not to the IR absorptive properties of the surface (Earth is 70% covered by deep ocean, Venus is solid crust), and above all not to the concentration of CO2 or any other IR-absorbing gas in the atmospheres. So first of all, the evidence of two whole planetary atmospheres undeniably and unambiguously tells us there is no greenhouse effect as envisioned by climate scientists. Secondly, it tells us the atmospheres of both planets are warmed by the same IR portion of the Sun’s incident radiation, by direct absorption of that portion in the atmosphere, not by warming of the surface first. The “debate” put forth by Judith Curry and other believers in the greenhouse effect is incompetent in the face of the Venus/Earth evidence. There is no need to waste time now on competing theories, with that overwhelming evidence on hand. The consensus is incompetent, period.
“12 February, 2011 12:41”
http://objectivistindividualist.blogspot.com/2011/01/blackbody-radiation-and-consensus.html
Indeed, your penchant for shameless lies is so similar to Pete Ridley’s it seems after an unexplained absence, he has returned using another screen name. What happened? Did “Pete Ridley” finally get blocked?
DO NOT CALL ME A LIAR!
Read his posting with your own two eyes at:
http://judithcurry.com/2011/01/31/slaying-a-greenhouse-dragon/#comment-35908
You know, just forget it! I’m tired of being called a denier, and now a shameless liar, by the likes of you. And I’m tired of having things I say twisted around.
You, and your opinions, have less than no importance to me, so we won’t be speaking again. You’re free to wallow in your over-inflated sense of self-importance.
Pete, anyone who reads Huffman’s post can see that you lied. He never said any of what you claim he said in his post. And they can see that I quoted him accurately, taking NOTHING out of context.
Rather than apologize for your false accusation, you are now throwing a fit like an ill-mannered kid caught stealing candy.
Despite your temper tantrum, I’m willing to offer you a deal: Stop posting blatant lies and I’ll stop pointing them out.
Here is http://judithcurry.com/2011/01/31/slaying-a-greenhouse-dragon/#comment-35908 quoted IN FULL:
Now apologise and then go away!
So the albedo or atmosphere does not matter…thanks for the info!
LiarLiarPetesOnFire continues his malicious and false accusation that I quoted Harry Dale Huffman “out of context, effectively turning it around to appear ridiculous.”
He’s now pulling a blatant bait & switch thinking every reader is an idiot. Obviously, not every reader. Some will bother to check the message from Huffman I quoted (http://judithcurry.com/2011/01/31/slaying-a-greenhouse-dragon/#comment-96481) and see that Pete is again lying through his teeth by quoting something entirely different.
Indeed, if you search the material PeterPantsOnFair quotes, you WON’T find the statement he falsely accused me of taking out of context!!!
“The temperature difference between the atmospheres of Venus and Earth is entirely and precisely due to their different distances from the Sun, nothing else — not to the planetary albedo (Venus is covered by dense clouds that reflect much of the visible solar radiation, while Earth is not), not to the IR absorptive properties of the surface (Earth is 70% covered by deep ocean, Venus is solid crust), and above all not to the concentration of CO2 or any other IR-absorbing gas in the atmospheres.”
The whole quote is gone! Not there! Poof!
No doubt, his next crackpot accusation will be that I had “taken the quote so much out of context that it is no longer there!”
What a mendacious maroon. Being able to lie this shamelessly is a rare gift. Thank God.
Peter317
I sympathise with your feelings.
Askolnick because of his lack of knowledge, quickly reverts to insults to hide his erronious viewpoint.
He is a great embarrassment to those other posters on both sides of the discussion.
In fact he does more damage to the IPCC position than Postma.
Thought!!!
Is Askolnick paid by “big oil” to discredit the IPCC advocates position?
Pete, that is an underhanded lie, which is apparently your favorite kind.
Here is what I quoted:
“The temperature difference between the atmospheres of Venus and Earth is entirely and precisely due to their different distances from the Sun, nothing else — not to the planetary albedo (Venus is covered by dense clouds that reflect much of the visible solar radiation, while Earth is not), not to the IR absorptive properties of the surface (Earth is 70% covered by deep ocean, Venus is solid crust), and above all not to the concentration of CO2 or any other IR-absorbing gas in the atmospheres.”
And here is Huffman’s ENTIRE post, showing NOTHING was taking out of context. Indeed, you’re lying through your teeth in your defamatory post. NOTHING of what you say he “actually wrote” is in his statement:
“Harry Dale Huffman said
“When there are competing theories in science, the first recourse should always be to experimental evidence that can decide the issue. “See Venus: No Greenhouse Effect
“The temperature difference between the atmospheres of Venus and Earth is entirely and precisely due to their different distances from the Sun, nothing else–not to the planetary albedo (Venus is covered by dense clouds that reflect much of the visible solar radiation, while Earth is not), not to the IR absorptive properties of the surface (Earth is 70% covered by deep ocean, Venus is solid crust), and above all not to the concentration of CO2 or any other IR-absorbing gas in the atmospheres. So first of all, the evidence of two whole planetary atmospheres undeniably and unambiguously tells us there is no greenhouse effect as envisioned by climate scientists. Secondly, it tells us the atmospheres of both planets are warmed by the same IR portion of the Sun’s incident radiation, by direct absorption of that portion in the atmosphere, not by warming of the surface first. The “debate” put forth by Judith Curry and other believers in the greenhouse effect is incompetent in the face of the Venus/Earth evidence. There is no need to waste time now on competing theories, with that overwhelming evidence on hand. The consensus is incompetent, period.
“12 February, 2011 12:41″
http://objectivistindividualist.blogspot.com/2011/01/blackbody-radiation-and-consensus.html
Indeed, your penchant for shameless lies is so similar to Pete Ridley’s it seems after an unexplained absence, he has returned using another screen name. What happened? Did “Pete Ridley” finally get blocked?
Askolnick
Huh? Where does he explain this very inconvenient fact?
The main inconvienient fact is there is no plausable greenhouse theory for Mercury, Earth or anywhere!
Being a member of the warmista Taliban this seems like heresy to you.
I can understand your outrage!
A bit like asking a catholic for a physical proof of God.
From now on I will respect your religous beliefs as they are of course a private matter.
As I explained — and Bryan was considerate enough to demonstrate with his crackpot rant — the Sky Dragon Slayers shun planet Mercury like it were the Devil inplanate. They dare not breath its name lest they vanish like a bunch of Rumpelstiltskins. They have no way to explain why Venus is twice as far from the sun as Mercury yet more than 300 deg. C hotter. So they’ll curse anyone who dares to bring up that frightful planet.
I’m sure they considered the giant invisible magnifying glass being held by Harry Dale Huffman’s “alien gods” between the sun and Venus. But there’s only so much of that loon’s crackpottery they’re willing to endorse.
And if someone dares to persist, they’ll stick their fingers in their ears — as Bryan demonstrates here — and start chanting insults to drown out that awful sounding word, “Mercury.”
MERCURY, MERCURY, MERCURY, MERCURY, MERCURY, MERCURY!
Mercury — twice as close to the sun yet a whole lot colder.
Mercury — the mighty slayer of the Sky Dragon Slayers.
You gotta love that planet.
Just for starters – Mercury has no substantial atmosphere
I haven’t a clue what point you’re trying to make.
Just for starters — read the information I provided comparing Venus with Mercury and Earth. I even gave a quantitative comparison of each planet’s atmospheres.
Andrew,
My guess is that he is suggesting that it is the amount of atmosphere, and not the composition (i.e., existence of greenhouse gases), that matters. He is probably one of those people who believes you can violate the 1st Law of Thermodynamics by talking about all sorts of groovy things like gases heating on compression and so forth.
Joel is an expert in violating the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics so he should know.
How does adiabatic heating violate the 1st law (or any other law for that matter)?
It is using this idea to explain the elevated temperature of the earth’s surface that violates the 1st Law. If the atmosphere did not contain IR-absorbing materials (greenhouse gases and clouds) then all the radiation that the surface emits would escape to space and energy balance would require the surface temperature to be at the effective blackbody emission temperature (i.e., the 255 K given the earth system’s current albedo).
Talking about how adiabatic heating determines the lapse rate doesn’t get you around this basic fact, unless you propose that the Earth is undergoing gravitational collapse and hence there is a huge conversion of gravitational potential energy into thermal energy…which is, of course, not happening.
Joel,
Where did I imply differently?
I know full well that some form of IR-impedance is necessary in order to allow the average surface temperature to rise above the blackbody emission temperature, I just don’t accept that it’s necessarily the dominant cause of the temperature increase
Peter,
How can it not be the dominant cause of the difference between the effective blackbody temperature of 255K and the actual surface temperature of 288 K if we know the temperature of the surface would have to be 255 K in the absence of IR-absorbing materials in the atmosphere?
Joel,
Read my post again. I think you’re perhaps confusing cause with effect.
Joel says
….”if we know the temperature of the surface would have to be 255 K in the absence of IR-absorbing materials in the atmosphere?”…..
What “if” speculation doesn’t always have to have one outcome.
At the equatorial belt solar radiation would if anything imply surface temperatures of 80C+ .
If the CO2 and H2O did not have significant IR properties and everything else stayed the same what next?
Well perhaps we would still have clouds.
These are composed of condensing water vapour.
This forms surfaces which are far better black-body radiators than individual line emitting molecules.
The clouds will also be at a higher temperature than would be there in their absence.
This in turn means that the temperature differential between ground and cloud level is reduced reducing the convective process which is the main heat transfer mechanism.
