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.