There are a large number of other atmospheric insulative processes which would smooth out the night/day.
differential.
Even the Moon with no atmosphere and very long rotation period does not strictly follow radiative theory predictions because of thermal energy retention absorption and release.
Does anyone out there have a temperature model simulator for the Moon with variable rotation period?
Wonder what say a 24 hour rotation graph over 10 days would look like?
Bryan says:
You can’t calculate the temperature locally in space and time in this way because heat moves around on the earth and it also takes a lot of heat input to raise the temperature of water. You can only do the calculation on the globally, because on that scale (over some reasonable time period), approximate energy balance between incoming and outgoing radiation to the earth must be satisfied. (We are on the order of 1 W/m^2 out of balance now, which is only a fraction of a percent of the absorbed radiation from the sun and that is why we are warming.)
I am not doing “what ifs” to think of what happens under different conditions but in order to get the magnitude of the greenhouse effect. And, the “what if” that supposes there being no IR absorbers in the atmosphere but all else (including albedo) being equal allows us to see what the magnitude is of the total greenhouse effect, i.e., the total effect of the absorption of the terrestrial radiation in the atmosphere. This effect is due to clouds, water vapor, CO2, methane, and the other less important greenhouse gases.
Assigning an individual quantitative effect to each of these constituents involves more extensive calculations (which you can find discussed elsewhere) and also a very explicit stating of assumptions. For example, the calculated effect of CO2 is different if you start with all the greenhouse gases removed and then add CO2 than if you start with the atmosphere in its current state and take out the CO2. The magnitude of the effect is also different if you take out the CO2 and force everything else (e.g., clouds and water vapor) to remain the same or if you take out the CO2 and allow the water vapor and clouds to adjust to the new climate. Again, however, that is not what we are talking about.
Joel,
If it’s the composition of the atmosphere that matters rather than the amount, how come Mars is so cold?
Peter you should familiarize yourself with some basics facts.
Mars’ average solar distance is 142 million miles — which means the solar energy that reaches it is less than half that reaches earth.
However, earth’s greater albedo reflects a big portion of that extra radiation.
While Mars’ atmosphere is 95 % CO2, it is 200 times less dense than earth’s. Therefore its atmosphere has about 10 times as much CO2 as earth’s.
However, water is even more opaque to radiant heat than CO2 and the atmosphere of Mars is bone dry. Earth’s atmosphere averages about 1 percent water — thousands of times more than in Mars’ atmosphere — which yields a large greenhouse effect that dwarfs Mars’ greenhouse effect from its CO2.
As I pointed out in another post, the solar flux at Mars’ surface is greater than that of Venus.
While you’re correct that Mars’ atmosphere is very thin, most of the CO2 which used to comprise the atmosphere is now frozen at the polar caps.
Peter,
A lot of things you say are correct, but you come up with very odd conclusions from them.
First, it is clearly not just the composition, but also the amount of atmosphere that matters. If you have a hypothetical rocky planet with no atmosphere, except for one CO2 molecule bouncing around on the surface, then you could say ¨its atmosphere is 100% CO2¨ but obviously there would be no greenhouse effect to generate. Mars atmosphere is very thin and has more CO2 per square meter than Earth, but also experiences much less pressure broadening, in addition to the lack of water vapor feedback, which ultimately limits the effectiveness of the greenhouse. If you could put a 1 bar N2 atmosphere on Mars, you´d make the greenhouse effect stronger.
Mercury has no substantial atmosphere and so its temperature is determined almost exclusively by the local solar absorption.
I’m not concluding anything, merely countering the original argument that the atmospheric temperature of Venus has everything to do with its composition and nothing to do with its density.
Besides which, Mars must have had a much thicker CO2 atmosphere in the past, together with large amounts of liquid water (and, presumably, water vapour) Frozen CO2 and water cannot have been their original states.
Peter,
The simplest way to put it is this: Density matters…but only because such issues come into the quantitative calculation of the greenhouse effect. If the atmosphere did not absorb IR radiation, density would not matter: I.e., the average surface temperature (or, more precisely, the average of the quantity emissivity*T^4 over the surface of Venus) would be determined by energy balance between what it received from the sun and what it emits back into space.
Yet another lie from Ridley, I mean Peter317 (I get them mixed up). The amount of C02 in the Martian atmosphere I cited is correct.
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/marsfact.html
As seasons change on that planet, frozen CO2 at the poles evaporate and later refreeze.
The Martian atmosphere, which is 95 percent CO2, contains more than 2.3 x 10^16 kg of Carbon Dioxide — which I’m pretty sure is greater than the amount frozen at the poles.
Joel,
And if adiabatic heating isn’t a factor then how come we have snow on equatorial mountain tops? Surely back-radiation should keep the surface just as warm, regardless of its altitude?
What I (and now Pekka) have said: The adiabatic lapse rate is what determines the actual lapse rate in the troposphere…or more precisely (and dovetailing with Pekka’s point), it is what determines a stability limit on the lapse rate, since lapse rates higher than this lead to convection that tends to bring the lapse rate down to the adiabatic lapse rate. (Where the atmosphere is heated from by radiation determines the extent to which and where the lapse rate attains this maximum value.) So, yes, it plays an important role in the vertical temperature structure of the atmosphere. However, it does not determine the surface temperature.
And, no, back-radiation does not lead to all surfaces being just as warm regardless of altitude.
Joel,
I’m talking about adiabatic heating – the lapse rate being an effect of it.
Look up the definition of the term, ‘adiabatic’.
Peter, that is the whole point.. that the atmosphere (specifically, its IR opacity) is what causes the super hot Venus temperature. There is not a planetary scientist out there who disagrees with this. Just google scholar “Venus greenhouse effect” for an abundant literature on the topic. Some good names to look for on the radiative transfer and climate end of things on Venus are David Crisp, Mark Bullock, David Grinspoon, to name a few.
The atmosphere is not only opaque to IR, but to effectively all wavelengths.
Which makes the greenhouse effect rather difficult to explain, as little or no solar radiation reaches the surface.
Peter, why do you deniers think you can just make things up? What you said is utterly false. Venus’ atmosphere is not opaque to most wavelengths of light.
Indeed, just as much solar radiation reaches the surface of Venus as reaches earth’s!
1.92 times as much solar radiation shines on Venus as shines on earth. However, Venus reflects 72% of that radiation (compared with 33% the earth reflects). As a result, it adsorbs very nearly the same amount of solar energy that earth adsorbs!
The difference is that Venus’ dense CO2 atmosphere retards heat loss and greatly raises the planet’s temperature to the level where its heat loss matches solar heat gain.
Reality. Get used to it. It’s not going to change to satisfy your or anyone’s agenda.
I’m not making things up!
The surface solar flux is just 367w/m2, which is less than half that of Earth, and even less than that of Mars.
Actually Peter is right about less solar radiation reaching the Venusian surface. It is only a trickle. But it is a very important trickle because it is enough to set up convection. The radiation on Venus is quite sluggish in fact, with only a bit reaching the surface, and virtually none directly escaping to space until it migrates to the very high, thin upper atmosphere and is lost there.
There are actually situations where if the solar absorption is strong enough in the atmosphere, the lapse rate steadies toward an isothermal state, and the greenhouse effect becomes much weaker. This is called the antigreenhouse effect (see e.g., McKay et al 1991, Science, The greenhouse and antigreenhouse effects on Titan).
Note also that you do not actually need a surface to set up a greenhouse effect. The gas planets are all air, so eventually the solar radiation is depleted as it is absorbed or reflected layer by layer. Nonetheless the OLR is still lost at a top, thin layer where it becomes optically thin enough to leak out into space.
While I agree with Chris that a trickle of radiation penetrates the thick SO2 and sulfuric acid clouds, I very much doubt that it has any significant impact on the surface temperature of Venus. Here’s some calculations supporting this.
The Sun fills (.695/108.2/2)^2 = .0032^2 of the Venusian sky, whence if Venus were a black body it would be at sqrt(.0032)*5778 = 327 K. However its bond albedo (the kind relevant to energy of insolation) is 0.75 (some sources say 0.9 but this seems implausibly high).Now 1 − 0.75 = 0.25 = 0.707^4, whence we must reduce 327 K to 327*.707 = 230 K. We can take this as the effective temperature of the top of the clouds for a suitable definition of “top.” During the day the very top is around 65 km (and much higher at night but that has no bearing on insolation). Allowing say 5 km for most of the absorption to happen we can take 60 km as the effective surface of the planet for purposes of estimating effective temperature at 230 K.
From 60 km down the dominant (I would say essentially only) determinant of temperature is lapse rate. We can compute this theoretically as g/c_p where g = 8.87 is Venus’s gravity and c_p is the specific heat of CO2 (the main constituent of the atmosphere). According to
http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/carbon-dioxide-d_974.html
this is 0.77 at 230 K and 1.14 at the likely surface temperature, so we can expect the dry adiabatic lapse rate, DALR, to decrease from 8.87/0.77 = 11.5 K/km at the top to 7.8 K/km at the bottom. Taking 9 K/km as a rough intermediate value, we should expect the temperature to rise by 9*60 = 540K, namely to 230+540 = 770 K.
This assumed no contribution from radiation at all!
Let’s now head off to Venus to compare these theoretical calculations with the truth on the ground (and up to 60 km). This has already been done for us at
http://www.datasync.com/~rsf1/vel/1918vpt.htm
It shows pretty much what we expected, with our calculated surface temperature landing at the top end of the observed range of temperatures, presumably nearest the equator. The environmental lapse rate, ELR, may be a tad less than the DALR, but certainly not the moist rate of around 5 K/km, but then there’s no significant moisture so if ELR is less than DALR it would be via other mechanisms.
Allowing radiation to add anything significant to this theoretical calculation would push our estimate above the observed range. This is why I believe that radiation contributes no significant amount to surface temperature on Venus.
Shocking consequence: if Venus’s atmosphere were 21% oxygen and 78% nitrogen plus dense clouds absorbing essentially all insolation by 60 km altitude, and the c_p of air being roughly that of CO2, the 60 km temperature and the surface temperature would still be what they are today.
This account makes CO2 a complete red herring as the mechanism for heating Venus. According to the above calculations, confirmed by observation, the clouds heat to 230 K at 60 km and from then on down dry adiabatic lapse rate does essentially all the remaining heating.
Earth is different because its effective thermal surface is terra firma while that of Venus is at 60 km. On Earth a tiny amount of CO2 can make a big difference.
Vaughan,
Now you are missing the point that there would not be any convection unless the surface is heated by some other source of energy. The internal radiation of IR will not do that, but leads to isothermal atmosphere. Something more is needed.
As long as there is an temperature gradient with lower temperatures at higher altitudes there is also an energy flux upwards, which must be compensated by a source of energy that can be the solar SW radiation. The only other alternative would be energy from the planet itself.
Pekka,
“The only other alternative would be energy from the planet itself.”
Yup.
kuhnkat: A paper from way back (1960’s?) already showed that there was no way that energy from any presumed internal heat source in Venus could be conducted up to the surface fast enough to supply the necessary energy.
Vaughan: Another way to put what Pekka is saying is that there is no law that says the actual lapse rate has to equal the adiabatic lapse rate. The rule is that the lapse rate has to be less than or equal to the adiabatic lapse rate (because if it exceeds it, the atmosphere is unstable to convection, which restores the adiabatic lapse rate). In particular, for the earth, the temperature in the stratosphere does not even come close to following the adiabatic lapse rate. The reason it does in the troposphere is because there is sufficient heating from below. However, your proposal is that essentially no heating radiative heating of the Venetian atmosphere occurs below ~60 km. If that were the case, there would be no reason for the temperature profile to follow the adiabatic lapse rate. In fact, it is quite impossible to see how it could.
Joel,
since I haven’t seen that paper, can you tell me whether they made this claim based on millions of years or days or…
kuhnkat: That isn’t a relevant question. They calculated a rate of that energy could be transported to the surface (in W/m^2) and compared that to what would be required to sustain the emission (in W/m^2) coming off the surface. Since b
Joel,
your response was cut off.
Any links to the paper or a name for me to search?
Sorry, kuhnkat, I don’t have the reference.
Boy, what a nutty post I wrote. Glad so many here know this stuff well enough to see that it made no sense. ;)
Pekka immediately and correctly pointed out that, absent any source of heat to maintain the surface at 700+ K, it would cool down until the environmental lapse rate (ELR) dropped to zero, which as Joel pointed out is just as stable as when it equals the adiabatic lapse rate (ALR) – instability occurs only when ELR exceeds ALR.
The obvious candidate for that source of heat is Chris’s “trickle” of radiation, to which Pekka tentatively added the planet’s own heat as an alternative. Although kuhnkat endorsed the latter possibility with an enthusiastic “yup” (if I understood him), Venus’s crust is likely to be a sufficiently good thermal insulator that far less heat could flow from the core to the surface than is radiated upwards by a 700+ K surface, making that a pretty unlikely alternative.
For thermal equilibrium the net heat radiated downwards by the atmosphere as a whole, plus the trickle-through of insolation, plus the (presumably negligible) heat from the core, must equal that radiated up from the hot surface.
This is analyzed in mind-numbing detail in Chapter 7 of the 1998 book “The Planet Venus” by Mikhail Marov and David Grinspoon, titled “The Thermal Regime and Dynamics of the Atmosphere”, pp 291-331. There’s way too much detail there to go into, but here are a few figures from pp 298-299. (Hopefully whatever more up-to-date numbers are available on the web don’t contradict these too badly.)
Insolation absorbed (based on a Venusian solar constant of 2610 W/m2 and 0.76 bond albedo): 2610*.24/4 = 157 W/m2 (averaged over the whole surface whence the 1/4).
Where absorbed:
Upper clouds: > 65% = 102 W/m2
Middle & lower clouds: < 8% = 12.5 W/m2
Subcloud atmosphere: 15% = 23.5 W/m2
Surface: 11% = 16.8 W/m2
Surface albedo: 0.1 (hence absorbs ~15 W/m2).
In comparison, Earth's surface (averaging land and sea) absorbs 1367*.51/4 = 174 W/m2 of insolation (atmosphere and clouds absorb 1367*.19/4 = 65 W/m2). So the surface of Venus is absorbing 15/174 = 8.6% of what Earth's surface absorbs, quantifying Chris's "trickle."
But even more dramatic is the comparison of 15 W/m2 of insolation absorbed at the surface with around 15 KW/m2 radiated by a 740 K surface (assuming an emissivity of 0.9, estimated by Kirchhoff's law from the surface albedo of 0.1). That is, insolation replenishes only 0.1% of the heat lost from the surface by radiation. For radiative equilibrium the back-radiation from all the components of the atmosphere must therefore be 99.9% of that 15 KW/m2, i.e. also 15 KW/m2.
Marov and Grinspoon analyze that and many other fluxes throughout the atmosphere by dividing up the net vertical atmospheric energy fluxes by altitude and wavelength, taking into account the levels at the various altitudes of CO2, SO2, and even H2O which though very small nevertheless plays a significant role in computing these fluxes.
When all is said and done, I think the main change needed to my previous buggy comment is the need for GHGs as part of the analysis, no changes to the actual numbers. While I haven't done the math yet, with numbers like the above it looks like there should be more than enough net vertical heat flux to be constantly pushing ELR above the dry ALR (there should be too little H2O for the moist rate to be relevant).
This would then create permanent instability which would have to be constantly corrected to keep the ELR at the ALR. One would imagine this must generate strong winds. As long as those winds keep the ELR close to the ALR, all the arithmetic in my previous post is unchanged.
Assuming I've interpreted Marov and Grinspoon's numbers correctly, It is impressive that insolation absorbed at the surface only needs to be 0.1% of the total radiation absorbed and radiated at the surface. That's a very small trickle.
Thinking about heat from the core again, it occurred to me to look in the Marov and Grinspoon book to see if they had anything to say about it. Bingo. On page 182, assuming a mantle temperature of 1700 K (at the bottom of the lithosphere), a lithospheric thickness of 200 km, and a crust thickness of 70 km, they arrive at a mantle-to-surface flux of 0.03 W/m2, some 2-3 times smaller than the corresponding flux for Earth.
Since this is nearly three orders of magnitude less than the 15 W/m2 insolation trickle, I think we can safely ignore Venus’s core as a source of surface heat.
Thinking again about the 15 W/m2 insolation heating Venus’s surface, as being three orders of magnitude less than the 15 KW/m2 of radiation flux there (due to the 740 K temperature), this neglects the rest of the insolation heating the column. It might be more meaningful to look at the total 157 W/m2 distributed over the whole column as the input responsible for the 15 KW/m2 flux at the bottom.
157 W/m2 is only two orders of magnitude less than 15 KW/m2 instead of three. However even two is pretty striking. It’s an amazingly effective heat pump, or temperature pump, or whatever it should be called.
Peter,
Greenhouse can not create energy. Venus radiates more than it receives from the sun.
Estimates of heat flux to the surface are based on uniformitarian theories of how hot Venus should be. IF it was involved in a collision with another planet in more recent times the core could be much hotter and provide the heat to explain both issues. Before anyone attacks my IF, tell me again about the confirmation of the water on Venus thousands to millions of years ago to create the current situation? Water that would still have created a theorized effect that was not large enough??
OUR problem is that we have scientists telling us there is not enough energy to maintain a core flux to the surface, YET, they tell us GreenHouse was high enough to create a REVERSE flux through the mantle that heated it so high it overturned the surface. HUH??????
Since the researchers are rejecting confirmed data based on it conflicting with theories, (5 tries with the same result on the radiative flux measurement sounds like a confirmed observation to me) it makes it difficult to determine exactly what is to be expected. I think a little more attention needs to be paid to Ackerman’s Sulfur cycle.
That is true…but since all models of the greenhouse effect employ energy conservation, they don’t.
Think about it, kuhnkat. You yourself directed me to a page that said that the clouds reflect 60% of the IR energy that Venus emits (and much more is absorbed and subsequently re-emitted within the atmosphere). Where do you think that 60% goes? Energy can’t be destroyed either. So, now the planet has to emit more energy to compensate: Venus’s atmosphere is very efficiently recycling energy.
At some point you have to do some sanity-checking on your own thought processes. Do you really think you are the first person smart enough to think about energy conservation? Seriously, you can’t get anywhere in science if the first thing you always think when you come across something like that is that all the scientists who have worked in the field have missed it and you have come up with some brilliant new insight!
I wish they could bottle all the over-confidence that exists on “skeptic” websites and sell it to some of us who need a little more self-confidence every once in a while!
Joel,
that paper like others give the BEST information the authors typically believe based on their data and belief. The fact they say UP TO 60% means it could be more or probably less.
That said, it is only your bias that would think that no radiation would be making it above the clouds due to a 60% reflectivity. Some does apparently. But even if only 5% of ground radiation made it past the clouds, how much is that????
The real message is that we DO NOT KNOW!!! We guess, we estimate, we model, we speculate… We need MORE INFORMATION! Even on earth we have too many holes in our knowledge to be able to make the decisions that are being pushed upon us. Decisions that will cut us off from choices we may need when the information becomes available.
You again attack me for arrogance and suggest I think I know more than the scientists. Until you read Ackerman for his input on the sulfur cycle, and at least as important, read the reports by the other scientists which he references, you are speaking out of ignorance. I will tell you again. I did not think up this stuff. I can’t do the math. I can only somewhat evaluate what others do and try to integrate diverse reports and conclusions.
Askolnick
Screams
MERCURY, MERCURY, MERCURY, MERCURY, MERCURY, MERCURY!
He no doubt thinks that the greenhouse theory can explain “something”.
Being very immature(almost like a child)he fails to comprehend that we must first establish what the greenhouse effect is.
I being the adult in this interaction must firmly tell him that the Postma paper tells him that unfortunately there is no such thing.
I don’t think that Askolnick probably understands me even yet.
I will simplify it further.
If I had cause to explain to a child that Santa Claus did not exist on Earth Askolnick would probably say “well what about Mercury then”.
Bryan, you already convinced me you’re an idiot. Thanks for proving it to everyone else.
Sam NC, when you refer to O2 and N2 as major factors you seem to be talking about climate. Climate change differs from climate in that it emphasizes not absolute temperature but changes in temperature, for example that we expect it to rise 2 degrees in the next century.
For any gas with radiative properties, its spectral lines are distributed in a way that makes temperature vary logarithmically with variations in level of that gas. This means that a given percentage increase in that gas will always raise the temperature by the same amount. For example if an increase of some gas by 50% raises the temperature say 2 degrees, then a further increase of 50% raises it another 2 degrees. Such increases must be compounded for this math to work; in particular two 50% rises is not 100% but 125% because 1.5 * 1.5 = 2.25.
Whether CO2 is currently at 400 ppmv or 4000 ppmv is irrelevant to how much the temperature will increase when it is raised 50%. CO2 rising from 400 to 600 ppmv will have essentially the same effect on temperature as rising from 4000 to 6000 ppmv.
The same holds for all gases. You are correct that O2 and N2 absorb and emit radiation, although at very different wavelengths from H20 and CO2. But unless O2 or N2 increase or decrease by some significant percentage, how they interact with radiation is irrelevant to climate change.
Do you foresee any large percentage changes in either O2 or N2 in the coming century? If not then their radiative properties are irrelevant to climate change.
Likewise for atmospheric H2O. Do you foresee it undergoing a percentage increase comparable to that of CO2 any time soon?
Vaughn, your point would be moot if N2 and O2 had the absorption properties to swamp the effects of increasing in CO2/H2O, particularly since the former make up a far larger part of the atmosphere by volume. For example, once you get into the runaway greenhouse limit and put nearly an oceans worth of water vapor in the atmosphere, CO2 is pretty much ineffective at doing anything. Of course, N2 and O2 cannot do that, and their presence actually makes CO2 a more effective greenhouse gas via pressure broadening. So the whole discussion about N2 and O2 is pointless.
Chris, was Sam NC contemplating N2/O2 absorption swamping CO2/H2O, or putting the entire ocean up into the atmosphere? If so then you’re right about my point being moot, if not then what is your point? I don’t see the relevance of such apocalyptic scenarios unless Sam is seriously contemplating one, they are wildly more illogical than a mere 4000 ppmv of CO2.
I also don’t see the relevance of pressure broadening to climate change, since whether CO2 is more or less effective is not the point. The point is that doubling CO2 raises the temperature a certain amount. Even if the levels of N2 and O2 were to change (whatever that means) the resulting change in pressure broadening would have little effect on the amount by which temperature increases when CO2 is doubled, which is one of the main concerns for climate change. And the reality that N2 and O2 can’t change by much means that their contribution to pressure broadening doesn’t change by much, making pressure broadening even less relevant to climate change.
That said, I would be interested in knowing the extent of the change in absorptivity of CO2 were all the atmosphere’s nitrogen to be stolen by Ming the Merciless (old Flash Gordon movie), reducing sea level pressure to 0.2 bar. If significant, wouldn’t that tend to undermine the usefulness of equivalent width? Would appreciate seeing the relevant math.
Vaughan,
I understand what you explained, but, the problems is, the earth system just hasn’t managed to exhibit a set of observations that actually confirms what you and the rest of the Climate Community hypothesize.
Chris,
I believe the humidity has been dropping instead of increasing. Y’all just can’t catch a break can you. What dou think the reason is?? Lower insolation, weird weather increasing cloud cover reducing insolation, or weird physics where more CO2 slightly lowers that ability of the atmosphere to hold humidity?
Don’t really matter to me. We ain’t gonna see that Greenhouse earth again in my lifetime.
Kuhnkat, I would agree with you that projections two or even ten years into the future are a crap shoot based on past observations.
But what about projections thirty years hence, which are of interest to a significant segment of the climate community as well as to policy makers. Would you prefer to base a 30-year projection on observations from the last 5 years, the last 10 years, or the last 30 years?
Vaughan,
“But what about projections thirty years hence, which are of interest to a significant segment of the climate community as well as to policy makers.”
Just because we WANT something to be useful does not mean that it is. We have seen reapeated examples of how regional forecasts are useless. I would suggest getting over the idea that we are knowledgeable and skilled enough at this point to provide reliable forecasts and get on with the work of dealing with the types of events and climate the past has shown us are possible.
We have seen reapeated examples of how regional forecasts are useless.
If you’re arguing that five-year regional forecasts are unreliable you won’t get any objections from me. That’s because there are two things working against them.
(i) They are regional, hence much less data to go on than global forecasts. A region like the US is less than 2% of the surface of the globe, and that’s a pretty big region as regional forecasts go.
(ii) They are only 1/6 the data of thirty-year forecasts, 1/15 if you’re talking about two-year forecasts.
The point of a global thirty-year forecast is to smooth out the uncertainties that we appear to agree are present in shorter-term regional forecasts. Long-term global forecasts are intrinsically more reliable than short-term local forecasts, for the same reason that the standard deviation of the proportion of a million coin tosses coming up heads is a hundred times smaller than that for a hundred coin tosses, even though the expected value is exactly the same in both cases.
Hold it Vaughan, you APPEAR to be saying that since we don’t have enough data to do a forecast on a region for only 5 years the data we have is more appropriate for a 30 year global forecast??
See, this is what I find totally inexplicable about climate science. I don’t need to know much about much and can say that is incorrect.
You apparently believe that you have a reasonable idea of the bounds and parameters of the climate, so, can use those to project. We don’t KNOW what the system is capable of, yet you seem to think you do know some broad boundaries and can say the earth system will cyle between those boundaries.
In fact, I think this is exactly the BS that the modellers are trying to incorrectly sell us. If you haven’t noticed, they have been wrong consistently. They haven’t even gotten the trend of the temperature correct with all their effort concentrated on it to the detriment of things like precipitation!! There have been several parameters that they need to fix, such as the solar contribution, that have not been fixed yet.
Let me give you a hint, until you have the correct concept any successes you have with your model is typically LUCK. Oh wait, the modellers haven’t had any successes. Doesn’t that tell you anything?? They have only gotten close by working with those who provide the observations to adjust the observations!!!
Ten years ago the modellers had the sun as a fixed input. Over time they were convinced that the sun had a regular variation of 1%. With the information from the last four years they need to adjust this again.
So, from ignorance you step right up and declare they can make a reasonable long term projection. Well, I hope you have gotten your broker involved. There is nothing like putting a lot of money on the outcome of your or other’s predictions to clarify in your own mind how much confidence you have in them.
Kuhnkat, my example of a hundred and a million coin tosses seems not to have conveyed the idea of what I was talking about, so let me try a different example closer to the actual task at hand.
You are seated at a bench with two voltmeters each measuring something, you aren’t told what. Each has a scale from 0 to 100 volts. After watching them for ten minutes you conclude that one meter seems to be jumping around rather randomly across the entire range, the other seems to be swinging around randomly in the range 36 to 38 volts.
I then offer you a reward worth your while if you can forecast the reading of one of the meters to within 2 volts. You pick a meter and say what it will be in ten minutes. If after exactly ten minutes the chosen meter is at that instant within 2 volts of your projection you get the reward, if not you get nothing.
What would you do? Would you not play on the ground that forecasting is impossible and therefore it would be a waste of time? Or would you be willing to pick a meter and make a forecast?
Vaughan,
your example is still a little obtuse. If what the meters are supposedly reading is the actual climate, it really doesn’t matter. You have given me no connection between the meters and the actual measured, so it does not matter whether I can guess what the meter will be reading. It has nothing to do with what is being measured.
If you are saying that the 36-38 volt range meter is a climate model and the other one is pure chance. I would tell you that my guessing what the Climate model outputs also makes no difference because its reading will have no connection to the WEATHER at the time we choose to read its output.
The models were built based on assumptions that are proving to be untrue. They are USELESS for predicting future weather and climate until they have been improved. The closer we get to their finest detail the less they are likely to be useful. Using the simpler methods of basing predictions on past and current observations still appears to be doing a better job. At least Bastardi and Corbyn appear to independently be making money off their work without Government funding. I wonder who would bet a large chunk of cash or their business on the output of a GISS or other IPCC associated model!!
If you are saying that the 36-38 volt range meter is a climate model and the other one is pure chance. I would tell you that my guessing what the Climate model outputs also makes no difference because its reading will have no connection to the WEATHER at the time we choose to read its output.
Kuhnkat, neither meter is a climate model, both meters are purely observational. They are equipped with just enough memory to show the average of the last n months of global land-sea temperature anomaly data, specifically the file
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/hadcrut3gl.txt
The values of n for the two meters are respectively 2 and 200, the idea being that meter 1 is giving the short-term weather while meter 2 is reading out the long-term climate. (200 months is 16 years and 4 months.)
The values of both meters change once a month, this being the rate at which the file hadcrut3gl.txt changes. Here are the readings from the respective meters over the last 20 months. The units are hundredths of a degree rounded to the nearest hundredth (so 44 means an anomaly of 0.44 degrees).
Meter 1
44 43 45 48 53 57 54 52 54 51 43 40 43 36 23 23 29 35 36 37
Meter 2
35 35 35 36 36 36 36 37 37 37 37 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38
Whereas meter 1 is wobbling up and down all the time, meter 2 is climbing slowly but surely.
Given all the exulting during the past decade that “we’re entering a cooling period” you might expect that meter 2 must have dropped back down at some time within the past decade. You’d be wrong. The last time meter 2 showed any decrease at all was back in August of 1996 when it dropped from 12 back to 11, a mere 0.01 degree drop, where it had been three months earlier.
The previous time meter 2 showed any drop at all was in December 1975 when it dropped back to -11 from -10, likewise a 0.01 degree drop.
This shows the difference between weather and climate. It also shows that the climate as defined above has been warming steadily since the 1970s.
The claims by skeptics that we’re now entering a cooling period are based on short-term weather, which we know fluctuates. In recent decades long-term climate has not been fluctuating. The last time meter 2 registered any sustained decline was when it fell steadily between 1948 and 1961. (Note that these dates are for the last month of the window; some moving-average programs define it as the middle month of the window, quite reasonably.)
If you’d like to try this out with other windows besides 2 months and 200 months, the zip file
http://boole.stanford.edu/Mvavg.zip
should give you everything you need. mvavg.c is a C program that takes the windowsize in months on the command line and the data from stdin, and produces 100 times its moving average on stdout. had is the monthly data from hadcrut3gl.txt. had2 and had200 are the outputs produced by
avg.exe 2 had2
and
avg.exe 200 had200
respectively. had.exe is had.c compiled for the cygwin environment, recompile had.c for your own environment.
Or use Excel. Open the file had, chart it as an XY scatter plot, and fit a moving-average trendline.
Vaughan,
apparently I am a worse communicator than I thought. I am disagreeing with you basic concept.
Remember the story of the stopped watch that gives you the correct time twice a day? It is useless because you do not know WHEN it is correct without another watch to tell you wha time it is.
Climate models, assuming they have any usefulness at all in relation to our real weather/climate, are in the same situation. You do not know when they will be close to the real world. As I mentioned before, i have no confidence in them, partially due to their obvious non-physical bias to warmer temperatures after “settling in” and partially due to the fact that they have been shown to be unphysical with ther precipitation. I am sure if there were people who had the time to waste they could find othere “features” that would decrease confidence in them. Initializing them with real world data seems to make them at least in the ballpark as far as temperature but their bias drives them away from it rather quickly.
Now, your meters still only allow you a PROBABILITY of guessing correctly. You still do not know ahead of time whether your guess is going to be correct this time or not. Knowing there is a real probability that it may be correct will bias people’s response to what is needed IF it does turn out correct. IF it turns out wrong that response could be opposite to what is needed and be WORSE than doing nothing.
In your game I, of course would go for the gold and try the narrow range as guessing wrong would have no effect other than to not make any money. In the real world actions have consequences and cannot be compared to your little game.
Have I made myself clear or am I still somehow misunderstanding what you are trying to instruct me in?? If I am still off the reservation please try a straightforward explanation and drop the scenario.
Since I don’t see any way of improving on my argument that long-term climate is smoother and therefore more predictable than short-term weather, I’ll have to stop with that example. Sorry I wasn’t able to communicate the idea with it.
Vaughan,
How does the Greenhouse Earth, Ice Age earth, or even the Holocene Optimum through the Little Ice Age give you confidence that the climate is relatively smooth and can be characterized by the current range of models? If anything the statements of the modellers that they are unable to model the Holocene to date, or even the MWP, should make you wary of any such claims?
And if that fails Kuhnkat, try getting your answers from a Ouija board — you usually do better with that.
kuhnkat says:
You believe incorrectly; see, for example, http://www.sciencemag.org/content/310/5749/841.abstract (Or else you are doing the usual “skeptic” thing of looking over some ridiculously short timescale where you are just seeing the fluctuations and not the long-term trend.)
Joel,
“Published Online 6 October 2005”
I really don’t think this was the latest data.
Like I said, if you look over a few years, you are just looking at fluctuations. (Although as the Soden paper shows, the fluctuations actually show very clearly the correlation between temperature and upper tropospheric humidity…but clearly since the temperature trends can be negative over a few years, so can the humidity trends that correlate to them.)
Anyway, here is a more recent short review paper with references: http://www.sciencemag.org/content/323/5917/1020.summary
Joel,
“else you are doing the usual “skeptic” thing of looking over some ridiculously short timescale where you are just seeing the fluctuations and not the long-term trend”
This is an attitude you will get over in time so don’t worry too much about it. The trend is the trend until it isn’t. This isn’t some kind of metaphysical pronouncement, just fact. Especially when the trend was established under a different climate regime. A perfect example of this is the Arctic ice. We have predictions of its demise due to the TREND!! Unfortunately for those cheering it on to prove something the more historic and paleo data that is gathered the stronger the idea that the Arctic cycles through low ice high ice. If there is anything you should learn from me it will be that virtually most things run in cycles and depending on the trend will burn you every time.
Take for instance a fracture. You may be measuring it and predict that you have a week before it reaches a point you should take action. It may fail the next day because there were factors you were unaware of. It may also STOP for different reasons and not fail. Unless you know all of the important data about a system, and probably much of the less important data, a trend will only make you too sure of yourself. This is the lesson of statistics that good teachers will try and instill.
What a good teacher in statistics will also instill is that trend estimates have associated with them an errorbar in the trend estimate (or, a statistical significance, if you will). And, for trends in things like global climate data, it takes many years before the errorbars are small enough to talk about a statistically-significant trend.
And about the time it becomes significant it changes and everyone keeps expecting it to return to the trend for years because they KNOW it is significant.
Agan, it is called being too sure of yourself.
Vaughan,
“Sam NC, when you refer to O2 and N2 as major factors you seem to be talking about climate. ”
No. I was talking about energy contents and heat transfer of CO2, O2 and N2 in atmosphere. If any warmists and skeptics have any sense of the energy magnitudes of these gases involved, they will not be talking all these CO2, O2 and N2 non-sense here.
“Climate change differs from climate in that it emphasizes not absolute temperature but changes in temperature, for example that we expect it to rise 2 degrees in the next century.”
You have to appreciate that the energy contents involved to heat up N2 and O2 2 degrees by CO2 in the atmosphere. CO2 has minimal energy content which has order of magnitude 4 less. It is obvious that GHG theory believers contradicted themselves when they are talking about wavelengths that the atmospheric gases are not transfering heat and yet O2, N2 and CO2 all have the same temperature and denying the major heat transfer ocuring is by convection. Overblown the CO2 effect by thousands of times and reduced convection by thousands of times to complete their GHG theory. It is absurd.
You have to appreciate that the energy contents involved to heat up N2 and O2 2 degrees by CO2 in the atmosphere. CO2 has minimal energy content which has order of magnitude 4 less.
Ok, but heat capacity (if that’s what you mean by “energy contents”) turns out to play a much less significant role than the insulating effect of greenhouse gases in preventing the Earth from keeping cool by radiating heat out to space.
Vaughan,
“For any gas with radiative properties,”
All gases have radiative properties.
“its spectral lines are distributed in a way that makes temperature vary logarithmically with variations in level of that gas.”
Temperature is the cause and spectral lines are consequences.
“This means that a given percentage increase in that gas will always raise the temperature by the same amount. ”
You confuse yourself what is the CAUSE here.
“For example if an increase of some gas by 50% raises the temperature say 2 degrees, then a further increase of 50% raises it another 2 degrees.”
Again you confuse yourself like all the warmists and the alarmists. Increase of 50%, doubling, quadruppling have no effect on the gases temperature, zero increase in temperature. The only thing that change temperature is the source of energy change. This is very basic in energy. The climate community, especially the alarmists and the warmists cannot comprehend this simple concept.
” Such increases must be compounded for this math to work; in particular two 50% rises is not 100% but 125% because 1.5 * 1.5 = 2.25.” You are going far away from energy reality.
“Whether CO2 is currently at 400 ppmv or 4000 ppmv is irrelevant to how much the temperature will increase when it is raised 50%. CO2 rising from 400 to 600 ppmv will have essentially the same effect on temperature as rising from 4000 to 6000 ppmv.”?
“You are correct that O2 and N2 absorb and emit radiation, although at very different wavelengths from H20 and CO2.” Glad that you realised that.
” But unless O2 or N2 increase or decrease by some significant percentage, how they interact with radiation is irrelevant to climate change.”?
“Do you foresee any large percentage changes in either O2 or N2 in the coming century? If not then their radiative properties are irrelevant to climate change.” You have a complete wrong concept, you should not have passed your university science course, in particular, thermodynamics! You have a very sloppy oniversity professor/lecturer. No surprise if he/she is an alarmist or warmist, distort science.
“Likewise for atmospheric H2O. Do you foresee it undergoing a percentage increase comparable to that of CO2 any time soon?”? Your statements appeared to be built on wrong energy and gas concepts.
Temperature is the cause and spectral lines are consequences.
Where did you get this interesting fact from?
(i) Mainstream literature?
(ii) An experiment?
(iii) As a logical consequence of some line of reasoning?
(iv) Some other source?
Vaughan,
You really need to think outside of CO2 ivory tower. Its just simple radiation. At 0K, no radiation for any matter. At 1K or anywhere above 0K, matter will start radiate their respective spectral lines, provided instrument is good enough to measure the spectral lines. The intensity of the radiation increase as temperature increase. Without energy, no temperature. You double the CO2 content, you cannot get any increase in temperature. Your doubled CO2 only get the same temperature as before unless there is an increase in heat source.
Ah, I see your reasoning, Sam, at least in the case of emission spectra. How do you apply it in the case of absorption spectra?
Heat source!
OK. Thats too simple an answer perhaps you may not understand. For absorption of heat there is no partcular absorption spectra for a specific matter unlike its emission. Matters absorbs all available E-M wave spectral wavelengths but emit only their respective emission spectra. Heat source can be anything within E-M wave spectrum.
…whereupon Sam NC violates the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics and demonstrates that he has no idea about Kirchhoff’s Law ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kirchhoff%27s_law_of_thermal_radiation )
It’s okay to be ignorant about things, but ignorance combined with arrogance is a very bad combination.
How do you measure absorption spectra?
How do you measure absorption spectra?
Excellent question. For absorption lines in the visible spectrum, perhaps the simplest way, and a very traditional one, is to pass white light through a sample of the gas and then through a prism to produce a rainbow in the usual way. Absorption lines then show up as black lines in the rainbow. It is a good idea to block only one half of the beam with the sample so that the unblocked portion can be used to calibrate the blocked portion.
This rather simple-minded method doesn’t work for infrared radiation of wavelength longer than about 2 microns because glass becomes opaque at those wavelengths. One can replace the glass prism with one that is transparent over the range of wavelengths of interest. However in practice you instead pass very narrow-band radiation through the gas sample and simply measure the intensity coming out the other side. It is still worthwhile calibrating the result by comparing with what comes out when the sample is removed.
Since the sample is normally held in an airtight cell, one should arrange for windows into and out of the cell that are relatively transparent at the wavelengths of interest, the same issue we encountered with the glass prism.
Are you a student at college/university now?
Been a student all my life, and yes I’m at a university.
Indeed a student at university is better. Using words such as gibberish (or hint of it) or handwaving were indeed rude without deep appreciation of the subject matter.
Judy, I have made an effort to help you get around your impression that my work is so overwhelming, in a new post on my blog:
http://claesjohnson.blogspot.com/2011/08/what-judy-curry-cannot-understand.html
Does it help?
Claes, I understand perfectly your arguments, I am just not buying it, and I don’t have the time to personally undertake a rebuttal for this for reasons I have previously stated.
Judy, I have formulated a response as a continuation of the previous post
http://www.blogger.com/publish-confirmation.g?blogID=1500584444083499721&postID=3718684782709198678×tamp=1312980179820&javascriptEnabled=true
I hope you understand what I want to say.
Speaking only for myself Claes, understanding what you have to say is not hard, caring what you have to say is.
I’ve been on vacation and out of touch. Someone (was it you, Andrew?) posted a link to a paper on the heating of a tungsten filament with a factor shown for back heating. I would like to read that paper…but I can’t find the link. Would who ever posted the link please post it again? Thanks!
Ah, it was Arthur Smith who suggested reading Langmuir. Good.
I didn’t find the paper he suggested, but I did find his book Phenomena, Atoms and Molecules…
http://ia700407.us.archive.org/21/items/phenomenaatomsmo00lang/phenomenaatomsmo00lang.pdf
Here’s the article:
http://prola.aps.org/abstract/PR/v7/i3/p302_1
I think the Langmuir analysis is interesting, Arthur. What Langmuir describes as “back radiation” is an adjustment used at low temperatures to show zero emission from the tungsten filament when the filament is at ambient temperature (where there is no delta-T).
This is the sort of thing you hear from the Dragon Slayers…i.e., that if there is no delta-T, then there is no radiation. Please note, he’s not saying (ala Trenberth) that we add the filament emission to the ambient emission to get something greater than the filament emission. The “back radiation” factor is subtracted from the filament emission calculation and if it was not subtracted, then we’d be saying the filament emits into the room when it is at ambient temperature.
From the data on the total emissivity the values of W for temperatures
below 1200′ were calculted [SIC] by means of equation (13). At the lower
temperatures, however, “back radiation” was taken into account so
that W’ was actually calculated from the equation
(16) W’ = pi*p(ETee4 —EoToee4). .
Here To is room temperature which is taken to be 2o’ C. (To = 293).
Eo is the total absorption coefficient of a filament at a temperature T
for energy radiated by a black body at To, that is, at 293.
– Irving Langmuir, The Characteristics of Tungsten Filaments as Functions of Temperature.
Pete, that is an underhanded lie, which is apparently your favorite kind.
Here is what I quoted:
“The temperature difference between the atmospheres of Venus and Earth is entirely and precisely due to their different distances from the Sun, nothing else — not to the planetary albedo (Venus is covered by dense clouds that reflect much of the visible solar radiation, while Earth is not), not to the IR absorptive properties of the surface (Earth is 70% covered by deep ocean, Venus is solid crust), and above all not to the concentration of CO2 or any other IR-absorbing gas in the atmospheres.”
And here is Huffman’s ENTIRE post, showing NOTHING was taking out of context. Indeed, you’re lying through your in your defamatory post. NOTHING of what you say he “actually wrote” is in his statement:
“Harry Dale Huffman said…
When there are competing theories in science, the first recourse should always be to experimental evidence that can decide the issue. See Venus: No Greenhouse Effect
The temperature difference between the atmospheres of Venus and Earth is entirely and precisely due to their different distances from the Sun, nothing else–not to the planetary albedo (Venus is covered by dense clouds that reflect much of the visible solar radiation, while Earth is not), not to the IR absorptive properties of the surface (Earth is 70% covered by deep ocean, Venus is solid crust), and above all not to the concentration of CO2 or any other IR-absorbing gas in the atmospheres. So first of all, the evidence of two whole planetary atmospheres undeniably and unambiguously tells us there is no greenhouse effect as envisioned by climate scientists. Secondly, it tells us the atmospheres of both planets are warmed by the same IR portion of the Sun’s incident radiation, by direct absorption of that portion in the atmosphere, not by warming of the surface first. The “debate” put forth by Judith Curry and other believers in the greenhouse effect is incompetent in the face of the Venus/Earth evidence. There is no need to waste time now on competing theories, with that overwhelming evidence on hand. The consensus is incompetent, period.
12 February, 2011 12:41″
http://objectivistindividualist.blogspot.com/2011/01/blackbody-radiation-and-consensus.html
Indeed, your penchant for shameless lies is so similar to Pete Ridley’s it seems after an unexplained absence, he has returned using another screen name. What happened? Did “Pete Ridley” finally get blocked?
Shall I start a new “Greenhouse Dragon Discussion” thread, or do you prefer to keep commenting on the original thread.
It might be an idea to feature Joseph Postmas new paper if he agrees.
Judith Curry,
it might be a good idea because my web browser hates thousands of comments…
Not sure if there is anything new to discuss, but evidently this is going to carry on for a while, and there is the Postma stuff making its rounds. It will fade away quickly though.
While preserving what has already been posted, I trust ?
Yes, it is taking a long time for the site to load. And one can easily include a link to any of the comments in the old page.
I agree, a new thread would be good. My old Mac Powerbook I use to read in bed chokes on these long threads.
Chris, responding to this mendacious idiot is a waste of time. His motto appears to be “Deny and De-Lie.”
Murdoch’s right-wing propaganda machine may have suffered a mortal wound by the release of a .44 magnum smoking gun letter that proves he, his son, and his “news” organization have engaged in criminal phone hacking, a criminal cover-up, and other crimes. I’m hoping further leaks will show Murdoch’s thugs were also behind the email hacking he used to create the so-called Climategate scandal.
The latest revelation shows how the Murdochs bribed and colluded to keep their phone hacking and other crimes covered up.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/aug/16/phone-hacking-now-reporter-letter?CMP=twt_gu
The Union of Concerned Scientists has a political cartoon contest going.
http://www.ucsusa.org/scientific_integrity/science_idol/2011-science-idol-contestants.html?autologin=true
My favorite features a picture perfect representation of the Sky Dragon Slayers.
http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/images/si/science-idol-2011/web-UCS2012calendar_jbilicki.jpg
My second favorite:
http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/images/si/science-idol-2011/web-UCScalendar-2012-strawman-macleod.JPG
Hi Andrew
Not sure if you are aware, but everyone else is discussing the slayers on two new threads. Judith started new posts as this one has got a bit clunky and slow. Cheers.
I didn’t know. Thanks RobB.
I would have to say this appears to be a worthy contender,
http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/images/si/science-idol-2011/web-UCScalendar-2012-ScientificTruthPauls2011.jpg
but possibly it is a bit too near the truth, ie, because,
http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/images/si/science-idol-2011/web-UCS2012_BUDGETCUTS_KevinCannon.jpg
Real scientists know what, and what not to question (for the good of their career) don’t they.
There is a history to it, as Krug learnt in respect of acid rain.
http://sppiblog.org/news/rear-mirror-the-epa-vs-ed-krug-over-the-acid-rain-scare
In that first cartoon, Derek, i believe I see Michael Mann, Kevin Trenberth and our gracious host Madame Curry.
The bang-bang nature of radio isn’t great for being thoughtful and digging deep into technical issues, but, in my humble opinion, Dr. Ball did a good job in this interview…
http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.action?articleId=281474980512986
Hey Ken, what happened to your partner John O’Sullivan? Did he get fired from his “legal consultant” position at Pearlman Lindholm? Did Tim Ball finally check out Mr. O’Sullivan’s professional and academic credentials — or did Mr. Scherr, — Ball’s attorney of record? As expected, John’s not talking.
The Amended Answers to Dr. Mann’s suit Mr. Ball filed with the Supreme Court of British Columbia on August 3rd claims that communications between Mr. Ball and Mr. O’Sullivan are protected by lawyer-client privilege. Boy was that a foolish mistake that has come back to bite them all in the butt! I’m grabbing some popcorn, sitting back, and waiting for the rest of the fun to follow.
Isn’t it the case that much of this spat between Andrew Skolnick and John O’ Sullivan is due to the subtle differences in meaning of the same words, when used in Canada versus their use in the British Isles. Of course in that part of Canada where the locus of this case is centred must have a heavy United States lexicographical influence also.
For instance Skolnick’s insistance on making a big deal out of the allegation that O’ Sullivan had stated that he was involved with “Vancouver Supreme Court”, and that this was somehow deceitful because the court is in Victoria.
It is the case that Victoria is on Vancouver Island, and it is common parlance in the British Isles to simply refer to islands by their name. Therefore it would be natural to refer to the court as Vancouver Supreme Court, because that is the name of the island where it is located. I do not believe that any deceit was intended by O’ Sullivan on that score.
Again another main plank of mr Skolnick’s argument is that O’ Sullivan had incorrectly described himself as a counsel or advocate, and that he was not in fact licenced to practice as such in Victoria, BC. Similarly these words have subtly different meanings on opposite sides of the Atlantic Ocean. It is not the case in the British Isles that a Counsel, Counsellor, or Advocate even requires any sort of degree at all, or registration with any “bar association” or “law society” because the use of those words does not imply any such qualification in British English. It may do, but is not denotive.
Nevertheless it is clear and undeniable that O’ Sullivan does have a Law degree,
whereas on the other hand Andrew A. Skolnick has no legal qualifications whatsoever. Perhaps Skolnick might beat O’ Sullivan in a photography contest, but it is unlikely that he will be able to outmaneuver O’ Sullivan who has some long experience in pleading replication, rejoinder, surrejoinder, and rebuttal.
In my opinion, Skolnick thought he could bully O’ Sullivan into submission, but that hasn’t worked, and now he has painted himself into a proverbial corner.
Fred, your spurious arguments are ridiculous. For one, you say “it is clear and undeniable that O’Sullivan does have a law degree.”
Oh, yeah. From where? From University College, Cork as he claimed back in May on LinkedIn?
http://www.aaskolnick.com/global_deniers/cork_capture.jpg
Or from the University of Surrey as he’s claiming now?
Unfortunately, Mr. O’Sullivan now claims he earned his law degree from the University of Surrey the same time he was earning his art degree from a totally different school!
http://www.friendsreunited.co.uk/JohnOSullivan
That’s the problem with pathological liars, they have a terrible time keeping their stories straight.
And Fred completely misrepresents what I’ve said about the professional credentials Mr. O’Sullivan has been fraudulently claiming.
For example, any honest person here who can read (there are some, right?) can see for themselves that the humbug is STILL claiming on his Friends Reunited site that he’s working as a legal consultant for Pearlman Lindholm — and then can read in the Law Society of British Columbia’s findings how Tim Ball’s attorney Michael Scherr O’Sullivan NEVER was employed by his law firm in any capacity.
http://www.aaskolnick.com/global_deniers/BC_LawSociety_4-nov311_Skolnick.pdf
What I have just “painted in the corner” are two deniers, John O’Sullivan and his apologist friend Fred P, who have little if any regard for the truth.
http://www.aaskolnick.com/global_deniers/cork_capture.jpg
Or from the University of Surrey as he’s claiming now?
Unfortunately, Mr. O’Sullivan now claims he earned his law degree from the University of Surrey the same time he was earning his art degree from a totally different school!
http://www.friendsreunited.co.uk/JohnOSullivan
That’s the problem with pathological liars, they have a terrible time keeping their stories straight.
And Fred completely misrepresents what I’ve said about the professional credentials Mr. O’Sullivan has been fraudulently claiming.
For example, any honest person here can see for themselves that the humbug is STILL claiming on the Friends Reunited website that he’s working as a legal consultant for Pearlman Lindholm — and can then read in the Law Society of British Columbia’s findings how Tim Ball’s attorney Michael Scherr testified O’Sullivan was NEVER employed by his law firm in any capacity.
http://www.aaskolnick.com/global_deniers/BC_LawSociety_4-nov311_Skolnick.pdf
What I have just “painted in the corner” are two deniers, John O’Sullivan and his apologist friend Fred P, who have little if any regard for the truth.
Fred, you should have stayed in your dark and gloomy cellar over at Climate Change Dispatch where only denier trolls lurk. Over here, there are global warming skeptics and some deniers, but even they have no stomach for trying to defend this humbug.
You’ll not have much support from them. Better go back to where they think a belch is funny and a fart even cleverer.
Sorry, an extra copy of a large, unedited section from my reply to Fred P from the Climate Change Dispatch got pasted in my comment.
The sentence, “For example, any honest person here who can read (there are some, right?) can see for themselves that the humbug is STILL claiming on his Friends Reunited site that he’s working as a legal consultant…” was meant for the mendacious knuckledragers over there, not the upright walking straight dealing folk here ;-)
(Gawd! I thought some posters HERE were bad! It’s a pit of belly crawlers over there. After spending time there, even the worst of you guys now look a lot more decent and reasonable. LOL.)
Yes indeed you are the “cut & paste” King, Mr. Skolnick. I doff my cap to the lord and master of us all. None of us need bother wirting anymore in here because Mr. Skolnick has deemed it so. He is the ultimate arbiter, and don’t you dare argue with my Liege and Lord. All Hail Lord Skolnick and his disciples !
Enthalpy (H) is the constant of proportionality relating the energy of a photon to its frequency; approximately 6.626 x 10^-34 joule-second, and nobody has proved this precept to be erronious, so far as I can see.
Anything further is simply flimflam. I am sure that Lord Skolnick will agree.
All your base are belong to us !
Bill, if you are going to intersperse your senseless diatribes with irrelevant science facts, you might as well make the facts correct. In the equation relating energy of a photon to its frequency, h is not the enthalpy (an entirely different beast) but rather is Planck’s Constant ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_constant ).
Wikipedia ???
I never mentioned Planck specifically, and whilst it is true that the values quoted are the same, Plank’s constant is always denoted by a lower case “h”, whereas Enthalpy is denoted by an upper case “H”, and a thermodynamic quantity equal to the internal energy of a system plus the product of its volume and pressure, and the amount of energy in a system capable of doing mechanical work.
All Hail the Disciples of Skolnick !
AYBABTU
Joel dropped a boulder on Oh No, Mr. Bill’s head and the twit is too dumb to notice. “I never mentioned Plank specifically,” he protests.
What Mr. Bill means is that he quoted Plank’s Constant (h) but erroneously (and stupidly) called it “Enthalpy (H).” and described it as approximately “6.626 x 10^-34 joule-second.”
Plank’s Constant: h = 6.62606957 x 10^-34 Joule-second
According to Wikipedia, “The Enthalpy (H) of a system is defined as: H = U + p V”
That boulder sure looks nice on you Bill.
While there are questions on John O’Sullivan and I have had my personal reservations from the beginning, I don’t see a need to tar the other slayers authors with the same brush.
“I don’t see a need to tar the other slayers authors with the same brush.”
Like, duh! He’s their LEADER! Which means they follow him. Forget the brush, this calls for a fat roller.
It would be a simple matter for his fellow Slayers to protect whatever credibility and integrity they have left by saying something like, “Damn, I had no idea he was such a humbug. I’m shocked, I tell you, shocked. I’m shocked and dismayed.”
Listen! Do you hear anything?
I can only hear the plaintiff mumble from their publisher, Ken Coffman, who says he doesn’t care about O’Sullivan’s mendacious resume, because he likes the guys ideas.
Mr. Skolnick you are some kind of a Stalker. When a person spends vast amounts of time tracking and following a single person and then hurling vast amounts of puss and vitriol at that person they are a stalker. We are interested in the message really and not your personal vendetta against one of the messengers. Unless you can refute the story and address your remarks to that, you come over as some kind of a nutcase yourself.
Bill,
Anybody who understands the science whatsoever knows that the Dragon Slayers are peddling complete garbage and nonsense. The only remaining question of interest is why they are doing this. Andrew Skolnick’s investigations of the pattern of false claims made by their ringleader helps to explain this.
That reply is frankly meaningless, with repesct to my remarks. My remarks were addressed to Mr. Skolnick in any case. Your interjection is unwarranted.
Mr. Smith, if you want to carry on a private conversation with me, you can send your comments by email, so that they will be automatically deleted by my spam filter. If you post them here, others are entitled to reply as they see fit.
What is “meaningless” is your claim of privilege not to be contradicted by others. Pretending to be speaking for everyone here, you claimed no one is interested in what you call my “personal vendetta against” John O’Sullivan and his band of Sky Dragon Slayers.
Joel contradicted your bogus claim, and told you why he and others are interested in what I’ve been reporting.
If you don’t want to be contradicted, stop making such ridiculously false comments, or else go talk to yourself where I’m sure you’ll have a more agreeable audience.
False comments ???
What I stated, and plain for all to see was …..
” We are interested in the message really and not your personal vendetta against one of the messengers.”
[accurate quote]
I never claimed what YOU misquoted ….
“Pretending to be speaking for everyone here, you claimed no one is interested”
I noticed a lot of that in your long monologues. Very often what you say is a quotation, is factually innacurate. What does this say about your own thought processes, and logical deductive abilities?
What Mr. Shore stated was “unwarranted”. He did not address any of the points which I made in my original posting which he replied to, and so it was literally without a basis in reason.
As has been said previously …..
“Fred P. | November 11, 2011 at 1:10 pm |
Isn’t it the case that much of this spat between Andrew Skolnick and John O’ Sullivan is due to the subtle differences in meaning of the same words, when used in Canada versus their use in the British Isles.”
[accurate quote]
American English grammar is different from British English grammar, and the idiom is often different too. Do consider this before jumping to unwarranted conclusions, and taking a stance on perspectives which may not be so legitimate as you might at first suppose.
AYBABTU
Mr. Bill hilariously accuses me of misquoting him when I scolded him for pretending to speak for everyone here:
“What I stated, and plain for all to see was ….. We are interested in the message really and not your personal vendetta against one of the messengers.”
Oh No, Mr. Bill, when you claim, “We are [not] interested in … your personal vendetta…”, you ARE pretending to speak for everyone here.
Unless of course, you were speaking only for yourself AND your tapeworm — since I doubt the Queen of England is posting here under the pseudonym “Bill Smith.”
Oh No, Mr. Bill finally did get something right:
“American English grammar is different from British English grammar, and the idiom is often different too.”
Idioms often are different, but the idiots are just as idiotic — as Oh No, Mr. Bill and his tapeworm obliviously demonstrate.
Bill Smith and Joel Shore
Over on the
Congressional Climate Briefing to Push “End of Climate Change Skepticism” thread
Andrew Skolnick and Pete Ridley had extended their ‘investigations’ to include Johns wider family.
Judith rightly stepped in to put an end to this disgusting practice.
Correction
Its the ‘Letter to the dragon slayers’ thread not the ‘Congressional Climate Briefing’.
Not only that but they are all over Amazon books reviews also, and at many other places. It is a wonder that Mr Skolnick has the time. I wonder who is paying for his time, and why he suddenly decided to go down this track, which seems so far away from his usual photographic career.
I read the reviews of the Sky Dragon Book over at Amazon, where Mr. Skolnick appears to be on the point of becoming obsessive, in a mental heath sense of the word. I truely believe that his mental health is in danger, and advise that he should drop the whole thing, before he is really driven to insanity. Is this argument among “climate scientists” real and imagined, actually worth endangering your psycholological wellbeing?
I say not. When an inquiry becomes an obsession, it is time to stop.
Thank you, Bill. Well said.
Judith Curry displays a distinct lack of understanding of Prof Claes Johnson’s “papers.” She says, in effect, that he ignores radiation in the atmosphere, whereas there is plenty of mention of such right there in the first half page. Then she quotes a conclusion without the slightest discussion of the lead-up to such, as if to imply it is sheer stupidity simply because it is contrary to the IPCC hypothesis.
The guts of what Johnson actually proves computationally (though I doubt she would follow the mathematics) is that spontaneous radiation coming from the atmosphere is not converted to thermal energy when it meets a significantly warmer surface.
I have done experiments which confirm for me the truth of this. So too has Prof Nasif Nahle in September last year when he showed the atmosphere cools faster than the surface at night. My 50 years of physics tells me it is right. Never before the days of the IPCC et al was there anything in physics textbooks claiming that thermal energy can in this way be transferred from a cool body to a significantly warmer body. It is not Johnson overturning physics, it is the likes of those misleading the IPCC who are doing that. No one has produced an experiment showing any backradiation actually warming anything. They can’t, because it doesn’t, if it even exists to anywhere near the extent claimed.
Yes Johnson does not see a need to treat EM radiation as having a (mass-less) particle nature. This was a desperate invention of Planck because he could not explain the UV catastrophe. Neither could Einstein, but he was uncomfortable about these “particles” until his dying days. Johnson has brilliantly derived a computational explanation of the UV catastrophe without resorting to a “particle” nature of radiation (just using a wave nature) and, in my view, yes he does deserve a Nobel Prize for advancing physics in this way and solving a problem that baffled even Einstein. It is absolute garbage to imply that Johnson has overturned 100 years of physics theory. Neither backradiation nor any particle nature of EM radiation ever reached the status of being theory.
Doug Cotton says:
That is simply a falsehood…Johnson does not prove anything. You can’t prove anything by computation about the physical universe. You can only prove that the results follow from your assumptions. If your assumptions are nonsense, that means the results will likely be too.
Frankly, neither of you has an ounce of credibility, showing an inability to even get simple things right. And, you expect us to believe either of you knows how to conduct a rigorous experiment and that your experimental results should overthrow a century of physics?
According to what I have seen you advertise elsewnere, you have just a B.Sc. in physics….and it is unclear what sort of career you have had in physics. (You went on to get a higher degree in business administration. You know how the saying goes: “Those who can do, those who can’t teach, and those who can’t teach administrate.” Even for some whom this doesn’t apply to it has been my experience that for many of them, a degree in business administration can be equivalent to getting a lobotomy in terms of hampering their abilities to think rationally.)
That is just prove-able nonsense. For example, my copy of Serway from 1983 says
Nothing in there about thermal radiation from a colder body not being absorbed by a warmer body.
A hundred years of use of the accepted equations by scientists and engineers shows this claim to be nonsense.
Some statements are so silly that it is just breathtaking to see them made. Next, perhaps we ought to start putting Nobel Prizes in Crackerjacks boxes. Johnson hasn’t solved anything. His notion can’t explain the photoelectric effect. His overturning of statistical physics with a new notion can’t explain the huge amount of stuff that has been explained by statistical physics.
Yes, he has. And, he proposes to replace it with nonsense that hardly explains anything of what the 100 years of physics has explained. The fact that people like you are embracing such crackpot notions just shows how desperate and anti-scientific some of the “AGW skeptic” movement has become.
If radiation is absorbed and reemitled instantly, what does that do to temperature?
Where is the experiment showing a cool body warming a warmer body?
Where are the experiments demonstrating the physical phenomena of the so-called “greenhouse effect”. I haven’t even been able to get a consensus on what it is, between:
a. backradiation theory
b. radiative insulation theory
c. something else
blouis79 says:
The thing is that the rate of thermal emission is proportional to the 4th power of the temperature. Hence, when emission occurs from colder parts of the atmosphere at altitude, the emission is less (in W/m^2) than when emission occurs at the surface. So, the net effect, is that the temperature, which in the absence of IR-absorbing elements in the atmosphere, would be constrained to be 255 K (with Earth’s current insolation and albedo) instead finds that temperature constraint to occur at an altitude of about 5 km. Applying the fact that the average lapse rate in the atmosphere is about 6.5 C per km means that the average temperature at the surface is about 33 K higher.
A cooler body can’t warn a warmer body. The net flow is always from warmer to cooler as the Second Law implies. And, that is true of the Earth and its atmosphere where the net flow is from the Earth to the atmosphere (and then out into space). However, there is another object that we call the sun that does warm the Earth and the Earth’s average surface temperature is determined by the balance between the rate it receives energy from the sun and the rate it emits energy back out into space.
The role of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is, for a given surface temperature, to slow the rate at which the Earth cools by emission of radiation. Since such a situation would put the Earth out of radiative balance (emitting back into space less than it receives from the sun), it responds by warming until radiative balance is again restored.
The empirical evidence includes:
(1) The fact that the Earth’s surface emits ~390 W/m^2 but that the Earth as viewed from space by satellites emits only ~240 W/m^2.
(2) The spectral character of these emissions matches the predictions of radiative transfer calculations, using equations that have been used for decades by scientists and engineers and are not at all controversial except amongst a few crazy people on the internet.
(3) The radiation from the sky as seen from the surface of the earth.
This statement just shows your ignorance of the most basic science that you seem to think you have the knowledge to criticize. “Back radiation theory” and “radiative insulation theory” are not two different theories. The way that the greenhouse effect works is via the radiative insulation picture and the detailed exchanges involve the flow of radiation both from Earth to atmosphere and atmosphere to Earth (but with the net heat flow being from Earth to atmosphere). This idea of radiative exchange is not controversial and you will find it in any elementary physics textbook (as the quotation that I provided above from a textbook from the pre-IPCC days for those wearing tinfoil hats).
I have not seen any experimental verification of the existence of gaseous “radiative insulation”. Nor have I seen a sound theoretical physics basis for “radiative insulation”.
What is absolutely true both in theory and practice is that conversion of potential energy to heat on earth increases temperatures on earth.
blouis79: Unfortunately, all that you comment speaks to is your complete ignorance of the subject. It is okay to be ignorant…but one should not expect others to take your opinions seriously when you display such ignorance.